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.]