Robert,
You can take yourself down to the police station, and say that you are a man, and because most criminals are men, you should be in prison.

You can also say that men carry out rape, and you are a man, so you are a rapist.

You can also say that men carry out murder, and you are a man, so you are a murderer.

It all makes sense, because males are criminals and being a criminal is in your male genes.

And if you believe in feminism, then you can leave it up to feminists to prove that you are not a criminal, and prove that you are not a rapist, and prove that you are not a murderer.

As a man, I’m sure feminists will have a lot of interest in you.

But a word of warning. The last study I heard of funded by the Office of Women looked at the heath of migrant women. But the study excluded migrant men, as they had no interest in migrant men. This is because feminist organisations such as the Office of Women are non-gender prejudiced and regard everyone equally (and if you believe that then you believe in feminism).

HRS, thats a really weak strawman argument. Very few feminists have tried to use the logic you seem to think they all hold. I've heard of a examples that get close but most just don't do that. Have you bothered to read Yvonne's post yet, if so did what she said sink in.

Your logic about feminists is just as dishonest and unreasonable as that which you attribute to feminists. Some are man haters but most are not, some men hate women most do not.

I will agree that government funded feminist organsiations do seem to be very sexist but on the other hand I don't expect them to be funding studies on male issues (except to establish a baseline).

The ones most to blame are the political masters who don't ensure that such research is either conducted by someone else for mens health issues or have the research conducted by organisations who don't discriminate on gender lines. Same goes for advertising campaigns such as the DV campaign.

R0bert

Robert,
I know that questioning feminism is deemed by feminist as being politically incorrect, but don’t you become a tad suspicious when so many feminist studies exclude males, and only include males if the study is associated with some form of crime.

Don’t you become a tad suspicious that these feminist organisations seek to associate being male with being a criminal.

Don’t you become a tad suspicious when the Office of Women in Australia has not called for an Office of Men, to provide some type of check and balance, and ensure that men or boys are not being misrepresented?

Don’t you become a tad suspicious of all the articles on OLO written by feminists that accuse men of just about everything imaginable, but rarely do they say anything positive about men.

But the feminist wants to go into schools to carry out feminist social engineering on boys. That was done in the US, and many schools now dispense Ritalin like lollypops (but 90% goes to boys), and many schools now have a policy of zero tolerance. But it has become noticeable in time that this is only being applied to boys also.

Most of the teachers in the US are female, and the boys in those schools are under constant scrutiny, and if a boy were to even swear, then they can be expelled from the school. Meanwhile the girls are swearing all day long and it is ignored by the teachers.

There was even a recent case of a Grade 1 boy being expelled from a school for kissing a girl on the cheek, (deemed to be sexual harassment).

That is the world of Big Sister that many feminists appear to want for all countries, but in that world males are under constant scrutiny, and being male is regarded as some type of deficiency or crime.

So we should always agree with a feminist, because feminists believe in equality (because that is what feminists say).

In the past there was the assumption that women were limited by their biology, by their genes, from doing certain things. It was an obvious (sic) conclusion to reach because critics could quote world-wide 'statistics' showing, for instance, that it was rare for women to be engineers. Their brains and maths did not mix.

Similarly where leadership was concerned, it had to be the case that women's genes and most likely their hormones prevented them from aspiring to become PM or lead a corporation.

Women were what we made them be. We raised them differently and society defined roles they followed. The roles had other consequences, for example, (as I pointed out earlier) the number of women who defrauded corporations was low because they were not in a position to do it anyhow. The Pygmalion Effect and self-fulfilling prophesies were at work. In some countries it remains that way.

Who could deny that the way we raise boys, our (unwritten) expectations of them, the very artificial masculinity we foist upon them and the roles we force on them, have a bundle of negative outcomes for boys, male youth and men?

We know that practical research over of crime in Australia and in similar countries has found major causes that are common. The problem is that we have yet to implement the proven remedies. The author listed none of those causes.

There is nothing to suggest that the higher number of male prisoners than female prisoners has anything to do with being male or female, other than the probability that 'nurture' (not 'nature') and environmental factors may have played a part.

If anyone can put forward any evidence that 'biology' or genes should replace the known major causes of crime in Australia, please do it. In the interim it all sounds too much like stereotyping and sexism for my comfort.

I must commend R0bert for his infinite patience in dealing with the intransigent prattlings of some of the more fixated participants in this thread. While I don't always agree with R0bert, in this case I think he's right on the money.

I note that Cornflower has changed tack somewhat. Instead of pretending that the census figures represent some kind of sample and survey, s/he now implicitly acknowledges that a reality of Australian society is that it generates a much higher rate of imprisonment among men than in women. S/he even hints at agreement with my environmental (as opposed to innate) hypothesis as to the etiology of this social pathology, although s/he remains coy about about what actual aspects of the ways that boys are socialised are implicated in their higher rate of criminality as adults.

Cornflower chides Sandra Bilson for not outlining "major causes" of criminality that are apparently identified in other studies, and for failing to mention the "proven remedies" that have been identified elsewhere. Unfortunately, since s/he doesn't bother to describe them in any detail either, we are still left wondering what the causes of overwhelmingly masculine criminality in Australia are, and what the solutions may be.

C J Morgan

If you think I have changed then that is OK by me. I might not agree, but that is OK too. Each can contribute and take what s/he wants from the table.

You claim that I did not give specifics, but perhaps you have not been reading closely enough. Try for instance my response of 1 August 2007 2:03:15 PM.

Your continual ad hominem attacks and snide remarks do you no credit at all.