“That prostitutes, sex workers, women in any neighbourhood, women who drink in bars or out of them, women who talk to strange men or familiar ones have a right not to be raped or sexually abused is of relatively recent vintage in our legal system”, asserts this human rights lawyer.

OK. But any woman who puts herself in “iffy” situations – just because she has the right not to be raped or sexually abused – is and idiot. Rapists are not interested in rights. Rights do not prevent rape. The only thing rights do is ensure that the rapist will be dealt with if found guilty.

We all have rights. But we are also responsible for our own well being and safety. Rights are only of practical use to the author and her colleagues after the event, when they charge victims huge fees for their services.

Lady, get real. It is a jungle out there and when these naive young women go into it they should realise that after both they and the virile young lions that they meet have had a few drinks and/or drugs, that sheet will happen, so beware. If they don't, it isn't forgetfulness, it is simply stupidity.

Thank you Jocelyn Scutt for this useful article. It's an evidence-based counterpoint to Father Dave's anecdotal piece in the same issue of OLO. I feel sorry for Leigh - he just doesn't get it.

The long struggle by women’s groups in Australia to bring what you rightly describe as "fairness, ethics and principled morality into rape law" has been inspiring. But it's clear that the struggle to convince many Australians - and not just Islamists - that the rationale for these changes is wholly justifiable is far from over.

I don't think that Sheik Hilali is an isolated case of powerful men in Australia being 20 years out of date.

Jocelynne,

Good article and point well made.

I have to disagree Jocelynne. While I think you are right Australia is changing it's views, the dear old sheik is much much more than merely 20 years behind.

The author said: “No one should condone the statements made by Sheik Hilali. .....Just as it is doubly serious if people in positions of authority in any part of the Australian community express such views.”

True, but interestingly, some Australian feminists still seek to excuse the Sheik, which I guess is all about the Left being sweet on Islam. This makes for strange bedfellows because the values and goals of feminism and Islam are diametrically opposed. However the Left is feeling a bit devoid of champions these days and probably only sides with Islam through a (wrong) belief that it somehow represents the ‘outsiders’ and ‘downtrodden’ in the world (which it doesn’t). Still, that is the crazy feminist Left for you, so busy castigating white Anglo-Saxon men that they would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. Their actions impede change, as the author suggests.

All of the evidence before us is that an overwhelming majority of Australian men and women disagree with the Sheik. This why the Sheik has been caused to offer explanations.

Men and women are victims of rape and of sexual offences generally. Only recently we have seen a succession of female molestors of adolescent male students get lighter sentences and the victims received little or no support from male and female journalists. Unfortunately there will always be some men and some women who presume that the victim (regardless of gender) must have contributed somehow. Female and male perpetratiors use the same excuses.

In an ideal world, men and women would be able to go anywhere and do anything and not be at fear of some perpetrators taking advantage of them. However in the real world we all have to risk manage to some extent and that is not because men are men or women are women, it is because some people are criminals.

But that being said, Australia is not a “rape supportive” society and there are strong disincentives in place to deter perpetrators.

The author said: “No one should condone the statements made by Sheik Hilali. .....Just as it is doubly serious if people in positions of authority in any part of the Australian community express such views.”

True, but interestingly, some Australian feminists still seek to excuse the Sheik, which I guess is all about the Left being sweet on Islam. This makes for strange bedfellows because the values and goals of feminism and Islam are diametrically opposed. However the Left is feeling a bit devoid of champions these days and probably only sides with Islam through a (wrong) belief that it somehow represents the ‘outsiders’ and ‘downtrodden’ in the world (which it doesn’t). Still, that is the crazy feminist Left for you, so busy castigating white Anglo-Saxon men that they would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. Their actions impede change, as the author suggests.

All of the evidence before us is that an overwhelming majority of Australian men and women disagree with the Sheik. This why the Sheik has been caused to offer explanations.

Men and women are victims of rape and of sexual offences generally. Only recently we have seen a succession of female molestors of adolescent male students get lighter sentences and the victims received little or no support from male and female journalists. Unfortunately there will always be some men and some women who presume that the victim (regardless of gender) must have contributed somehow. Female and male perpetrators use the same excuses.

In an ideal world, men and women would be able to go anywhere and do anything and not be at fear of some perpetrators taking advantage of them. However in the real world we all have to risk manage to some extent and that is not because men are men or women are women, it is because some people are criminals.

