OK, I'll be the first to bite.

I guess Jim has a point but until I see women packing down in the front row when the Wallabies take on the All Blacks I'll remain somewhat skeptical.

Sure there are any number of men behaving badly, but it seems a lot of women are busy playing catch up. Well, I guess any change in social behaviour starts at the bottom.

Certainly the question of gender roles is in question - refinition leaves a lot of no-mans land (Sorry ...) available for those looking for a new adventure sport. Well, all the other playing fields are taken over by those with new axes to grind who replaced all that masucline stuff with politically correct playground attachments complete with patrol officers, mixed genders naturally, roaming the perimeter. No one is allowed to climb a tree any longer - the insurance bill would bankrupt local councils.

Perhaps I should take up blowing up things - Now, there's a real man's sport.

Simply put... men don't really care about the portrayal.

Think about it... I remember seeing a television advertisement a little while back, when a male model was going through a metal detector at the airport. Two giggling female attendants made him remove items of clothing, piece by piece until he was in his undies.

Quite frankly, I don't know any man who cared. I asked a few guys what they thought, and most simply shrugged. But when I said that if it had been a woman being made to strip, everyone agreed there would have been hell to pay.

There is a very different attitude between the sexes in relation to gender discrimination. Ultimately, many women, when seeing an ad that degrades another woman, will protest. Guys on the other hand don't seem to have that unity. If the guy on TV is painted as a creep, the reaction from plenty of men will be 'so? he may be a creep.'

Personally, I happen to agree with the laid back stance. Okay, so guys are getting the raw end of the potato. But I'm afraid I just can't take media portrayals that seriously. Perhaps I should, but I can't. I tend to think both sexes should take entertainment as simply entertainment, and save their energy for the battles that really matter, like workplace discrimination and so forth.

There are deeper problems.

From Pre-Kindy all of the way through to Year 7 at primary school our children did not encounter a male teacher. That is a problems.

We have met a few young male teachers, the last having a wife and new baby and all have been resigned to the fact that their working life and possible career in the Queensland education system were generally poor and unrewarding - so all were planning to quit for a different career.

There seem to be endemic problems that would cause young men to veer away from teaching, or having completed the training, leave soon after placement.

Is this what we all want?

With you TurnRightThenLeft. Where is the link between how the mass media portray men and the reality of males today? Surely Mr Macnamara hasn't bought into the mass media being a reflection of society? The fact that 60 Minutes and A Current Affair ("International Current Affairs shows I think not...) portray men, in the majority of cases in a negative light should have no bearing on how males view themselves - the theme sells at the moment and these private media outlets would be stupid not to exploit it.

I'm also puzzled by how negative and positive are defined...it is a completely subjective test which makes this content analysis flawed from the start.

The fact that men are portrayed ‘negatively’ in mass media has about as much impact on me and, I imagine, the majority of rational males, as if Guy Sebastian maintained his no sex before marriage stance. We live by are own values and goals and to be influenced by the images and themes of men portrayed by advertisers, celebrities and mass media, is surely a sign of weakness.

How true this article is! I was at a public seminar at the ANU this week on the Aceh tsunami where the middle-aged female presenter explained how the women in Aceh do all the hard work while the men sit around in coffee shops all day. She then suggested it would be better the other way around. But added that if this were the case, the crops would fail....

Now admittedly Acehnese society is completely different from Western society on gender roles. But the statement says something about the denigration of men in our society. It was just accepted as fact and rubbed in the complete negativity of men's role in society and men in general. If the statement was made denigrating the role of women, it would never have been accepted in a public forum - even in Indonesia.

"I hate this nursery ryhme dad" my son said to me, when my daughter was reading "what are little boys made of.."

"Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade.

Out of hundreds of articles, book reviews and published ads, only "a fraction — about 25" — were about men, Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work.""

I hear groups of women constantly portraying men in a negative fashion, in fact it seems to be a favourite sport amongst them.

Peter Forde in Perils of the unconscious mind quotes an example;

"ABC Radio presenter Tricia Duffield was having an on-air conversation with colleague Steve Austin. They were discussing this year’s Brisbane Ekka.

Said Steve (more or less), “It was wonderful to see so many fathers at the show with their kids, having a great time as a family unit.”

Responded Tricia instantly, “Yeah, trying to be heroes.”

I mean instantly. Not a moment’s hesitation.

Trying to be heroes? Actually, many men spend much of their time trying to be ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ to women in general and their wives or partners in particular. This is no ‘wild theory’—a psychiatrist has written a book about it. "

JamesH

I second your view on Tricia Duffield (ABC radio).

I was astounded to hear her make a gratuitous comment just prior to Fathers Day that it was really was a bit of a non-event compared with the other big (!) day, Mothers Day. She went on to say that because it was a non-event there was always a problem of what small gift to get if any.

Tricia's comments were completely out of left field and delivered quick as a flash. Thankfully the other woman with whom she was speaking did not respond to Tricia's invitation to sink the slipper into fathers as an irrelevancy.

Interesting subject .
A man's role has changed along with our modern society and I suspect that men will be on the "outer" a bit while ever families remain small and women find it hard to get enough stimulation from their home life.
Single women are "cruising " these days ,well educated and independent .Their complaint however about men not being able to commit to a long term relationship must however have something to do with their own behavior, as once married, women then initiate some 60% of divorces ,hardly commitment!.
It is no wonder men are reluctant, as they can see the possibilities of divorce induced problems ahead in about half of Australia's marriages .
Man's role as protector of the family has been reduced as the police and other government agencies do their job.
I suspect that war can give men a boost unfortunately, as women and their children can then become vunerable and the society must become more cohesive.
Men are valued again for the role that nature has best fitted them for .

How many tv shows men, especially fathers as positive role models? Having wisdom, maturity etc?

How many portray them as comic relief, buffoons, stupid?

What message does this send to the audience?

And before anyone says it, it isn't just entertainment. It is quite clear that people learn a lot, pick up a lot from tv and the mass media.

Perhaps, once again my "lower race" thinking facilities does not allow grasp properly whom do disputants try cheating speaking of undermining the male role in society?

What one could expect from a society where unelected female reigns longer than many participants of this forum exist on the Earth?

Media stereotyping is very easy to side step.

Dont feed the beast.

Stay away from the dross they produce. Turn the TV off and dont read the press. Filter your own info-reality via internet.

l've never been a newspaper sort of guy. Except for the Saturday classifieds. TV packed it in at the start of this year and l never replaced it, just as an exercise in patience. Frankly, l dont miss it. In fact 20 mins of TV is enuff to frustrate me, finding myself argueing and being drawn into arguements with people around me over stuff which is not even part of my actual life.

There's so much glass half empty mentality in the media these days. Who needs it.

Many folks have been switching off to mainstream media since the internet and whilst l cannot quote a source, apparently men are leading the charge for the exits.

On the whole gender stereotyping thing... its dissappointing that many women have basically thrown in the towel in their pursuit of making things better. l think it was Mae West who said "when a women acts like a man, why can't she act like a good man?". So true.

Finally, the comment of a previous poster that men dont really care about the negative potrayal is accurate. Its part of the downside of being a man in a mans word (take it like a man, dont complain, dont explain, dont apologise type stuff)

cont...

...continued

Paradoxically, learning to deal with this stuff and growing a thick skin is actually beneficial... "what doesnt kill you makes you stronger."

Eventually you figure out that people's perceptions of you are all irrelevant... the only thing that matters is what you think of yourself. Most of "society's" expectations and wot not are a load of bunk. l look at the younger males around me and they seem to get a glimpse into that from a pretty young age, eventhough it often takes them a lot longer to really appreciate it.

Whilst its tedious seeing the negative potrayals, its largely passe (been going on since the dawn of time) and easy to laugh off. l dont buy into the notion that these media stereotypes are going to have a lasting (even transient) negative impact on males. Fellas adapt, very quickly... we have too, that's our lot in life. No one is gonna be all campassionate and considerate of a man's wounded self image, so you develop independant coping mechanims... like crying into a beer (for about 10mins) or four with the boys , larfing it off and going fishing to forget the troubles. Fresh air, a clear stream, wind in the trees, birds singing, a couple of beers beats a month of Sunday afternoons emoting over coffee and cakes or visiting retail therapists.

In light of the recent Germain smeer;

Does anyone hear the defening silence of the feminist majority wailing about some notion of inequality? I mean come on Ladies, keep it together.

Estrogen fuelled outboursts as mentioned above really have no value in a post-modern, money run society. So, with the motions in the US to perhaps see the worlds first global female leader, feminists everywhere should just accept that this will dis-employ lots of able-bodied men around the world. And what are we going to do then?

Fight?

The escalating rates of hates crimes against women has meaning.

There are constant message in Australian media that it is normal for women to be treated as inferior and very Australian for males to be violent.
Maybe the people mucking up the social fabric of Australian society will be pleased when the rates of rape and sexual abuse of women and girls is above 50%. Maybe then, it could be considered part of the unique nature of the Australian psyche.
Heaven knows, the capacity of governments to provide foster care let alone follow up the thousands of reports of child abuse is an absolute disgrace to a country that brags to the world about being "successful".
NSW Magistrate Pat O'Shane was aware of the impact of advertising that showed violence towards women but was verbally bashed up for being critical. Australia, particularly vulnerable people, like indigenous women and children, need people with the courage to call it as it is.
The sexual abuse and killing of Australian women and girls is caused by media that puts that Australian women and girls deserve to be treated as trash.

‘Two giggling female attendants made him remove items of clothing, piece by piece until he was in his undies. Quite frankly, I don't know any man who cared.’ TurnRightThenLeft,

Interestingly, I know a lot of men who cared and men’s forums are full of men who cared – perhaps you are a woman and men know that their complaints will not get a sympathetic ear anyway and so they just don’t bother to complain. While it is true that men tend not to care about the ‘sexuality’ of it – what rankles many men is the ‘double-standard’ of it.

The double-standard raises a question - why do women get so offended when women are used for their sexual attractiveness but don’t care when men are used that way? Surely either the use of sexuality to sell is either unacceptable or it is not?

Could it be because controlling sex is a woman’s primary tool in gaining compliance from men. David Koch recently said quite openly that if he doesn’t do what his wife wants he doesn’t get sex and so he is forced to do his wife’s bidding.

He didn’t seem even remotely aware of what an extraordinary exposition of abuse this was. Imagine if a wife had to do 'her husband’s bidding' before he would give her the money she needed – there would be outrage (withholding sex in marriage is the equivalent of withholding money if you admit sex as a necessary part of life).

‘How many tv shows men, …as comic relief, buffoons, stupid?’ Alan Grey,
I used to be appalled by this but then I was aghast as I realised that these shows that portray men as buffoons,eg ‘Everybody loves Raymond’ are almost all written by men. I have come to the conclusion that there are many men out there, ‘Dr Phil’s’ I call them, who sell out their own sex, portraying men as women like them portrayed and getting very rich in the process.

