As head of a group researching Men and Families, Dr. West has an interest in such things as ‘men bashing’, but do most men take any interest in or care about such things?

As a bloke, I occasionally see on TV commercials men acting like morons around washing machines and such other domestic apparatus we are supposed to know nothing about, and being treated with contempt by cute little dolly birds young enough to be the ‘husbands’ daughter. I guess we will see these commercials as long as there are men willing be paid to take part in them, so get over it Peter. It’s not the real world, just the same as Germaine Greer and the type of feminists now doing more harm than good to women are no longer part of the real world. If anyone should take umbrage, it is women, not us men.

It is doubtful that the media pushing ‘male bashing’ is part of the real world any longer. How much of the stuff we read, see on TV and hear on the radio is REALLY relevant to the average person? How many people actually consult the media for hints on how they should think and behave, or how their self-image is going?

The media thrives on getting up the noses of people who read the crap they produce. I don’t think sensible men and women fall for their nonsense. Any bloke who reads the rubbish or worse, believes it, is a bit of a pansy in the first place.

Roping Orwell in to support this tripe is an insult to Orwell.

The example that most clearly articulates this ridiculous situation is that of abortion. Women may comment and decide to kill their offspring, men may make no comment or choices. Arn't children the offspring of both parents, or do people really believe an unborn child is a part of the mother, even though it has different dna?

I can't see any link to abortion and there's plenty of OLO threads dealing with that issue.

"Bias against men is so ingrained and so common that most people don’t even notice it."

Personally, I didnt' think much of the advert of the spanner-wielding wife, but only after I saw it twice. The first time I thought it was funny, but then I thought, can you imagine the furore of a similar advert with a broom-wielding husband? Physical woman-bashing is so off-limits that men do cop the slap-stick physical humour.

However, I do think this article is a bit biased. What about the bashing that women cop in advertising? EG: seen the advert of all the women following two men driving a ute (can't remember the brand of car)..one guy says "why dont' we give em a ride?". I can see the humour in that. But now there's a follow-up ad with a bunch of dogs following the same men in the same car, except this time the response to the same question is "nah mate, they're all dogs". Isn't that bias against women?

Why is the Australian media hostile to men?

Puhlease!

Women are consumers, period.

What is good for women is good for the economy and thus good for global Greenspanian economics.

Have you any idea what accelerating number of upwardly mobile women spend on fashion, makeup, exotic foods, dating, and entertainment compared to men? The only thing men spend as much as women on is the divorces and lawyers.

If the global economy depended on men to do the spending it would collapse to a sustainable but unprofitable scenario. This is not what world governments want or will tolerate. They have the power and will make things as hard for men as they can, through media, sports, the courts and the discos till they fine tune their vision of the optimum bottom line on the balance sheet.

Trouble is there is no precedent for testosteroned men to be anything other than cut throat competetive against each other.

If we can all get together and figure out that governments are subtly working against us, we can use our majority voting powers to reconstruct government priorities through OUR elected representatives.
This Reconstruction must be GENUINELY toward family values. It must be so we learn to respect ourselves, women and each other in a way that transcends our natural testosterone aggression whilst keeping it in its proper place in the sporting arena. It must be so we THINK about a sustainable social structure rather than an uncertain, unproven exponential growth, social structure.
A good place to start would be the removal of HECS fees for tertiary education for Aussy citizens and a long overdue moratorium on immigration in order to determine its requirements, sustainability, equity for the VOTERS and not self serving, self aggrandised and spoiled polititians.

Maybe this is a dreamscape, but if governments, economists and CEOs push us hard enough, eventually we will learn to locate the cerebral muscle we need to bring things back to a fairer balance for ourselves and women, who at the end of the day are just as much, unhappy slaves to this system as we are.

In the rough and tough world of blokes a bit of bashing is fair game.

Girls, of either gender, might disagree but reality is, a requirement of being male is to take the hits on the chin, get over it and get on with life and maybe have a hit back once in a while (metaphorically speaking).

When at college I recall, my “friends” were those who insulted me and I insulted back but without rancour by either party.

So when I see an advert of man being seen in less than flattering portrayal, if it is funny I laugh. I do not get on my high horse and demand fairness and gender equality and all the other piffling nonsense which AWP’s (apologists without personality) throw around.

Fide mae – If it were me who was pregnant, I would want last word on how my body will be used and if I wished to remain pregnant.
There is nothing strange with the male not having final say on whether his child will be aborted on not. Because it is not his body which accommodates the embryo / foetus during its development, it is his female partner's and she should make the decision.

Um, just having a flick through your Sydney Morning Herald (and every other paper), you may notice a section very sympathetic to, and indeed celebrating, the strength, skill and intelligence (in an extraordinarily limited context, but it's never stopped Roebuck et al waxing lyrical) of men exclusively. This section doesn't occassionally lift out on the weekends, it's built into every day's edition.

West makes some interesting points about media depictions of divorce, but it's hardly a consistent line against men - just look at the easy ride Shane Warne's getting (and this is after he's lost his contract with Channel 9).

Not a lot of sense in this one.

Agree with CR that it's good to be able to laugh at oneself. But it seems there is a perception (either right or wrong) that the male-bashing media is contrived by women, and vice versa, in which case it's not a matter of laughing at yourself, but gender stereotyping.

Still think the abortion issue is out of place here.

Regarding villains being portrayed as men, a higher percentage of the male population than the female population has a criminal conviction. So maybe “all too often” the villains are men? How about suggesting positive solutions rather than just blaming the media for not showing enough female villains.

Regarding violence being forbidden on television except as against men here’s an example of two ads by the same company that share the violence around! I speak of the Hahn Light “Some drink it because they’re responsible – others just love the taste” advertisements. In the first advertisement the man bomb dives into the spa and the woman throws a piece of soap at his head. In the second advertisement the man jumps off a balcony onto a beanbag, knocking the female occupant off into the water.
Yes I don’t approve of violence to anyone either. Well I suppose these advertisements could be technically be classified as violent but I think most people are too busy laughing…. people know that these advertisements are not “real” violence the same as we know that when Wiley Coyote has a rock dropped on his head chasing Road Runner it’s okay.

There are lots of ads placing men in (supposedly) sexually demeaning positions but there are similar ads for women, eg Chiko Roll ads, Windsor Smith shoe ads or the recent Lynx deodorant “Mile high club” ads. Lisamaree the ad you reference is for a Ford ute.

Regarding opinion pieces being biased against men, have you read any Bettina Arndt, Janet Abrechtson or Miranda Devine lately?

Regarding sexuality men must have a sexuality. Their sexuality may be asexual, gay, straight, bisexual, transgender etc and may change over a man’s life. I can’t understand how the point regarding Brokeback Mountain proves anything.

I agree that we need to understand the full spectrum of human behaviour. I respectfully suggest that going around complaining about how horrible everyone is to men is not going to assist….

Peter West makes a salient point that its okay, even funny, for media to ridicule and even have a swipe at men, but this complaint is very small bicikes when compared with the stuff women haved to put up with. Its still a man's world.

Look down the list of opinion writers in opinion online and they are nearly all men. Look at the line up of political commentatots in the Australian print media, they are nearly all men.

Look at the warmongers who brought on Iraq - Saddam, Bush, Bin Laden, Howard, Blair..... nearly all men.

As a bloke I am often embarrassed by my gender, the history of destruction and pain we have brought upon humanity. If I chance to glance through a women's born-to-shop magazine, as a woman I would too be ashamed of my gender.

Yes the pendulum sometimes swings too far, and in these cases we should pull it back, so thanks Peter. The days of women being smugly superior should be well and truly over. Margaret Thatcher helped put an end to that myth.

That said, its still a man's world. We have (relatively) little to complain about .

We have yet to make up for the burning of 200,000 witches a few centuries ago. Let alone the dozens of attrocities committed by us men since then.

Should men receive a more sympathetic treatment?
Should women receive a more sympathetic treatment?

Shades of Monty Python's Life of Brian: "Is it too big...is it too small...that's all you think about, sex, sex, sex!", perhaps?

Surely, your sex shouldn't matter, either way, when it comes to what kind of 'treatment' or 'access' or ‘privilege’ or ‘status’ you deserve/receive. Positive discrimination applied now towards the cause of women is probably as distasteful/not a wise idea as it is when applied to other ‘causes’?

History showed: give men money and power (or let them seize it), and they lord it about the town, with women paying the price, to some arguable degree.

Give the new generation of I-Have-A-Right-To-Have-It-All SuperWomen the same amount of money, power, privilege and status that men used to enjoy throughout history (or allow women to assume it, as the case may be), and surprise, surprise, men start taking a perceived hit and a bashing, as if it is perhaps karmic payback for past wrongs against the female cause. (Maybe it is fair/timely that men suffer a few hits for a while, as a weird form of cosmic restitution/rebalancing?)

Is it the case that we’re just turning women into (or allowing them to become, if you prefer) a contemporary version of what men used to be? How many women will turn out, for a change, to be as happy with the cost of being Top Dog as the stereotypical Male Top Dog was?

I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers”. Perhaps we all (men and women, both) should be careful for how much ‘privilege’ or ‘status’ we seek/demand/take/accept?

>>The movie Brokeback Mountain ...misunderstood ... as being about gay men. It’s not... It’s a story about two ordinary men who develop an intimate relationship because of the circumstances they are thrown into.<<

Now how credible is that?
_____________________________

>>Research suggests (though the links are complex) that TV violence encourages violence in the community<<

You better believe it. The power of auto suggestion is what the advertising industry capitalises on. Why else would companies spend millions of dollars on advertising if they had no linkable effect on our subconscious (and unconscious) mind??
_____________________________

Females are better than men in expressing their feelings. Their brain is also better developed (but smaller) for multitasking and verbal expression.

Sexually females "generally" prefer to talk through the sex act - males just want to get on with it.

Females can also speak for both male and females because unlike men - genetically speaking - they possess both a penis and a vagina.

Females also communicate much more than men about interrogational issues hoping that men will one day get it. NOPE.

Ooops! "interrogational"?? I meant interrelational

Men get done over by the media.

Those domestic violence ads are one example.

In 2006, women hold the trump cards, they hit men when in relationships, they have the support network and they get the lifestyle afforded to them in divorce the same as marriage. Men dont get their lifestyle protected at all, and often men are the ones who end up broke and alone.

Men cop it as men dont see ourselves as a minority group or the need to band together. If a man even sticks up for men, he cops it and is rubbished for being a whinger. how can we win.

Its like the old give them an inch and then they take a mile syndrome. We as men are better off as shovanistic, domineering pigs, just the way mother nature intended.

Perhaps that was a freudian slip coach. ;)

t.u.s

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

just to throw a spanner in the works ;)

Basically in the future post-medical technical world men are going to be irrelevant anyway.

So get used to it guys, there is no use complaining, in about four, maybe six, generations, men will be basically extinct and women will be happier for it.

Realist,
I have agreed with all your posts so far, I hadn't realised your age, you are very mature and your posts in this thread have reflected that maturity.