But that being said, Australia is not a “rape supportive” society and there are strong disincentives in place to deter perpetrators.

Jocelynne Scutt,

Very sensible article.

Re: Leigh’s "iffy" situations nonsense. So a middle-aged woman who works the late shift in a petrol station and misses her train and finds herself alone and is gang raped is somehow responsible for her own trouble? Leigh this unavoidable situation may be "iffy" in your eyes but I think you are wrong to give the sexual predators any leeway and add to their catalogue of pathetic excuses.

There are no excuses. Should a taxi driver complain that he or she was bashed because they put themselves in a dodgy situation?
“Your honour my client admits killing the taxi driver but he asked for it driving around at two in the morning picking up strange men.”
Is he to blame for exercising his rights as a citizen? No. He or she is exercising the right to earn a living without threat or violence. Anyone who denies that is against freedom and the rule of law.

Women are out and about more at night because of work,shopping, entertainment etc. This is not “asserting” it is exercising a basic right –like the taxi driver. Women, for instance, have a right to go jogging or cycling without excessive concerns or restrictions. Don’t women have the same rights to this activity as men? The failure of authorities to treat women fairly gives tacit approval for more abuse and restrictive behaviours. Where will it end?

Women’s loss of freedom of movement is disproportionate to males. A society that thinks there is an excuse such as “iffy situation”, or is indifferent to harm done to people they regard as dodgy, is allowing harm to be done to women and to their freedom of movement.

Ultimately though, it is the sexually aggressive males who are the ones responsible for interfering with women's safety and freedom of movement in our society. Feminists need to not suggest that the few lecherous ones are representative of all Ausssie males.

It is not moral superiority or forgetfulness that sees women treated unfairly - just blatant chauvinism, callousness, indifference and male ignorance.

I don't know for how many years 'rape' has existed as a criminal offense. If women were truly 'oppressed' rape would not have been regarded as a crime.

I seem to remember that if a negro slave was accused of assaulting a white woman, he'd be hanged. I guess according to some posters this didn't mean that the crime of rape was not taken seriously enough.

I don't know how many men have been hanged throughout the centuries for assaulting or raping a woman, I think some were even castrated.

"It has taken eons of urging, commitment, energy and arguing, to have the Australian legal system drag itself into a semblance of accepting that women are not genetically programmed to be liars."

There is some research which show that women are much better liars than men.

http://www.angryharry.com/reWomenFakeSexNumbers.htm
Interestingly when researchers where questioning men and woman about the number of partners they had, women had fewer partners than men. It was thought that it was the men who were lying, that is until the interviewees were attached to a lie detector.

God! aren't I going to be sent to purgatory.

I think to speed up the process, both the alleged victim and perpetrator should be attached to a lie detector. this process will either kill the urban myth or confirm it.

It seems we are changing from the presumption of innocence, to the presumption of guilt and it is the accused who must prove they are innocent.

Oh boy the way even women believe that women lie.

Maybe we should just do what some feminist suggested and that is castrate the men. Eunuchs than would not be interested in women and we would solve two problems with one cut. There would be no sexual assault and we would in about a century have no human race.

Dr Scutt, you missed the most recent example of a judgement, and that is in the case of MSK, MAK etc - the four Pakistani brothers sentenced to long periods in gaol for rape.

The Honourable Justice Sully made this observation, which is very pertinent:

"The rapes committed upon both LS and HG are, in my opinion, one and all clearly within the worst case category of that crime.

44 The two victims were teen-aged school girls. Having seen and heard them in two trials, I think that LS was plainly the more mature and somewhat more sophisticated for her age than was HG; but both girls were not as capable of taking care of themselves as they obviously thought they were. From the moment they got into the motor vehicle en route to Ashfield they were appallingly at risk that something untoward would happen to them; and they were in every practical sense utterly defenceless should that risk materialise in fact."

He further said, however

"In our society, to force a woman, any woman, to have sexual intercourse is, always and everywhere, at once a base act and a major crime. It is not, ever or anywhere, a defence that the woman was flighty, flirtatious or simply foolish."

from http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2004nswsc.nsf/aef73009028d6777ca25673900081e8d/fd97eff2f8aa101cca256e7d00020305?OpenDocument

The point that the Judge was trying to make was simple: that the males who carried out these assaults had no excuse whatsoever, and they each received long sentences (one of 22 years), however it is also not wise for anyone to place themselves in a position of vulnerability.

