C.J Morgan

"Feminist research . . . consists of no single set of agreed upon research guidelines or methods.

http://www.unb.ca/web/PAR-L/win/feminmethod.htm

Exactly.

While other researchers are expected to adhere to the scientific method, feminists researchers have developed there own research, which involves no method at all

Feminist research is a free for all, where any maligning or negative comment or inference can be made by a feminist about the male gender.

But now you are saying that there is a difference between feminist research, and research carried out by a feminist.

Sorry, but I can’t see any difference.

There have been criminologists studying crime for decades, but the author seem to be suggesting that men in jail should be studied from a feminist perspective. I would think that this would be a complete and total waste of the taxpayer’s dollar, because of the considerable probability (like 99% probability) that it will be “feminist research”.

As far as creditable studies being carried out into men, nearly all countries do not have a office of men. So there is no direct representation of either men or boys, and there is nothing in place to stop men or boys being misrepresented, through systems such as feminist research.

Cornflower: "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."

No, it's an actual subpopulation of the Australian population, as recorded by the ABS. It is in no way a sample. I don't take Bilson's article as generalising about anything - rather, she's asking why men are so statistically over-represented in that subpopulation. It's interesting that some people are apparently so precious about that question.

HRS: "But now you are saying that there is a difference between feminist research, and research carried out by a feminist.

Sorry, but I can’t see any difference."

It's becoming apparent that you are incapable of engaging in informed, rational debate on this issue. I don't think I'll waste any more time with you on this thread.

A sub population, but definitely not one of us. There is us men and us women and then there is those people. They're willfully deviant and we are good, good, good.

Makes you wonder where those people spawn from don't it?

Take another spin of the wheel sport. You landed on 'arsehole'.

When I was at University studying the 'Social Sciences', and the 'Humanities', I did a little work in what was then referred to as deviant subcultures. My Prof almost lost it when I returned a working paper supporting a direct link between the Us and Them, nullifying that social conceptual separation, sub-culture.

You can not bury your problems in innuendo and multi social fortification. There is no such animal as a gay world, a feminist world, a liberal world, a criminal world, etc. etc. It's all one world and we are all censurable. There is no sub-population. We are all one, warts and all. And we will never come to a definitive social resolution while finger pointing and barracking for separate and special consideration is the norm in social political protagonism.

It's one thing to celebrate our differences. It's another to hold ourselves apart.

C.J Morgan
As an Australian male, maybe you should go down to the Police station and hand yourself in. Tell them that you are a male, and are therefore guilty, (although you don’t know what you are guilty of).

What stays in my mind is the recent Australia Says No campaign. The campaign was saturation advertising funded by the Office of Women (which is an Office that has no males in it).

The campaign portrayed Australian men as being uncaring, oafish, sex offenders, rapists and abusers of women.

Nothing positive was said about Australian men during the campaign, and the campaign was a campaign of male vilification.

That was the way feminists have recently portrayed the 99.8% of Australian men who are not in jail, and the possibility that feminists would carry out a non-discriminatory, non-gender prejudiced and unbiased study of men in jail, is basically 0 possibility.

HRS - "Office of Women (which is an Office that has no males in it)." - are you sure of that?

"The campaign portrayed Australian men as being uncaring, oafish, sex offenders, rapists and abusers of women." no the campaign dealt with the reality that some men are like that. At no point did it suggest that all australian men are like that.

The failure was in the campaign's portrayal of DV in gender terms and that it completely ignored about half of all DV. Even for those who think that physical DV is a male thing (I'm not one) the campaigns discussion of non physical abusive behaviors negated the validity of the single gender approach.

The campaign was an insult to male victims of DV, I think it's an insult to women who want women to be seen as able to take responsibility for their own actins but it was not an insult to the entire australian male population.

Neither is a suggestion that investigating the over representation of men in prison is not an insult to those of us who are not involved in criminal activity.

There are reasons why males who grow up in the same racial/cultural/ economic/family circumstances as their female peers end up in jail much more regularly than those female peers. What are those reasons? I'd like to know even if you don't.

R0bert

Its not for one group to identify, interpret, dictate agenda for another. Womens issues are by/of/for the women. Matriarchs have no place dictating how the pigs should oink. Unless they're trying to make bacon.

Essential problem is inherent bias projected by other side who are instrumental in, if not essential cause of, 'social' bias between apparently competing political interests.

Having one sex tell the other what their problems are, how to fix them and implementing the fix, is a blatant exercise of gender power. Fems seem to be repeating the errors of patriarchal history. There is inherent bias and latent animosity/hostility colouring the direction.

A Mens Department? Fully funded and run by men? Identifying OUR gender issues on OUR terms? Hahahaha... dont hold ya breath. Its a 'mans world' ya know. The whole place is a mens office. ALLEGEDLY.

Women have set the terms of gender politics. Wots good for the gander is good for the pigs. Its how politics works. Take the oppositions apparent concerns, twist and exploit them to your own ends. Expand, one baby-step at a time. Recent low brow example, is how the Qld doctor terrist bungle was exploited to put the kibosh on sim card anonimty (expand nanny state/big brother).

All very ugly. Men have learnt much from the methods/outcomes of 'womens rights'. We too are learning exactly how to play this game to effect maximum self interest in the name of laudible aims, 'higher' morality, social justice and all that nebulous fuzzy thinking that means nothing but the masses buy into.

Failing that, many of us take the inherent cynicism and dishonesty of the authors article as more fodder to fuel our own cynicism and do what men do exceedingly well... vote with our feet and go into hiding under everyone's noses. The man 'shortage', commitment phobes, Peter Pans, adultlescents, game console addicts, sex tourists, cross-border outsourcers, porn addicted misoginistic one hand shakers, players, boozers/druggies, the un-good ones who are un-taken and generally typical males are going AWOL.

And it sucks.