Peter West, were you an only child? I just wonder why you take things so personally, I see the adds, and treat them as adds, no more, no less...

I have in the past struggled with an inferiority complex, however I progressed after gaining my blue belt in a Japanese style karate, I recomend it to you, you will find there are much more important things to concern yourself with.

Who are the victims of male-bashing? Our children!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Our boys learn the they are 'smucks' from TV ads and other media.

Is it any wonder that for every 10 kids diagnosed with ADHD, nine of them are boys?

Is it any wonder that girls outperform boys now by 5% (TER 20), and 2/3 of uni enrolments are girls?

Is it any wonder that while our daughters are out painting the town red, their brothers are shy, nerdy things, sitting at home playing computer games and waiting for the phone to ring.

Is it any wonder that the offical suicide rate is 5 males for each female. But add the males who kill themselves by drug "OD's" and car "accidents" and "accidentally" shooting themselves while climbing over a fence... If you add these mis-attributed "accidents" is it any wonder that about 8 males suicide for every female...

More men die through suicide than all people killed on the roads!

I'm happy to forward you this reseach if you are interested. PartTimeParent@yahoo.com.au

partTimeParent

I think you have a lot to offer.

West's article is unfortunately a lightweight vehicle for discussion of men and women. A brief survey of one or two Syndey papers is "tired" as an illustration of his "research". I'm sure he's done much more compelling research - it would have been better to read that.

The issue it too important to be left like this.

I would suggest to OLO that getting "partTimeParent" (above) to do an article would be a step in the right direction.

Pete

Realist. I have a young son who just despairs at the TV commercials that insult men and are violent towards men and about the fact that men/boys are in his words "blamed for everything".

Even in school he says that the teachers prefer the girls and that the boys cop it every time and they make it obvious, nobody seems to care.

My son insists that girls are better looked after, cared for and treated in society and that it just isn't fair. It scares him.

Let’s not forget the Government’ s pamphlet on Domestic Violence, and Surprise, surprise, Anglo Australians appeared on the cover, far too much of a sensitive issue to picture any other Nationality. It must be a WHITE person issue.
Do you mean this type of bias mentality and bash the ones less likely to protest, P C will allow it.
Let’s not forget the Male bashers, physically, but what man will front the police and be believed if indeed he submits a complaint that his wife or girlfriend assaulted him? Dr, how endemic is that problem?
Yep Dr. More research I think only touched on a molecule of what is left to be explained.

Mothers do not despair for your sons' futures the top rich young Australians are STILL overwhelmingly male:

YOUNG RICH LIST - According to Sydney Morning Herald
September 15, 2005 - 12:00PM

RICHEST AUSTRALIANS UNDER 40:

1. John Ilhan, Crazy John's mobile phones (worth $300 million)

2. Edmund Groves, ABC Learning Centres ($272 million)

3. Michael Boyd, Sonic Healthcare($245 million)

4. Nicole Kidman ($190 million)

5. Peter Hosking, tool maker ($170 million)

6. Craig Gore, developer ($160 million)

7. Matthew Perrin, Nicole Perrin, ex-Billabong ($120 million)

8. Igor Gilenko, Larry Kestelman, Dodo internet founders ($87 million)

9. Steve Outtrim, ex Sausage Software ($74 million)

10. Ross Makris, developer ($70 million)

RICHEST YOUNG ENTERTAINERS

1. Nicole Kidman ($190 million)

2. Kylie Minogue ($63 million)

3. Cate Blanchett ($31 million)

4. Darren Hayes ($28 million)

5. Tim Anderson, Paul Wiegard ($21 million)

6. Daniel Jones ($21 million)

7. Hugh Jackman ($19 million)

8. Naomi Watts ($13 million)

9. Guy Pearce ($12 million)

10. Heath Ledger ($10 million)

RICHEST YOUNG SPORT STARS

1. Harry Kewell ($39 million)

2. Lleyton Hewitt ($30 million)

3. Patrick Rafter ($30 million)

4. Michael Doohan ($22 million)

5. Karrie Webb ($18 million)

6. Mark Viduka ($13 million)

7. Stuart Appleby ($11 million)

8. Robert Allenby ($10 million)

That works out to 22 men compared to 5 women (Nicole Kidman gets listed twice).

BTW when these 22 sadly maligned men are bored with counting all their dosh, they can still watch such tasteful advertising like the Mile-High-Club.

;-)

Hi Scout - yes the richest Australians are men... That's simply because men work longer hours (full-time not part-time) doing "work"-work (not "house"-work, and do it for many many more years.

Australian women usually take the "nappy change" when they have a child and never 'work'-work seriously again. Meanwhile Australian men INCREASE their hours when they become dads... somebody has to pay the mortgage! Aussie dads do 23hrs more Work-work than mums! (ABS)

This means that the kids miss out on dad, and dad misses out on a work-life balance. No wonder men are reluctant to commit to marriage.

For more information... see my comments following "Men make a meal of household equality - Nicholas Gruen - 20/01/2006"

Parttimeparent@yahoo.com.au

Thats all well and good Scout if, what these mothers wanted for their sons, was for them to be rich with money.

I personally dont care if my son isn't rich with money. I just want my son to feel secure, validated and happy. At the moment he feels targeted, victimised, bullied and he wants to withdraw from society.

Thats what the system is doing to our children. Some react inwardly, others outwardly - but they all react. It is obvious that the men are crying out for help and they need understanding, protection, support and assistance.

Peter West makes a good point, but it is just that "A POINT", and it's fair argument, but it is not one that most serious men would take any notice of, we will leave that nonsense to others and get on with it, we don't get all tied up in knots worried about ads that portray a man getting whacked over the head, instead we laugh and thinks it bloody funny, we are already know that the world is full of this crap of poor me and the pc brigrade.

What us men really do need to be more invovled with is raising/teaching our children, and give the boys especially, their masculinty and sense of worth back,and yes I do include girls in this scenario as well because they have been damaged just as much as the boys have, we have to teach them to respect themselves but to do that they have to first respect others, and here I'm talking about old fashion manners, and while many will deride the importance of manners in todays modern society, I believe manners or the lack there of are the platform from which all other behaviours sprout.

Part 1

Part 2

To give a quick example, I once coached a u/6football team that had equal numbers of girls and boys, . Out of a group of 12, 8 came from single parent families, from the outset behaviours where horrendous, but using some old fashion discipline( this included being a big scary male and raising my voice, which will be I gotcha moment for a lot of you won't it ?)), the kids behaved really well and so the year went on and we had so much fun and laughter but always with strict discipline of behaviour, and to my amazement not one parent pulled a child from this team, which if you had seen the faces of some of the mothers to begin with, if looks could kill I was history, anyway 2 games before the season ended I got an emergency transfer with my company and was give notice on the friday that I had to be in another town in 4 days time, so the next day at the kids game after they played I sat them down with all the parents and told them what a privilege it was to coach such a great bunch of kids, but unfortunatly I had to leave quite suddenly, the pandemonium that followed took me really by surprise, kids where crying asking me not to leave, mothers where crying saying I made such a difference in little johnny life to the point where he was better behaved and was getting better school results etc.

This will sound to many that I'm blowing my own horn, but really I can honestly tell you that I was deeply shocked and saddened that what was once such normal behaviour was now so radical to bring this emotion out, these kids are screaming for proper guidance and discipline in their lives, if we address this we might be able to stop so many kids suiciding, I for one will be still trying to make a difference.
VGC

The dynamics in the battle between men and women are, always have been and always will be COMPLEX.
Individual war stories abound but can never encompass the complexity involved.
All we know is that in these sob stories, at the end of the day there is a cost to government services and that governments seek to minimise those costs.

A few cases:

An angry man beats his wife ... the government has to pay police and other services to intervene. The answer: they make divorce easier so the family assets can quickly be dissolved to cover the cost of further intervention.

A mother 'accidentally' loses the rent 12 weeks in a row leading up to Xmas. The landlord duely evicts her and at the tribunal the landlord is castigated and told to wait another 6 weeks before eviction can complete. The government does its duty to the mother and baby, and the landlord pays the price. The landlord finds a wheelie bin full of methadone bottles when she leaves. He will never again rent to a young woman on welfare.

What do these and all other gender conflict stories have in common? You guessed it, it's all about money. Federal and State governments sacrifice trust, justice, equity, familiies and our very social fabric itself in order to keep their budgets in the black. Two things come out of this:

1. Women are expensive to keep. They WILL on average have about 2 children each irregardless of any man or men. If men have been put off formal relationships by government injustice, they are no longer paying. The government solves the problem by employing more women. This delays them having children and hopefully prepares them to shoulder more of the family cost.

2. Men lose jobs in favour of women, are economical to support on welfare and thus lose power in the social fabric.

Women see this as a sign of victory. Today the office, tomorrow the WORLD!

Scout

The income differences between men and women in regard to average wages and salary, and levels of wealth, are bleedingly obvious.

What these statistics obviously highlight that men 'receive' more money, the question really should be asked about on who the money is being spent.

To give an example, on a per capita basis, even excluding obstetrics, more money is spent on women's health than on men's. If men started going to the doctor as often as the government and media extolled them to the system would collapse.

Men die younger than women and most women are still younger than their husbands and partners. This is important, because in most cases the available funds left to older couples are insufficient to support two people. The surviving partner, in the vast majority of cases the woman, lives off the efforts of the now dead husband.

Most men couldn't give a damn about a big house. They would be happy to live in a smallish glorified shed, with just enough convenience to be slightly comfortable. Large homes with luxuries are generally to try to keep the woman happy, who the husband will in turn hope to keep him happy.

When married couples break up after a marriage of, say, more than 10 years, even without children, it is the wife who generally receives the bulk of the assets, the normal split being about 60/40 or 70/30 and it doesn't matter who contributed what. It should also be remembered that something like 70% of marriage break ups are initiated by women. This is not to see that this is not justice, but it does highlight that income means nothing, its outgoes that matter.

In the absence of the need for hunting animals for food and protection against tribal depredations, the role of the male has been reduced to that of income earner and 'soul mate'. But men are not good at the task of emotional support; we are not brain wired that way, which leaves us to be living wallets, often without the benefits that marriage and relationships used to provide.

Hamlet, if your future prediction ever becomes true it will, ironically perhaps, be due to the efforts of very intelligent males.
(who mind you will still be required to advance our civilisation, a task which requires more than just the ability to breed)

Continued ...

ALAS, before women rule the world, let us consider the following:

* The whole concept of female employment bias came out of the US in the late 80's when unwed mothers were putting huge strains on the US budget. Australia quickly followed the US lead, as usual.

* As peak oil and global overpopulation issues clash to create a bigger economic conundrum than unwed mothers, a shift will occur, from employing women, to restricting them to one child apiece. This will be the new economic imperative, as if the Chinese hadn't figured it out already. This WILL occur in the next 20 years. Might I suggest that women prepare for REALITY.

* At the end of the day, brains and brawn, money and testosterone rule the world. Any subclass of individuals, women included who think that they have the brains and the testosterone to become CEOs or hold any truly powerful government positions (excluding the US presidency which has recently become a token post) are entitled to get in there and slug it out. That is the law of the jungle and no woman can ever change that except in her dreams.