I obviously cannot copy the entire judgement here, but I would suggest that anyone with an interest in this area spend the time to read it for yourselves.

If I was robbed while drunk in a dark alley at 2am in a sleazy area I would acknowledge my stupidity as a contributing factor.
I wouldn't crap on about my right to be unrobbed.
The standard feminist line is that "rape is more about power than sex" but I think it is a lot more like theft. An ebriated chick with her tits hanging half out is like a well-heeled drunk asking to be rolled.
Ms Scutt continues to encourage a lack of common sense and caution, the same guff she has been spouting for ten years or more. How did someone so obviously short on smarts become a barrister? Must have been affirmative action or nepotism I guess.

"Now people say it was a kind of rape ... Well, I say if it was rape, it was a good rape..."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/mcelroy2.html

No! this is not some phrase from a misoginistic website.

It is a phrase from the Vagina Monologues, written by feminist Eve Ensler.

In the play a 24 year old woman plies a 13 year old girl with alcohol.

There are case histories on restricted websites of women being sexually assaulted by other women. I wonder if one really did ask how many women have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

There is NO excuse, reason or sanity in rape it's a twisted evil mind wishing to dominate a target who seems vunerable. Rapist's deprive people of their liberty, their self esteem, their self confidence, and their sense of equalibtium.

They are cowards who attack women, and sometimes men, and should be dealt with serverely, we do not need these creatures in our society, we already have enough violence, enough drugs, get these monsters off the street and into jail indefineately, they are not ill, they are evil.

Good article.

Our society has so much more work to do, in order to protect women and children, even men, from sexual assault. We should be critical of Sheik Hilali’s comments. We should be active right across the Australian community too.

I am not going to enter into the same tired old arguments with the usual suspects who bang on incessantly about women. However, for those others who my be tempted, I would just point to JamesH's source which was provided in all seriousness.

It's a website of sickening hatred towards women which purports to have proof that Governments all over the world are involved in a conspiracy with those devilish "hateful" feminists for some undisclosed reason.

Much of the content not only of JamesH's responses but of all those other men who regularly take over blog threads with "proof" for their theories originates from this site.

It also contains the following: "But I'd watch out if I was one [a woman] because it will not be long now before millions of western men are alerted to how they have been disregarded, disadvantaged and demonsied thanks to...the feminist movement and...the vast majority of women...The backlash against women is going to be positively huge unless women and governments quickly mend their misandric ways"...

That rather says it all for JamesH and co, doesn'tit?

This site produces some of the most bizarre contributions from ignorant buffoons who exhibit their bravado only when they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. The ones who I despise the most are those, bereft of a decent argument and unable to appreciate a decent argument from others, irrationally attack the person rather than respond to their ideas. Some, like "Citizen" (what an ironic nom-de-plume) can't stand the thought that a woman - especially a smart woman - may be well informed and reasoned in debate. Citizen, I'd rather you didn't grace us with your bully-boy remarks about successful women rising only because of affirmative action or nepotism.

You may ask: aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? Maybe, but sometimes the justifcation is so obvious. Besides, how can one possibly respond to your ideas when your conception of rape is "An ebriated chick with her tits hanging half out is like a well-heeled drunk asking to be rolled"?

Please don,t take this seriously. Confucious said " no such thing as rape, girl with skirt up runs faster than man with pants down". PS I do post some comments that are intelligent. By the way lighten up all.

Excellent article, Dr Scutt. As FrankGol has said, you provide a cogent and evidence-based counterpoint to the drivel presented in 'Father Dave's' article at this site. I also agree with FG and Romany concerning the deranged nature of some of the links to which the more extreme misogynist 'usual suspects' direct us in their comments.

With respect to Hilali being "20 years out of date", it appears that this is untrue for these commentators. When Father Dave expresses essentially the same ideas as Hilali he attracts approving comments from these people, who speak for the ugly remnant underbelly of Australia's formerly (?) patriarchal society.

While Hilali's statements were certainly anachronistic and offensive, his vilification is more a product of his being a prominent Muslim than of the content of his silly pronouncements.

Frank/Derek,
Thank you both for your contributions, I think you will find the "Citizen's" of this world are only brave with women and children. I appreciate a bit of "confusus say" and I am a survivor, however it is a serious subject I like some, recover easier than others, however I still have a list of symptoms as long as your arm, healty debate and positive suggestions on how to solve this promlem in society is what is needed here.