…the thousands of reports of child abuse … that showed violence towards women … particularly vulnerable people, like indigenous women and children, need people with the courage to call it as it is.
The sexual abuse and killing of Australian women and girls is caused by media that puts that Australian women and girls deserve to be treated as trash.
Posted by Kathryn Pollard, Friday, 15 September 2006 1:43:06 PM

I couldn’t agree more with your injunction to ‘call it as it is’.
Most child abuse is committed by women.
Most child murders are committed by women.
Children are safer in male-headed single family households than in female-headed single parent households.

Nearly 84 percent (83.4%) of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person. Approximately two-fifths (38.8%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 18.3 percent were abused by both parents.(This means that over 60% of all children abused by their parents were abused by their mother and that children are more than twice as likely to be abused by their mother’s acting alone than by their father’s acting alone).
About 60% of the male survivors [of sexual abuse] sampled report at least one of their perpetrators to be female.
US DEPT HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES – Table 3-20 Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2004 – Child Maltreatment 2004

Children in Australia are just over 25% more likely to suffer abuse if they live in a female-headed single parent family than if they live in a male-headed single parent family: ‘For example, in Victoria the rate of substantiations for children in female sole-parent families was 17.8 per 1000, and the rate for children in male-headed one parent families was 14.3 per 1000 (Table 2.12; unpublished ABS Data)’
Source: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa04-05/cpa04-05.pdf

I apologize for the use of US stats but when the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare surveys showed that most child abuse was committed by women they ‘mysteriously’ stopped recording the sex of the perpetrator. Yeah, ‘call it as it is’!

TurnRightThenLeft, there are some portrayals where I laugh and think "yeah sometimes" but then as a single dad I wince whenever I see one of those "only a mother would know" lines in an add because to many people seem to believe that stuff.

Likewise I wince when I see female initiated DV portrayed positively because there is to much community denial of the reality of its existence and I've seen first hand that too many of those who should be the front line of support dismiss it as a non issue.

Some of the portrayal of males in the media is fairly harmless, others bites because it is not challenged.

R0bert

It is disappointing that most people are at least 10 years behind in their perception. I wrote an article about the popularisation of the misandric mindset, and particularly its affect on boys, while i was the editor of the student newspaper at UNE in the early 90's. For that i became the target of a feminist persecution campus by a well orchestrated 'whispering poison' campaign that made life undearable. On top of that the people who should have defended my right to express a valid opinion were all too intimidated by feminist power to assist. G.B.Shaw said "All men are the slaves of women" and i think he is mostly correct in saying so.

I find it amazing here we have an article about the demonising of men and in jumps Kathy Pollard going on about violence and rape.

Unless the messages in the media is by telepathy or are of a subliminal nature. I have a very hard time beleiving that the media gives men the message to be violent towards women.

I haven't received any flyers in my letter box promoting violence against women, I have however received flyers stating that violence against women is a crime.

(They concluded: “… the worldview of our society has become increasingly both gynocentric (focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric (focused on the evils and inadequacies of men)”.)

I do not think I need to add any more.

Kathryn Pollard, are you talking about issues primarily within the indiginous population or the broader population?

What network do you watch? On the channels available in my area the adds tend to be more in the vein of a guy sneezing at work and being assaulted for his efforts, a guy doing a stupid thing with the dishwasher and getting hit by his partner with a large spanner. Radio adds about which feature a loud slapping sound just after a guy uses a corny pick up line in a bar suggesting that hitting is OK if a woman does not like what a man says.

The TV add where the guy is left hanging through the ceiling after an accident while his partner relaxes on the lounge pretending to search for a ladder (not strictly DV but big duty of care issues). I'm guessing that the list could grow fairly rapidly if others contribute, I don't watch a lot of TV. Hopefully that won't be necessary.

I don't recall seeing or hearing any adds recently which seemed to portray physical assault against womem in a positive light or as acceptable. Am I missing something here?

As for protecting children have a look at the stats on type of abuse and family types for substantiated abuse and neglect - Qld http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#2

National - http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html

Who kills children (NSW) - Start at http://text.kids.nsw.gov.au/publications/fatalneglect.html and http://text.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf (table 3.1 on page 21 might help you with your concern for the deaths of girls while not mentioning boys (29 vs 46 in the study sample). Also see table Table 4.3 Suspect’s relationship to child by fatal assault group. (page 48) Males are involed in more deaths but not by a big lot, take out some of the deaths from family breakdown (I think a fairer system might reduce those numbers) and it's pretty close.

R0bert

Kathryn where are you finding all these messages it's OK to treat women as you've described, and for men to be violent? Who are 'the people mucking up the social fabric'? Which media outlets cause sexual abuse and killing of women and girls?

“Mutitjulu women hit back at pedophilia claims” the SMH, in other words the claims made by Lateline were false.

Kathy’s post indicates how deeply buried in the psyche of some females, this we are victims belief is. It is almost to the point of being self centred and narcissistic in nature. It is attention seeking behaviour.

Gross exaggerations and generalizations are used to fan the flames of anger and hatred. There appears to be a group of women who seem to enjoy being angry, looking for the tiniest excuse to stoke the flames of their anger at men. No matter how irrational or illogical their arguments are.

It was not that long ago that on the word of a white woman, a black man could be hanged. Today, on the word of a white woman, they hang (figuratively) white men. White heterosexual men have become the new blacks.

Citizen, what you describe as happening to you has happened to other men and women as well. Google ‘Neil Lyndon’s case’

Researchers into domestic violence perpetrated by women have received death threats and other forms of intimidation. I have checked these facts out directly from the individuals involved.

The boogey man of feminism, thrives on creating fear and anxiety by grossly exaggerating real dangers or inventing new ones, with statements like “we still have a long way to go and must be on our guard not to loose hard won victories.”

'the new gender war'... hmmm, apt title. Issue is where is all this heading, as we can see that there is organized force driving the changes we see relating to how interests of women and interest of men catered for by government bodies.

Now, if the final out come is that women as a group work independently, govern themselves and earn money to buy their own homes and live their lives; with men together governing our own society working to building it and improve on it: with the only issue is to how the care of our children is arranged, I think most men will accept this considering the family separation catastrophe worldwide which conclusively says women and men just cannot make it work.

However, it the final outcome of this 'force' is to bring all government power and authority under women whom make themselves 'more equal than men' given further benefits and privileges, relying on whatever lies and deceit for benefit to use on public through corporate media to justify it... I cant see a way out a 'gender war' unless men are also oppressed and suppressed, causing stress, fear and emotional distress, to take the fight out of them.

Are women capable of doing the above as an hidden organized body...I think so and say it is happening: Are men capable of working as a united hidden organized body whose eyes have now been opened to the whole truth...You bet...

Sam

The typically diversionary 'we are bigger victims than you' and 'its all because of you' post by usual suspect(s) illustrates, there is a harsh and ugly truth that men need to acknowledge... for OUR own good.

Mens increasingly grudging, almost incidental acknowledgement of this self evident (but carefully concealed and sugar coated) truth is reflected in our lifestyle decisions, together with generalised disquieted disengagement.

Men are unplugging all over the place.

Mens choices are clearly reflected in the complaints about Peter Pans from Peta Pams and constant carry on about fear of making commitments (to them) from those with a fear of keeping commitments (to us). Men are choosing to detach, fly below the radar, vote with our feet (figurative and literal).

The harsh and ugly truth is...

THEY DONT CARE.

On rare occassion some of them claim to care, with words, whilst their actions (and inaction) stand in stark contrast to the claims. If you get enuff of a person going left and telling you to agree that they are going right, on the back of all sorts of mean-spirited game play... disrespect at the palpable lack of credibility ensues. From there, its down hill.

Easier to accept the awful truth, move on and make a happy, fulfilling life for oneself.

If they decide they WANT us AS WE ARE, we may start to change direction and make room for them. Women define the terms of relationship engagement... we adapt to their agenda, BUT only up to a point.

When people get too demanding and become unreasonable, unduring the nonsense gets tiring and eventually they're left to themselves. If they arent getting many takers, they need to look at THEMSELVES and wot they offer, tweak it up and they may start to get the sort of offers they want. No point complaining that the punters dont wanna buy my over-priced, under-performing, over-hyped product. Improve the offer (in this case just normalise/equalise the offer) and they will return.

If not, thats OK... life goes on.

Its very obvious and it bears repeating... THEY DONT CARE.

Jim

Thank you for your interesting and thought provoking article.

I am surprised that you have not acknowledged the PHd author. I find that rather strange. Me thinks he might be Micheal Woods of UWS Hawkesbury Campus. Having been a lecturer at UWS, it is my experience that research coming out of Hawkesbury Campus is often"dodgy" - especially arising out of nursing and/or community studies and the like.

Even so, I hold my hat up to male people in or society - as I do to females in our society. But I did survive studies of radical feminism back in 1985. I enjoy my traditional values. I see that old Germie Greer is her usual horrible dikey self regarding the sad death of Mr Steve Irwin. Getting your last minutes of fame Germ?

I hate it when women verbally bash men under the umprella of feminism - equal rights and stuff.

Throughout my clinical and academic nursing careers, most of my bosses have been women. They have ALL been bullies!! My male bosses have been outstanding.

Go men go!!

Cheers
Kay

And before the radical feminists have a go at me for not having a balanced view: I was a victim of alcoholic male bashing for 13 years - then some six years after that, I was dragged off the street -bashed, raped, and robbed by two men. I am now about to celebrate 10 years of happy marriage - total contenment!

"Could it be because controlling sex is a woman’s primary tool in gaining compliance from men. David Koch recently said quite openly that if he doesn’t do what his wife wants he doesn’t get sex and so he is forced to do his wife’s bidding."

Quite frankly, if men are hen pecked like that, its only they
who can help themselves. Get a mistress or a new wife!

Esther Vilar author of "the Manipulated Man." writes;

"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."

"If praise is applied in the correct dosage a woman will never need to scold. Any man who is accustomed to a regular and conditional dosage of praise will interpret its absence as displeasure."

Daphne Patai in Heterophobia writes;

“Men are currently in a situation ‘set up’ for failure. The burden of making virtually all explicit, unambiguous first moves (first time kissing, asking for a date, initiating first-time sexuality, and so on) is on men. This makes males a target if they initiate in a way that a particular woman finds offensive (since a particular woman gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive). Until women start taking responsibility for making unambiguous, risky first initiatives, they should lighten up when men do a clumsy, or offensive job of it.”

Is it men who exploit women or women who exploit men?

I know what my answer is.