* IVF making men redundant? With advances in IVF, cloning and in vitro nurturing, BOTH men and women will eventually become sexually redundant. ALL men and women must think a little harder about OUR future on an overpopulating planet where governments are more corrupt with each passing year. Its not about 'sex in the city' its about the 'Complexual City' and the top alpha males as usual will organise our fate just as if we were some export commodity. That is, unless we wake up to the folly and stick together.

* Two easy ways to show solidarity, to put a 'monkey in the wrench': demand a removal of HECS fees for all voting citizens and a moratorium on immigration.

Wow KAPE, ha
After that, I am going to hide in an armored vehicle for a week in Full body armor.
And you best switch off the computer for a week too. Ha
I can hear the thunder.

I'm with Leigh,who cares,bash us some more,we love it.Did you see Mark Lathem trying to work out how that damn camera worked?This is what masculinity is all about.When all is fails ,force prevails.Actually they should leave Mark alone or send him over to Iraq,he'd have it sorted out in a flash.

Have men turned into a a bunch of whimps?
Are we to be the Ken Doll snags ready to be cooked,or the "Barby Que Wonders" who won't take our cues from feminist facists?

Oh I don't think that a bit of male bashing is going to hurt us guys.
Perhaps women just need that headstart to deal with us :)

I mean, mother nature was a little unfair really. Hormones affect behaviour and we have to deal with testosterone.

Women OTOH have this surging and crashing of all sorts of hormones to deal with, we then scratch our heads and wonder why all of this
irrational behaviour....

I'd rather just deal with testosterone lol, then with that surging and crashing of all the rest...

Arjay

Interesting comments about men turning into a bunch of wimps.

Like Steve Rogers I guess, or Geoff Gallop.

And I guess all those guys who commit suicide each day, all wimps, the gene pool is better off without them, right?

Let's remove all Medicare benefits for men with those psychiatric conditions that could be self destructive, of course except the ones who commit crimes, lets just lock them up until they are 'cured' by their incarceration.

How true Gecko! Whenever there is a war or some kind of violent conflict or corruption it is almost always caused by power hungry men with bald heads and big egos. The worst tyrants of all time have been men:

Hitler
Eichmann
Stalin
Amin
Khan
Hussein
Bush – the whole family
Bin Laden
Pol Pot
Mao Tse-tung
Tepes
Ivan the Terrible
Pol Pot
Li Peng
Heydrich
Caligula
Robespierre
Khomeini
Edward Teach
Mohammed Omar
Ferdinand Marcos
Cedras
Ted Bundy
King Leopold
Bonaparte
Jimmy Carter

Between these men we are talking about the killing of countless millions of innocent people. Now really – how are we supposed to trust men to lead our nations?

Then what about our prisons overflowing with men? Countless car accidents caused by rev-head idiot men? Domestic violence and child abuse caused mostly by men? Alcohol related crimes and deaths caused mostly by men?

And yes I am a scumbag male and I can take the bashings as they come – but I am simply pointing out the truth that males, as a group, are well deserving of any criticisms they receive. If the world is ever going to have any kind of stability then we need more female leaders who can make level-headed decisions.

Try the fact the statistically women represent 52% of the population. We have a majority by fact.

The media is only doing what media do best, selling and appealing to the majority. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.

Although I feel that through this 52% majority, it has given rise to, and the opening for men to become more sensitive towards their feelings and the problems associated with their roles in society.

Although a male has a strong preservative instinct to think of "Self".

Hamlet ,you take me too seriously;but while we're on the topic of suicide I heard a story of how this mental assylum was bombed during WW2 and inmates suddenly became lucid and functioned as normal human beings,helping the injured to escape.After the crisis ended the assylum inmates soon went back to their dysfunctional ways.

It has been a long held theory of mine that our security conscious society have deprived people of a very basic emotion ie.the need to feel part of social group in times of survival.For millions of years our societies have had very strong emotional bonds tested often because we were confronted with survival on a daily basis.This is why we see men take sports like Rugby so seriously since it forfills a very basic tribal urge of emotional bonding in times of survival.

In a modern world we have removed the danger from our lives and this coupled with family breakdown and a complex era of infomation overload has probably been responsible for increases suicide rates.In times of War suicide rates fall because it gives many a purpose in life and caters for a very basic need of feeling accepted by our peers.Perhaps this why we are constantly at war with ourselves.

Dying is not the worse thing that can happen to us,never to have loved and being loved or had the courage to follow our dreams or ideals is probably worse,since death finds us all in the end.

It would be an interesting study to see if those who work in the security of the Public Service are less happy than those who live in the survival situation of Private Enterprise.

Overwhelmingly, the balance of power is held by men. That is not going to change any time soon. Probably take generations.

That is why I posted the Young Rich List - not so much about $ but about power.

However, I disagree that men are incapable of expressing their feelings or providing emotional support.

During some of the worst times of my life (miscarriages, relationship breakup, car accident) the very best emotional support came from men I knew; they ranged from a plumber through to ordinary public servant. They are the reason why (despite domestic violence and other horrors) I am not bitter towards men.

There are of lot of great men out there, who can take a joke and who genuinely like women (as opposed to desire).

Thank you

Media portrayal of any issue is double edged.
It both responds too and shapes public attitude, the extent that it does so probably varies according to the values and skill of those presenting the issue in the media.

In the case of domestic violence despite abundant statistical evidence that the incidence of domestic violence perpetration is not delimitated on gender lines our media continues to portray the image as though it were and as though violence initiated by women against men is justifiable. Men can be hit for doing stupid things while washing car parts, coughing at the office, making a friendly suggestion to a woman (or for failing to make the suggestion).

I've seen ads that suggest that "only a mother would know" regarding basic stuff about children - I think I saw a revised improved version of this.

My concern - how much are media images of men influencing public perceptions of fathers in regard to reform of the residency/custody imbalance which currently exists? If I could be confident that inaccurate or imbalanced portrayal of these issues did not contribute to ongoing wrong in society then I'm happy to laugh at the jokes but somehow that confidence eludes me.

R0bert

R0bert

Inaccurate portrayal of men and women goes on all the time. Stereotypes for both sexes are fodder for the media.

I don't find the Lynx deodorant ad "mile high club" as a postive stereotype for women, while I am not a prude and consider myself to have a good sense of humour I cannot tolerate that particular commercial.

We could go tit for tat on this issue all day.

However, who holds the balance of power in advertsing? How many advertising tycoons are women?

R0bert there is a saying that goes something like "I have seen my enemy and he is me".

There are a minority of men at the top who are just as determined to keep the majority of men at a disadvantage as they are keeping women from the top.

I know you have suffered from DV so have many others, myself included.

Until we have 50% representation of both sexes in all areas of power you should really be asking yourself:

Why is the male dominated media so hostile to men (and women).

Scout, "There are a minority of men at the top who are just as determined to keep the majority of men at a disadvantage as they are keeping women from the top." - agreed but then I'm not real keen to be at the top, rather to have the freedom to get on with my life in as balanced a manner as I can. I doubt very much that many of those at "the top" live the kind of life that I seek.

"Why is the male dominated media so hostile to men (and women)." - I don't see the issue as being as clear cut as that. Maybe hostile to men and women in relation to specific issues and or roles with a sprinkling of social engineering as well as following a thirst for advertising dollars would fit better with my perceptions.

The media while often claiming the moral high ground does not give me the impression of taking much responsibility for its actions and choices.

I'm not sure which ad you are refering to with the Lynx deodorant ad "mile high club" - I've seen enough Lynx ad's to have a guess of the style and will watch for it. I do see a difference between what are generally obviously fantasy ad's (The Lynx effect) and the millions of taxpayer dollars spent promoting a very imbalanced view of DV. Both in the nature of the dishonesty and the likely impacts. Maybe there are some guys who think that by wearing Lynx they will be stalked by large numbers of very attractive women but one walk in a public place should disprove that idea whereas plenty of people still think DV is exclusively something men do to women.

Cheers
R0bert

Tubley and Scout, great posts the tyrants you listed tubley are a frightening reminder of the atrosities committed by men, and the occasional woman [Margreat Thacher, Faulklins war]. I think we are long past the time when we should have had a lady PM in Australia.

Scout, I agree some men can be very helpful in times of emotional need, I have helped many of my lady friends [friends who are ladies] through tough times, and would rather have friendships with ladies than most men. The reason being, women seem to be interested in almost everything and can maintain a conversation on almost ant subject, whereas most men can talk politics, football, and sex, or horseracing. Personally I enjoy the company of women, not because I am in any way feminine, but women offer a dept of [practical] intellegence, not forthcoming from many men.Men are mostly superficial creatures, whose main concern is themselves.

The media being men controlled will always seek to keep men on top [pardon the pun] I would love to see many more women join political parties of all philosophies on a grand scale not to overthow men in particular, but to provide a balance to a lop-sided view imposed on the population by Governments of all colours.

Men dominate every position of power in society, but the author can't handle the fact that men are often the villians in television shows? Aren't they often the heroes too?

I agree that ads showing violence towards anyone are distasteful, but really, get a grip! Which gender perpetrates the vast majority of violence (against women and other men)? Yes, men. Which gender earns more, is more likely to be elected to parliament, run a publicly listed company etc etc etc. The authors thesis that there is a widespread culture of hostility to men, illustrated by a couple of ads and a university brochure he didn't like is just about the stupidist thing I have ever read.

Tubley “Whenever there is a war or some kind of violent conflict or corruption it is almost always caused by power hungry men with bald heads and big egos.”

Following down your list
Hitler and Stalin “Bald”?

Jimmy Carter a tyrant?

I would be interested in an understanding of what leaps of logic prevailedo rate Jimmy Carter a “killer of countless millions of innocent people"

Ted Bundy, well he was a pretty nasty piece of work but no one with a modicum of intellect would ever suggest his “reign of terror” resulted in the “countless millions“ of victims which you claim.

(but logic, accuracy and reasoning skills have never rated highly in any of your posts).

In conclusion tubley, your post conveys what seems the self loathing we now expect from your writings.

Fact of Life – people are individuals. They can decide to act and behave with responsibility and consideration for others in their actions.

That some men seem to be more physically compulsive than women does not deny the fact that often they might be pushed to such extremes by the manipulative nature of some women.

Not all men are so compulsive. Some of us are quite analytical and considered our actions (as ncalculating as some women).
Some women are as compulsive as men and bear the consequences of their impulses.

The only rational conclusion is – every one, regardless of gender, is an “individual” and the only standard of respect which should be applied is s to treat them all as such and as equals.

Shonga: Falklands War was initiated by Argentina as a unilateral act of occupation. Margaret Thatcher had the balls to respond with appropriate force and the overwhelming support of the British voting population (check out history and the demise of socialism when the labour party made it an election issue).

http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/falklands_panel.shtml

Further it was Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans resolve which ultimately broke the will of the USSR and resulted in the libertion of Eastern Europe. YOur ignorance of these matters is profound and shows what rubbish you must be filling yourself with.

