Didn't get it. Is it a man-bash, a woman-bash, or a "white middle-class heterosexual male professionals have no rights left" bash?

While women can easily conceive with 'sperm-bank' semen, there is still the other bank that needs attention... the 'money bank'...somebody has to support them...

Aussie Dads work 5hrs a day longer than Australian mothers... but, somebody has to pay the mortgage and support them while they take what they assume is their 'good-given' right to a work-life balance...

Meanwhile Aussie dads are lucky to manage a work-sleep balance. Sadly, Aussie men are forced to INCREASE their working hours when they become parents.

I've got a 18mth old baby, and I work a 4 day week to share the child-care. So does her mother. I have never had such a relaxed and comfortable life as when I dropped down to a 4-day-week... and I realise the sacrifice that most Aussie dads make for their kids (with me as a notable exception :-)

There is one thing that Maureen forgot when she asked if men are necessary... She forgot to ask who will support all these single mothers? Men!

(5hrs a day is the fact from the ABS, I'll send yout the sousce on request... parttimeparent@yahoo.com.au

Dowdy Moron comes to town. Should be an entertaining freakshow.

Translations regarding The Moron's style...

1. Subtle = deceitful, indirect(manipulative), intellectually dishonest
2. Witty = lacking substance so let me entertain you with self indulgent verbosity (she has word count you know)
3. Wounderfully sarcastic = angry and bitter(cynical) waffle masquerading as humourous, intelligent insight.

Moron seems unhappy at being 58 yrs old, manless and childless. Instead of going to a $200 hr shrink like the rest of the Manahatanites, she writes tabloid articles and gets paid for it. At least she's industrious and knows how to make a dollar... hint Moron, a woman's career and earning ability arent usually wot motivates mate selection. Blame evolutionary biology for not fitting a specious ideology.

The article does some of what feminists like to do (eventhough the writer denies that ideologoy)... project responsibility for behavioural modification upon men. Wot a surprise. That is the essense of the whole men-v-women 'problem'... one sided accountability. A case of yelling into the void when you complain and blame without taking your own advice. Goes to credibility.

Alleged masculine/feminine side is myth. Its all the one side and we all have the traits. Yin and Yang.

Moron Dowd-and-out is flailing about on the ropes, a third rate fighter who went a few dozen fights too far and now cant think nor speak straight thru the punch drunk haze. Predictably, taking HER experience and projecting that onto all women. Very typical of the deeply discontented. Maybe one day she may overcome her obvious insecurities and massive yet very fragile ego.

Insecurity, big ego, fragile sensibility, cynicism masquerading as sacrastic wit are NOT ATTRACTIVE qualities. Looked at a picture of her. She aint no beauty.

Moron should do a roadshow thru Australia's retirement villages and find a suitor to meet her demands. Stop ogling those 30-something handsome well-to-do types you see on the streets of Manhattan. Time you accepted your reality... like growing old gracefully.

You made your bed and no one wants to sleep in it with you.

Someone, pleeeeeeeeeese... marry the old battle axe.

btw, the pointless words of ineffectual pen pushing blowhards does NOT SCARE MEN.

Talk is cheap.

trade215 I think you should marry her you seem to need her more then she needs you. It works best if there is a needdy one and a giver. :o

Is Maureen Dowd necessary? I know I am not. No-one is really. Let's face it; we are just messing it up on the animals anyway. I wonder where women would be without men though. Probably still living in caves, except they would be too sacred to go in unless a man went first. Caves are dark, after all.
Obviously none of Maureen's boyfriends took her camping.

Mark,

You are a clever bloke, i would like to see your other less trivial articles.

Not a fan of this one, could not even read it through.

Forget the Old boilers on the soapbox, she needs a position in the matter so she can gain support or controversy, sell a few books, and feel worthwhile. She is a modern, fiscally wise woman who knows how to cash in on a market. Good on her for making a dollar, but not at our expense

Best thing to do is ignore them. Dozens of losers like Dowd come to the health resort where I work. No one wants them and men are solely to blame according to them. Some even hung out with that nutcase Greer

Sad, very sad

MEN are 'males' and WOMEN are 'females'

Just how it was mean't to be ! meant and designed to complement each other in beautiful harmony, and in the lofty act of pro-creation.

In isolation, we are frail, well.. there are some diehards who will 'be strong in their loneliness' just for the sake of proving they can be, but such are better left alone to wallow in their misery.

This does not apply to those who for whatever reason wish to have a mate but do not find one.

Feminism came..and is almost gone, whacky doo/ho hum. Males and females will endure forever.

When man and woman take their places in the Authority pattern laid down in Scripture, and work together for the gloy of God, the basic harmony which occurs with the natural human union now transcends that and becomes a little bit of heaven on earth. (at least until the next fight :)

Scout,Laurie and company, you can pick up your eyeballs now which fell on the floor after my last paragraph :) and take a quick vallium because you KNOW this is 'me' :)

I can hear the grumblings.."Christian Sharia" :)

The conundrum of woman is as confounding to men as it is to women themselves. They’re no scarier to men than they appear in any mirror, or … to each other.

Men slipping in and out of misogyny (used to be love) should be a perfectly understandable position when reading Maureen Dowd and having a good look around. The really scary bit, is that men themselves have revoked their own rights to walk away in cases of clear and present danger. They have either enacted or supported laws similar in effect to their own chemical castration and deserve no less than what’s coming.