Surely with the diversity in this room, we could collectively arrive at a sensible suggestion, which we or Graham could pass on to our local MP and get them off their collective backsides, and addressing our societies serious problems.

Don’t forget CJ, the world is also full of oestrogen fuelled misandrists loaded with arrogance.

All pious, wrapped in cotton and molly-coddled all their lives by family and friends, such women have not an ounce of understanding about men’s struggles. And yes we do have them.

I find it appalling that misandrists populate the high moral ground, with little more authority than does a male rapist.

It has probably never been discussed, alledged or even thought of by the majority, that fluffy feminists make no real effort to learn the larger world. Instead, oestrogen fuelled rage fills the void of knowledge. I would suggest that some women would be better served by getting out into the world, dropping their high skirts of piety, and learning more about how to speak to people. It doesn’t matter if we don’t like each-other, a good dose of respect and awareness will do a lot more for women’s safety than any mouthy movement, or political position.

In many Muslim countries rape is more common than in Australia. It has been suggested by some historians that up to 50% of German births following the last weeks of the Second World World were products of rape. Jewish women were raped by guards in concentration camps.Afghan women were raped by their Taliban executioners. Most rape victims are children. Often rape of children is committed by clergy and in Christian youth camps. Infants under a year old are also raped. Rape is also used as a tool for ethnic cleansing.

To say the victim shares responsibility is both pathetic and cowardly. Real men never entertain the concept of rape, it is only monsters that entertain the notion of rape and/ or commit rape.

It is a perverted and twisted attitude that leads to rape , it is all the offenders fault. Unfortunetely the mysogony of Christianity and Islam twist the minds of the believers to believe women have no worth and therefore are objects to commit acts of monstrosity ( or righteousness as they call it ) against women.

To say a woman is culpable because of the clothes she wears or because she is friendly rather than defensive is like saying a victim stabbed to death by an intruder with their own kitchen knife was culpable for keeping knives in the kitchen drawer.

We must deal with rape with zero tolerance, we must not encourage rape by in any way accepting Abrahamic attitudes toward women.

Romany, do you mind if I bring the marshmallows?

I want to toast them whilst you burn me at the stake as a heretic, for challenging the word of the high priestesses of feminism.

No! it is not nice having your gender being criticised, or being painted with a negative brush. The last 3 or 4 decades gender politics have been dominate by the feminist movement.

Trendy words and phrases like ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’ and ‘equality’ are used and if they do not equally apply to men, then they are meaningless and the people who use them are hypocrites.

I understand that some women think they are better people than men, so men do not deserve to have things like human rights or to have the principles of social justice applied to them. Is not gaoling an innocent man a breech of human rights and social justice?

You seem to forget that there are many women who also challenge much of the feminist/female misandry.

This victimhood mentality amongst women has become a chronic illness.

As too proof of theories originating from that site. I read extensively many different authors and the vast majority of them are female. Examined research in detail and found most of it was of questionable quality and focused on a very narrow range of questions, so in reality research became important more for the questions that were never asked.

Daphne Patai, Christine Stobla, Erin Pizzey, Christine Hoff Sommers, Melaine Phillips, Eeva Sodhi, Wendy McElroy,

A person suggested the idea of ‘humanism’ to me, although I have not fully investigated the concept, it sounds much more ideal than gender bashing from either side.

I do not support having one standard for one gender and applying a different set of rules and regulations to the other.

First of all, Romany thankyou for pointing out how often these places get hi-jacked by misogynists. It's one of the reasons I don't drop in very regularly, but whenever I do, I'm struck by the monotony of the same bunch of people who seem to have vast amounts of time to devote to regurgitating the same vicious stuff about how women are so much better at lying and manipulating than men are, how they're such terrible human beings etc etc ad nauseum.

Dr Scutt's article points out what these people confirm: that our society is still riddled with people (men AND women) who really do believe that women are asking for rape if they are out at night, or dressed in anything more revealing than a chador, or daring to insist on the same rights as men. And these men and women are often white, middle-class, anglo-saxon types, not necessarily fundamentalist Muslims. The attitudes of people such as JamesH and Gadget confirm Dr Scutt's claim.

Hedgepigy,

you woudnt know a mysogonist if you slept with one. Thats because you are a Misandrist.