Regarding the media:
Robert, "why is the male dominated media so hostile to men (and women)?" from the types of adds we can clearly see that it is women who are hostile to men, and men who are objectifying woment. the adds targetting men clothe women scantily and those targeting women portray men as idiots or evil

Col Rouge - I stay out of relationships (or they end) because not only do I have no say in the murder of my children but I am not even allowed to ask a woman's position on the topic without looking like some crazy, and ending the relationship as a result! do you want the same for your kids?

Pedant, for a pedant you missed the point on broke back mountain ... it is about two normal men, not two gay men as portrayed by the ignorant media. Remember that these journalists this forum seems to quote and look up to as meaningful and authoratative sources are often trained on the job with no tertiary education. This is common for the female journalist, why?, all the news is watched by men who want to see beautiful YOUNG women. And we do not have to fit into the categories offered in the forum (gay, bi, trans etc)

Gecko - I would like to point out that many of those witches were 'outed' as witches by women. in The French revolution the women played a large role in the slaughter. Just because history records the name (gender) of the executioner, does not mean that he was the only one involved. Do you think only men voted for john howard?

Coach - "genetically speaking women can speak for both sexes", get real! Perhaps biologically they do have a penis (clitoris) but they are genetically distinct as females, not male, with all the huge differences this involves.

I agree with you Col

A superficial stab at history should not be used "in evidence" about the nature of men.

The fact that a minority of men were mass murderers or more relevantly (are) wife beaters does not mean that most of us men are like that.

We therefore do not deserve the treatment we get in the media. But the (non internet) media is a superficial animal so brain-deadness should be expected.

Why do male advertising gurus push the anti-male, pro-female bias?

I suggest that the answer is in the hackneyed but valid concept "Sex Sells". The John Singleton types rightly recognise that, on balance woman (especially the young) are considered more sexy and interesting (by men and many woman) than men who can be written off as part of the "male establishment".

Because females are more interesting we want to hear what they say and see things from their point of view (while looking at them).

Also I think journalists see women more as daring, anti-establishment figures than men. This position gives hack journalists a feeling of (misplaced) intellectual integrity.

So, as a generalisation, I'd say we guys resent our depiction in the media. But, as this process throws up more interesting woman, the media is giving us what we (and many woman) want to read (and look at).

Pete

VGC (parts 1 & 2) should be an inspiration to us all and his example should be seen as the defining problem of this issue

Arjay - interesting you bring poor old mark latham in this, the media and his own collegues constantly were predjudiced against him, believing rumours that he was abusive in attitude to women and it was always hinted there was perhaps more to this attitude in the media

Tubley: how many remarkable women political leaders have there been, oh, thats right only men have been in power throughout history so of course all the bad leaders HAD to be men.

QUESTION AND ANSWER FOR ALL FORUM PARTICIPANTS

1m) Do the men in the forum like to be verbally bashed as some have indicated?
1w) Do the women in the forum like to be looked at in a sexual manner?

2) Does everyone agree that women are more successful (not monetarily but in life)(socially integrated) than men, as reflected by the 5:1 ratio of suicides (5 men: 1 woman) and the ADHD ratio of 9:1 (again men as 9)?

3)Do you believe that women work less and are promoted less than men due to
a) hormones make women too up and down emotionally, which has the result of limiting their low threshold productivity (the most work they can get done on a BAD day) whereas men, due to the lack of moodiness have a higher average productivity due to a higher productivity on those bad days
b) women have to look after kids and birth babies
c) women are oppressed
d) a&b
e) a, b &c

4) Domestic violence (including psychological battery) is perpetrated largely by
a) men
b) women
c) both

your answers should come in the form of
1 ("m" or "w")) "yes" or "no"
2) "yes" or "no"
3) "a" "b" "c" "d" or "e"
4) "a" "b" or "c"

Fide, many of the questions posed on this thread by many posters, are in fact quite explainable, if we understand basic evolution theory and evolutionary psychology.

10'000 years back, or about 500 grandmothers ago, only a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, our ancestors were hunter gatherers. The males went out hunting in groups, the females picked berries and minded the kids etc. Both nature and nurture matter in understanding us humans and that is still clearly shown today.

Males still charge out and businessmen want to go out and make a killing. Males all go to the football and want their tribe to win etc. Women are much better at interacting and bonding between themselves, etc. etc. To ignore our evolutionaty past is to ignore history, as many of these trends are still evident in society, much as we'd like to think we are modern etc. Our dna still reflects the past. 500 grandmothers is not long ago.

Yes males will continue to see females as objects of lust and females will want resources to raise the offspring, so turn to males that can provide them. Not
all males, not all situations, not all females, but those trends will stay around, for they are part of our genetic history.

As a mother of 4 grown children, I spent many years watching the development of the 'idiot male' on TV and in many of the stories they were offered.

For a long time, I banned them from watching even shows such as "Simpsons" & "Home and Away" (oh Mum everyone else's parents let them watch it...). Because it was always the men who bungled and bumbled and some long-suffering, calm but heroic woman had to come to the rescue and right the situation. And at some 'inside' Mother level - I felt that they my kids were being given a picture of men that was damaging to their understanding of male/female relationships.

Now, I can appreciate that it has been men who have perpetrated many wars, most DV, most sex crimes, etc. But if we completely remove the opportunity for our children to look at any man as a role model, what instead do we offer them?

While this article may seem to be creating much ado, the underlying premise of the desmasculation of our men is truly an Orwellian concept when it applies to our children.

Cont....

Cont...

After all, Hitler believed that controlling the language and minds of the German children would give him total control over their progress through life. What is so hard to accept about the concept of removing men and their role from society will also have consequences. And what better way, than to make man the butt of the joke.

When we have no men of honour, of courage, of honesty - we will have a world full of children with one part of their lives missing. Because I have seen - through my children and their friends - that a child who has no man of quality in their life, becomes prey for the ugly,evil men. The paedophiles, the wife beaters, the abusers.

When they have a "real" man to compare to, they make more defined and protective choices for themselves.

My oldest daughter had a boy friend visit when she was 14. She introduced him to her dad, who promptly shook his hand. That young fellow is now 34, and still tells my daughter of the day her dad made him feel important enough to know.

If a handshake from a man could have such an impact, how can we not assume that constant and insidious undermining of men will not have an equal - but more devastating - impact.

nice article

The article deals primarily with the portrayal of the sexes by the media. I think that the lack of respect for the intelligence of the general population by the media (both editorial & advertising) is a far larger social problem.
Fide Mae – I don’t think that men necessarily have an easier pathway within the work environment, so how do I answer Q3?

On reflection I'm retracting what I said (on this string on Saturday, 21 January 2006 1:26:12 AM) about Peter West's article.

As I noticed the "string" on this topic unwind it became clearer that the subject "the Australian media is hostile to men" cannot be "proven" by statistics. This is because such statistics would be inexact, open to different interpretations and stats probably aren't collected anyway.

Peter's survey of some newspapers was an effective way to convey the bias of the media in a way that could be readily felt and understood.

I note from Peter's uni website http://www.uws.edu.au/about/acadorg/caess/seecs/staff/peter_west that he is currently undertaking the Research Topic:

"Mens health in midlife – concentrating on men in Eastern Sydney. What are the tensions in men in midlife (around 35-60 years)? What do men report on their experience of health in midlife?"

This is a much under-rated and unreported subject. I hope Peter can tell us of his findings when he completes the report.

Pete

P.S. This ain't grovelling because this isn't my speciality area.

It is sad for me to have to break my promise to you Col, but to correct my misquotations from you it must be done.

I said, "it is almost always caused by power hungry men with bald heads and big egos." The operative word being "almost".

Secondly I said "Between these men we are talking about the killing of countless millions of innocent people." I did not say that each and every one of these men killed millions of innocent people. I was referring to the collective group.

As for your comments about individuals - I think in 3000 years of recorded human history with only 300 war-free years in a world led mostly by men, I dare say my generalisation was a safe one.

I am not going to insult you or attempt to put you down as you seem to enjoy doing to me and others. Goodbye and have a lovely day.

Shonga,

I know what you mean. I have some wonderful male friends, yourself included but for the most part I find conversations with men to be very unstimulating. That's just my opinion.

Fide mae your Q&A questions have fundamental problems.

With your question 1 you ask “do the men in this forum” and “do the women in this forum” so it’s not clear whether you are asking the respondent’s opinion for themselves or their opinion of what the whole of their gender in this forum thinks.

With your question 2 the sensible answer will always be no because your question starts “Does everyone agree”… and clearly everyone doesn’t.

What if someone believed that the answer to your question 3 was b&c or a&c? You haven’t given an option for that….

To your question 4 what does largely mean? Is 51% largely?

The only problem with so-called male-bashing on TV lies in areas where this is the only place boys get the impression of men.

I reckon shows like The Simpsons are harmless fun, because I know that is not how men act. I was lucky enough to have parents who were (and still are) together. I got to see my Dad everyday, learnt the way men act etc.

I was also lucky enough to have several male teachers during primary school - all good role models.

The problem is though that this is no longer happening for the large numbers of boys. My home suburb has more than 50 per cent of young boys coming from fatherless households with just one male teacher at the local school. They have no role models, only TV dads who often look foolish and or evil.

i suppose it is a problem for the young girls too - if they don't know what a responsible man looks like and how he should act - they haven't got a hope of finding a decent one in the long run.

t.u.s

PS: Shonga - you're beloved unions haven't exactly been the best groomers of female leaders either. And no, it is not about time we had a female prime minister. We will get a female prime minister when the voting public, both men and women, elect the best person for the job, and that person just happens to have breasts and a cervix!

DR West's comments seem quite timely. Reading through some of the posts it is clear that the dawn has yet to break in the minds of the majority of men who seem to affect disinterest. It is a slow process - awakening to the continual drip drip drip of ridicule and the continued eroding of credibility that this represents. The imbalance is even more pronounced once the warning signals are recognised. The problem is - where is the value in denigration? The media's real fault is its participation in the deception and the stealth with which it is undertaken. The end result is demeaning to the process of communication and flows through to issues like infanticide(abortion) homosexuality, and more importantly - road safety.

Objection,objection your honour.The prosecutor Fid Mae is asking leading questions in her questionaire.We the defendants refuse to answer them on the grounds that it will incriminate us.

Really all this analysis and hand wringing about men.We are driven by testosterone,we work hard ,play hard and hopefully die happy.Who wants to be an lonely ageing spinster with failing health and fading memories.More male babies are born because men live dangerously.Someone is trying to create a new caring industry by appealing to our weaker side.More taxes for more useless analysis.

John howard is past his due-by-date. He is a great vocabularist and a great orator, but that is not enough any more. He is deliberately creating the fiscal and social conditions for pitting men against women in Australian society in order to divide and conqurer this nation. He dumbs us down with HECS fees and he bulldozes our electoral voices with piles of ready educated immigrants. This enables him to deceive us while he sells this country to foreigners for his own personal glory and aggrandisment.

What are we going to do about it? Are we going to fight each other like spiders in a jar while the little master looks on bemused?