Seeker
Are you blaming men for Feminism? They have been away working since the Industrial Revolution; on average, 30 miles from the home for more than a century. Women have been at home, with the family & in touch with each other. They have always been better off & consequently, the connectedness & culture of women is stronger. It enables networking, further improvement of their position; ie. Feminism. Women had so much free time in fact, they managed to kid themselves that they were missing out by not being at work.
Men of course, have been too distracted & enjoy pretty well the same rights they had back in 1901. They have almost no dedicated services whereas women have so many you would be forgiven for thinking they must all be disabled. Hence, Feminism is just a religion & ppl like MS Dowd are fanatics. Feminism is based in mythology & is blind to any view but its own. It has no end-point or sense of equality. Eventually, it will devour itself & we will no longer have to watch Ally McBeal.

Nostra
"men" are to a degree responsible for feminism.

The problem is.. 'which' men and in what circumstances ?

In the case of one of the founding 'mothers' of feminism, Mary Wolstencraft, she had a tyranical, domineering and abusive father, so her writings are a reflection of that...

This is a lot like the whacky 'gun control' and 'accident victim' syndrome.

Some relative or child or parent gets killed in a Port Arthur situation, and so, to make their life 'mean' something people go off on a tangent and say "Lets get all weapons removed from the community"
rather than looking at the disturbed mental condition of the perpetrator who otherwise might have used some other equally effective method to slaughter people.

Then, we have the accident victim "I now want the maximum speed limit to be 50km/hour on the highways... so many lives will be saved" Kind of thing.

Before you know it, there is a 'movement'. Otherwise meandering directionless lives suddenly have a 'cause' and because this cause implies they will have power over others if successful, they feel true meaning and power, an existential 'rush' if you will.

So sad that the basic male female thing has been turned into a social monster by certain aggrieved people.

BD, I agreed with pretty much everything said in that last post although not with your earlier posts.

What you talk about seems to apply to many issues in society - someone's kid is abused and they seek to deal with it by fighting certain forms of child abuse and seeking to raise the profile of those types of abuse regardless of how much they have to misrepresent the actual problem to do so. I suspect that some of your buddies in the Muslim bashing brigade have had issues with a small number of mulims and seek to push the issue much wider than is justified by reality. The story of "The boy who cried wolf" is one we all need to remember and which should be part of that values training in schools.

R0bert

Indeed, Boaz, Feminism is not 'almost gone'. Surely you would not deny my right to vote? Or that of your wife or daughter or mother? Surely you would not deny my right to purchase property without a father or husbands "permission"? Or to attended university? Or to gain professional employment? Or to be considered a full human, rather than the 'chattel' of a man, with similar legal status as horses or dogs? For that is what you are speaking of when you celebrate the emminent decline of feminism. Think about what the women's movement actually achieved, and genuinely consider if going backwards in such a way would be what you would want, for yourself and for the women in your life.

The trouble with you, Boaz_David, is summed up in your use of the phrase 'meandering & directionless lives' to describe people who get involved in causes and movements, who you presumably assume to be not people of faith. Your own cause that you never pass up an opportunity to push on this site is christianity, which has both its adherents and critics. You appear to think that most non-christians have meaningless lives. Christians do not have any monopoly on truth or rewarding faiths or meaningful existences. I would take you more seriously if you would clearly acknowledge that, without yet more proselytising.

I agree with other commentators - this article was not well written.

But reading between the lines I read a popular contemporary theme, expressed by a number of men - i.e. the modern feminist movement has become offensive and degrading to men.

As a bloke, I can identify with some of those sentiments. I think it was strategically wrong for the feminist movement to try to lift the self-esteem of women by belittling men - we see this trend even in some TV ads.

The reality is that the baser side of both female and male behaviour patters stems mostly from low self esteem. Women play low self esteem out one way. Men generally do it another way. If you can build the self esteem of both sides, then the result can be marvelous.

Elevating one gender by deflating the other is therefore not particularly productive to building the maturity of society in general.

That said, those blokes who take great offense against the entire feminist movement for this glitch need to remind themselves of the big picture. Which gender dominates politics, the media, business and executive power structures? Which gender bears the brunt of domestic violence? Isn't it virtually always the boys - like Bush, Saddam, Howard, Hitler and Blair who take nations to war and cause the deaths of millions?

These are big picture issues that you can's just sweep under the carpet whilst whinging about some upsetting feminist comments.

Also true, men can't (shouldn't) be blamed for their aggressive instincts. This is programed into our genes.

Both men and women need to 'own' their own problems and foibles and deal with them without getting behind barricades. To both sides, I say, try stepping out of your own gender and sit in the middle for a while and really imagine what it is like to be on the other side.

Then try to help both sides grow.

Gecko,

"Then try to help both sides grow."

That's a brilliant post.

The problem is that book fiends like Dowdy Dowd stand to make a fortune by fomenting what is nothing less than apprehended violence between men and women. When women take up the challenge, the following will occur:

Dowd writes more books and gets richer.
A few men get hurt but a lot of women get blood noses as men defend themselves with appropriate minimum force.
Lawyers get richer with all the law suits.
Police hunker down in their stations as they don't know what to do about all the violence
Governments count the profits as communities fall apart and hand more and more control to government agencies, who raise taxes to pay for increased services.