While I am inclined to agreee with the main point Macnamara's article, it lost a lot of credibility for me because of the way he cited the research data:
"The research found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced."

These numbers, in themselves, do not support Macnamara's position that "the main target of discrimination is no longer women". Perhaps the news media portray everyone this negatively, both men and women. Since it is the nature of these media to focus on crime and violence ("If it bleeds, it leads") we could expect primarily negative portrayals of both sexes.

As far as the article's main point is concerned, these numbers are only significant in relation to the comparable figures regarding women. However, Macnamara does not present this data. This is at best sloppy and at worst intellectually dishonest.

Jayne

I see Jim has written this based on someone else's research. Way to go Jim, you've discovered what is really going on in Western society.

There is indeed a plot to denigrate men, they are the major target of ..... WHO? Who is leading this supposed avalanche of denigration? It's the CWA of course, that devious organisation created to hide all those nasty women who hate men with a passion.

Come on Jim, try looking at the media before you summarise it's intent. Haven't you noticed the real intent of the media, particularly the US media. It's attacking the Brady Bunch, those paragons of human behaviour.

Women denigrating men. My God how nasty. Thank heavens none of the same is directed at women, anywhere.

Dear Jim. Please read the Bible for a start. There has been a battle between men and women since they were created. The media are simply late bloomers in comparison with what the world population does and has done forever.

Excellent article. I have seen this for some years now. Even in (or particulalry in) advertisments, men are portrayed as bumbling idiots while women so all knowing and clever. Stereotypes are always sickening but the pendulum has long shifted to portray men in the negative at every opportunity.

Pkay

There are "good feminists" who work for equality or fairness, and there are "bad feminists" who are interested in hurting men and giving women unfair advantages.

These Bad Feminists are nasty people... so we have started calling them "Feminasties" ...

Our campaign needs a word that captures the essence of who we are fighting against. We need a rhetoric word, a slogan...

Nasty Feminists -> Feminasties!
=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-
1: Feminasty says exactly what we want it to say... Nasty, offensive, vindictive, mean, dangerous, hateful...

2: Feminasty is NOT anti-woman... Women are vitally important to our movement. They are 50% of the population, and 30% of Fathers4Equality! Few women will be offended by this term.

3: Feminasty separates the 'good feminists', from the 'bad feminists'. Few people these days call themselves 'feminists'. But most of us support the ideas of equality and fairness... the ideals that feminism originally supported.

But the nasty, man-haters also call themselves 'feminists' too. Feminasty separates the 'good feminists', from the 'bad feminists'. (see the end for a good definition of the different "flavours" of feminism by Akiva)

4: Feminasty is a word that everybody will instantly understand once they hear it. It is a word that can bee used in press releases and in the media, in conversation and in speeches... It will take off!

5: Many men and kids have been hurt by women... but the opposite happens too... there are bitches and there are bastards... The problem is the system, the Feminist Court, the C$A, Divorce Industry etc etc... It is the system that we need to fix up... there is no point in getting angry about individual women, or women in general... Feminasty is not anti-woman.

5: Most importantly, Feminasty has a sense of humour!

We can make this happen!
We've created a new word... New words are invented every day..

James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)

The problem with advertising is that it relies on stereotypes of both sexes, because stereotypes get their points across quicker. The current issue of New Internationalist sums it up pretty well when it states that "we know by now that advertising often turns people into objects. Women's bodies-and men's bodies too these days- are dismembered, packaged and used to sell everything from chainsaws to chewing gum, champagne to shampoo. Self-image is deeply affected. The self-esteem of girls plummets as they reach adolescence partly because they cannot possibly escape the message that their bodies are objects, and imperfect objects at that. Boys learn that masculinity requires a kind of ruthlessness, even brutality".

As someone else pointed out though, it does depend on your definition of negative portrayals. Take the 'Lynx Jet' ads for instance. Do they constitute a negative portrayal of women, because they show women as sexual objects that exist solely for the gratification of men, or is it a negative portrayal of men because it shows them as boorish, sex-crazed morons? Personally, I believe such ads are degrading to both sexes. Unfortunately though, Lynx sales went through the roof immediately after the ad campaign, so it really does pay off for companies to produce this crap.

I agree with the author’s point that it is bad that magazines such as cosmo and cleo now have male centrefolds. I don't think it is empowering for women to be able to sexually objectify men in the same way that they sexually objectify us (Playboy, Hustler, Ralph, FHM, Zoo, the list goes on). Ideally, it would be nice if neither gender sexually objectified the other. Sadly enough though, when you voice such opinions, you get labelled as a prude or as 'anti-sex' by both men and women alike.

'Take your mind back I don't know when, sometime when it always seemed
To be just us and them'

And so it goes...Joe Jackson.

I am pleased to see that there is a formalised debate about the feminisation of the world. I reckon the 'Feminasties' are supported by the 'ferilisation of everything' mob. Where i come from we call these the GFN, because they seem not only to follow nazi progroms, they are also gay. Hence GFN.

So, there is a mindset out there which is exploitative of mens existance. Amazingly, these seem to hang around the bureaucracy. Why? Because they want it. The figures of women employed in peak NGO's is comparitively low, whilst wage offers are staggering. And yet the GFN is bent on power. And we all know how that corrupts dont we? So whilst men went out in to the world and built all that is on offer, a new movement wants to castrate the erector.

So, the ferilisation of everything really translates in to an imminant 'Feminocracy'. A Feminised or Feminist leadership. So (depending on your gender realisation) if you think things are bad enough now, just you wait.

On the issue of portrayal of men and women in magazines.

Female sportspeople are always decrying the lack of coverage of women's sport, but I have never heard of a 'women's magazine' ever having a sports section. The main time that sportswomen are mentioned in those magazines are in relation to marriage, childbirth or fashion. If women want to have their sporting achievements read about, then maybe they should start pressuring the sisterhood.

Meanwhile while men seem to be portrayed as idiots and bumbling fools in the media (Does 'No Idea' magazine still have a 'mere male' page?) anyone looking a little deeper will see that men's magazines don't have horoscopes. The inclusion of these in women's magazines portray women as superstitious and irrational. The number of ads for 'psychic' con artists is also a major worry when considering the place of women in society.

And if men really wanted to look at pictures of scantily clad women they would be better off skipping FHM and its ilk and buy Cosmopolitan and Cleo, that are full of these images, and they could have a good laugh as well by reading the 'sex advice' columns that seem to thrive in these worthy publications. Not to mention, (well I will mention) the place of 'diets' in these magazines. When are women going to wake up to the simple fact that weight loss is a factor of food intake and exercise? Men find this self evident. Why do women seem so stupid in this regard?

At least men are portrayed as fools openly, whilst women show their foolishness by the very nature of women's magazines.

Myrna Blythe

SPIN SISTERS

"They think all women should agree with them because they are so very sure they know what’s good for you—even better than you may know yourself!

Blyth persuasively argues that today’s media bombards American women—the most prosperous, healthiest, well-educated and privileged group of people ever—with constant messages of unhappiness and victimization. And that these effectively crafted messages also push and promote a liberal political agenda that the Spin Sisters themselves share."

'Spin Sisters' is an interesting book to read and after reading it, the media stories will never be the same. The best cure for depression is not anti-depressants! It's throwing women's magazines in the garbage bin.

Some of you may have seen the comment "but then males have always been the level headed logical ones..thankfully for women the world over" made in what was probably a tongue in cheek manner on another thread. I think the author of the comment was having a dig at herself after an overreaction to a comment by another poster. My comments here are not having a go at the poster but rather a reflection on the thinking that the post sparked for me in relation to this topic.

I've seen similar comments posted on OLO previously (I can't find the reference) and if memory serves me correctly by a poster who most definately does not believe it.

The comment is in someway typical of the stereotypes that have a fairly low profile. Assumptions that it is all to easy to not challenge, maybe rarely said out loud but which we use to interpret our world. Similar to some of the portrayals of men being discussed in the article. After a while these things get taken for granted regardless of how poorly they fit individuals.

They get taken for granted by both genders. In the case of the quote I mentioned earlier some women use that as a license act less responsibly and some men use it as a license to not take women seriously. Portrayal of men as second rate parents allows people to ignore a family law system that in one way or another gives the vast majority of post divorce parenting to mothers regardless of the actual skills of either parent. Portrayal of DV as a male thing leaves women thinking what they do is not DV and allows counselors, police and others to ignore female initiated female violence. Assumptions about male violence allow people to ignore the reality that most males are not child abusers.

We need to stop and examine those assumptions sometime and ask how real they are and if they have some reality how much of that is because they are self full filling, people acting as they believe they are.

R0bert

Excellent article.

My main concern is how the negative portrayal of men affects boys. As adult men we can watch the first five minutes of a show like 'Everybody Loves Raymond', conclude that his character is the feminist ideal man (emasculated, fawning, and self-hating) and then change the channel. But what about boys who don’t have the maturity to see the political agenda behind a feminist dominated media? Who’s going to tell them that masculinity isn’t something that needs to be cured?

Unfortunately, schools are no better. The Australian Education Union (AEU) in its submission to the HR Enquiry into the Education of Boys 2000 (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/EducationofBoysSubmission.pdf) recommends strategies for:

“• the predominantly male issue of bullying and harassment in schools. An understanding of the harm boys and men inflict on themselves and on women and girls”

Teachers are important people in children’s lives and children believe what teachers tell them. So when boys are told that ‘maleness is a pathology’ or ‘all men are wife bashers’ from their teachers, they believe them. What hope do they have of growing up as well balanced confident young adults?

The AEU continues:

“It is timely to point out also that beyond the school years, females often proceed into a society which disadvantages them in terms of employment, training, remuneration, political power and career advancement.”

Leaving aside a crude assessment that fails to take into consideration what motivates women in the workforce; the astounding implication here is that it’s ok to sacrifice boys’ education because the social engineers are unhappy with the way girls are performing later. How many generations of boys’ education should we sabotage, one? two? Or simply until women live up to the feminist ideal of what a modern women should be?

continued..

In fact, the AEU seems to still believe that girls are disadvantaged,

“The limited, existing resources and initiatives working to address girls’ disadvantages need to be maintained and, indeed, increased”

Unfortunately for our society schools and the media have a massive impact on our children, boys included. And when they receive constant negative assessments about masculinity then its no wonder boys struggle so much.