What have l, as a 30-something male learnt thru the last few decades?

Simple...
1. all sex is rape
2. all men are latent rapists, men are hardly able to look at a bikini clad non-male without being at risk of going on a rape rampage thru the streets, Cronulla riots style
3. all men are potential child molesters, thusly men who apply for teaching and caring jobs are looked at as 'dodgy'
4. man is evil incarnate, the poster boy of depravity and depradation
5. its a mans world, therefore every bad thing is our fault
6. any good man is the product of a good woman behind the strings pulling the strings, taking credit for the deeds of another and generally projecting thru a filter of vicarious living
7. blah, blah, pointless blah.

And you know what, as a man, l am encubered with a quite useful disadvantage of testosterone infused perceptual ability... l see thing as they are, l EMBRACE REALITY.

Talk is cheap and those that spend much time rationalising and justifying their delusions and denials are essentually INEFFECTUAL... hence their propensity to PROTEST TOO MUCH. The louder the bark the fewer the teeth.

Its all front. Most men and many truely independent (read resonsible and personally accountable) women already undestand this.

After yrs of being a male feminist, l have grudgingly come to the conclusion that the worst of all anti-feminists tend to be the majority of women who invalidate the laudible pursuit of equality with their 'equality only when its in my favour, l'll take the benevolent sexism the rest of the time' type of attitude.

The double standard is showing. The 'chip' and the slip of latent and overt anti-male hostility is showing. Us men can see it and increasingly are OPTING OUT and living only for ourselves. Free of encuberance, free of judgement, free of hostility, free of being the vassal of vicariously projected man-makeover projects.

And l gotta tel you, its a bit of a worry initially, but after a while, having surveyed the bloodied and broken bodies that strew the battle fields of the gender wars, l gotta say, having my psyche, spirit and balance sheet intact is utterly LIBERATING. Sure there's a life missed, but wot the hey, the grass is always greener on the other side.

The media essentially REINFORCES techniques that WORK. They appeal to male/female hostility because it exists and that is why it works. Funny thing is that people are abandoning mainstream media en masse. l wounder how long the media will play the same old game before it becomes redundant. It almost already is. Hell, with a big enuff hard disk and a bunch of DVDs, one nedd never watch a commercial or banal, vapid, empty headed news hour ever again. Before we can learn to think for ourselves we must deprogramme the propaganda that infects our minds. Unplug so to speak. Thank god that some nerdy men with their under utilised rape extensions put all that unrequited rape tendency into inventing and building the INTERNET.

Actions speak louder than words. The louder the words the less the action.

Anyway, yes ladies, l agree...
Anything a man can do a woman can do, only BETTER.
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Right you are... you dont need us and are better off without us and that message is reinforced by the media. What, my sisters, are YOU going to do to IMPROVE the situation?

Kaep,that is a very long bow;sounds like you're robbing Hood to pay the Sheriff of Nottingham.

"Bias against men is so ingrained and so common that most people don’t even notice it. "

-No kidding. To add a real life example, your faithful air carrier Qantas has adopted a policy that no child traveling without a parent on any of their flights is ever seated next to any male passneger. Ever. Even if the man has to change his seat. Really!

Why is this? I asked Qantas, and in a reply email they said it is because "they take child safety seriously", and they "make no apologies" for their policy.

Anti-male bigotry is so ingrained that, even when confronted, the bigots themselves lack the perspective to see what they're doing. That is because society -in all the ways described in the article-adverts, shows, press coverage etc. creates an atmosphere in which such bigotry is not only acceptable... but is in many cases "de rigueur".

t.u.s, Unions have many very capable women running them in fact if you put your specs on you may notice the A.C.T.U. the governing body of the Union movement has a lady President, and she replaced a lady President, you are on the ball as usual mate.

The lady PM question, we are in agreement there, I think Julia Gillard would make a much better PM than little Johhny also, of course on merit.

It's Time for women to take their rightful place in society, please ladies whatever creed you belong to, please join a political party, and bring your femine ways to to bear on the influence of Government, let's face it, you can't possibly do any worse than what has preceeded you.

Decades ago it was said by some anti-feminists that if any important job was filled by a woman twice in a row, that job would then be unimportant. It is with horror that I see that in the case of the President of the ACTU, this prediction seems to be coming true. She is very rarely mentioned in the daily media and almost none of my friends know her name. OK I admit it, I can't remember it either.

Many people seem to believe that the world is run by men and that all men benefit from this. I believe that it probably is controlled by a small number of mostly men, but they don't give a toss about most other men. So if they have a newspaper, TV channel or ad agency to run for a profit, they will do whatever it takes, and if that includes making men look like bumbling incompetents and targets for abuse, so be it.

Constant iteration of messages in media must surely have some effect.

cheers.

Trade215

You made some very fair comments when you indicated that if men are going to be accused of certain activities they just accept that accusation and live up to it, because in my experience men do not, or do not know how to, stand up against the bias that has developed against them.

“Right you are... you dont need us and are better off without us and that message is reinforced by the media. What, my sisters, are YOU going to do to IMPROVE the situation?”

I could also ask, what are men doing to improve the situation.

I have been fortunate to have 2 lifestyle changes. I grew up on the South Coast among the surfie culture where Puberty Blues was very much alive and breathing. Then (and remember I am 53) the girls sat in a pile, giggling and watching the boys, while the boys strutted and worked their own group. Occasionally strolling over to the girls group to pick a ‘bird’ for the night. I would sit with the guys (one my boyfriend and now husband). One day, one of the girls petulantly said to me “How come you get to sit with the guys?”

You know, it had never occurred to me not to! So, that mindset stayed in my mind for nearly 40 years as an indication of the submissive role women assumed. Waiting to be selected like a prize mare.

I wonder whether women’s lib, which I believe to have been one of the single most damaging elements of the equality of humanity, has given women a victim’s status, and now the victim has been given the power.

My second lifestyle change involved living and rearing children in a country town. An experience I would commend to all. Insular – yes. A cross between Peyton Place meets Desperate Housewives – yes......

Cont

Cont...

But, you learn that your partner is valuable. In farming communities men and women have a place and a part to play that is a complement to their partners. That is not to say that sexism does not rear its ugly head, but who has time for it out here. We are not besieged by millions of people and their problems, newspapers shouting headlines, etc.

That I think is where you fellows have let yourself be deceived. You don’t think you are valuable.

I know many women who have been women’s lib. Their lib belief causes them to scream equality, yet their inner person craves a companion so much, that they become this alternating mess of indecision. Then they get angry at themselves and disgusted at their indecision, which finally leads to retribution. In most cases against the man they believe is at the cause of their problems. And as with most people with an attitude that goes against the prevailing beliefs – they work to change by getting themselves in positions of power, ie. Media, government, etc

I can see that men are now in the ‘prize mare’ situation. Except most men don’t appear to have an inner craving for a woman’s company, so much as any woman for the night.

And so this situation will keep going round, one century women ‘on top’, the next men as the rulers. How do we change it?

Well, I know that the Promise Keepers in the US has an active agenda of raising the image and attitudes of men to a higher standard, but whether women’s groups are trying as well, I can’t say. As for my part, I have 3 daughters and a son my husband and I have tried to guide to a balanced outlook, I write and I live a life in my community. Not much, but small stones throw wider and wider ripples, I trust.

I think the problem with sexism is the same problem that we are having with racism.

See if I ask my teenage daughter to help me with some housework I get accused of sexism and I am expected to explain and justify to a on edge teenage girl why I asked her and not her teenage brother. It truly is bizzare. See if I ask my son, he never interrogates me about why I asked him and not his sister he just helps or escapes.

The same problem happens with racism. My daughter was telling me that there is a game that they play on the internet called Habbo where you create a character and interact and play games as that character. Habbo have very recently introduced Asian eyes for their characters and the Asians are screaming racism and accusing those that are non Asian that if they wear Asian eyes and they are not Asian in real life then they are racist. Its crazy.

It’s all become a joke. There is such a confusion as to what our roles and obligations are and exactly what racism means that its no wonder the world is a hostile and confused place.

OH, and I thought it was really funny that my daughter referred to what was happening in Habbo as 'Faceism'.

I think that we have to many "isms" and not enough Common Sense.

ism as described by dictionary.com
n. Informal
A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory: “Formalism, by being an ‘ism,’ kills form by hugging it to death” (Peter Viereck)

SuziQ, I saw an article recently in which it was claimed that at least some research shows that what men want most in a relationship is companionship. No links to it sorry, I think it was a segment on Good Morning America. It rang true to me but I have no idea how rigerous the research was.

I suspect that the issue is that sex and companionship are not wired together the same way for men and women (depending on who you believe about the amount of infidelity around).

It think that many guys are getting very pesimistic about finding a partner who values us for who they are rather than what we can provide. Someone who is happy to be our companion even if we don't do things the way the woman thinks we should. I know that cuts both ways and maybe we are losing track of the concept of companionship and acceptance from both sides.

R0bert

Thanks for your "fuzzy" article Peter. A bit wishy-washy for me. Even so, I have found the postings to your article, challenging and interesting.

I recovered from rampart feminism in 1985! For six months I doggedly followed the brainwashing. After that, I started to think for myself.

I generally like men. I enjoy talking with men. I like the way that men get straight to the point in a conversation. Generally, I find women mentally and emotively a manipulative group. Oh gosh. Now I will be called sexist.

One of my closest male friends is 82 years of age. I love him dearly, and I respect his respect for women. I respect my husband's respect for women.

I think that men are given a raw deal in our society - especially by women - and the media. There are many men who are rearing children on their own. Do we ever hear of them?

SuziQ - great post.
Hi RObert!
Cheers
Kay

Yabby – tradition – dinosaurs – nurturing instinct etc. I am a bloke and I have no desire to watch bulky, ugly men fighting over a football.

We live in a new era mate. No use in referring to how we were as a way of saying how we should be now. We are a higher order species. I have no urge to go around smashing women over the head, dragging them into a cave and raping them senseless, as my cave-ancestors once thought was acceptable. In 200 years time the Neanderthals will truly be extinct and we can really move forward.

Tubley, the male/female thing is not about 50/50, more like a spectrum and we get all types along that spectrum. We can find effeminate males and macho females along that spectrum, look around you.

What it comes down to is that hormones affect behaviour and genes affect behaviour. The thinking/aware parts of the human brain are only part of it. Denying biology as part of human behaviour would be pretty silly.

There is a good book written years ago now, called Brainsex. It will explain the basics to you. Including why gays are like they are, despite claims by the religious nuts that its all free will etc.

I am glad you don't have those cave man desires Tubley, but I think that Yabby has a valid point. It takes many many centuries for genetic inheritances to alter because it is such a slow process, particularly in some people. If it occurred faster or simply because we were in an era of different behaviours and thought processes, we would all have started to grow web feet by now because we certainly don't use our toes the way our ancestors did. Evidence of differences that are legacies of the bygone era of the nurturer vs. the hunter can be seen in areas such as women's lack of spatial ability compared to men - (okay not all women!, some have progressed and can map read). Of course we are continually changed by our environment, adaptation, and socialisation but the biological factors seem to linger.

