I read some of this article, then...

Ahahahahahahahahaha.

It is typical of the tension around gender that most of the above comments are barely coherent.

James is raising some interesting ideas here, though his argument needs more careful weighing of the evidence.
I think I would say

1. Ideology does rear its head in the universities. I would have liked to have seen more evidence for what James is saying. It's not hard to find. Universities are bastions of political correctness and most academics, particularly in the social sciences, are scared to deviate from accepted doctrine. This includes feminism. Subjects which talk about masculinities [sic] try to divide men and suggest that anything masculine is bad.

2.James needs to provide more systematic evidence for his case. How many university subjects use the word feminism? And in what context? What texts do they use? What biases do these have?

3. I would like to see more quantitative evidence along the lines of Jim Macnamara's article "Dissing Men".

4. And some more qualitative evidence also. The judgement reported in today's Australian (October 17) was that Ticky Fullerton's "Four Corners" prpogram was balanced in quantity between two sides of an argument. But emotionally it was weighted unfairly.

In sum, just because an article is argued unsystematically is no reason to jump down an author's throat. We can surely agree that men and women have different experiences. We need many views of gender, not one. Universities- and the ABC too - are funded by the public. They should not represent feminism - or masculinism or any other ism- to the exclusion of other views.

Behold you Lefties, there goeth a Righty with balls.

(now where's my notepad)

Men, many indoctrinated in capitalism and rationalism since the 1800's, are now in positions of power.
Bring on the women.

I'm interested in the idea that Canada's new domestic violence laws are considered to be 'draconian'. What is draconian is that millions of women live their everyday constrained by the threat and perpetration of violence. I am amused by the threads of conspiracy theory which permeate the article - that women from feminist camps have inflitrated the ranks of law makers and the judiciary! Let's get some perspective on this: the vast majority of the judiciary and law makers in both Australia and Canada are white males; rather than brainwashed could it be that women actually resonate with feminist theorists and writers becasue unlike the thousands of male writers most students are required to read, these texts speak to and of women's experiences?? I also wonder how it is that nowhere in the article id there any mention of the violation of rights which women and children experience at the hands of perpetrators - where is their right to safety? to live life free from fear? As noted in the article, if the man pleads guilty and agrees to attend an anger management program he is free to go - go where? back to the family home, where an esculation of violence will no doubt occur. Who's rights are bing protected? who's rights are being violated? Whilst men have rights as human beings - women and children have those same rights and I find the lack of mention of this disturbing. Perhaps I should not be concerned given that this article is just another example of the paranoia which permeates the men's movement and seeps out into pages of online opinion forums like this!

I think the feminists miss the point anyway.The more we involve lawyers and Govt institutions in our lives,so proportionally will our personal relationships decay,since not only is there no onus on the individuals to seek amicable solutions,but also we fail to develop as individuals.Today it is just too easy to spit the dummy and walk away searching for our Hollywood partner of image without substance.In the end very few end up being happy.

Our present laws are sufficient to cope with violent men ,it's just the judiciary are too gutless to enforce the law.