Can I mention the Best Bloke Joke Book, It is funny.The irish, blondes, wogs, gays, animal, god joke books out there are getting old.
What I think is the funniest is the bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen era, and how we are changing.
Let me put this another way without sounding like Germaine Greer who I have repeatedly said is just a bitter hateful woman.
How long have men been put into this new role that makes them feel insulted, degraded, demoralised, without rights or opinions and a victim? 1000 years,200, 50? After World War 2 Men came home and their wives had been doing well without them.Men and women tried to go back to the way it was but for women they had discovered a new life.
Can men be a little tolerant of the fact that women are still getting used to having their cake and eating it too after a few thousand years. It is still new and absorbing.
I wish I had seen the add with the man undressing, I get sick of seeing ads with females half dressed and little girls with makeup on and looking too gorgeous for my liking.
Robert you forgot the insurance ad where he hit a charter boat.
" Charter boat? What Charter boat." That is a pro male ad. He was driving the boat wasnt He?. lol
What about the hypochrondriac woman going on about her illnes and saying she only stayed with one chemist. That was a pro female ad. I think they make us laugh at ourselves.
Dont forget the tampon ad where they young lady is looking for a tampon and walks into the living room finding boyfriend and kitten playing with them. Ads are there to sell. Women are an important client, they are earning money and are single and out there.
Sex sells. There are still many ads depicting the woman as the mum and carer. Many half naked women in ads and unless men take a stand and say that they do not like seeing women naked then it wont stop.

Every mother in Australia should buy the book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers and read it from cover to cover.

The author backs up with facts what we've known since our oldest son started kindergarten: boys are discriminated against in our schools and society.

To take an example, our local (public) primary school banned the fun game of Red Rover (a chasing game) because ‘it was played by the Boy Scout Movement’. It mattered nought to the Principal and her female deputies that both boys and girls had been enjoying the game at the school for decades, it was a BOY game and boys might prove unruly. In passing, it should be said that these senior women (all products of seventies feminism) were themselves unaware that the ‘boy’ Scouts had included girls for years.

In our case and like so many others, we removed our boys from public school education as soon as we could, which was Year 5. This was because we refused to have anything more to do with the second rate education given to all children but especially boys in the feminist controlled public education system. Similarly we moved our girl to the same private co-educational school as our boys because we didn’t want her to see herself as a ‘victim’ to be ‘rescued’ from an evil patriarchy.

Boys are continually being told, in everything from TV shows to movies to books, how stupid and brutish they are and how they need girls to ‘control’ their destructive urges and teach them how to be restrained, human and sensitive.

We need to focus on collaboration rather than gender identity politics. What is lacking in feminism is the lack of a positive program for males, especially boys. On top of this, what we really don’t need (but we have) is a public education system that treats boys as defective girls.

I suggest the real priority is to do something about the feminist senior managers in public education who are responsible for policy determined on outmoded fundamental feminist principles.

Not much has changed since the days of 'grrrls are sugar, spice everything nice' and "boys are frogs legs, snails and puppy dog tails."

Only difference now is that we drag that nonsense well into adulthood and dont even try to hide it. Sad.

In reference to comments made about Germaine Greer, I would like to read one person impartially criticising what she says rather than criticising her as a person.

As for men and the way that they are portrayed, it is about time people refused to accept negative media images of anyone, because whether we are aware of it or not, the media has an important role to play in everyone's life and is a very powerful tool in shaping society.

It is a mistake to underestimate the enormous ground gained in public policy by the feminist establishment over the past thirty years in Australia.

What about the invention by feminists of the ‘problem of boys in schools’?

Most people would be unaware of the such things as the (pro) feminist programs designed for boys in schools on the topic of "gender and violence" which are referred to by the euphemism ‘boyswork’ (re-education - a nice Marxist touch!). Boys are taught that as boys they are automatically privileged as part of patriarchal power and hegemony (whew!).

You need to have a look at national policy documents such as the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls and Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools). These policies were introduced years ago and continue to be added to, without adequate consultation with the Australian community.

There is a substantial body of evidence from rates of suicide, injury, mortality, withdrawal from education and imprisonment that boys feel disempowered and are at risk. However feminists in education have continued to block initiatives to improve boys’ self esteem claiming it is merely ‘backlash politics’.

Accordingly, more pro-feminist courses have been designed as part of the curriculum for boys to address the ‘problem of backlash politics’!

Likewise in the face of numbers showing the continued wastage of male teachers and reduced intakes, the feminist establishment has claimed firstly, it is all ‘backlash politics’ and secondly, that male role models are not required in education because women can provide the male role modelling as required.

As a community we should be getting very angry that we are not consulted on these policies that in the main are designed, implemented and defended by faceless bureaucrats.

Cornflower: I think you're right on the mark, and it's one of many reasons why, when I have children, I have no intention of sending them through the public system, but especially the boys. It seems odd to me that a lot of people would want to inflict such things on their children.

The irony of all this, is it seems counter-productive to the aims of feminism anyway (which leads me to believe that the academic, militant branch is more about feathering a nest or pursuing an agenda). Ultimately, women will never have the majority of power in politics, business, etc. unless it's enforced, simply because to get that high up, one has to avoid the "inconvenience" of childbirth and rearing and be incredibly singular and driven (which is beyond most men even). These top roles will continue to be occupied by a tiny minority of particular men. However, for the average person (male or female) and family, creating men who are extremely unsure of themselves, if not completely dysfunctional, via the education system, is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, I think if family law is so unfriendly to men, that will have unintended consequences for women and families in general, not to mention for men themselves.

Maybe I have my own set of issues, but I actually don't see a lot of Australian women (and the American women I've dated are worse!) as desirable partners or wives. Aside from often seeing them as uncouth (yes, old-fashioned ideas of femininity, I know), or uncultured or not particularly bright or interesting (a wider issue I have with most Australians), I'm also more than a little wary about the long term outcomes of such relationships (witholding sex doesn't worry me, but not getting to see my kids and being impoverished does) given how nasty and combative they can be. Simply put, I find many foreign women vastly more attractive in every way.

You go Cornflower!

It is indeed refreshing to read the words of someone who has seen through the fog of feminist-Marxism and its evil intent and war against men and boys. At last, now there are 2 of us. Only 20-odd-million left to go.

How come we can see it Cornflower, but the rest are so blind?

Or perhaps they aren't so blind and can see it, but are just too gutless to speak up. Just like this mediocre article by Jim Macnamara.

Feminism v Allah.
One reason why the Muslim communities are fighting the west is because of the west's obsession with female equality.
The constant barrage of feminist government advertisments relating to
the male dominance of females is yet an example of mind control by the feminist left.
The State governments are not so much acting politically correct but rather "Germaine Greer Feminist correct."
Her recent attack on Steve Irwin highlight what our feminist government hate,A Man's Man.
Male teachers have to act as if they have no ball's,just to please the feminine left who now control our Educational system.
I once heard a comment by the (Mr)Chief Magistrate of South Australia,
"I like women Aboriginal's but not the men."His comment expresses everything that is wrong with the feminist argument, the broad brush or blanket approach to affirmative action.
Australian Police forces now have to double MANpower due to the fact that what used to take one strong policeman, now takes two weak police people to do the same task.
One strong Policeman used to be able to control most situations.
What now happens is that two police women are unable to control a mild domestic, and call up the troops when the situation turns nasty.
The cost to the tax payer is a much more expensive police force and a much less effective Police force.

Greers comments are IRRELEVANT, have been for 2 decades. Her rhetoric is a SMOKE SCREEN behind which she hides. Uses ideas to go out and mostly man bash, although, to her credit, she gives the typical princess mentality and double standards of women a pretty severe dose too. Look around you, particulraly at women. Its abvious that few are listening.

Her tirade was 'cultural cringe'. A a big snore.

Feeling embarrassed by someone ELSES behaviour is deeply insecure. Identity on the basis of nationality is pretty shallow. Getting offended about a stereotypical ozzy ocker type when you rejected that way back in the 60s is boredering on pathetic.

Thats the issue with greer. Average, dumb-arse, non-intellectuals can see it. Intellectualls are so busy maintaining their facade that they cant/wont look, with retorts that anyone who disagrees is anti-intellectual. These psuedo-intellects are the most anti-intellectual of all. An Intellectual is 'someone who watches their own thinking.' Greer doesnt strike me as the self critical type.

A healthy self esteem doesnt get embarrassed at the sight of a dinky die type standing in an amsterdam customs line in an accobra and dry-as-a-bone.

The most 'interesting' aspects of greers 'look at me' attention addict melodrama are...
1. timing... could have waited for the body to get cold.
2. no respect for the dead... very low class to speak ill of the dead.
3. no regard, nor empathy for how the widow and kids might be effected by her veiled misandry
4, tone... very angry, bitter and full of obvious self loathing.
5. she turned the death of someone into something about her. Very gracious and not at all self absorbed.
6. you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, tho l suspect greer knows that few want to fly in the wake of her cynicism.
7. Its all personal.

Its no wounder that people react badly.

She has given up on herself, her own credibility, as her appearance on the British celebrity Big Brother demonstates.

No one likes a coward, particularly the ones who masquerade as self-styled sheroes of ideological deliverance.

Quite true Yabby, I too saw David Koch say that about his wife. It seems to me that a lot of men put "themselves" in the firing line. I hear a lot of men complain that their wives control them but they seem to take it as a joke. I dont know just my opinion.

It should be noted that the media exists for one purpose - to maximise profit to share-holders by selling product.

The product on sale is the audience. The product is being sold to advertisers who wish the audience to buy their product. Most know which purchasing decisions are made by what gender and so target their advertisements at that gender - whether it be their sense of humour, sexual preferences, or their egos.

The media are only facilitating what the audience wants with what the purchaser of the audience believes what you want associate their product with.

I read a book back in the 90's called "The Myth of Male Power". It ran along the same lines as what has been discussed here.

Your opinion is completely valid and correct Deborah58. There is a new name for men like them - manginas. Men who are so pussy-whipped that they sell out on all other men, including boys, even their own sons, just to get a pat on the head from wifey (approval) and maybe if they're really lucky, a bit of nookie.

They've nothing to do with masculinity or manliness. They're pathetic wimps. These are the very people who live up to the demeaning descriptions put about by the media as described in the article.

But don't despair, the same sorts of wimps were getting about in French palaces during the 16th to 18th Century - powdered wigs, makeup, poncing about in decadent splendour trading courtly banter with the whores of the aristocracy. But time and justice eventually caught up with them, they lost their heads in a revolution. Let's hope such drastic events never come again, but today's manginas are definitely past their use by dates.

The trouble is, they don't know it yet. These lefty-media and the academic types. That's what comes from living in their isolated lofty ivory towers.

Fair point, rob513264, though that's the first time I've ever been accused of being a woman though. Feels a little strange.

Anyhow, I've no doubt there were men decrying the double standards of the ad, though that isn't quite the same as bagging the ad itself.

I can see that it rankles some, though I still tend to think that there are more important gender battles to be had than portrayals in the media. To me, more energy should be expended on actual discrimination and issues like custody battles.

Yeah, there's a double standard and that bites, but hey. Most blokes will deal with it and move on.

