LOOKOUT!

Step back fella's. There's a "real man" here and he's not taking any prisoners by the sounds of it. If it weren't for the fact that I'm laughing so much, I guess I should be quaking in my boots.

Dear, dear, dear, dear, dear. Where do they come from?

Mr West, you may be a real man in your own lunch-time, or when you're slumming around the women's studies campus, or in the shower, or in your own dreams, but I don't think you're going to get a lot of support here.

I'm really lost for words.

I'm still cracking up with laughter. I'll try writing again later when I've composed myself. This is all so brilliant. And vivy, any chance of getting your phone number. Once I was VERY involved with a beautiful Sicilian girl and I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. And I know the way of you're thinking too. And it's certainly not the same way that Mr West thinks.

Anyway, good luck to all of you. You can't help but see the humour of it all.

Viva la difference!

It is sad I think, that there is still so much misunderstanding between the genders and people seem to be very rigid in their opinions.

I am sure that dressing a certain way entices (or repels) certain types of men (or women for that matter). Whether we like it or not, certain messages are sent from our appearance and behaviour. While I consider theoretically in a free society, people should be able to express themselves as they wish without harassment, in practice this is not the case.

Take for example the clothes worn by young men: baggy jeans, sweatshirts with hoods etc. Young men will tell you that they, rather than men dressed in suits, get unwanted attention from the police. And some women feel the need to attract any sort of attention which makes it very hard on the rest of us who just want to treated as people. Unfortunately in this day and age of "image" people cannot, and do not want to, see beneath the surface.

The author asserts that: "Taken within this context, Hilali's words,.... sit well within the parameters of a certain “Australian value” according to which women are responsible for men's aberrant behaviour, even when they are its victims."

and

"It is.... still part of the “norm” in the collective Australian psyche to consider women as sexual predators of unwitting men who simply can't help themselves"

The author should be aware that the Australian community does not agree with her assertions and for many years Courts have not been able to take into account such things as the previous sexual history of the alleged victim, provocative dress or whatever that were previously seen as possible contributory factors.

Why pretend that these antiquated views hold sway (as the 'norm') when there is practical evidence to the contrary? This gives readers an entirely wrong view of Australian culture.

Even though we pass laws there will still be the small percentage of perpetrators who break them. However when apprehended as they almost certainly will be, they will be dealt with most severely by the Courts.

The Australian public is strong in its resolve that all sexual crimes should attract strong sentences and Australians' abhorrence of sexual crimes and violence is not diminished by the utterances of the Sheik. Australians are not soft on sexual predators and will never accept the Sheik's rationalisations. The recent outcry against the Sheik is proof of that.

So how could it be (as the author asserts) "the “norm”" in Australia "to consider women as sexual predators of unwitting men who simply can't help themselves"? That is simple not true.

I think the author has lost her perspective on this issue.

I got the impression from Hilaly's speach that he was actually suggesting that men are animalistic and incapable of controlling their actions.

This implies that: men can be excused for extreme violence simply because they are can't control their actions, and that this is ok with him.

Now I know most men do not go around raping women and I think they should be very angry at the slur.

Some men, actually get turned off if a woman is being overly inviting, whereas others get titilated but don't feel the need to violate and rape. Gee whiz, imagine what chaos there would be if all men were absolutely controlled by their penises.

Men who cannot control their base urges are deviate, not the norm.

The author does a disservice by implying that it is young girl childern that get abused, young boy children get sexually assaulted too. I doubt if anyone would suggest that they dressed provocatively!

Voilence is violence, and women are capable of violence also, but there is no justification for rape.

A letter written to one of our newspapers suggested that men might not succumb to life’s carnal vices if they were shut away in their rooms wearing a suitable head covering. Perhaps a blanket would serve the purpose.

Well put aka.

I cant help but wonder at the lack of outrage (or at the least the very much more subdued response) of men to the comments of the mufti. Surely men should be outraged at the suggestion that they lack so much intelligence that they are completely subject to their instincts, rather than being capable of rational thought and reasoned action. The author of this article no doubt has used this relatively quiet reaction to draw a correlation that the views held widely by australian men cant be that different. Which, even if the correlation is not true, is a reason starting point to examine why the reaction from men was not as strong as it could have been. So has anyone got suggestions about this?