It is difficult if not impossible to make any claim that ABS statistics represent a clear view of crime and gender in Australia. the Author claims that 77percent of assault and 79 percent of all robbery offences were committed by male offenders. The Fact here is that the statistics represent only reported offences. It seems an uneducated assumption to state that statistics translate into fact. Rather they are an interpretation of given data. What could have been argued is, the statistics imply an interesting correlation between the male gender and.

You try to correllate between conviction rates and the incidence of men and women, this argument has several flaws. What happens from the time an offence is committed to the time that an individual is prosecuted is vastly different for males and females:
1; the capacities of correctional systems limit the incarceration rate of females, currently females fill 100% of vacancies in SA. There is no difference in incarceration 'rates', you have simply altered the statistic to fit your argument,
2; the justice system is documented to deal differently with women offenders from police, courts and corrections perspectives, its not a statistic, its a documented fact!

The second half of your article has considerable merit which is tainted by the flaws of the first half.I agree strongly that australia as a country has significant social immaturity, what I dont agree with is how you have formulated the direction of your argument to arrive at this point.

If you targeted criminal justice programs at boys and young men, there would be little change in incarceration figures. Increase the capacity of every correctional system to hold as many women as men, then your argument will have merrit.

Your arguments require other evidence, I am not prepared to weigh in on the feminist v masculine views, nor am I going to deny the existence of a disproportionate criminal element between the sexes.

The author of this response has significant academic experience,
with a Master in Correctional Management, Bachelor of Social Science (Justice Admin) and Bachelor of Social Work (Hons),

Ryaninsa

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at in this part of your post:

‘… the capacities of correctional systems limit the incarceration rate of females, currently females fill 100% of vacancies in SA. There is no difference in incarceration 'rates', [the author has] simply altered the statistic to fit [her] argument'

Surely you’re not saying that if we built more prisons for women the justice system would prosecute and convict them more, and that women would then commit more crimes in order to fill the prisons up?

And also here:

‘… the justice system is documented to deal differently with women offenders from police, courts and corrections perspectives, its not a statistic, its a documented fact!’

If it’s a documented fact, can you supply any links to verify this? I’m not disagreeing with you. I would just like more clarification about your arguments.

HRS

There was a movie made in 1965 called ‘How to Murder Your Wife’. It was a comedy starring Jack Lemmon and Virna Lisi.

RObert

There is truth in what you say, however modern women and men may not appreciate Kathy's humour.

Kathy's humour is aimed at women, especially those who were maturing in the sixties and seventies. Few men understand that women have a different sense of humour. Women 'stand-ups' adjust their humour for men or limit themselves to girls' nights. Kathy's fades from being rooted in a bygone era.

Kathy is a seventies feminist and makes no apologies for it. So you can expect that she has pin-striped suits and shoulder pads by the dozen in her wardrobe. She would smoke cigars, swagger, cuss and ogle young men's bums (especially if they are in 'servant' positions in bars). She would dress in power colours - that awful glaring blue or red still seen on ageing women politicians and bureaucrats - to 'make a statement'. She would wear revolting 'name' sunglasses with the huge gold identifying logos and desire a 'Beamer' (BMW to you).

If she exercises she would 'power walk' - which looks silly, not at all ferocious as was the intent.

Above all, she will make offensive seventies feminist male put-down jokes (you know the ones!).

This is because seventies feminists aped what they said they despised. Many still do and that is why they demand membership of Tatts clubs and the like.

Mind you, hanging around as a surfie groupy as allegedly Kathy did in her younger days would give you a warped view of men. Doesn't she say that back then any larger, less attractive girls who minded the towels for the surfies were referred to as 'Bush Pigs'. You might find a similar culture among the Bra Boys today.

If men are offended by seventies feminists then that is surely the attention-seeking point of their antics -the erratic Greer remains their (flawed) idol.

However Kathy is not totally a seventies feminist because she married and had two children, while the wilted Greer remains savage about missing out 'because of men'.

Kathy is very funny for women (er, wimmin) who understand the history (whoops, herstory).

In hindsight, Kathy Lette couldn't cut the mustard as a hardline feminist because she is delightfully human and she has (horror of horrors) a well-developed sense of the ridiculous.

To explain for the benefit of the 'Big F' feminists among us, that means she has a sense of humour, a useful quality if you want to enjoy life.

Robert,
These so called “satire” feminists are no better than the ads in the media that routinely portray males as being stupid, dumb and incompetent. They are on the same level.

These so called “extremist” feminists don’t exist, as the majority of them get their money from the taxpayer’s purse. Greer has been called an extremist feminist many times.

Last year she received an horary doctorate from the University of Sydney, and also received a 4 page spread in Women’s Day magazine. She was honoured and glorified, for spending a lifetime maligning males, living off the taxpayer, and saying the silliest things that came into her head.

My concerns are very much for boys. If trends continue and feminists get their way, then boys will be considered a criminal from the time they are born and then right throughout their life.

If you have ever had any experience with the Family Court system, you will know that a father is considered guilty from the time they first step into the court, and then they have to spend a lot of money to prove their innocence.

But if trends continue, then any male of any age group will be considered guilty at all times

The ad presently being shown on this page is more than representative.

It shows a male at a desk in a toilet, and the toilet is supposed to be his office. The "realcommercial.com.au" company that runs this pitiful ad probably regards it as satire, but when combined with the 100’s of other ads that portray males as being dumb and stupid, and when combined with the 100’s of negative maligning comments from feminists, then this does have an affect on the public’s perception of the male gender.