Its a Greenspanian economic dream. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and governments become legal dictatorships.
What? They already are?

One of the very important attributes of the Femo Nazis, and that is: They had very poor relationships with Fathers in childhood, more so in the deprived of Father hood.
Interesting, Check out Greers History, and Dowd’s. Funny what you find out.
Psychopathology does explain things, just as long as Leftoid NAZIS’s are starved of the chance of Manipulating factual findings. And Pop goes the weezel.

To Laurie and PK
thanx for the feedback, even though it was more in the form of a bite on the bum :)
I don't really see the issues you raised Laurie as being part of feminism, but of natural justice. Lets look at them....

PK.. yours first. Yes, you have a point there, people outside of Christ do have goals, and find their own meaning in various ways.
Perhaps I could have put that better. I was trying to link the fact that these sudden 'causes' are often based on selfishness and giving meaning to the death of a loved one, and often in ways which use the death/tragedy as a way of almost 'punishing' the wider community in the guise of 'doing something for the public good', when all they want is to have an on-going memorial to their lost loved one.

LAURIE
-Voting. I don't begrudge women this. But the right to vote does not a utopian society make. I'm sure there are various patterns of voting, such as limiting it to stakeholders, to men, to original inhabitants.. all are valid cultural responses to the issue of social organization.

-Purchase Property without permission of Husband etc. yes, a very biblical idea :) Patriarchy has more to do with inheritance of existing property from the male line,and keeping it in the patrilineal line, than taking property of the wife.

-Professional Employment. Deborah in the book of Samuel was a Judge of Israel.

-Fully Human not a chatel. If we had stayed close to God as a society, regarding women as chatels would not have arisen. If the feminist movement overcame this, all well and good.

The problem as I see it is this. A womens movement might well address the injustices of a male dominated society, but if it alienates the men in the process, and leaves a society scarred by 'them/us' in our most fundamentally important relationship, has it achieved anything worthwhile ? I suggest a better approach is nationwide returning to God, and that way the source of the problem is fixed (stubborn, selfish male hearts)

David,

after your last post I am not sure exactly what it is about feminism that you disagree with. You say all the rights Laurie talks of are "natural law" rights, of course, but women were deprived of them all before feminism and this was in Christian societies... in fact, natural law rights were for a long time considered to refer only to propertied men.

I don't like any movement which is rabidly "anti" anything, and certainly some forms of feminism may have done that, so maybe that's what you have in mind. But sometimes it seems that women get accused of being anti-men only because they challenge male priviledge and men react with venom!

Consider some of the posts which claim that prominent feminists must all have been motivated by personal stories of oppression and abuse. This may very well be true, but does it make their claims any less relevant? Their claims should be evaluated on their merits, not on the basis of personal circumstances.

And what about the nasty, hurtful comments on the author's looks? How ironic, feminists often complain that women get judged by their looks not their opinions, these commentators seem to prove the point! No reasoned argument, just spite. So who's being needelssly aggressive here? what are you afraid of?

Talk is cheap.

Especially in the world of ideologically motivated politics.

Feminism is no different to any other essentially divisive political framework.

l think men (and quite a few women) are just plain tired of the fanciful rhetoric and specious claims, often on the back of very self serving herstorical revisionism. Those words tend to stand in stark contrast to the actions of women in general and feminists in particular.

l see this as no different to the union movement which was, initially at least, highly laudable and affected substantive and sustainable change for the better. In the end, unionism was hijacked and subverted by the politically ambitious. Their ambition (and acrimony for the capitalist pigs) ran so deep that they perverted the cause and brought about its virtual demise. Which is a shame because things are slipping backwards on that front. Same deal with feminism. There is a fair amount of bias and double dealing to the point that people are walking away. Heck, many are not even putting themselves anywhere near a position where they have to walk away. And things seem to be going backwards for women... raunch culture, 12 yr old girls dressing like 40 yr old street walkers, mass exodus from workforce during child bearing years.

It seems that the main thing that feminist women have adopted is the worst aspects of opportunism, which is innate in ALL HUMANS. It takes a fair measure of maturity and restraint to do these things effectively and fairly.

A statement was made in a post about past misdeeds of male forebears as somehow being a reasonable rationale for the fact that the shoe is (or should be) on the other foot. That sounds a bit silly really. Basically saying that our future sons must give alms, pay restitution and be punished for the deeds of our great grand fathers. This is essentially an intergenerational VENDETTA type of attitude. (cont)

(cont).

That sort of thinking undermines one's credibility and its the first step down the slippery slope of disrespect. Apart from sounding illogical to the point of being absurd, this sort of thinking does no good in moving foward in a postive vein. It looks back and wallows in the past and this is very dangerous. (cont)

One clear area in which much injustice is faced is by men (especially fathers) in divorce. Offering intergenerational vedetta as justification for this is pointless. Its a dismissal of men and conveys utter disregard for our experience. Where's the compassion, the kinder, gentler, nurturing side in that? This is a major wedge between men and women. Until we really start to learn to respect each other again, build bridges and reconcile, the lament by women about the absence of good men will only get worse, much worse. Out of self preservation we have gone into hiding, right under everyone's noses.

Unfortunately, its prolly too late for the generation that came up thru the 70s to 90s. l think that those born in this millenium will just change their focus as a result of surveying the sorry, charred, lonely and often very biiter and cynical singles and divorcees that will surround them. They will take one look at that and say 'not me.'

