Aqvarivs,

My previous post was to you. Apologies for leaving your name off.

R0bert,

I don’t equate the patriarchy with men – or women’s oppression by the patriarchy as individual women being victimised by individual men. The patriarchy is a political system – not an emotional choice.

The words ‘oppression of women’ sets so many alarm bells ringing – and it really shouldn’t. It simply means that women were denied access to most avenues of power – political, economic and social. Any history book or current set of statistics will back this up. The oppression of women by the patriarchy does not mean that men deliberately set about making women unhappy, or brutalising and tormenting them.

I’ve tried to argue in some of my posts that the patriarchy also oppresses men but in a different way. Poor men throughout history have been oppressed by rich, powerful men – the most negative effects of this being that they were often worked to death, denied access to their emotions, kept out of the raising of their children and sent off to die on battlefields. This too has left its mark on men’s psyches.

Inspired by the Women’s Movement, the early Mens Movement of the 70s and 80s understood this. They formed groups and organisations to help them access their feelings more, to find more balance in their lives between work and family, and to form better relationships with their partners and children. I know this because I was closely involved with several men who belonged to it.

It saddens me greatly that around 1990 – with the rise of the New Right – the Mens Movement morphed into the polarising, confrontational anti-feminism that has taken control of public debate ever since. If my frustration about this comes out in my posts, then so be it. It’s not meant as an insult to men.

MLK, thanks for the clarification. I was surprised by your comments but if I've understood that last post correctly it's one again the wonderful world of language.

I've not been directly involved in "the mens movement" as such for a while. During the time I was I didn't see amongst those I mixed with the broadscale anti-feminism portrayed by some other posters (although it existed). The emphasis was on equal treatement before the law. There was acknowledgment that some men did the wrong thing just as some women do. The concern was more about a family law system that assumes that men are less able as parents, that all to often assumes that fathers are a greater risk to their own children than mothers. That rewards those who do the wrong thing with greater financial incentives.

The kind of extreme anti-feminism expressed here was rarely expressed and challenged when expressed.

R0bert

MLK, It must be a great comfort to travel through life unaware of just what gender politics has done to society.For and against. As for family law and the negative impact feminism and gender acrimony has there your completely out of touch. Your patriarchal analogy holds no water. As I pointed out before, men 'got' because men put everything on the line to 'get'. They fought and died for their right to power and influence. Whether they were the leader or the fellow in the trench at the sharp end. Those women who stood up and fought for what they wanted 'got'. That men were more motivated in the past to achieve and were more socialised to 'achieving' is not a male patriarchal concept in itself. Especially considering the dominate role of mother in young mens lives back then. For your 4,000 years the genders have been two independent societies. The male society and the female society. It has been only in recent history of mass employment that gender dependence has become to the forefront of social concern. General employment is new. Having a right to employment is a new social concept. I don't believe such a right can exist nor do I believe women or men have a 'right' to employment. And there is this divide between genders especially promoted by feminism that is expressed by the vilification of the male to rise up the female for the perceived imbalance of your 4,000 years.
You need to read some literature on the social sexual interactions of teens and young adults and how they are responding to the 'conditions' placed on relationships, family values, and moral and ethical considerations in the wake of the past 30 years of gender warfare, the gender 'education' and the break down of the family structure through divorce. I see at the end of your last post your back to blaming men. Pardon me for noting any contradiction.

Aqvarivs

I suggest YOU may be out of touch with how economic rationalism, neo-liberalism and globalisation have impacted on the gender divide over the last thirty years. Compared to the impact of feminism, the male identity has come under far more attack from our captains of industry in their relentless push to drive our manufacturing and rural sectors offshore, turning our economy into a service meritocracy with ever declining job security.

But do we blame these captains of industry? No way, mate. They’re too rich, too male, too powerful.

So who you gonna blame? The easy target, of course. Feminism. … Works every time.

Having said that, however ... being at loggerheads with so many of your views allows little room for me to acknowledge that you do make some interesting points … and I will try to take some on board.

R0bert

Not much else to offer to your welcome post. This comment thread is wagging its tail and its time for me to finally bow out. It’s been both incredibly inspiring and exasperating.

MLK, Economic rationalism , neo-liberalism and globalisation and the gender divide. Not excluding your understanding of the male identity. Wow. Nothing but big brush strokes in your paintings is there. Where to start. Economic rationalism is no thing in the world of economics let alone any influence on the male identity. In the world of finance it was a blip on the arse of the Labour Party and had no influence beyond that political realm and most certainly none outside the borders of Australia. It was a sneaky idea to get more government control over national economics and employment. Something that would only benefit the unionist and the feminist. Who's both commercialisation is about dominating workplace politics. The idea being that free market economic policies are amoral and asocial. More socialism insidiously creeping into the environment. Neo-liberalism in relation to government means less government involvement in mucking around with economic controls that have the taxpayer taking up the losses due to poor government management of a nations economic present and future. Neo-liberalism is more about opening markets and doing away with government barriers. Not a bad thing for investors and employers who want to be free to manage their own growth and releases the tax burden on the general public for political ideology manifesting as economic reforms. Unionist and feminist are very anti-globalisation because they loose their strangle hold on the workers and their financial base. They need to control the politics of employment in order to keep skimming the suckers wages and as more companies go global so goes the dream of communism instead of the ending of capitalism. None of this plays to the male identity. Your feminist rhetoric has you jumping from issue to issue as if dining smorgasbord. Not that I expected anything different from a person who thinks the practices of family law, and the general treatment of men in family matters is a balancing of 4,000 years of male (patriarchal) governing