Hi Kay, good point, SuziQ's post was a great one. In my haste to differ on the companionship thing I forgot to acknowledge the rest of the content.

I find a mix of good and bad in both women and men. Maybe the strengths and weaknesses lie in different places. The impression of women being more emotionally and mentally manipulative is one I feel some sympathy for (might be something to do with my own experience though). Maybe a counterpoint for the higher levels of physical violence by men in the general community.

I certainly agree that some parts of the deal are bad for men at the moment. I think we are all struggling with a change in expectations for life, relationships and everything. The rules are changing, many women still seem to want to be wooed by guys they like but if someone they don't like tries to woo them they are a stalker and a creep. Guys are bagged for being committment phobic but still do most of the proposing while reportedly over 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by women. It can be kind of confusing out there. We get scared to get into relationships with good friends because we don't want to ruin the friendship if it goes wrong rather than using a great friendship as a starting place.

Relationships have got tied up in consumerism, if our partner is not good enough we upgrade, we don't get into relationships with people who are not good looking enough, wealthy enough, sophisticated enough, fit enough or whatever. We don't want to waste our lives with someone who's specifications are not top notch. How many really happy looking couples have I seen where from the outside neither looks special but where they seem to really enjoy one anothers company? Why do I still count beauty highly when considering potential partners. And before women crack up at that how many of you dimiss guys who don't have plenty of money?

Somewhat of a waffle but hopefully some of the thoughts will be useful.

Cheers
R0bert

Part 1

74 postings before this one and only one poster has had any reality, sense and decency to add to the discussion - that of SuziQ - in my opinion.

That's pretty sad seeing how she's a woman. It says heaps about the nature of the article and how men are oblivious to their own plight.

The gross misunderstandings of the majority of people about the sad and dire situation of men today, in particular the rubbish espoused by men themselves about the problem above, is amazing. It proves Dr West's points about men's abuse and masculinity being maligned by the media. Even the men themselves are blind to it. It's a sad time, but one day men will be men again.

But then, who am I to comment?

You may well ask.

Let me tell you that that's unimportant. What is important is that I have studied this matter, seriously, in depth, for the last three years on a daily basis. I am a serious student of the sex wars. I do know the players. I know who the protagonists are and I know their writings deeply. I have made it my business to know.

I know how they play the game and I even know why they play it. I know these things, but in 350 words or less, this is not the place to write about it. It's a complex and political subject and it requires much deeper explanation.

What I will say is that I believe that the bulk of the posts above prove Dr West's point convincingly - not even men know they're having the piss taken out of them daily in the media. And that's the point of West's article, in case no one noticed. Go read it again.

Part 2

Having said that, let me tell you that although West himself is one of the bigger local players in this sex war, he is of extremely small calibre. He's typical of all academics in today's PC world - gutless. He knows what's going on but he's too afraid to actually write strongly about the truth for fear that his professional situation may be jeopardised.

Men - and I use the term loosely - like Peter West are our biggest liability today. They see that the emperor has no clothes, but unlike a real man, he lacks the guts to speak the full truth and make the overt declaration. He just hints around the subject hoping you'll work it out for yourself, like in the effeminate article above.

Frankly, I've got more respect for the enemies of men - the feminists - at least they've got the guts to speak loudly about their own opinions and they don't mince about with words.

But one day, real men will stand tall and proud and speak their mind and real women will be pleased - like SusiQ - that such men do exist. For now we suffer the PC wimps like West and other academics and the likes of the so-called men who have written on this forum.

Very interesting ideas about what it is to be a man. The most abhorrent misconception seems to be the one about our limitless ability to take it in the balls, followed closely by the almost ritualistic emptying of our wallets.

Taking it like a man, regardless of what is offered, apparently makes one a man. It does seem we are incognisant to our plight, and yearn to be gentlemen while forever prepared to reward skank.

The point was accepted about biology, Yabby. However, while biology does influence behaviour, it should not become a source of descrimination in any areas.

The example I like to use is in sport, as it is such a highly ingrained element of our culture. In mosts sports males are getting a higher rate of pay, recognition and support, for doing what is essentially the same activity.

Now, you might say that men are physically more powerful and therefore they create a more exciting game and attract more sponsors. But to take your words, it is a "spectrum". I have observed women's sport for a very long time and I see no difference in the overall quality of their game than that of the men. Quite simply it is unfair.

As for your comment about 50/50 - I am aware of the diversity of differences among us all. I manage a women's AFL team while my paid work involves teaching grade 1 students - on both occasions I have copped plenty of 'blokey' flack off my warehouse-dwelling male counterparts.

So yes, people vary considerably in their interests/abilities etc, and to an extent this is biologically based. Of course it is.

But my main argument is that people should get equal recognition for what they acheive and equal support for what they want to achieve.

PS - thankyou for your advice on the reading material. May I suggest the following for you:

"The Frailty Myth - Redefining the Physical Potential of Women and Girls" by Colette Dowling

A great read.

tubley, to take one example of your sports issue. How many sports are based on equality... The only sport which truly tests your contention (that women are as good at sport as men) is golf, where women can join the pro tour, not many can make it though (one in all time is it?). What about tennis, would any female be able to get into the top 100, maybe, the top 10 no way, and maybe not ever. How about the AFL (the mastabator sport (can't really play anyone but yourself (australia only))), you think your women's team could beat the local under 16 boys, maybe, the under 18s, doubt it, a seniors team, get real.

This issue shows that the only equality that should be discussed is that which is before the law. That is after all what equality meant for those originally fighting for it, equality before the law. Not some nazi feminist idea of full equality when difference is so pronounced.

(for those who disaprove of the term 'nazi feminist'
I don't see a problem in comparing nazi's who undertook the holocaust and the similar killing of unborn children, both are for convenience. And both tell us to trust them, it is not large in number, but won't let us gather statistics. Nazi feminists are often quite open about their biological superiority to the inferior male. Many nazi feminists have called for the elimination of all men, one has told us how happy this would make her on this very forum!

Girls and bullying behaviour - Why women in power are just as abusive as men?

The notion that women would make better leaders is utter nonsense. In the field of POWER, human nature always rules and behaviours honed in the stone age days are never far away.

In this article, http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/leckb284.htm, the topic of female bullying is discussed. There are numerous such links on the web.

The chief means of female bullying , not excluding overt physical violence, are:

Spreading Rumours:
Writing denigrating Notes and circulating SMSs.:
Telling False Stories:
Saying Things Behind people's Backs:
Gossiping
Shutting Out
Deliberately Not Invite: Using parties as a tool to highlight/exclude victims
Revealing Others' Secrets
Deliberately Ignoring victims
Threatening victims to Not Be With certain special individuals (Excluding)

Typically these tactics are used on weaker victims. Bullies never attack those of equal of greater strength

As for male bashing, women are being led to believe a certain class of men, who are unemployed for example, are exposed or weak. This belief is espoused by a sensation seeking and often trouble making media looking to boost ratings. It is initiated and reinforced by government policies or omissions, which CURRENTLY favour women in the workplace. Under these conditions, men WILL be bullied by any or all of the above tactics. Its the nature of the beast (women).

You will never stop women bullying. So the answer is to first address government policies that discriminate against men (family law, workplace discrimination etc) in a way that will remove media attention to the issue and thus the perception that a weakness exists.

More broadly, all Australians are at risk of falling foul of government policies geared to immigration and immigrants as THE source of economic power. This is why a demand for HECS fee removal and a moratorium on immigration are so vital.

Kaep, if you are worried about immigration, then perhaps you should look at the fact that we have an ageing population, and therefore less people of working age each year. This explains the skills shortage and the need for immigration. If you would prefer current Australians to be taking these jobs (which I assume is your concern with immigration?) then you should try and influence the abortion debate so we could start having some australian kids, instead of offing them for economic (short term, it is always economical to have children in the long term) reasons or inconvenience reasons such as embarrasment.

KAEP your symptoms of female bullying could have easily been listed under one heading BITCHINESS, and trust me working in offices with predominantly females you see a lot of it. Quite entertaining in a way especially if you are on the sidelines and privy to both sides of the bitch duel.

Speaking of sidelines - Tubley, you have no idea about sport if you think that men get paid more because of some sexist conspiracy.

I, like you, have coached women's football, as well as coaching teenager boys and very young boys. Phyisically, on average men are better at football. Most women would not be able to cop a proper hit in a game of football.

As for other sports - the elite men run faster, jump higher, leap further, swim quicker, hit golf balls further, bowl cricket balls faster. (BTW, I have watchede soccer matches where representative women's teams who have been absolutely flogged by 15-year-old club sides.

And have you been watching the Australian Open tennis? There, the men have to play best of five sets and the women just three.

Men and women are different and sport is probably the most obvious example of this. Which probably explains your hatred for blokey, boofheads who partake in this Australian culture. It sums up the self-loathing you have for your gender rather well.

t.u.s.

"But my main argument is that people should get equal recognition for what they acheive and equal support for what they want to achieve."

Tubley the sports market is mainly driven by ratings etc. When people clamour to watch female football, then no doubt players would be paid more. Now if I had a say in female football, perhaps I'd suggest that they play topless and ratings would go through the roof :) Thats biology for you :)

Regards support, I think its well accepted that society helps the disadvantaged more then the less disadvantaged, which is perhaps
fairer then equal support.

One thing I have learnt is that life is not fair and never will be, get used to it.

Personally I prefer male company. Even at school I liked to hang around the boys. Girls can be so bitchy and they are often worse bullies than the boys. Men tend to be more physical but I think I would rather a punch in the guts than a stab in the back. At least with a punch in the guts you know who hit you.

It’s difficult once you marry. Most women don’t like another woman to be friendly to what they refer to as their man; they automatically see it as a threat and think that something will happen!

Too sad and such a shame that men and women can’t be seen as just friends without somebody getting cut up about it and ruining what should be a perfectly normal and healthy relationships between male and female.

Kaep.These problems of male bashing don't happen in private enterprise.There is no positive discimination in the real world.

You may have to work harder,have fewer holidays,less super and be responsible for your actions,but hey,you'll have the balls to realise your potential.This is far more important than being a whimpering,simpering bowl of jelly,too frightened to confront your female superiors.

Men do DEFINATELY understand our reality... intimately.

It matters not that we can, cannot, will or will not rationally and lucidly ellucidate our understanding and awarness.

There is a certain and absolute power that comes from privacy of the mind. There is a very real and practical reason that men prefer not to telegraph their intentions. Its not just women who know how to play men. We too have evolved with the same ability. Its absolutely necessary to survival for the sexes to ADAPT to each other.

We can see and hear with our own senses. We have or observations and experiences. Plenty of horror stories close to home. We all know exactly whats going on. What we do, is what the cliched male does, namely... NOT TALK ABOUT IT.

But we are THINKING about it. Oft times its all swilling about on an intuitive level trying to get out front and make sense.

And like men do, once we have thought about it for long enough, understood the issues and posited a solution... WE ACT.