Maximus, and also they are the same "yes" men that are playing around on their wives and the same men that are bitching and whinning about how hard done by they are. I say get some balls and move on.

"Many half naked women in ads and unless men take a stand and say that they do not like seeing women naked then it wont stop."
alphafemale,

I cant complain about half naked women, because I like looking at them and I do not feel guilty.

Alpha you ask men to be tolerant of women. It would really, really be nice if women were much more tolerant of men.

It astounds me how young boys get accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault. I didn't even know what sex was at that age.

“• the predominantly male issue of bullying and harassment in schools. An understanding of the harm boys and men inflict on themselves and on women and girls” eet

Barbara Leckie researched and published a paper dealing with girls bullying behaviour. Girls tend to use indirect methods in bullying. Such socially manipulative strategies are also powerful
tools often used by girls, such as telling bad or false stories, spreading rumors. It has also been identified that girls have quickly adapted new technology to their bullying repertoire.

I guess whilst feminists are continually dissing on men they don't have time to really examine their own behaviour

*JamesH
Unlike the website you referred me to I had won custody of my daughter and raised her all the way through. She is now a very happy young adult studying medicine. 10/15 years ago i was so isolated in my rage and disappointment with the feminist creeps that hammered me constantly, especially when i made rational arguments against their blatantly sexist policies. Now adays there is a higher level of awareness but it has happened so pathetically slowly and those witches have dug in so deeply, with the help of self-interested men, that they will never be dislodged. I have some very interesting stories but I don't think anyone would be game to publish them.

Turn off the TV..better still throw it out..
Dont listen to the radio..or if you do only Radio National.

Go back 50 yrs to when women took care of the kids and enjoyed the company of girlfriends and shopping and dad went out to work and had a beer with his mates..
Men and women had mutual respect for each other and kids werent confused about role models..
Nobody talked about gay pple let alone campaign for rights..

Then came feminism and and the whole lot went down the tube.

Kids are now left home alone because mum just has to go and make her 'mark' on the world...dads dont know which way is up because they were once the bread winners and were taught that from birth,
divorce sees men left high and dry and liitle access to his kids and in a lge number of cases women are leaving just because..dont need a reason.

And the kids are the ones having their world ,values,security and future screwed over..they are always the ones to suffer .

Marriage and family committment is now not a priority anymore...the media reinforces this veiw..women are portrayed as whores and men as oppotunistic pigs..our kids watch and learn.

THROW OUT THE TV.Dont care if noone agrees with me...Id swap it all for the old days in a heartbeat.

If my last post sounds a bit like Im 'dissing' women..yeah well maybe I am a bit..
Women have forgotten theyre 1st priority...theyre children and theyre marriage...

If we want a career..go have one but do not expect children should settle for parents that are sometimes there in body but not in spirit..spread to thin.Having kids is THE most important job one can do..but is treated by some women as an after thought, not a priority.

Men dont know where they stand anymore...

Kids have no real role models and so go on to parent without any real clue, they cant pass on what they dont have?..
We need to go back to basics..have a career after kids..or dont have any kids.Simple.

Someone on another thread said Germaine Greer was responsible for generating the feminist movement...I say she has a lot to answer for.

I hate feminism since the late 1990s. It's nothing like the old feminism where women were rightfully granted rights. It's now only about showing:

1. That women are as physically strong as men. Please! If you are a woman and reading this, get it through your head: Any man, including myself, can beat you down if we want. No one's going to but don't have a chip on your shoulder and you'll be fine.

2. Women are equally apt at science as men are. Science has repeatedly shown that women are a bit less intelligent at 'hard sciences'. They are simply different and this cannot be ignored.

All I'm saying is that women should be respected and treated like God's sacred object because they give life and can do anything a man can do. Can they do EVERYTHING as well as a man can?

NO WAY!

No, and to get a balanced argument, men cannot do everything women can do either and I do not mean just childbirth. I am amazed (although when I think on it, not really) at the vitriol expressed against feminism. I was uncomfortable with the concept until I studied it for my honour's thesis and found it has a lot of merit. However, blaming it for all the ills in society is narrow minded to say the least. There were very valid reasons for its success and these should not be forgotten or ignored. Yes, I am an academic like Greer and I also believe that my viewpoints are just as valid as any other man's or woman's. Also I attended public school as did all my children and I don't know what the argument is about treating boys and girls differently.
As for Steve Irwin, for heaven's sake, nice guy though he apparently was, his antics with wild animals and children were irresponsible to say the least. That caused more than a cringe in me, not his outfit or his enthusiam and I will admit at the risk of offending other posters to OLO that my first reaction at hearing of his death was that the animals had had enough.

Marilyn, you're not an academic and the kind of feminism that's preached these days is very dangerous. I totally disagree with you.

In response to Feminism is Stupid,
I don't know what you mean when you say that I am not an academic, I have the Degrees to prove it. Also, it is your perogative to disagree with me. In my innocence, I like to believe that there is still freedom of speech in Australia, and while we disagree with people we still respect their points of view. If the feminism that is preached "these days" is different to the feminism that I studied, perhaps it is the result of putting the concept into practice. That is using the guise of 'feminism' to promote a certain viewpoint in exactly the same way that 'religion' is used to promote certain viewpoints. These viewpoints sometimes bear little resemblance to the original concept.

Marilyn,

Esther Vilar wrote "the Manipulated Man" almost 30 years ago.

David Thomas wrote "Not guilty in Defense of the Modern Man" 1993

see "Neil Lyndon's Case"
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

Daphne Patai "Heterophobia" & "Professing Feminism"

Christina Hoff Summers "Who Stole Feminism"

The various works of Erin Pizzey and Eeva Sodhi. Christine Stobla's "Lying in a room of ones own"

I understand that there does not appear to be many Universities in Australia offering a Men's studies course.

Even the sex discrimination commissioner Pru Goward takes opportunites to dis men. She definitely promotes sex discrimination!

Melaine Phillips "The sex change society"

And as a academic if you don't know what the arguement is about treating boys and girls differently then read the book "The War against boys."

I see many parrallels between Orwells "animal farm" and feminism

re irwin, no harm came to child. Thats the point.

Ifs/buts/maybes of wot could've happened is rationalising dislike. Fair enough, tho easier and quicker to just say you dont like the guy.

Wasnt carrying child whilst swimming with stingray, indicative of capacity to distinguish levels of danger to his child, something parents do all the time = responsible. Anyone for a glass of half full?

Irresponsible? NO
Foolish? YES.

Risky? YES, obviously not overstepping his personal limit.

Criticism of risky behaviours tend to come from risk averse individuals. The higher the risk aversion the more critically vociferous. Greer is a closeted academic protected from life's extreme realities by sandstone and manicured gardens... not surprising that the guy scares her.

Speeding down freeway at 110k, whilst texting with a 2yr old in baby seat... irresponsible? Risk of coming to grief like this prolly higher than being snapped by a croc whilst in the arms of your highly experienced croc-handling dad. Yes, he came to grief on the end of rays barb, NOT his child. Funny that.

Original feminism was EQUITY feminism, regarding BOTH genders and the impact of negative/positive stereotyping. It called upon ALL to take responsibility, especially women. Ironically, greer was very much a champion of personal accountability.

Then it morphed into GENDER feminism, a brand of identity politics.

ID politics rationalises via arbitrary classifications like race, religion, gender. In the process doing two things...
1) vilifies ideological opponents (gets nasty and breeds scape-goating), and
2)invokes victimology. Victims are angry and/or dependent, two things that politicians habitually cultivate.

ID politics is a copout.

Once you see how hard the batlle is and how difficult it is to challenge oneself, you give up, get angry, attack and vilify the opposition... maintain the rage.

Many (most?) see that for what it is, not wanting any part of it. Like the union movement. Greer has become a symbol for all that women dont want to identify with on a personal level, notwithstanding the meritorious aspects of the ideology.

peace.

trade said "Once you see how hard the batlle is and how difficult it is to challenge oneself, you give up, get angry, attack and vilify the opposition... maintain the rage.". There seems to be plenty of that happening here.

How do we work with the honest feminists when so many insist on condemming all feminists because of the excesses of some?

Once again a chance to raise a legitimate issue and put it into context will loose it's power with those willing to listen because some must turn every opportunity into a feminism bashing frenzy.

Sad.

R0bert

To OZGIRL,

At first I thought you were taking the P out of things, but I detect a genuine note of sincerity and passion in your writing. Either way, it doesn't matter, for what you have written is a joy to read.

And further to your comment, "Women have forgotten their 1st priority... Their children and their marriage..."

I'd like to add, that the very same thing goes for a significant number of men today. I'd say, many men have forgotten their 1st priority too... Their children and their marriage...

In fact, Western liberal society has in general forgotten their 1st priority all around and we all have to pay the price, now and for many future generations. Although I am heartened to see that Gen-X, although tying the knot later in life, are appearing to be more conservative and are not divorcing in the numbers previous generations did. Perhaps having been the child victims of their parent's selfish divorces, they've learnt the interminable pain of family breakdown that children suffer and have decided to do it right.

Of course I am the eternal optimist. Otherwise, why would I bother writing any of this stuff at all?

Maximus, I hope that you are right. It would be great if we are moving past the period when marriage and responsibilities to children are treated lightly by both men and women. It hurts us all far to much.

R0bert

To Robert - again.

Mate, I'm sorry to have to say this, but you exasperate me. Nothing personal here, I hope you understand. You really are the poor sad-sack guy wandering about out there in no-mans-land, blinded by the smoke, wounded, looking for a safe haven, clutching for straws, hoping that the bloody sex-war can be discussed away like some UN convention on world peace, and then everyone, including yourself, can live happily ever after.

Wake up mate. Grow up. There is no halfway solution. It's a bloody war. I didn't start it and it's not my fault. But by golly, I intend to fight it to the end.

Why?

I don't know. Maybe it's because I care about common decency. Maybe it's because I get choked up and cry when an 8 year old girl gets ripped to pieces and death by a crocodile in the NT and everyone cries for more environmental conservation and preservation for animals. I'd rather have 8 year-old girls than crocodiles. You're the kind of guy who'd call for more debate and more middle ground while more kids died. I'm not.

You ask about different treatments towards honest and (assume) dishonest feminists. I cannot, in 350 words, engage in that kind of banter. So start here -

Angry Harry
Student's guide to feminism
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm

There's a serious war on mate, a sex-war, but you don't seem to get it. You can't see the forest for the trees. Yet you wonder why the world and the courts are treating you and your kids so poorly. Wake up. Get on side. I haven't the time nor inclination to save blokes like you. I have more time and genuine respect for my enemy -

Mad Sheila Musings
by Alyx
http://madsheilamusings.blogspot.com/

At least she earns my respect. And I've told her so. She's got guts and a passion for her cause. That I can respect.