In the meantime the politicians will keep distorting and misrepresenting, hopefully doing so to the point of their own irrelevance.

Enuff talk... what, if anything, are we going to do about?

Of course feminism’s a sham and an indulgence!

The female may say that about a certain "Member" of yours as a every twenty minute indulgence.

Suebdootwo,

And how does your member get its indulgence without this sham?

Men are scumbags
If a woman leaves her husband, it's because he is a scumbag and that is why she cannot tolerate or love him any more.

If a man leaves his wife he is a scumbag for deserting her.

If a man commits domestic violence against his wife, yes he's a scumbag.

But if a woman commits domestic violence against a man it is because he deserves it.

If a man drinks too much - he's an undisciplined scumbag.

If a woman drinks too much it is because her husband is a scumbag who makes her feel so bad that she resorts to drink (I have been told this by a Relationships Australia counsellor).

If a man wants more sex in a marriage then he is a selfish scumbag who only wants to satisfy his own desires.

If a woman wants more sex in marriage it is because the scumbag she is married to doesn't give her enough.

If a separated man and woman are fighting over assets then he is a scumbag for simply not giving her everything that she needs.

If he is fighjting for more than would appear to be initially due to him (ie, zero) then he is ascumbag for being so nasty.

If a couple are fighting over child support payments it is because he is a selfish scumbag who is not prepared to meet her expectations for her (yes HER - not his) children.

If he wants more access to the children he's being a selfish scumbag for inconveniencing the woman and her new partner.

If a woman commits suicide she's a desperate soul who could not find help and the males in her life acted liked scumbags making her life so unbearable.

If a man commits suicide he's a cowardly scumbag who is not prepared to face the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

So, maybe we should ban men from marrying or being in relationships with women. All men are scumbags, and do not deserve the blessings of having women in their lives.

Yes, only women should be permitted to marry...

You are the seeker! One clue is the twenty minute time frame?

Hamlets on the money no doubt agout that.Anyway talks cheap its when its taken to the family court that it becomes exspensive and thats usually at a cost to the ones it claims to be helping (the children)and all because two adults failed in thier fairytale to live happily everafter.And by the way pk in case you didnt know all moral teaching comes from religion the only difference is you werent instilled like the guy your having a go at or your parents or thiers were hung up about the church or religion they attended like most non believers but dont you worry mate you and us all will be put on the scales and if you dont weigh up m8 you wont be getting in anyway the blokes actually helping you but you cant see it(*funny that).And as far as feminism goes they can all go and play in the park together if they like they dont bother me untill they knock on the family court door to take everything from that bastard especially the most important the love of the children so if we want to blame anything for feminism and the anger and the decay between men and women blame the family court

terry and son, not sure if I've understood your post correctly but a couple of key points seemed to be
- all morals come from religion.
- feminists and the family court, I think you are blaming feminism for that horrid system but am not completely certain.

I much refer the term ethics because it is in my view more about how we treat others. There are some very "moral" people around who treat others like utter crap and some quite "immoral" people who live lives we can all learn from. Ethics does not have to come from religion, they come out of the body of human experience which includes religion and much more.

An abuse of feminism has contributed to the damage done by the family law system but you might also want to consider the part played by paternalistic types (both male and female) who want traditional roles for men and women. The ones who think men should be the providers and women the primary caregivers, ones who believe women are not as responsable as men and so should not face the same consequences, those who think women are inherently better parents than men. That kind of thinking fits in really well with the kind of issues that make family law a massive farce.

I've noticed that a large proportion of the men posting on this site who appear to have been done over in family law are christian (or post things that suggest they are). Not sure if that is coincidence or representative of the misuse of the family law system by those who hold to parts of christian teaching about roles in the family etc.

The feminists might not be your worst enemy in this, it might be those who think that a womans place is in the home (and that really she is not much good elsewhere anyway).

R0bert

Hamlet- you are correct in everything you say. What I find truly frightening is that each statement is literally true and not the tongue -in- cheek exaggeration some would have us believe.

I would not blame all brands of feminism for the confusion that men feel, after all, nearly all of the confusion in understanding predates feminism by about 500,000 years.

Even Christians are confused, because the Bible dictates a different standard of fealty for men and women: “So I say again, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5:33). “

Women are held to a lower standard than men, for love requires a willingness to sacrifice.

Getting back to feminism:

There are many brands of feminism. Feminism isn’t just about equal pay, or equal opportunity, even though they are worthy goals that must be strived for.

Feminism provides much of the doctrinal basis that is used for abortion, and I am not just talking about the idea of a woman controlling her own body. Dvorkin and other ‘extreme’ feminists consider that all penetrative sex is rape, it being an invasion of women’s bodily integrity, whether by consent or not. As these feminists consider that nothing good can come of man, it must be considered that ova, which come from women are ‘good’, however a fertilized ovum has a component from man.

This supports the idea that a foetus is a part male parasite feeding off a woman’s body.

Feminism, doctrinally, supports the idea that women and men can live separately, some feminists even excluding male plumbers and electricians from carrying out repairs in their homes. If this didn’t mirror Opus Dei so much it would be almost funny.

Hard core feminism sees no place in the world for the male of the species, except perhaps in his homosexual form.

