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.