And that's about my 350 words and my 2 posts in 24 hours - so good luck mate, you really need it.

Yes Robert..you do really have to adopt a position..I agree.

I wish I knew how to relate to you but I dont know what you stand for..

I tried to stand up for you before over something quite justifiable and you once again bowed down to the dominant majority, even though you knew I was right..

I stood up for you and you sold me out.

THats sad.

Germaine Greer suffers from phallus phobia. Always did and always will because she has not got the guts to address her fears and instead, heaps her baggage and blame onto others. She cannot get along with other people (whom she hates almost as much as herself) and she will die alone.

If you read her book The Female Eunuch more than superficially you cannot fail but be shocked by her hatred of other women (she especially despises women who are not as smart as her), families and children as well as all men of course.

Germaine Greer's recent declaration of her yearing for adolescent boys whose genitals have not fully developed says a lot about her phallus phobia. But the evidence of her phobia (and she has others) is all through her writing. Her obsession with sex, her lurid images and mad interpretations betrays a person who always wanted to be a vamp, but feels betrayed by her own demons and weird constructions.

Greer and others of her ilk are not the champions of feminism and the quest for equal rights and liberty, they are simply nutty, opportunist zealots who were fortunate enough to be around at the right time to ride the crest of the wave of change that followed the the much broader youth rebellion against authority, war and so on that was already going full steam.

Kids who risked injury in moratorium marches and singer song writers did more to awaken and empower than Greer ever did.

[continued]

Greer stumbled over her own mouth in her rush to attacked Steve Iriwn's still-warm corpse. In doing so she showed not only how dotty she is but also her driving motivations. Envy of his fame and her fear of his masculinity were potent burleys that proved irresistible to a bottom-feeding bushwacker like Greer.

But I would never doubt that Greer's real target and source of her deepest hatred was Steve's widow, Terri, representing as she does the many liberated women in the world who do not share the phallus phobia of Greer and her radical feminist cronies and through love, motherhood and family life have realised pinnacles of joy and self-fullfilment that Greer and others like her will never share (and they know it!).

People need to follow their natural instincts more and trust their own feelings. But whatever we do, we never ever suspend our critical faculties and judgement and go along with the bitter, twisted people with secondary agendas to serve.

None of us wants to return to the fifties, but fundamental feminism didn't get us out of that rut and knockers like Greer have no solutions. In fact Greer's only refuge is in anarchy. How unrealistic is that for an avowed member of the chardonnay set and owner of a country English mansion?

At least one generation of women is regretting taking notice of Greer's loopey spin that motherhood should take second place to climbing the greasy corporate ladder and buying endless material possessions. How silly, when it is more logical and efficient to have children in one's twenties and very early thirties (when one cannot maximise career opportunities through [among other things]) lack of 'smarts' through limited life experience) and slip back into one's field with gusto when the children hit primary school and one is still young.

That way we can get some introductory work experience, have children at an optimal time, enjoy the mothering experience while still young enough to keep up with infants and return to work at the height of our powers.

^^^
Nice post cornflower.

Maximus has it right. Talk is cheap. Time to choose sides. Fems arent interested in our perspective. Understandable given they have their own agenda.

As such, no point wasting breath on them. l've been doing that as long as l can remember and women NEVER acknowledge this stuff. NEVER.

They aren't fools. They understand that in a crunch compromise is not only futile its detrimental. This battle is around very basic and essential stuff... goes to power, control and freedom (theirs versus ours). Compromise that at your peril.

Its dissappointing to realise this. l feel like lm almost having to give up on reasonable dialogue with women because they just will not do it.

Ah well, life goes on.

Its time to awake the men from our sleepy slumber of the last 40yrs.

There's already an observable ground swell occurring. All that really needs to be done is to switch the light on in mens' minds and they will act. Already happening thru a process of obvious disengagement. Women complain about mens 'fear of commitment' and men complain about marriage/relationship 'boycotts and strikes'.

The major achilles heel of an ideology like modern day gender feminism is that its symbiotic... we need each other (on a bunch of levels). You cant get what you really want by disenfranchising partners of that symbiosis. The other side can merely disengage and that puts them in the drivers seat.

If merely doing nothing can confound those that work hard to achieve their agenda, you have the advantage. Men are slowly and grudgingly getting that. Like a game of tug-of-war, where on signal, one side lets go the rope and the other side falls flat on their tails. Compete with yourselves. Game over.

Difficult, as men dont generally want to be that hard on women (nor ourselves). It goes against our biological programming, social conditioning and personal emotional need/sentiment. As women have demonstrated it has become necessary.

Tough to accept they arent sugar, spice and everything nice and in fact quite single minded. No princesses, no cindarellas, no pedestals. EQUAL.

peace.

Maximus..

I think its just a matter for me anyhow of swinging that pendulum back a little.
Since feminism things have just gotten stupid.

We want snags, but then are contemptuos of them because they too closely resemble women..not ..MANLY enough hello?
The only reason women wanted snags was so they could control and manipulate them..
I dont want no "Mangina' sleeping next to me..yuk.

A lot of those pussy whipped men..and youll see ureself here if you read this, are lost in the wilderness.They dont know what the heck is going on anymore.

I cant stand to men bow and scrape to hardline feminist types..they are emasculated and stamped redundant by the very women who demanded that they submit.

Yuk.. I want my men to be men..women should be women..We each are powerful in our own way..respect and love the differences we see in each other..not love in spite of them

I do believe the rights of women are important..but not if they cancel out the rights of men..

What is the point in that?

Im not pro men..nor ami pro woman..we all breathe the same air..all feel pain and loss...work together.

Yep, it’s a war. Comforting to see the developing awareness and well thought out positions. It’s evident these hadn’t come about overnight - I know it took me a long time to arrive here.

I’m so impressed by my own son, who seems to be so much more aware of these issues than I was at his age. Guess the personal experience his mother and I provided, was good practical education. Hopefully my daughters too, become better women for it.

Dissing men can only cease to be a women’s sport when enough men decide not to play by the old rules of engagement.

why does every topic on this forum that tries to discuss male/female issues in a sensible way devolve so rapidly into feminist-bashing? I feel like I am wasting my time on here, but some of the comments are so bad I feel compelled to offer some sort of response to them.

"At least one generation of women is regretting taking notice of Greer's loopey spin that motherhood should take second place to climbing the greasy corporate ladder and buying endless material possessions"

Actually, Cornflower, if you had read one of Greer's books, Sex and Destiny, she argues that our society has forgotten the value of motherhood and children. To quote: "feminists are often accused of downgrading motherhood. The accusation is ridiculus: motherhood hit rock-bottom [in our society] long before the new feminist wave broke. The wave itself was caused by the groundswell." (Sex and Destiny, p 13). I know some feminists advocated career before motherhood, but that doesn't mean they all did or that feminism is anti-mother.

I for one would love to be a mother one day, but as greer points out in her book, our society asks young women to make huge sacrifices in order to do so, making it an extremely unattractive option. Why do you think the more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to have children?

"Go back 50 yrs to when women took care of the kids and enjoyed the company of girlfriends and shopping and dad went out to work and had a beer with his mates."

OzGirl, why do you depict the fifties as some sort of idealistic paradise? the fact is things changed, and they changed because people (namely, women) were unhappy with them. To quote Susan Miller Okim, such a view rests on the assumption that "families operate with a benignity never expected of the marketplace or the sphere of politics" .

la1985

Erin Pizzey wrote that in 1971 she was told that her problem was her husband.

We have been told that marriage was a patriarchial construct to keep women oppressed!

We have beem told that fathers are not necessary to raise children.

We have been told that heterosexual women can not give 'consent' because of socialization.

In 1985 Lenore Weitzman published her infamous research which showed that a woman's standard of living fell by 73% and a man's rose by 42% after divorce. The only thing wrong was that her research was wrong. It took a decade or more before researchers were allowed access to her data and they found that she was WRONG.

Researchers who challanged her findings at the time were ignored, because Weitzman's findings supported the urban myths about divorced men.

As a result divorced men with children, loose between 50-85% of assests, then get lumped with child support payments calculated on pre tax income and paid out of after tax income. The end result is that the child support percentages are much higher. For example 2 kids it is 27% pre tax and 38% of after tax income.

Start looking at feminist research much more deeply rather than accepting it at face value and other glaring inconsistencies start to emerge, from advocacy research, to data being hidden, not collected etc.

Feminists became very good at appealing to the emotions whilst ignoring the facts. Exaggerations aimed at engaging an emotional response(flaming) to bypass logical and analytical discourse.

OZGIRL, firstly I don't know where I sold you out. If it seems that way it was unintentional.

On this subject I think I am taking a stand. A stand against the extremes. A stand that looks for win win solutions rather than lumping everybody who disagrees in one basket and condemming them.

I'm against extreme feminism but I also recognise that there have been some important changes brought about because of feminism. I'm pro equality in law and opportunity for men and women where we are all judged on our own abilities rather than perceptions about our agenda.

As a single dad I've seen the rough side of being judged on the basis of my gender. I have female friends who relate to me stories of businessmen who still want to talk to their husband when they are conduct business. While women are treated like that the need for feminism is not over yet.

I think that it is really counter productive to pick the fight with a broader group than the issue is really with. If men want better treatment in family law then we need to get the majority of people who are not personally involved on side and we are not going to achieve that by aleniating women who support the type of feminism that is about equality.

I don't recall a single poster on these threads who has posted in support of the man hating type of feminism but time after time all feminism is attacked because of the extremists.

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from better.

R0bert

So RObert...'a stand against the extremes' translates to sitting on the fence mate..a little bit pregnant if you like .
You tend to gel with the dominant women on OLO so I find it hard to take you seriously on this matter..anything you say is with a vested interest not to upset one of them, one in particular..ie Scout.
So in that light anything you say surrounding any issue with them even remotely involved cannot be taken seriously.

She took you to task for daring to have a joke with me and you bowed to her like a scolded child ..what is going on with that.?

She was out of line RObert ,you did nothing wrong.I stood up for you and you apolagised to Scout for my behaviuor , I thank you very much for that...I support you and you sell me out?
I really do get it RObert..I think I understand you as a man lot better since that episode..

Says a lot about you RObert....more than I care to contemplate.

Scout has a chip on her shoulder about men and she bought you to heel very nicely thank you.

Men need all the help they can get from the fallout that has resulted since feminism..ALL forms of it..if there is such a thing.
And if you cant find it in your own heart to support your own sex when they need you to ,your better off going back to your girly chats on Animal Welfare. Absolutely no offence meant to ANY of the girls there..they are doing a wonderful job... this was said to illustrate a point.

OZGIRL, I'll take up the off topic comments in the general area later when I get more time.