The biggest joke is that domestic violence lesbian relationships so beloved of hard core feminists rivals that that male-female domestic violence: but you will hear very few feminists advertising that fact.

The goals of feminism are incredibly valuable and should be supported. The underlying doctrine however basically implies that the concept of the family should be destroyed. What is needed is a new doctrine, not new goals.

Robert Robert Robert the point is mate that feminism cant hurt untill someone effected by it and all its hate and anger knocks on the family court door then theres a whole community of feminatzi supporting the new fresh feminist with the new found strength and its then that feminism hurts and its then that feminism gets its guernsey can you follow that.Imagine what you like about christians m8 im a catholic and christians follows me and are usually first timers a bit like apprentice catholics if you like.As far as morals go m8 and i can tell where your coming from but i am talking about correct not incorrect morals, ethics are in the heart and how you feel and act as you say but cant come without moral teaching and all of that comes from religion how you act from there is up to you believe me m8 their are hypocrites in every club but it doesnt mean you have to put your hand down. Anyway the family court is not just a breeding ground it is the head office for the feminatzi squad dont worry about that m8 not only that it is soley responsible for the insecurity in mariage in our society today,Just ask yourself and anyone reading this if there isnt anyone in their family or a close friend that hasnt been hurt by it and i would be very surprised if their wasnt.And then ask yourself if you think anyone can feel secure about a family and a marriage that could be taken away with a knock on the family court door and if that can give anyone confidence or a feeling of security .No i dont think so and robert the people your talking about who think that a mans role and a womens role are this or that are the feminatzi dont you get it m8 even the bloke, but he dont get it, do you.

Another stereotype that goes under the broad heading of 'feminism'. How shallow. Funnily enough I see less of a defensive reaction to the concept of Nazism than I do from Feminism. Personally I think emancipation is a good thing.

Since you guys are so fond of statistics I suggest you have a look at the domestic violence figures on the ABS. Just out of interest.

tulbey, much of the problem with DV stats is that most of the time the collection methods are biased and produces corrupt results.

Techniques such as collecting them in female DV shelters, defining DV as violence by a man against a women (so when a woman hits a man it is not DV etc).

Well respected research conducted across the western world for many years has shown that the incidence and severity of physical DV is not particulary gender specific.

Some links which are worth a look at

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/./facts.htm Check the "who commits child abuse" figures.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html - National Child abuse summary

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm - a study into DV in Australia which attempted to eliminate collection errors.

http://www.safe4all.org/essays/2page.html - a short article which I can't confirm the credibility of but which does tie what I've seen elsewhere together and with some good references.

Patricia Pearson's book "WHen she was bad" is a gem and has the advantage of being a feminist perspective on the issue. A good coverage of why so many lies are being told about DV and how the lies are hurting feminism.

R0bert

Quote:

Another stereotype that goes under the broad heading of 'feminism'. How shallow. Funnily enough I see less of a defensive reaction to the concept of Nazism than I do from Feminism. Personally I think emancipation is a good thing.

Posted by tubley, Monday, 6 March 2006 2:12:36 AM

Unquote

I like it when people play the Nazi card, accusing others of either being like a Nazi, or being a Nazi sympathiser, or at least not being against Nazism as much as they are against other 'isms'.

It shows that the person who plays that card simply wants to throw mud in the hope that some sticks, regardless of the veracity of any comment made.

The quick answer to Maureen Dowd's book "Are men necessary?" is to note that Australian dads work 5hrs a day longer than Australian mothers (ABS)... Men are necessary, to give mothers the luxury of not working.

But they do 'house'-work I hear you complain... Think about it... 5hrs a day - that's a hell-of-a-lot of 'house'work.

I've never done 5hrs of 'house'work in a day... and I am a single dad with a young toddler. I work a 4 day week.

From my personal experience 'house'-work is not equal to 'work'-work, 'house'work is a luxury, plesantly mind-numbing!

So Maureen...
Who allows women to sit at-home for a few years playing with the kids or a work-life balance of comfortable parttime work?

Who goes from being a comfortable DINK to being the the sole breadwinner supporting two dependants and a large mortgage? Who is forced to INCREASE their hours of work when they become a parent?

That's what the typical Australian dad does for his family. This noble and hard-working dedication is why men are necessary, until women actually do their half of the 'work'-work.

Interestingly, the utopia of the Nordic countries... where women form nearly 50% of parliament and around 40% of corporate board postions... This feminist utopia is not due to feminism, but the opposite... Women earn their status... These wonderful results are because women work full-time all their lives, just like men. In Australia, the proportion of women working FULL-TIME has not changed in 40 years... To climb to the top, you have to work full-time for many years.

Before you say "but that is not my experience" then "you" are not typical. I have done the stats, and what I have written is what the overwhelming bulk of Australians experience. If what I write isn't your life, then (like me) you're an exception.

To Maureen the successfull feminist men are un-neccessary. She has missed the alarm on her biological clock (what a surprise!). But equally, she is totally usless to men also.

But for real Australian families, dads make all the sacrifices to make it work.

