The 'problem' is purely relative.

Ideological blowhards are self absorbed naval gazers, defining THEMSELVES as THE standard. When it suits their agenda.

99.8% of men are NOT in prison. Testimony to the self evident.

Feminists have done a great job making girls and boys more like each other. Maybe thats why there are so many confused, unhappy, vacilating 30-something single females about today. Time they confused the Peter Pans too.

Crime rates are falling amongst males and rising amongst females. Author could learn from that and get the sprouting weeds in her own backyard in order.

Children become adults, thinking and acting independently and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That is the essence of the matriarchal delusion, that you can fight human nature. By mere influence and psychology you cannot ultimately deny the individual the power of their eventual autonomy. Its at the heart of womans discontent... that by rocking the craddle they can shape those who eventually make up this world. But ultimately, the umbilical cord is cut.

Gender is the encumberance of each sex's projected delusions. Its a pilar of gender theory.

This modus creates huge resentment. Its predicated on a lie and kids know the lying hypocrazy of adults. You can stop keeping score in footy and give everyone a blue ribbon in athletics, but kids KNOW you are decieving them and they RESENT YOU for it.

Careful what you wish for.

If you think the so-called backlash to feminism is bad now, imagine what it will be like after a few more decades of sacrificing defenseless children as guinea pigs to your ill conceived and short sighted social re-engineering pretentions.

Oppressors victimise the weak and vulnerable. Children are the most vulnerable of all. Authors contention is stark evidence of gender equality.

Stop using children to validate your self deceptions.

Imagine if people would stop agitating for division and GIVE PEACE A CHANCE. Then again, Lennon is dead. Tho, Lenin lives.

Much harm is done in the name of good. And when done in the name of children takes on a particularly insidious tone.

The conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Namely that copmarison of gender defferences has anything to do with the SIGNIFICANCE of the imprisonment rate.

This really is a storm in a tea cup. A huge exageration.

0.2% is statistically insignificant. It amazes me that we are taking it seriously. If l had a son l wouldnt be at all concerned. l would be pleased that he has such an insignificant risk of being jailed. The glass is 99.8% full.

l would be more concerned that he and his female friends have a much higher chance of buggering up society based on their exagerated fears of the insignificant. This is how society gets screwed. The chicken littles hammer us all on the back of deceiptful overstatement. All this fear of terrorists is a good example. Most of them are dark skinned moslems. Maybe we should put all of them thru some sort of research and re-education program. lm sure they would be more than happy to help you make the world a better place (for your irrational fear and paranoia infused loathing).

Shame on you.

Robert
I think it preferable to carry out no research than to carry out biased or unreliable research. So it is far preferable to carry out no research at all on the male gender, than to carry out feminist research on the male gender, or feminist research on the female gender for that matter. You could drive a fleet of semi-trailers through the holes in most of feminist research.

I have read enough feminist research to give the conclusions of nearly any type of research carried out by a feminist. If feminist research were to be carried out on males in prisons, I can give the conclusions and recommendations of that research already.

Not a problem.

The conclusions will be that males are in prison because they are male, and males are bad people (but of course females are not). The study will also recommend that feminist social engineering be carried out on boys in schools.

Nearly all feminist research gives the same conclusions and recommendations regardless of the issue or subject matter.

It is also interesting that when I mentioned that most high achievers are men (fact), a CJ Morgan then inferred that this is because they oppress females. No mention of the amount of hard work carried out by the man to become the top of their field.

It is now ingrained in our society, that a man is always guilty of something no matter what the man does.

Thanks be to feminism.

(The logical flaw of) "Exposition:

This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability. ...sample size depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required. For instance, people tend to be quite variable in their political opinions, so that public opinion polls need fairly large samples to be accurate."
www.fallacy.org

It is entirely lost on respondents that the female and male prisoners are known to have a lot in common, but either sub-group may have little in common with their larger population (by gender).

Why there are fewer female prisoners can be linked with a myriad of other causes, one of which could be that the way we raise boys and our expectations of them place them more at risk, or that because girls are traditionally sheltered more and are not seen as being responsible. There is ample evidence that women politicians vote for war and tell huge porkies, while women senior managers convert company assets to private use, defraud, bully, steal and so on. So give girls the 'opportunities' (sic) offered to boys and you get much the same result - some will do wrong. I believe most of what we see is in the nurture and environment, not in the genes (or hormones).

But either way there is little point in pursuing alleged gender differences when there is already consensus on the 20% of causes of 80% of crime (to apply Pareto's Principle), which is child abuse and neglect, drop out from education and drug use. Problem is that politicians are led away from the best proactive solutions by the chattering masses who demand more policing and more jail.

Returning to my quote from Peter West:

"The main problem is not boys (or girls - my addition). It lies in us."

While I've no idea what HRS means by "creditable studies", if he is claiming that there has been very little credible research conducted into male gender issues in Australia and elsewhere, then he is either sadly mistaken or deliberately mendacious. There have been many, many studies conducted and papers published in refereed journals both here and internationally, into virtually every facet of the male gender that one can imagine.

Further, his silly statements concerning research conducted by 'feminists' display astonishing ignorance about how research is conducted, funded and assessed. There is a huge difference between research conducted by 'feminists' and 'feminist research', the latter being a form of advocacy research that attracts much criticism and scrutiny from within the research community. On the other hand, there is a much greater quantum of rigorous research conducted in both the social and physical sciences by researchers who might be described as 'feminist'.

HRS diminishes his own credibility substantially in his display of ignorance about what research is conducted into gender-related issues, and how it is conducted.

On the other hand, Cornflower displays her (?) own lack of expertise in assessing research by referring to the subjects of Sandra Bilson's article as a "sample". The article is concerned with the entire population of male and female prisoners in Australia, who comprise a relatively small proportion of the Australian population. There are many reliable and valid statisitical techniques for assessing the significance of such data.

I agree that the explanation for the over-representation of men relative to women in Australian gaols is likely to be complex and multivariate, but that is no reason for not exploring it.

C J Morgan said: "The article is concerned with the entire population of male and female prisoners in Australia, who comprise a relatively small proportion of the Australian population."

The article takes that small 'sample' ie all male prisoners and makes assumptions about the the entire male population. That is the point of her rhetoric. (She does this in order to generalise about men and later through comparison, about women.) Would you say the entire population is homogeneous or heterogeneous? I think the latter.