Just because you cant hear what we dont say, dont make the fatal error of assuming we are not aware. Big mistake, very big mistake. Why? Because by the time everyone else truely sees the problem in broad daylight its is going to be far too late to do anything that hasnt already been done by those amongst us who are indeed aware and are acting on that understanding.

The cracks are starting to show. Very few want to admit it though.

The noise that flies in the media and the generalised undercurrent of anti male hostility amongst women is much of a muchness after a while. You get used to it. You learn to see it for what it is, which ultimately is not very much. We humans are a resiliant lot and we will adapt. If it doesnt kill us, those of us who survive it end up stronger.

This, is what many men like myself are doing. We are aware of the reality and ordering OUR lives in a way that SERVES our primary interests, one of which is harm reduction. Everyone else can take it or leave it as they see fit.

The Usual Suspect and Yabby

The truth and solace I find in all of this is that the gaps between the binary oppositions that create unfair divisions between females and males are in fact becoming more narrow – albeit very slowly.

It will not be in my lifetime that fairness is achieved nor will my grandchildren see it. But one day equal opportunity will be a reality and the unlimited potential of people from both genders will be recognised in its entirety. What a remarkable part of human history that will be.

Tubley, I simply don't see the unfairness that you see, all based on gender lines. I see a spectrum of both genders and all sorts along that spectrum.

I know amazing women who have great relationships with really nice men, they sort things out by good communication.

I know both men and women, who can be totally irrational, blaming everyone but themselves for their problems.

Yes there are women who hate men and will say so publicly. Who knows what happened in their lives to cause that anger. They might well also be the women to cry in their pillows, when they are lonely and never had the child that they secretly desired, nor the partner.

There are also men, who are so scarred by experiences, that they are convinced its all women that are the problem. I just don't think its that simple.

My take on women who openly abuse men, is that usually if we dig deeper, these are confused individuals, who have had some bad expereriences. Being a good psychologist, I let them get it off their chest, then they usually feel better :)

I do think that there are some biological differences between men and women, that all those various hormones play a role in all this.

My experience with women is that they will make a list of all the things they want in a man, but at the end of the day, they just follow their feelings. Emotions play a far bigger role in the brain activitity of your average female, then in your average man.

But of course, emotions can also be quite irrational. Men see things far simpler. As long as their sports team is winning, they get their bit of nooky regularly and they can have a beer with their mates, life is ok for them. No wonder misunderstandings arise between the genders. I still believe that most of the time, those differences are actually complementary, as long as we accept the role of biology in who we are.

Male bashing is a new and changing phenomenon.

It is useless to analyse it in isolation to the government policies causing the changes.

The fact is that immigrating 140,000 skilled people per year with IQs probably over 130 into a population whose IQs have been kept at an average 100 is nothing short of an INVASION. The leader of that invasion is John Howard and his government is the principal beneficiary.
The social stress cause by this invasion is borne by people in the suburbs all over Australia but particularly in Sydney where about 100,000 of those 140,000 immigrants settle. The social stress manifests mainly in the isolation and weakening of certain demographic groups, single men being one such group. It is not rocket science that repulsive behaviour and anarchy become normal among competetive and elitist groups like the new working female. And, it appears as if John Howard and Arjay are the only people in Australia who are in DENIAL that multicultural anarchy is rife in Sydney and just below the surface in other Australian cities.

Multiculturalism is failing in Europe where there is now a serious IDENTITY crisis. John Howard is desperate to create propaganda to show it is not failing here. But the game is up. The Imams won't react well to their young Jihadists sent to jail. Something has to give. And it will. Cronulla is just the beginning because next year their will be another 140,000 skilful immigrants to add to this pressure cooker. There will be another 140,000 the year after that.

Like in France, no government strategies will be evident to deal with this problem because government DENYS it exists.

As I keep saying, the answer is:

* Make education easier for tertiary level and tech college students

* Have a 5 year moratorium on immigration so we can assess the true direction that multiculturalism in its present form is having across Europe and Australia.

People who fail to make the connection between increases in male bashing and social stress are either Howard shills or in the low IQ groups most at risk.

T.U.S.

Women do the same amount of training, show the same amount of commitment and give as much to the sports they play as their male counterparts.

You’re correct in saying men run faster, jump higher etc. But then, I was not suggesting they play one another. Roger Federer plays men and Maria Sharipova plays women. Both do so with exceptional ability beyond anything you and I have ever achieved in sport.

For the most part we’re talking about differences in power and speed. Women are, however, capable of the same level of coordination. Case in point – Leisal Jones, while not nearly as big and strong (and therefore not as fast) as the male swimmers, she is the most technically perfect breaststroker in the world at this point in time – female or male. She is in fact, a perfect model on how the stroke should be done. Look at the 2005 World Swimming Championships where the women won most of the races. Women’s swimming in this country is now a world superpower but still the men are receiving much more in endorsements.

In tennis we see less power in women’s serves but they tend to be better placed serves. In basketball we see women relying more on the finer skills component of the game as opposed to the men who use power and force. These are differences in ways of playing. When I said there are no differences in the quality of the sport I meant that each contribute a considerable value to the sport as a whole while one gender gets more recognition that the other. I always enjoy watching women climb to success as they’ve had to work so hard to achieve any kind of recognition. The commitment level I see in successful female athletes is beyond inspirational.

I just wish that the women would stop grunting so loudly and so much when they play tennis. It really makes the game difficult to watch!

The reason I believe our Government brings in skilled immigrants instead of developing the potential and talent that we have here is that immigrants often have less command of the English language and they are new to the Country and don’t know the rules so the Government is safer, they can bully and intimidate immigrants easier. Immigrants are less likely to blow the whistle on things that they see wrong in the system and become whistleblowers. Being a whistleblower in this Country pretty much makes you an outcast. What immigrant wants to be ostracized and outcasted when they have just come in.

I don’t think that we should drop the standards in Education at all and make it easier. What we should do is change the way we deliver it as it isn’t fair and it is giving certain cultures a huge advantage. Highest marks shouldn't be the determining factor for opportunities in Education as highest marks are more dependent on your exposure, environment and social standing than anything else. Those in disadvantaged schools and areas just cannot compete.

Whilst I believe that a certain high standards must be met, I feel that it should be at basic skill level only at the level taught at school to everybody. Not higher. I believe that Community Service should hold as much weight when assessing students for placement in schools and in University. That way those that are disadvantaged by their school or by their social standing can compete as all they have to do is work in the community and show themselves to be of a high standard.

I am old enough to remember that it was Gough Whitlam that started the push to multiculturalism, and put the death knell to the White Australia policy, which still had an unspoken existence. Keating espoused multiculturalism vehemently. So if you want to blame John Howard, please understand the history.

I believe that this G’ment is keenly aware of the dangers of immigration, but John Howard is at the mercy of both the UN, cartels, the current MC groups and the myriad of social ‘do-gooders’ in his response to the immigrants trying to enter Aus. Whether by fair means or foul, Aus is now ‘reaping’ the result of a Labor Gov’t decision.

As to making education easier. I worked for an Employment Agency for many years and Aus was creating the highest level of educated unemployed in the world. Many were totally uninterested in getting a job, but very proud to wave a mass of certificates and degrees. So an employer often now ‘fears’ the veracity of these certificates.

Stats appear to show that now that uni education is harder to achieve, the students take it more seriously and the standard is improving.

Education is a gift, not a right in much of the world. We are still amazingly blessed in the education our children can attain here. The three R’s are no longer the basis of much schooling, instead we choose a High School for the Performing Arts, or a High School specializing in Science, or whatever. We chop and change at will because our families future no longer relies on the next generation supporting it, as in poorer countries.

In my view, we need to make education a goal, rather than a given. We need to encourage our children to aim for a standard that will open that door to them, rather than just assume that further education is just hanging around waiting for them to want it.

Now Kaep,I don't agree with everything John Howard espouses.France is in really big trouble because the cultural and religious differences are too great and the French are a pretty arrogant lot anyway.Given this climate ,I can't understand why they embarked on such a flawed immigration programme in the first place.

I don't think our immigration programme is balanced also.We have brought people into his country on mass,that absolutely hate our guts.Our immigration programme is too economically driven and definetely needs more balance.I just wonder who is actually is in charge in immigration that drives it's ideology.

The Italians,Greeks and other European Cultures have been here for a long time and are now just one of us.the Chinese will take longer to assimilate because the language and the writing differences are enormous.

I have no problem with bringing out intelligent people here so long as they don't see themselves as elites who can please themeslves.I have no problem with lots of billionaires since I will find a way of selling them something.

We have not had a recession since 1991 and if Labor were in power we would have had one again in 2001 and be one our way to the next one.Having said that,there is a lot wrong with the Howard Govt because they don't have any real opposition to keep them on their toes.Labor will lose the next one and I don't see any real talent emerging from the union rabble.

"* Have a 5 year moratorium on immigration so we can assess the true direction that multiculturalism in its present form is having across Europe and Australia."

Kaep I think thats a very bad idea, for many reasons. It seems to me that your problems in Sydney come down to Lebanese Muslims, let in by Fraser for humanitarian reasons.

Fact is that export industries outside of Sydney are screaming for more intelligent and hardworking people. Those projects, like in WA, just won't go ahead without the people. We create wealth by creating these new industries, so that you guys in the East can benefit. Its not you who is generating the exports after all.

Australia is short of all sorts of trades, welders, electricians, mechanics, nurses, fitters, etc. etc. It seems to me some of your population there have an attitude problem. They think the country owes them a living,life should be on a plate. Its not, those people have to get off their butts, learn a trade, go where the work is and make life happen for themselves.

Personally I blame the way kids are brought up. Those kids taught some discipline etc by their parents, will go ahead and do their thing. Those kids given everything, including no values, blame the whole world for their problems, when its simply their own attitude that is holding them back. Anyone can make it in Australia if they try

The media (and authorities) invariably treat female miscreants as mad or sad while males are
just bad.
The treatment of Corby is a case in point. The media are still thrashing around looking for someone of the male persuasion to blame.

well said yabby

Unfortuately even if all australians were willing to take jobs which involve manual labour, which very few youngsters are, we would still be in trouble with our ageing population. if one in four australians are past retirement age, presumably one in four would be at school which would leave only a very few to work, and who is going to look after all those oldies, that would probably take up about a quarter of our tiny left over workforce.

The problem with the skills shortage is an ageing population more than the lazy australian (australians are known throughout the world for their hard work, but not in manual labour). The only solution to this is to stop terminating the lives of half of our children (it could be half, unfortunately like in the holocaust we are unable to find true statistics, due to fear of offending feminist nazis). If we start actually having larger families we could solve our own problems and concentrate immigration only on those who are in desperate need, not those willing to become our source of cheap labour.

slavery and legalised murder as our values, or humanitarian immigration and love of children weather born or unborn? which will it be?

The Spartans were one of the most fearsome civilizations in history – they effectively doubled their military might by deploying all women and men into their armies in times of battle. And it worked.