PartTimeParent@yahoo.com.au

I support and applaud Maureen Dowd for her honesty and for her intelligence in being able to disturb so many males.
Males are ignorant about nurture, nature and survival. They all had a mother who fed, nurtured and loved them.
Male dominance of females [including mothers and sisters] is ugly and unattractive and it is no wonder that educated or savvy females have been resisting this dominance in the past and in the present.
Sociopaths are male and are very dangerous individuals, they are basically inadequate people who are driven by aggression and ambition and ride over anyone to achieve their aims. They are more bad than mad.
You find them in politics, business, gaols and in the home, many of them are in powerful positions and have lots of influence. Females would be very aware of these males, not so males, as they are very unaware, and are very likely wanting to emulate them.
Feminism is harmless and understandable. Females, due to their nuturing nature do not want the planet raped or the killing of innocent people in offshore countries and cannot ignore the plight of the poor.
Females are more beautiful than males and have more common sense intelligence. Males cause their own ugliness when they think ugly.

So, Sara10

You would support the idea that instead of counselling to prevent male suicide; male suicide should be encouraged?

After all, if men are so bad then there should be fewer of them...

Maybe cut all funding to prostate cancer programs, encourage genetic testing of all foetuses, and the ones due to be born male should be aborted? After all, its a woman's choice what she wants to bring into the world, isn't it?

Maybe cut medicare to males completely? From the sounds of it you think that males are a waste of space.

Hamlet, you are definitely one of those ignorant males and you are hysterical to boot.

Sarah10, what is your issue? You seem very angry at men in general. Your earlier post was very sexist (plenty of that around these parts though).

There are men who do the wrong thing and men who are ugly because of what wells up from inside them but there are also plenty of good men around. In the same way there are good and bad women.

If your issue is a man who has done you wrong that does not make all men bad just as the behaviour of my ex does not make all women bad (or the behaviour of Hamlets current does not make all women bad).

How about backing off on the broadbrush attacks on men and take part in the discussion - please.

R0bert

Robert, thanks for your comments.

Sarah10 seems to have a problem with men, yes: she forgets people like Kathleen Folbigg, who killed four of her own children (I guess that she must have been a man somehow trapped in a woman's body...)

Apart from that, I don't see much point in having an extended discussion with Sarah10, who considers me to be ugly - well, I may be ugly - I probably am ugly - well, lets face it: I am UGLY... BUTT FUGLY! but that is something I have to accept when I look in the mirror when I shave every morning.

At least I can accept that both sides of the 'argument'have some good points.

And Sarah10 may just have to accept that this BUTT FUGLY bloke may be the only person with enough decency to stand for her if she ever gets pregnant and is standing in the bus when all of her emo-boy ideals stay seated listening to their i(idiot)-pods and ignoring the world around them.

Hey R0bert & Hamlet

I think Sarah10 is just the female equivalent of Seeker or Maximus. Just as Sarah hasn't anything positive to say about men, neither of these two have anything positive to say about women. I'm not condoning what she says by any means, but as a spectator I am rather amused.

We all know that neither sex holds the monopoly on poor behaviour - if anything she has demonstrated just how pointless the article really is.

To Sarah10 - scaring and confounding men is just too easy - like shooting fish in a barrell. Try to be a little more reflective in future.

Cheers

Robert and Hamlet.
You both can have an agreeable talk together. Nobody else will talk with you. I wonder ?

Scout, you may be correct in that assessment. I've tended to see Seeker as being more focussed on Family Law issues rather than a full scale attack on women but did not manage to spot anything positive about women in a quick scan of his posts.

Still left with the feeling that his posts are more targetted to specific issues than Sarah10's but that may reflect my own biases.

I'd like to know what all the anger is about, that can make it easier to communicate.

Thanks for your post.

Cheers
R0bert

Here we go again! Using the EXTREMES of what is collectively known as 'feminism' to argue your case. Your only defense comes in the form of attack and so I can only assume you feel threatened.

Since you like talking in extremes, let me give you an extreme example of my own:

In reaction to your 'all sex is rape' contribution to this forum I shall reply with the 'masculine' version: 'All rape is legitimate', 'sexual harassment is a myth', and 'it is the man's God given right to take sex when he pleases'. Believe me I have known a couple. Their wives wear no shoes and clean up the filth after domineering, egoistic men. But then, I am looking at extreme examples, right?

It's a shame that most of you guys feel this way about women, since we all subscribe to feminism to some degree.

tubley

Did you miss these line?

"The goals of feminism are incredibly valuable and should be supported. The underlying doctrine however basically implies that the concept of the family should be destroyed. What is needed is a new doctrine, not new goals."

I hope to see in my lifetime at least one female Prime Minister, at least half of the Judges in this country to be women. I would like to see a woman as head of the armed forces and many more women in positions of power and influence in business.

In my work place the entire management team is female. I do not find that threatening, because they have achieved those positions by their talents and abilities. I do not believe in ‘affirmative action’, but I do believe in equal opportunity, so that a whether a person gets a job or gets a promotion, has nothing to do with gender (or culture, or age, or disability or any other factor apart from talent and the ability to do the job).

As I have said, the goals of feminism are incredibly valuable and important:

However I would not like to see the basic nature of our society change without the possible outcomes being examined.

Does the current concept of family deserve to survive? From the way that families are dysfunctional now I really doubt it. The future of families and the ideals of feminism are inextricably linked. As is the role of makes in society.

If the ultimate goals of feminism go to their conclusion there will be no place in the world for males. 'Are Males Necessary?' In one version of the feminist world, probably not, to other women who ascribe to some versions of feminism it would probably be nice for men to be around.