JamesH. What on earth about any of my posts has led you to believe I m either female, misandrist or feminist?

Oh! I don't know? Romany. Just a good guess.

Sorry I'll have to buy another pack of marshmellows, I ate the other ones and today is a total fire ban, so we will have to save the roasting for another day.

When someone says something positive about women, it does not automatically mean that he or she is also implying something negative about men.
The extreme sensitivity some posters on this site display towards any article which is sympathetic to women or positive about their contribution reveals far more about the individual poster than it does about either the article or women.
I am a feminist, and I love men, women and children. That's why I'm a feminist, I believe that rigid gender roles and blanket assumptions about people based on their sex, their sexuality, their race, religion, class, accent, income, choice of dress or address, are almost always ignorant, foolish and damaging. Instead of rushing to judge people, often on the most superficial evidence, it is almost always better to wait and hear what they actually have to say. As to the poster who suggested that the drunk guy should expect to get rolled, I've never heard of such an excuse resulting in the thief getting a lesser sentence. As I pointed out on the previous thread, if women dressing or acting in certain ways means they provoke rape by tempting men, then surely the same argument must be true for the rich man who tempts the poor man to steal by flaunting his wealth? Yet no religion or court preaches that the thief is not to blame for his crime because he was tempted by someone elses wealth. That's another reason I'm a feminist, the good old double standard as evidenced by the awful Father Dave piece, as jocelyn points out, has not gone away yet.

The trouble is that nobody has much to say about men that is positive or if they do say something positive, they then add a negative comment.

We are bombarded with those terrible negative ads on TV.

Pick up any women's magazine and there is the constant protrayal of negativity, sure some of it is dressed up with sugar and spice.

almost 75% of our communication is suppose to be non verbal.

A simple phrase "Give me a call sometime" has at least 125 different meanings.

Sometimes people are responsible for what happens to them and other times they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no doubt that bad things can happen to good people and not all people are trustworthy.

Unfortunately we have not more than scratch the surface of human behaviour. Human behaviour is complex and is made complicated by overt and covert rules and regulations. Religion, politics and personal points of view and life experiences.

Sometimes we want to blame other people for the things that we bought on ourselves.

You mean that there is actually anything positive about men that doesn't involve them advancing their daughter's situation?

Men form 90% of the prison population, they are responsible for most of the crime, they are more likely to be violent (and to be the victims of violence), they don't seem to contribute anything worthwhile to the world.

(If they can put a man on the moon why can't they put them all? A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?)

Men's sexual drives are so much more primitive and animalistic than women's. Even foreplay, to a woman can be something wonderful, to a man its like waiting in the queue for the rise at Luna Park. There must be something wrong with men for men to be like that.

After all, isn't the standard of comparison these days the feminine? Some women say that they love men, but my experience is that so many women want in their partners or male friends a man's body with a woman's brain and mind.

Women are the experts in relationships, and as Relationships Australia says, if married men want to be happy in their relationships they have to subjugate themselves to their women. They have to cease making decisions, except with 'consulation' - ie agree with the woman's opinion or try to think like a woman in their absence.

Where is the room for men, not imitation men, but men, in the modern world of interpersonal relationships, at home, socially and in the workplace?

Maybe all men should be locked up, and allowed leave on a limited basis, all put on a curfew, that would be the best way to protect and honour women.

What many of us seem to agree on is that men and women aren't particularly compatible. Sure, the odd couple seems to get on, but in general male and female characteristics seem to be quite incompatible.
From my (admittedly female) perspective, I would interpret the criticism of male characteristics that seems so all-pervading to many men to be the balancing out of many centuries of similar criticism of female characteristics. Women have always been expected to accommodate male preferences and tendencies, and now men are also expected to accommodate and compromise.
Personally, I think it's a shame that our society is so obsessed by the idea of men and women pairing up and living together in the same house (+ their offspring). It so rarely works. I'm sure some sort of compromise where we live separately and visit each other would work far better. The way society is structured though, that's not possible for most people. I suppose we can just hope for more options to open up in the future.

"From my (admittedly female) perspective, I would interpret the criticism of male characteristics that seems so all-pervading to many men to be the balancing out of many centuries of similar criticism of female characteristics. Women have always been expected to accommodate male preferences and tendencies, and now men are also expected to accommodate and compromise."

Gee Hedgepig you really must be old to know that. Me, I am not that old.