On this topic I've made posts regarding the dissing of men in the media. Not a lot because as usual this kind of thread has turned into a pool of feminist bashing rather than a serious discussion of the problems associated with the negative portrayal of men in the media. Not much point in putting a lot of effort in once threads get like that.

If standing up for men or not sitting on the fense requires a completely one sided unconsidered stand then count me out.

The fence has it's merits and gives a better overview than down in the trenches.

R0bert

Sitting on the fence also makes one an easier target, so let me take a shot.

Men not wanting to upset anyone, disappoint everyone. These are the paternalists in cahoots with the feminists. Self declared moderators in political correctness oblivious to their role in aiding stalemates and spreading apathy.

To them, rules are more important than the game. They would rather let their own team down than break some rule, imagined or real, just or just plain stupid.

It is eminently reasonable to challenge the obvious unfairness and emasculating effect on boys of trickle-down feminist ideology in Education in Australia. It is also reasonable to ask why the feminist policies being implemented in education are not subjected to scrutiny and why there is no adequate community consultation.

To label such questions as ‘feminist bashing’ is to indulge in tricky rhetoric, the implication being of course that these policies are beyond reproach and ‘never you mind’, the gender-type apparatchiks always know better than the voters.

What many people need to understand about government is that the laws passed by Parliament are only the tip of the iceberg of regulations that limit and control our behaviour.

In fact the greater lump of the iceberg of regulations is made up of regulations and operational interpretations and guidelines devised and implemented by bureaucrats, many of whom have considerable delegated powers.

So what is wrong with demanding greater transparency and accountability in public administration and for the community to be involved?

How many parents know that orthodox feminists have introduced Marxist inspired re-education campaigns (such as ‘boys work’) for boys?

How many would support it if they really understood the demeaning impact at grass roots level?

How many parents agree with the gender-type apparatchiks in public education who say that men are not really necessary as teachers because women can provide suitable role models?

When will Australian mothers revolt against the refusal by education bureaucrats to provide programs to address known problems in the self-esteem and wellbeing of boys in the education system

"When will Australian mothers revolt against the refusal by education bureaucrats to provide programs to address known problems in the self-esteem and wellbeing of boys in the education system"

Cornflower: I agree with you about the lack of accountability with the bureaucracy (and not just on this issue). I think we are seeing a revolt, but it's a quiet one. If I recall correctly, non-government education presently represents about 30% of school children, and it's growing at about 1% per annum. People are voting with their feet for the reasons you mention and others. At some point, there will be such a divide (on a whole range of issues) between the public and private systems that the public system will either have to reform or it will condemn itself to being a perpetual, distant second best.

I think this is the thing about Australians and Australian politics. I used to think we were really apathetic in this country, but I don't believe that to be so now. I think it's a lot more subtle than people give credit for. Other societies have (often violent and turbulent) revolutions, but we let things get a little out of hand here for a while, hoping they'll naturally correct themselves, and then we eventually get sick of that and all vote with our feet. We don't necessarily make a big song and dance of that though. I believe this will happen with gender relations in time.

Recently the Victorian Law Reform Commission asked for submission on domestic violence.

I submitted roughly 30 different articles and research papers from various sources.

The final report reads like an assignment for women's studies. No surprise there. It was intirely predictable what the findings were going to be.

Interestingly they listed all of Michael Floods submissions.
My name appears and that is all, no reference to any of the papers I submitted. Basically the claims made by myself and the Lone Fathers association were dismissed. And the final report by the Law Reform Commission was deliberately written to refer to women as the victims and men as the perpetrators of domestic violence.

I have noticed a very strong tendency where feminist research is always accepted and not challanged and any research which shows men in a positive light is challanged rather viciously.

What you just wrote is sufficient to send to politicians. Just grab the addresses from the Net and go for it.

All of our local pollies (both major Parties) complain that they only hear from the noisy lobby groups and that 'normal' people rarely come forward to express an opinion (except on election day I guess). Without complaints they feel a bit legless to do much.

So true... any wonder why 8-out-of-ten kids with ADHD are boys?, and the same proportion of suicides are men

JAmesH, DV stats and handling is one area where men are getting an amazingly bad rap despite numerous studies showing that DV is not significantly genderised.

I’ve posted this in the past but as support for your comments about the treatment of DV issues the following from the Queensland Health web site is worth a look. One of the ugliest government sponsored dissing men items I’ve seen.

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.
Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

I’ve not seen any serious research results regarding the genderisation or frequency of emotional or psychological abuse but my guess is that women would give at least as much as they receive and that it would be more common than physical abuse. Maybe these people take the old “sticks and stones thing” seriously as well as the “sugar and spice and all things nice”.

I have a letter from Warren Pitt the then Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors in which it is claimed that 76.6% of the applications for domestic violence orders made between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 were made by women (even if representative of all DV a long way from the lower end of the Qld Health range at 85%).

I’d also recommend a great book by feminist author Paticia Pearson called “When She Was Bad” dealing with the misrepresentation of female violence. ISBN 0-14-024388-7.
Subtitled “How and Why Women Get Away With Murder”.

Seeker, correct sitting on the fence does make me an easier target but it’s also easier to see who’s trying to pick the fight. As Trade said "Once you see how hard the batlle is and how difficult it is to challenge oneself, you give up, get angry, attack and vilify the opposition... maintain the rage.".

OZGIRL, I’ve put a response to some of your off topic comments at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=70#1435

R0bert

RObert (and others)

That stuff on the Queensland Dept Health site is outrageous.

Stephen Robertson is the new Minister, give his electoral office a phone call to complain or drop a short note (or email) quoting the stuff in the site.

Here are his addresses and it would be interesting to see an outcome:

Stephen Robertson MP

Electorate Office
Unit 5/62 Pinelands Road
SUNNYBANK HILLS Q 4109

Ph: (07) 3344 2659
Fax: (07) 3344 1258
Email: stretton@parliament.qld.gov.au

For those you are unsure, the polite form of address is The Hon. Stephen Robertson MP ( and continue with the address).

I mentioned writing to him at his electorate office or at parliament house because there is no point in writing to him as Minister for the Department of Health (the bureaucrats will just toss off a diplomatic, do-nothing reply).

I would be polite, it's not his fault and he probably has not seen the site.

Re: QLD Health - skewed stats
These stats 85-95% are taken from 'reports to police'. Men generally dont report domestic violence - when my ex-wife threatened to shoot me (in front of the children, I might add). The domestic violence service said, 'we only handle complaints of violence against women'. (Apparently men did not exist as part of the domestic environment) When I rang the police they actually laughed down the phone and said, 'Alright we'll make sure she doesnt get a gun licence'. That is in part why men dont report.

I have written to almost every government agency I can find suggesting they use the new figures available from the ABS Personal Safety Survey that has been recently released.

Unfortunately there seems to be a concerted campaign of misinformation in government circles to promote the ideas that 'victims' and 'women' are the same thing and 'perpetrators' and 'men' are the same thing. I am appalled when government bureaucrats appearing on programs like Insight use these terms interchangeably.

It is a waste of time writing to the people who drafted it.

The best approach is the handwritten letter to your local member. Much more emphasis is put on handwritten than typed than fax than email (in that order).

However a handwritten letter to the Minister at his electorate office would do.

You do not have to argue a case or provide scads of evidence, all you need do is:

- Express doubt about the numbers and request clarification of the source of the numbers and what limitations apply to the numbers and any conclusions that can be drawn from them. After all, a definition of 'domestic violence' is not given, nor is the source of the numbers given. Where and when were the numbers collated? For what purpose/s?

- At the same time ask why there is an apparent difference or inconsistency between the numbers given and violence numbers for Australia which seem to indicate that, with respect to children, women feature strongly in psychological violence and non-delivery of care/nurtrition to children. Are these numbers included? If not why not?

Again, there is no reference to same sex couples, yet researchers believe that violence in same sex couples is not uncommon. Why were same sex couples excluded and what action will be taken to redress this omission?

I was surprised that 'domestic violence' was interpreted by one (federal) agency as refering exclusively to interaction between adult male and female (heterosexual) couple.

At he same time the definition was broad enough to include a verbal remark about the woman's clothing as 'domestic violence'! The site did not say how the daya was collected! It OUGHT to have been given though along with any inherent limitations in the data and its interpretation. Hey we are taliking about government funded bodies here and they should not be adopting a political stance.

I think a lot of men get bogged down justifying and defending themselves (which is exhausting) when a far better result is obtained by just asking a few questions of the right person.

I have been lucky enough to be brought up to respect women, defend the "weaker sex", they are not really , and not kick a man while he is down [after a fist fight that is ].
Women's roles are changing .
This does not bother me ,but their lack of comittment to their male partners does.This is very detrimental to cohesion and happiness in our society .
It would be very interesting to find out how much psycological "violence" men do cop from their partner and their female bosses .
Girls, should the mental bruising be taken "on the jaw" ,like a man ??

"Kids are now left home alone because mum just has to go and make her 'mark' on the world...dads dont know which way is up because they were once the bread winners and were taught that from birth".

OZGIRL, ever thought that some women go out to work because their husbands dont/cant make enough money. Getting more common now that women are more educated and getting equally (or better in lots of cases). It does tend to hurt the male ego a tad, but they're reasonably hardy creatures.

Some kids also get left at home alone, because they're in a single parent family (lots of them around these days) - someone has to put a roof over their heads.

For me, I grew up in a single-parent family, caused by death, not divorce. My dad did a pretty good job raising 3 girls, teaching them about puberty, getting them through a public education system where most maths and science teachers were still male (despite this I still managed to beat the boys at maths and physics - yay!). All this when he only got 2 years of schooling by correspondence school (never been in a classroom in his life). We got left alone at home (or at the bus stop on the way home from school) plenty, because someone had to work. Didnt hurt us - we're all reasonably balanced people. Reasonably.

Yes men are discriminated against. So are women. Unless it turns downright nasty, who cares. Walk away, turn off your tv. If it gets nasty, put the boot in for your rights. Hard. Where it hurts. Otherwise, get over it.

I am no longer young and I was just thinking - I have never actually seen a woman slap a man. It makes me realise that women have known how to punch for a very long time.

It is a waste of time writing to the people who drafted it.
The best approach is the handwritten letter to your local member.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 22 September 2006 7:36:34 PM

Not only that but also hand-delivered - I have written everything I can think to everyone I can think of including all the issues you raised and many others besides - still no results.

A long time ago poor old Germaine Greer wrote: "Women have no idea how much men hate them." After reading most of these posts, I think I now have some idea.

Hedgepig wrote, "A long time ago poor old Germaine Greer wrote: "Women have no idea how much men hate them." After reading most of these posts, I think I now have some idea."

Psychologist Toby Green wrote that some women have a much harder time being wrong and to watch out when she tries to turn the arguement around so that she appears to be the victim.