Speaking for myself, I see that a society without males would be a utopia - less crime, no rape, less violence. I would probably predict that in ten generations the human male will be extinct, and it will be a good thing.

I have a lot of time for Hamlet and R0bert but in this case feel they have slightly overreacted to what Sahah10 had to say. Unlike Hamlet’s “Men are scumbags” dissertation which rang so true, Sarah10’s anachronous commentary about the beautiful nurturing nature of modern woman made me wonder whether she had in fact overmedicated or simply overmeditated during those halcyon 60’s and 70’s. Just where did all that flower power and free love dissipate Sarah10?

As for Scout placing me in the same league as Maximus, while flattering, is hardly deserved.

And did I mention that I had issues with Family Law? For one, it works totally against all notions of equality. A concept I readily embraced, but one now considered seriously flawed and totally devoid of credible evidence. I have children of both genders with good reason to worry equally about their futures.

Hamlet, I’m still trying to decipher that last paragraph of that last post of yours.

Seeker, there is nothing to decipher there, it says what it says.

Increasingly there will be no place for the human male in society, as we know it. “Families” use to be the building blocks of societies, now it is increasingly just individuals. People, of all genders, are putting what they see as their own interests above the interests of the people in their ‘family’. A classic example being the way that both men and women treat children.

Children are seen vicariously as a way of the parents’ success, either in sport, academia or other areas.

But more damagingly is that there is so much evidence that parents simply do not love their children. I have heard a Supreme Court Justice – an eminent man – tell class of schoolboys that if they do law to avoid family law, because of the way that children are used by parents against each other.

This is also clear, both from observing men who in a number of cases won’t pay decent child support, and from women who in their bitterness don’t see that their children are not just THEIR children, but that they need the input of both parents.

The ‘institution’ of the family has largely failed in the light of individualism. This changes the role of men from being husbands and fathers to that of being sperm donors and financial providers.

Love is not seen as an option, in that love involves sacrifice: putting someone else’s interests before your own. This is now out of fashion due to the drive for self-actualisation. Self-actualisation, by all genders, is the enemy of the family, so the family cannot survive. Love cannot survive: some people think that love is a feeling, instead, love is a duty.

And if the family does not survive the only biological imperative for the human species, that is reproduction, will not require actual males’, only sperm, which technology will also increasing mean that force fusion cloning – using the genetic material from two women, will take the place of any requirement for the male at all.

Seeker, i note your musings about the 70s, females are no different today, they were maternal long before the 70s. Males were more peaceful in the 70s[maybe doped], today still dopes but more of a threat to humanity, they are so ignorant that they do not consider or think about their own children and grandchildren's future.
Females are necessary for the future health of the planet and species, males have proven their unworthiness, due to their evil deeds. Males are a blot on the landscape.

Sarah10

I am still trying to figure out if you are serious or not - are you really just having a bit of a 'lend' of our sensitive brothers on this site?

Its really not necessary - some of them can get fully enraged without any catalyst at all.

R0bert - I understand your point about issues based, however even then Seeker has not EVER said anything positive about women - even in his post above he had the opportunity to remedy this and chose not to. Whereas, your good self, despite your trials and tribulations (and believe me law doesn't work so well for honest women either) you manage to imply respect and liking for women, whether or not your agree.

And by so doing, R0bert, you make Sarah10's "males have proven their unworthiness, due to their evil deeds" look as absurd as it really is.

Sarah10, my dear, if you are not engaged in a gigantic leg pull then you are no better than the male posters who have nothing good to say about women.

Once again, Scout attempts balance.

;-)

Cheer up Hamlet, it will never happen quite that way. Who is going to do the physical work, pay the taxes, and provide the required child support? Can you imagine a female only economy?

The best we can do is to recognise that risks for men are rapidly multiplying within increasingly outdated social constructs supported by antiquated laws. The state now steps in with delusional fervour to manage families as if they were some sort of infrastructure projects (hell, they don’t even do those well anymore), to the point that families are no longer viable options for men. Well, as viable perhaps as the Sydney cross city tunnel in its current state.

So until we fix this mess Hamlet, keep your chin up, stay single, work hard, and pay your taxes. This way, you will remain relevant and in demand (as long as you don’t expect the likes of Sarah10 to ever say so).

Scoutmaster, we appreciate your attempt at balance. Perhaps that is what most of us seek to achieve here at OLO but each from within their own set of experiences, resultant POV’s and valuesets, targets and scope, skills and style

Hey Seeker, who said that I was single. Sure - I am not a father, but I am not single - 18 years - which corresponds to the time to be served for most murders...

Even though I am butt fugly - there is nearly always someone who is desperate enought to accept as a significant other someone who is in worse shape than themselves: for me - well, she is an alcoholic with a borderline personality disorder, bad back and a family that would be considered to be the cousins of the Addams family, if they were just a little nicer.

I was walking to the bus stop one day last week: there were some police checking out what appeared to be an abandoned, possibly stolen car: one of them looks up, spots me and says "Good morning (my first name), how are you?"

Well, yes, the local constabulary know me well because of the madness of my wife - they also ask me whenever they come over in response to one of her rather strange calls: "Why do you stay":

Well, I guess I am either a hopeless devotee to marital duty, or a helpless dsyfunctional basket case. Whatever - the police know that I would never harm her.