Even if the above statement is true and I strongly doubt that it is. It still does not justify abuses of human rights, although human rights are a relatively new concept in the terms of history.

Judging the history of human behaviour from our so called modern perspective. leads to distortions. Mainly because what was acceptable 2 centuries ago is no longer classified as acceptable today.

Such arguements as 'it is justified because of history', is an attempt by abusive people to justify their own abusive behaviour.

We often hear that men do not respect women. It obvious from your post and the post from Hamlet that there is very little respect for men.

My argument was not that criticism of either male or female characteristics is justified, but rather that the existence of criticism of both is relatively recent. Women used to get most of the criticism, now both men and women get criticism. Depending on which sex you are, you'll probably notice more criticism of either male or female.
Your impression that there is no respect for men anymore is like the impression many whites in southern USA had after the slaves were set free that there was no respect for whites anymore. Once formerly privileged groups have to share rights and freedoms it becomes more likely that things won't always turn out the way they'd like.

hedgepig I agree with most of what you say and love the calm way you say it, however, i don't agree men and women are fundamentally incompatible. having been happily married for 30 years to the same bloke, how could I? But we have a partnership, hamlet, that's why it works. Sometimes he takes the lead, sometimes I do. But, just as I would never make a major decision without consulting him (we don't always agree, and have to battle it out occasionally - but that's life), so I would expect him to treat me with the same respect and courtesy.
You might find that if you were willing to enter into a true partnership with a woman - where neither saw themselves as the "boss" but both as equal, adult participants who freely chose to stay together, rather than felt obliged because of what they'd been taught, their religion told them or for economic reasons, that it is the best thing in the world. Good relationships are based on mutual respect, mutual loyalty, mutual consideration and mutual support - with the emphasis on mutual. Indeed, I believe their is some evidence that the more rigid the gender roles in a marriage, the more "traditional" the parts played by man and woman ( male breadwinner and decision maker who controls the money, woman financially dependent, home maker who controls the kids) the more likely the marriage to break up, the more bitter the divorce and the angrier the ex-partners - particularly the bloke, who often thought it was all lovely till his wife finally imploded with repressed fury and left him stunned and amazed that she didn't just love being his home-help.

Ena

I hate to tell you this, but he has been acting all these years: he knows that the idea of partnership is for the woman not to know that she is in charge, unless she wants to know it.

Men learn that if they want to have a happy marriage, and to get some physical comfort, to put the woman first in everything, but not to make it obvious. Congratulations on having a well trained huband for the last 30 years. The both of you have done well, both being happy, but equal partnership, no way.

It is, perhaps, a little presumptuous of you, Hamlet, to assume you know my husband of 30 years better than I do.
All I can tell you is that I believe (with a fairly strong body of evidence behind my belief - much stronger than yours, I'd humbly submit) that you couldn't be more wrong.
And I feel rather sad that you clearly do not even believe in the possibility that you could have a strong, vigorous and equal partnership with a member of the opposite sex. It is possible, it is worthwhile (not perfect, but respect is the only secure foundation for love, I think), but both parties have to be prepared to both give and take. If either wants only to take, or only to give, then the foundations are already shaky, right from the start.

Wow Hamlet how big is that chip on your shoulder.

“they don't seem to contribute anything worthwhile to the world.”

If it weren’t for men we would still be living in grass huts (cant remember which feminist said it)

From the faceless invisible workers who take away your rubbish, supply electricity, water.

The first car was built and designed by a man. Most Medical advances have been a result of men. Note I said most.

I am not saying that members of your gender are not as capable, because this has been demonstrated time and time again that women can do the same jobs as men.

“Your impression that there is no respect for men anymore is like the impression many whites in southern USA had after the slaves were set free that there was no respect for whites anymore. Once formerly privileged groups have to share rights and freedoms it becomes more likely that things won't always turn out the way they'd like.”
Posted by Hedgepig, Thursday, 23 November 2006 3:45:44 AM

A very bad attempt at ‘Sophistry’ Hedgepig!

Men as part of the mythical privileged group, in the UK in the past were gaoled for the debts incurred by their wife, if they could not pay that debt.

So who was really the privileged group the ones that were gaoled or the one’s that avoided gaol?

Women have never been conscripted into the armed services.

There were labour laws in England which protected women, not men. Minor details which tended to be forgotten.

During the industrial revolution there was a very high risk that men would not return from work, then the family would suffer.