Hedgepig

If you like Greer quotes here is more recent one of hers apropos of her passion for adolescent boys:

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do..."

According to you I must be a woman hater simply because I found Greer's sexual obsession with young boys quite revolting:

boy "old enough to be capable of a sexual response, but not yet old enough to shave".

"This window of opportunity is not only narrow," she writes, "it is mostly illegal."

Greer opines that child protection (against sexual predators) is not needed for boys after the age of 10-12 years (?!)

There are plenty of liberated and sensitive woman around to quote and here are two examples:

“My theory is that men are no more liberated than women.”
– Indira Gandhi

or

“No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Hedgepig, Ms Greer is old, I'll grant you that but she is far from mature in her thinking and attitudes.

JamesH, congrats, you've found a psychologist who also hates women. I presume this makes him one of the good mental health professionals, rather than those terrible ones who go around validating the experiences of raped women.

Cornflower, I promise to only quote nice women from now on.

Hedgepig! Toby Green is a woman. He He He

Accusing men of hating women is a pretty good manipulative technique whilst it works.

It is 'Dissing' men and that is what the article is all about.

Sure when men start writing and talking they are going reveal things that many women would rather they did not talk about, because not all little girls are made of sugar and spice.

In psychology there are two terms 'projection' and 'transference.'

(projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.

To understand the process, imagine an individual (Alice, for example) who feels dislike for another person (let's say Bob), but whose unconscious mind will not allow her to become aware of this negative emotion. Instead of admitting to herself that she feels dislike for Bob, she projects her dislike onto Bob, so that her conscious thought is not "I don't like Bob," but "Bob doesn't like me.")

Subsequently when women accuse men of hating them,it is because of what men are saying. In reality women are feeling dislike and anger about what they hear men are saying, so it is more comfortable to accuse men of hating women. Rather than owning their own feelings.

Funny how men accuse fems of being man-hating carpet lickers, only to see women accuse mens issues as syptomatic of hating women. Havent heard any small falus, gay jibes yet, tho they cannot be too far away.

Projection is right on the money, or as a child would put it...

'takes one to know one.'

Yet again in this 'debate' the sound of another person shooting themselves in the foot.

This is getting very old. The thoroughly predictable responses and terms of engagement are getting very tedious. Its pointless to engage the ideological opponent around rhetoric. Its far more productive to convert the convertible, tho l suspect they need no active conversion as they seem to be adjusting in the spirit of 'staying out of harms way.'

Wot a bummer this whole gender snore and battle of the exs is becoming.

peace.

trade1985 wrote; "Funny how men accuse fems of being man-hating carpet lickers, only to see women accuse mens issues as syptomatic of hating women."

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -U.S. National organization for Women Times.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan,

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

The SCUM (Society for cutting up men) manifesto, was started by Valerie Solana

I guess all the above quotes are just an urban myth.

There has been a push by feminist groups to make inciting hatred against women a crime and to monitor mens groups, yet conversely inciting hatred against men is not a crime.

Well trade1985 there are a number of valuable books that can be read.
Professing Feminism, Who Stole Feminism, Heterophobia, The Sex Change Society, Spreading Misandry, Not Guilty in Defense of the Modern Man.

Read these books if you are game!

JamesH wrote: Hedgepig! Toby Green is a woman. He He He

So, I gather, is Cornflower!! You don't have to have a y chromosome to spout misogynist drivel.

JamesH, you write incessantly about all the horrible things women say and do and think, and yet you seem to think it entirely unreasonable for anyone to interpret your continuous stream of invective as evidence of your misogyny. You claim that women are liars, that they are manipulative, that they are commodities (and expensive ones at that!), that their movement for equality is comparable with Stalinism, and resembles Orwell's Animal Farm. How much more evidence of obsessive misogyny do I need?
As for your lecture in pop psychology, I'm quite comfortable saying that I dislike you because your denial of the reality of many women's abuse at the hands of men - many of whom are close relatives - is despicable and makes me angry. Have I owned my feelings loudly enough for you? How about owning up to yours?

Hedgepig writes, "JamesH, you write incessantly about all the horrible things women say and do and think, and yet you seem to think it entirely unreasonable for anyone to interpret your continuous stream of invective as evidence of your misogyny."

I believe it is unreasonable for Hedgehog (or anybody) to malign a person's intentions as misogynistic, on the basis that they state and quote evidence from diverse places to illustrate their argument.

If one writes and states the history of Hitler and his Nazis, does this then mean necessarily that that person hates Germans? I think not. It simply shows that they are learned of their history. Any other interpretations of the writer's motives are subjective conclusions of the reader - probably based on their own subjective experiences.

Criticism of feminism is not an act of misogyny. Those who criticise feminism are not by definition, misogynists. Feminist does not equal woman. But you probably DO have to have a Y chromosome to understand the simple logic of that argument without one's f-e-e-e-lings getting in the way - depending on one's time of the month of course.

So, all this hanging around genitals is a mere reflection on a role of gender in societies.

In Australia, a self-indulged parasite on world achievements, prostitution and gambling are the most contemporary major areas of activities requiring no male specialisation and physical force at all.

Regrettably, a different story is in an Islamic world where manhood constitutes a very engine for a living development and improvement.

Can one unite sun and moon performing their extinctive features simultaneously?
Can one unite summer and winter in the same physical moment?
Can one produce ice and boiling pattern from the same volume of water in the same glass under the same physical conditions?

Please, explain.

Hedgepig this forum is about dissing men. It is not about the abuse of women.

Stick to the arguement.

I have spent many years analysing, dissecting and navel gazing to the n'th degree. Trying to discover what it is about being a man that oppresses women. I went looking for the holy grail of male power and privilege. Like those that set out on the quest for the holy grail, I came up empty handed.

If you bother to read any of the books that I have listed you will find everything I have written mentioned in those books.

As too my feelings towards you. I don't know you, to make a judgement as to whether I like you or not. I may dislike a persons political views, but still like that person for who they are.

I think it was Bettina Arndt who wrote 'women do not like being shown their true colours!'

I am well and truly past feeling angry about what people chose to write about.

JamesH, with supporters like Maximus who needs detractors? I think I'll leave you guys to it.

Hedgepig,

“ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.
Mind-blowing news, huh?”

“Feminism begs to differ, but unisex brain is a fantasy
So, says Janet Albrechtsen, girls and boys are different after all. D'oh”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20481754-32522,00.html

Country Gal...get off my back..I still think that kids are left home because these days we're not happy for dad to go out to work and The reason we 'have too' have 2 jobs now is because of consumer greed..
We want it all and we want it NOW.2 cars..a new house full of brand new furniture, designer clothes for us and our kids, credit cards for convenience sake..holidays,xmas with ALL the trimmings and all the new fangled gear that technology can provide..
We dont pay for anything anymore it goes onto credit cards etc.

That IS THE ONLY reason that we HAVE TO have 2 jobs...GREED.
We work so hard to keep up with the mortgages and credit card debt we dont have time to breathe let alone spend time with our kids..

Theyre the victims of stupid selfish one eyed parents who know nothing of family values and how to be balanced caring parents.

These pple forget that when theyre children are grown they wont look back at the new fangled gadgets and the house stuffed with the latest fashions and best furniture as theyre most treasured childhood memory..It will be without a doubt that mum and dad took the time and played with them, loved them and were relaxed loving parents.
The way we raise them we are teaching them that the most important thing in their lives is consumer goods..defining themselves with 'things' they can buy..self worth measured by who has the most 'things'.Family values, integrity,love slowly slipping away.

I am a single mum..so dont give that hard luck story about dad etc..
My parents were alcholic and mentally ill and yes I too had a tough life..I had NO childhood and to say I survived and Im still here well yes of course..but thats a dumb eqaution as is yours..makes no sense to say 'didnt hurt me'...glad your fine..but you miss my point.

Trade...You really shouldnt describe the problems tha seperate men and women as a 'war'..it si a bit melodramatic dont you think..?

Such dramtic language does not inspire balanced and ethical debate that provide ideas and comment based in something close the truth for men and women out there...

There is enough drama in our lives without having to drum it up and anyway the battle of the sexes is a little outmoded these days..

I think if each one of us just aspires to live our 'own personal truth' then that should be the most important thing in our lives..

If we are stuck in poisonous relationships we should leave..men and women..but to say we are completely powerless and are victims of Germaines influence over society and outcomes generated by that then we become 'victims' and that implies an unwillingness to take charge and be responsible for our own happiness..
Granted she is a viper...horrid woman ,who as Cornflower I think, left that horrid link of her sinking to her lowest low by showing us that pornographic image,but I think we have to move past Ms Greer and just DECIDE to be happy..thats all it takes..decide and you will be.

But having said that Trade..I do realise that men do need to speak out and take some of their ground back..

The colourful language using terms such as 'war' I dont think however help to bring rational debate and only recruit like minded pple such as yourself, when in fact you should be inviting the 'enemy' ie women in to present alternate and workeble solutions to them as well..only then can you sow the seeds of change.

I am one female out here who fights for the rights of men..but only situationally so..ie:if I happen to witness something that is clearly unfair to a male happening in my presence I will speak up..I dont however approach it as an us and them thing..

I must stress very strongly that although I feel the right of men have been eroded does not mean that my rights or the rights of any female come secondary to that..

balance:) :)

Maybe, it is YOUR reason only, OZGIRL, GREED:

We dont pay for anything anymore it goes onto credit cards etc.

That IS THE ONLY reason that we HAVE TO have 2 jobs...GREED.

Those non-Angloses have NO job at all in a xenophobic racist place called Australia.

Eat IT

OZGIRL, nicely said. There are issues which need addressing but trying to turn it into a gender war is very harmfull.

Michael, what was your last post about? Have I missed some history to your comments because they seemed completely out of context with OZGIRLS comments.

What's with the generalised attack on this country? Do you need to start a "Dissing Australia" thread on the general discussion comments? I'm sure that you'll get plenty of takers with your opening salvo.

R0bert

RObert, no attack on anyone and a country in general, but a realistic response to messages provided by the leaving on a different planet, true-blue-“fair go” Anglo- Australians, that is a only pattern impersonated with “Aussies” locally.

For a long time their was only a few female role-models for women in the western world.

Women are so used to it that when they see one female character they assume that character stands for all women.

Men know better. If one dude is a creep then he's a creep. what's he got to do with them?

A whole bunch of jerk characters around actually make him look better when he turns out to be such a good guy.

Good guy-bad guy, but reproduction rules!

Negative portrayals of men in the media and arts, particularly how men behave with other men, have been around for a long time. Look at the bible with Cain and Able. Even early silent films have depicted men treating each other poorly.

I have created a site to find positive portrayals of men's friendships
without destructive behavior, and one can find the link to it on
Michael Flood's XY web site.