As for keeping my chin up - I will long be a meal for certain politic worms before men become obsolete. Yes it will happen: men will become obsolete: there is no job in the world that requires a penis to perform.

Anyway - leave those future women to their happiness, or misery: after all, what would future soap operas be without male characters? And have you ever noticed that no men's magazines never have horoscopes - whilst every women's magazine does? maybe this shows something about women's gulibility when it comes to such things as astrology:

a 'women's world' will be a strange one to live in.

Dear Scout, balance is a nonsense, truth and reality i realise, is very difficult for many Australians as they are fed propaganda via tv, radio and newspapers. Balance and being correct, enables the propaganda feeders their success, eg we have an ignorant and less than decent male, ruling our country, who has a very updated propaganda machine superior to that used by the evil males during WW2. He is inhumane and he does not treat females as equal. When male dominance of females ceases, then i will gladly accept males as decent and equal.

Scout, thanks for your input - it's appreciated again.

seeker, have I been wrong in assuming that the (apparent) lack of positive things to say about women is a focus on other issues? For the sake of leaving Sarah10 to her hatred if you don't have a corresponding dislike/hatred for all women can you please take the opportunity to clear this up. Is your issues with all women or just with the ones who abuse systems put there to help the needy and who continue to try and make themselves feel better by putting down men and our contributions?

It's already been spelt out before but my concerns with family law are about it's bias towards the most willing to play the system. A woman who does the right thing has little more protection against a manipulative ex than does a man (possibly some but I have not been there as a woman). Likewise in other matters I have issues with those who seek to maintain the "old priviliges" combined with the bits of feminism which suit. The guy who expects to be lord and master at home while expecting "wifey" to earn a paid income, the woman who chooses to not work and be kept in comfort but who wants all the say in decisions.

Full support for men and women who take responsibility for themselves, little for those who play the system to use others.

R0bert

Well said R0bert! Hear! Hear!

I doffs me hat. Don't have a hat - but that won't stop me from a spot of impromptu doffing LOL.

May there be a special place in that no-existent hell I don't believe in for all the world's manipulators - they deserve each other.

Sarah10 and Hamlet - I sincerely hope life improves for both of you. I know it really doesn't help to say that it is mostly the good people who get burned but that seems to be the way of things. For myself I have managed to retain my integrity and dignity and sometimes thats about all we can hope for.

No R0bert you were not wrong on any aspect you listed. As it turns out I was wrong in thinking you were overreacting.

While the balance achieved with each of your posts is admirable, it is not something I particularly aspire to. This is no way meant as detraction from your good work here, but as you may have noticed I don’t seriously attempt debate – rather, I tend to focus on worst case scenarios when making my generally stand-alone comments, then rarely return to defend them. They are never an attempt to show my overall personal balance. No apologies there.

As for hate, I hate one woman only, but more so, the system that supports her. This system involuntarily includes myself, which BTW is sustained over many years and is my greatest source of frustration. While I know she is not alone, her cohort does not a majority make. My comments relate to her group and to systems that support such rampant abuses. I don’t defend similarly abusive men, but then again, don’t see any systems in place to actively support such undesirable behaviour from men, so see no need to argue there. Neither do I see the need to say something specifically positive about the majority of good women (and men) out there – although inadvertently I probably do.

Scared and confounded? Possibly. Not so much by women, but by blatantly discriminative laws that make mockery of any notions of gender equality people may still cling to.

Scout, thank you for your wishes, but actually I view my life quite favourably. I cannot remember ever being hungry, I have always had a roof over my head, never been seriously unemployed and never wanted for medical treatment when it has been required.

I have some wonderful friends, most of whom are women. I work with a great bunch of people, women, men etc of all sorts of inclinations.

Most of my home life is good, it is only poor maybe 20% of the time and really difficult about 3% of the time, but I chose to stay.

I recognise that many of my wife's problems are due to the sexual, physical and emotional abuse inflicted on her by her father, with the cooperation and unspoken agreement of her mother, so that I can see the abuse that both genders are capable of inflicting on their children. In one way Sarah10 is correct, but she has forgotten the power of women in most relationships.

Sarah10 talks about things being worse now, I would disagree: most men do not now take sex in marriage as a right: it wasn't that long ago that legally rape was impossible in marriage. It was also not that long ago that bad marriages were much more difficult to get out of than they are now. Domestic violence is now seen as a crime, for a long while the authorities did not take it seriously.

To me it seems that all people tend to see only what they think that they have lost, and not what has actually been gained, and what further gains are just around the corner.

Seeker, quite an open and reflective post. Attempts at balance for me are a mix of my own values and a pragmatic belief that I'm more likely to achieve results by showing balance. More likely to get dialog with those who are willing to see "the other side" who don't currently share my views. It's my perception that many people who have not been through the system have to some extent bought into the idea that men are just getting what they deserve (corrupt DV stats, outright lies about child abuse, horror stories shared amongst women about the cases where men do the wrong thing etc). I'm hoping to show the other side of that situation. Fida mae made a really good comment recently about being pushed to a more radical position by debate than she might have come to herself http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4211#34371 - something we all need to be aware of and which I suspect would be less of an issue with more attempts at balance. Thanks for the response.

Hamlet, great post and stuff that is worthwhile for us all to keep in mind.

Scout, thanks for the applause. Have a great weekend.

Cheers
R0bert