If you asked the labourer, the serf if they felt privileged when all they concentrated on was day to day survival, I guess they might have felt privileged to just have enough to eat and not to get sick.

They call it a privilege to die for your country. I’ll stay home and Hedgepig you can take my privileged position and die for my country.

Why is it that a woman never seems to know when she is being stirred?

Hedgepig,
Some here deliberately misconstrue your post, I am not one of them. I think your post has merit, especially in the 21st century with the media brain washing, it is a miracle that marriage still exists.

We have followed the yank example of hypocrisy to the letter, appear like a loving partner while having affairs, this is the message Hollywood sends. Take Tom Cruize and Katie Holmes for example they are supposed to belong to the religion of Sientology but she had the child before the fake marriage, doesn't that tell everyone something?

Ena

When my grandparents, on their 50th anniversary, were asked what had made their marriage strong, they replied: "give and take, you have to give and take"

(you said: "both parties have to be prepared to both give and take")

I know that my grandfather had been oppressed by my grandmother for years, to the extent that even after his death she gloated about the ways that she controlled him.

Perhaps in an unguarded moment you should ask your husband about why major decisions were made in your marriage: where to live, what sort of house to buy, when to have children and how many, where to go on holidays?. Or even what about what TV shows to watch, or whether he should be able to spend time along in his shed / study / garage?

How about what sort of food to eat? An old axiom is that for the first year of marriage a couple eat his favourite foods, for the rest of the marriage they eat hers. Has his eating habits changed to be closer to yours than his previous preferences?

I really do hope that everything has been equal in your wonderful marriage. However the length of a marriage is no justification for the couple's compatibility. I used the illustration of my grandparents - 50 years of p whipping. I have been married for 20 years, and I know who the boss is.

By the way RObert: in WW2 British women were 'conscripted' into the armed services, so were Russian women, at least in civil defence roles digging trenches and the like: And the bit about men being imprisoned for their wives debts? Perhaps it was because women needed their husband's written consent to take out a loan, in this country this was true up to around 1980.

JamesH,
Mate you don't seem to get it, it doesn't matter who does the act, what we are discussing is the survivor, not who raped them, man woman or child. The important thing to focus on is how the survivor feels, probably for the rest of their lives. I have a friend who has been sent to la la land by her grandfather raping her from the age of 6 to the age of 12.

The perpertrators of these crimes are evil, not sick with some psyciatric illness, they should be locked away for life.

I have spent many years of trying to understand, reading all sorts of books and other things which I will not discuss here.

'Men oppress women' I thought if I learnt not to do the things which allegedly oppress women I will have successful relationships. Subsequently I did not express how I felt about alot of things, did not say lots of things which I wanted to say as a result I destroyed many of my relationships.

This constant focus on negativity is very damaging for relationships between the genders. I realized this much too late. Reading Myrna Blyths 'Spin Sister' in which she writes about how womens magazines sell unhappiness. The core business of these magazines to sell unhappy and bad stories about people and relationships.

Men and women speak the same words but talk a totally different language.

A much better approach than locking the perpetrators away is to prevent the abuse from occuring in the first place.

"I know that my grandfather had been oppressed by my grandmother for years, to the extent that even after his death she gloated about the ways that she controlled him." Hamlet

Gee the oppressed controls the oppressor. A bit of double speak.

I have noticed a tendency for women to blame men for the things that women do. Toby Green wrote that women are "testers."

You either fight fair or fight dirty.

"Many women competitively respond by insisting they can look after themselves. They withhold positive feedback so as not to sell out to the enemy. If women really feel men are redundant they have to decide. Either their lives go better with a man in it or not. If they're not prepared to let a man make it with them they should be honest and get out of the game. If they decide to include men they need to validate their contribution, out loud."

Shonga, if you locked up all the men/boys who commit incest you would be putting away a sizeable proportion of the population. It is much more prevalent than anyone out there realizes and it starts from quite a young age in all sections of society.