T.U.S.,

The overall lack of support for women’s sport means they drop out earlier than expected. This is my sixth year of teaching and, sadly I see a gradual reduction in skill from the girls I have observed over the years, which I believe corresponds (to a degree) to the lack of opportunities. The primary boys’ footy team at our school are sponsored in the budget and are getting their regular bus trips etc paid for by the school while the girls have to find their own way to their sports after school hours.

In 2001 I taught a year 3 class where, at the Interhouse athletics the eighth fastest girl was faster than the fastest boy. There was a core of very athletic girls in that class who worked off each other. Nonetheless it is now the boys from that class who are the footy heroes.

Now that we have exhausted the topic of sport, let’s move onto TV and film. At all levels – acting, producing, directing etc, males get more money. Is that discrepancy attributable to physical differences? I just wonder, since that was your argument for why women get paid less in sport.

Yabs

I do know of one industry where females are probably paid and recognised more than males – the adult industry. There is good money to be had in brothels and pornography. Although I think these things say more about the sordid character of the clients than the success of the providers.

fide mae

Just so you know, I do not support abortion. Please don’t lump me with these “feminazis” you speak of simply because I want greater recognition for our female citizens. I think my view is a reasonable one and I think most fathers would want the same for their daughters should they wish to pursue success in sport, acting, politics, whatever.

"If we start actually having larger families we could solve our own problems and concentrate immigration only on those who are in desperate need, not those willing to become our source of cheap labour."

Fide, its not really fair to force women to provide a cheap uterus either, if its against their will. I fully support a womans right to choose, abortion to be legal in the first tremester.

I think the reasons why people are having smaller families are manyfold, not least of which is the cost of houses these days.
For a young couple to buy a house, car, plus pay other expenses on one wage, is virtually impossible. Certainly in the cities.

Around here where I live in the country, women are popping out kids like there was no tomorrow. But of course houses are still available for 100k$. Having to face a 500k mortgage would change things dramatically. Thats the reality of babymaking these days, the figures simply don't add up when most couples crunch the numbers, particularly in large cities.

Yabby,that is a very imortant point.When women were encouraged to get a career,house prices doubled with two income families,and thus families were put on the treadmill of serving the mortage and having fewer children.

Has it really made us all that happier?I seriously doubt it.We will have the most lonely generation in our history with more people living alone than ever due to lawyer induced poverty via divorce and the joy of family interaction will seem to be a distant memory of our halcyon days,as we become more pre-occcupied with career,investments,and the latest mod cons.

Can we miss what we have never experienced?Is there some void in our psyche that yearns for traditional family values of trust,respect,love and spontaeneous moments of of fun that gives us all greater insight into our common humanity.

These are the things upon which we cannot put a price.

Go check the Herald-Sun (Victoria).
It is Australia's best selling newspaper,
because it is balanced when it comes to the needs of men.
The journos at the Herlad-Sun aren't a bunch of Feminist crusaders,
and are genuinely sympathetic to the plight of men.
They have realized that men vote with their wallets and have cashed in.
It's also notable that there has been a significant increase in the number
of complaints by men re; misandrist advertising.
Advertisers who continue to male bash, risk losing business.

Intersting points from both Yabby and Arjay.

While an average Sydney house may have been a multiple of 4 or 5 of average earnings, during the 70’s and perhaps the 80’s, subsequent government policy has made it out of reach for most first-time buyers.

These days, they must rely on the first-buyer grant, two people working, and often buying initially as an investment property, so that rent and negative gearing over the first few years, can help get them over that elusive line of affordability, so that they can eventually move in when they can afford to make the repayments themselves.

Although as Arjay says, it has become necessary for both partners to work, simply because more and more did, government tax policy should not be overlooked as being the main contributor to this outcome. If governments must take a certain cut of the GDP pie, the exemptions made to the family home, as well as the concessions given to investment properties, have made us all over-invest in unproductive property. At the same time, first home buyers cannot get into the market without the previously mentioned techniques, or without help from their parents (who are at the same time expected to be self sufficient in retirement).

So back to Yaby’s point about “its not really fair to force women to provide a cheap uterus”. This is simply another way of male-bashing. While there is a supposedly a break-even price for uterus utilisation, there is apparently no consideration for male contribution, or the acknowledgement that males could be also playing a part in declining fertility rates.

I see for example, that Yabby does not suggest that tax rates are too high in large cities. He does however suggest that people should move to the middle of nowhere in WA to where the mining jobs are. Presumably, that would not be a reasonable price for our uterus wielding partners to pay. Perhaps after all, he is just an ideas man.

Yep Seeker,I'm am always paying out on the growth of Govt and the consequent tax.Tax is out of control because we have become weak and subserviant.However we also have the devil of multi-national dominance which is just as evil as big Govt.These two big fish are our greatest enemies,since they work in unison to subjugate the individual.

"So back to Yaby’s point about “its not really fair to force women to provide a cheap uterus”. This is simply another way of male-bashing."

Hang on hang on, males vary, investing from a simple, pleasurable ejaculation upwards, often achieved through deceit. Let women decide when they want to use that uterus, its theirs after all.

"I see for example, that Yabby does not suggest that tax rates are too high in large cities."

No I do not. House prices are too high. Perhaps if family homes paid CGT like other capital investments, people would have less reason to overvalue them, as they so now.

" He does however suggest that people should move to the middle of nowhere in WA to where the mining jobs are."

Australia is not nowhere. 100k a year is not peanuts. I think that city people are a bit like rats in cages. Once they have lived in those cages long enough, they are nervous of venturing too far from familiar territory. Just conditioning I guess.

http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/read/802645.htm

Why men tolerate antimale sexism. They are:

· Socialized to repress their feelings about personal matters the way women have been socialized to repress their feelings about sexual matters, and hence are often as uncomfortable talking about gender issues as women are talking about pornography!

· Fearful of hearing: “Why are you the only one having a problem with this?” (Probably most men are socialized to fear being told they have a problem -- with anything; they especially fear being told they have a problem with fear! I have named this fear “the problem with no name,” a topic worthy of a book-length discourse itself.)

· Silenced by the chivalrous fear of upsetting women, whom men are supposed to simultaneously see as capable of handling the violence of hand-to-hand combat with enemy soldiers but incapable of handling men’s mere words. Radical feminist ideology wants us to believe women can cope with death-threatening revilement – “Die, slut!” – from an enraged enemy soldier on the battlefield, but not with a good-intentioned compliment – “Hi, gorgeous!” – from an effervescent man in the workplace.

· Silenced by seeing themselves as protectors of women. Many men, especially feminist men, want to be known as protectors of women (often to earn female approval or female votes). Since such chivalrous men are sometimes willing to sacrifice their lives for women, many can be counted on to sacrifice their rights for women.

· Silenced by a political correctness that is hostile to non-feminist views on gender, particularly to such views offered by men.

· Silenced by the mistaken belief that all feminists work in the interest of both sexes and for the good of the country, and that to be against feminists is to be against women.

· Taught by feminists and the media to see only female burdens and male power, taught even to see male powerlessness as male power. (The military conscription of men is presented as male power, not the male powerlessness that it is. So is having to work long hours in an oppressive job in order to support a family.)

Dr Peter West ignores the routine ways in which the media in fact privileges men’s voices and celebrates men’s achievements.

Dr West assumes that because overt ‘men’s issues’ are only a minor part of mainstream media coverage, men’s voices and experiences therefore are marginalised and silenced. He fails to recognise the many ways in which the media places men, men’s views, and men’s lives at its very centre while representing these views and lives as non-gendered. The media is often by and about men, but it’s not named as such.

For example, every day we hear the latest views and policy proposals of our mostly male political leaders and other politicians. Every day, our media celebrates and dissects the efforts and triumphs of male sports players in rugby, AFL, cricket, soccer and other codes. The financial activities of our business leaders are dissected, and again, these are mostly male. The lives and efforts of men are the dominant fare of media coverage, and this reflects wider patterns of gender inequality. Of course, these are not any men, but often wealthy, powerful, and privileged men, but they are men nevertheless.

While many television programs feature male villains, as Peter West notes, they’re equally likely to also show male heroes (male cops, detectives, scientists, and so on).

Our media is voiced largely by men as well. What sex are most big-name radio announcers? Which sex dominates current affairs reportage? Who writes much of the newspaper coverage? Who owns most of our media?

Peter West claims that Australian media ‘articulate women’s concerns and trials from a sympathetic perspective’. Really? Clearly he wasn’t listening when women complained about the objectifying and trivialising portrayal of female athletes in sports reporting, or the harsher scrutiny of behaviour and appearance given to female politicians than male politicians, or the incessant dissection of female celebrities’ bodies and diets, or the victim-blaming representations of rape and domestic violence (though this last one has improved considerably). And, when the media does cater overtly to women, it sometimes treats them only as mindless, narcissistic consumers.

[Continued in next post.]

More generally, Peter West manages to ignore the double standard in judgements about who makes an appropriate newsreader or commentator: men can be older, grey, and stereotypically unattractive, while women must be young and attractive. And the many ads aimed at men that try to sell them alcohol, cologne, cars, or other products by portraying attractive women as the ‘prize’ they’ll win. And our still powerful cultural habit of giving male voices more authority and status than female voices.

And Peter West seems not to have noticed the aspects of popular culture which are deeply and bluntly hostile to women or which treat them in sexist and objectifying ways. Check out the popular range of ‘new lad’ magazines. Or for a real treat, go into an adult video store and enjoy the ways in which women are treated as a series of orifices.

Peter West is right on one important point. While the mainstream media’s content is often about men, it’s only rarely about men *as men*. In other words, the media only rarely addresses the ways in which men’s lives, just like women’s, are shaped by gender (by the social meanings and relations associated with being male or female). This kind of exploration *is* becoming more common, as more men reflect in public on their experiences as fathers or husbands, on love and sexuality, on health and illness, and so on. The biggest obstacle to this public exploration of men’s lives is not a women-centred or female-dominated media, but narrow stereotypes of masculinity itself. I’m thinking of the stereotypes that men must be stoic, emotionally inexpressive, powerful and in control, and so on. Perhaps the biggest constraint is the idea that men who do question dominant norms of manhood must be gay. The sooner we break down these rigid ideals, the sooner that we’ll see a gender-sensitive discussion of men’s lives and experiences.

In response to Michael Flood, see:

"An Open Letter to Dr. Phil About the Sexes" at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/read/892125.htm

and "What a man might say when he hears, 'It's men in the news, men in government, men at the top -- where are the women?'" (Chapter 8 of "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say")
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/f/farrell/farrell_1.htm)

Male Matters
http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/
Gender News & Views Ignored By The Mainstream Media and Most Leading Feminists

Abos are a sub human species (Nazi party leader Cass Young)
== This caused a media uproar some years ago. From blacks and whites alike

BUT

"Men are a sub human species" (Cleo Cosmo, womens weekly. All of these mainstream newspapers have come out with that disgustingline at some stage or another.)

"Treat your man like you treat your dog" (Catronia Rowntree, On the program Sex Life now on the progams Getaway"

"Treat abos like you treat dogs"

No! This isn't funny Not anymore. Why hasn't Rowntree been sacked.