I am not condoning it, I am not sure what you do about it. It is something like domestic violence, it gets passed on from father to son, just as alcohol abuse and unsocial attitudes. A lot of girls/women out there just accept it as part of life, particularly in isolated communities where there is no recourse to justice.

hamlet,
We live where we do because we both like the area and my husband wanted a garden. We bought the holiday place we have because it had always been my husband's dream, and I believe everyone should follow their dreams. My husband has 6 sheds and spends as much or as little time in them as he likes, I take little notice, though it can get a bit irritating when I have to track him down when there's a phone call for him. My husband has also supported me in following my dream, accepting that I could leave a job I hated and try my hand at what I'd always wanted to do, even though it meant a cut in income. My husband does most of the cooking, i do most of the clearing up. We share the parenting, shopping, and house maintainance, for cleaning we hire cleaners. i do the washing, he does the gardening. We share the lawn mowing. We walk together every morning for 30 minutes and share our triumphs, failures, worries and delights. He is my greatest supporter and I hope that he would consider me his. I wish he would relax more and often try to get him to take the pressure off himself - maybe you would see this as nagging, but , in the end, accept he is an adult and needs to take responsibility for looking after himself, as do I. We fight occasionally, grumble at one another often, sometimes I exasperate him, sometimes he exasperates me, but we like each other - as people.

hamlet, not sure why you directed the comment about prison for debt at me - the post where that was mentioned was by JamesH http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5151#62918

I've mostly been trying to follow the thread and keeping fairly quiet (for a change).

I hope that things are not as bad for most couples as you think. It is certainly that way for some couples but I've known others who appear to have genuine mutual respect (and a fun form of disrespect). Couples who value each other, and seem to find ways of living satisfing lives as couples.

Everybody in a relationship probably should stocktake from time to time to see how even the scales of change are weighted. If they are significantly onesided it may not be because the other party needed to grow more. I suspect that those most likely to enjoy controlling a partner would be incapable of that kind of self examination whatever their gender.

R0bert

Hamlet, I thought I was pessimistic about male/female relationships! Surely you must concede that the occasional couple is a genuine partnership, as ena describes her marriage? I just think she and her husband are in a quite small minority.
It's interesting that you feel that men are necessarily the ones who are making all the compromises to produce the illusion of a happy relationship, but I appreciate that unlike JamesH you acknowledge facts such as that women for most of history have not been in the position of financial control inside marriage.

Which brings me to what I think is an often obscured point: yes people can end up oppressed inside marriage, but if they are financially independent they have the practical wherewithal (if not necessarily the emotional wherewithal) to escape the situation.

I think all this discussion about who oppressed whom in their marriage is pretty pointless. Yes, sometimes through sheer strength of pesonality the person with the least financial clout in a marriage can still manage to make the life of the richer party a misery. However, I believe that the person with more financial control is in a better position to make changes they want and to leave an abusive relationship. That's why I think it's crucial for women (and it is still mostly women) to stop thinking that it is a viable and sensible idea to become financially dependent on a man, particularly while raising children. It doesn't, or course, mean that they will always end up poorer and in abusive situations, but it puts themselves and their children in a vulnerable situation that shouldn't be acceptable. That, basically, is what I think feminism should be, and has been, mainly about.

RObert has already corrected Hamlet's mistake, but I'd just like to point out that it was definitely JamesH who was making those claims about how disadvantaged men have always been financially vis a vis their wives (?!?). RObert has a grasp on reality, and I doubt he'd make such an odd claim.

hedgepig and shonga,

youre shockers, you need to get of the chardonay.

Robert, sorry, wrong target.

Re men and women, when even Relationships Australia is suggesting that women turn to lesbianism it appears that men and women really aren't compatible:

Sunday Herald Sun
10 August 2003

Older women urged to become lesbians
[The article was originally accessible at http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,6908932,00.html but appears to have been removed.]

By Nikki Voss and Nicole Cox

Australia's leading relationship counselling body is urging lonely older single women to become lesbians.

Relationships Australia spokesman Jack Carney said men's shorter life spans, and their pursuit of much younger women, meant women in their twilight years were often forced to turn to other women for love and companionship.

"And as women get even older it gets much worse, so we ask them to entertain the idea of lesbian relationships."

and this may be interesting:from:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082990836.html

The major lesson was spelt out very clearly by John Gottman, a leading American researcher on marriage and relationships. He had tracked 130 newlyweds, observing their interactions and then following them for six years to see which marriages were happy and stable and which ones ended in divorce.

Gottman's advice to men was: "If you want your marriage to last for a long time, just do what your wife says. Go ahead, give in to her ... The marriages that did work all had one thing in common - the husband was willing to give in to the wife."

So the secret is, if a man wants to have a long marriage - the wife is the boss.