Only a small percentage of men are ever likely to be guests of Her the rhetoric fair and balanced?

Some cultural groups are more strongly represented in crime statistics than white Anglo-Saxons. The author should be aware of this from NSW statistics. This being so would we accept it if the headline was (say) "The (Aboriginal) Elephant in Australian Prisons"? The answer is of course and emphatic "No!".

My impression is that the author is suggesting there could be a genetic tendency/fault in (all) men that pre-disposes them to harm people or property (ie to commit crime). So do you get the gene shears out of the cupboard? Maybe a pill might do for boys who are unruly at an early age (it's in their genes you know!).

Those of us fortunate to observe our children would find that assertion laughable because there is nothing more sweet, caring and hopeful than a young child and especially the boys, who are quite vulnerable and loving. When one remembers that boys are usually raised differently to girls, for instance they are encouraged to be stoical and to conceal their hurts and needs, it is surprising that so many men turn out such positive and productive members of society.

Men should take a stand against sledging of their gender. It is no joke for adolescent boys and youth who see enough of it in the media.

The gender stuff is a dead-end and it would be far more productive to put tax dollars into improving the early family years and education experience for boys and girls. Making sure that children have reasonable access to fathers is an important part of this and extended work hours (among other things) don't help.

It wouldn't hurt to review the values of society and what it means to be male, because the path from infancy to adulthood is quite tough for a male and there a precious few supports and resources available. In this, women have as much to gain as men.

MLK, I'm not sure if I expressed myself unclearly or if you have misread my post. I choose to give the author the benefit of the doubt and take the second approach to the article rather than the assumption that it is about whiping up hatred. I can see why others read it that way but choose differently. There are some things not working well for men and we need to start taking them seriously.

For those strongly opposed to feminism - you should be embracing the article with joy. One of the central planks of a some feminists is the idea that men lead lives of privilege and power compared to the lives of women - I may exagerate the claim somewhat but you know what I mean. Since when do the priviliged and powerfull go to jail in a system they control at a much higher rate than the oppressed? In other groupings such as racial groupings high rates of incarceration are treated as a sign of the relative powerlessness and disadvantage of the group.

Personally I think some feminists have misunderstood traditional roles, they have focussed on the bits that benefited men while ignoring the bits that harmed and visa versa for women's traditional roles. I embrace the changes that are allowing us all to move further from traditional roles.

If the author is trying to paint men in a bad light then so what? I've not looked at her other work and don't feel that I can make a judgement based on this piece. Take the points she makes and use them for a better purpose. Expand on her argument, insist on similar disclosure in other places where relevant information is hidden behind broad labels. We might be asking about the family circumstances involved in a convicted criminals upbringing to see if forced isolation from fathers is statistically significant.

Regardless of what the author intended ask yourselves what in this can be used to improve things. We don't have to follow the authors unstated agenda.

R0bert

R0bert,

My apologies. I’ve gone back over your posts and I can’t for the life of me understand why I included your name at the top of my post in relation to ‘whipping up hatred for men’. I think I might have been going to address something you said but changed my mind. Whatever. On the contrary, I notice you have taken the trouble in your posts to keep some objectivity – which is a lot more than many of the contributors here. Thank you for pointing out my error.

I agree with you when you say that we should ‘take the points [the author] makes and use them for a better purpose’. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that public debate has become so defensive about men in recent years, and so destructive in its backlash against feminism, that real gender progress and understanding have been rendered almost totally ineffective (just look at this particular forum). I think the author was also trying to make this point.

Some of these problems may also be the fault of feminism, but nowhere near as much as is popularly claimed. In fact, I believe that feminism is the most deliberately misrepresented and misunderstood movement in history. I have been involved in women’s groups on and off for about twenty years, and I think people would be astonished if they knew how little the subject of men – either individually or as a group – comes up in feminist discussions and meetings (although this may not be the case with domestic violence groups, which I haven’t been involved with). The focus is almost always on how women’s lives are affected by the culture in which they live and how to empower women more to deal with it.

MLK,
Of course the feminist didn’t say that 99.8% of men in Australia are “not” in jail. Instead the feminist tries to portray all men as being criminals, or tries to portray all men as having a predisposition towards crime.

This feminist also wants to carry out social engineering on boys, but to find out what feminists did to boys in the US, (with their Ritalin programs and their feminist education and misinformation systems) you can buy a book and read about it. http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/september_2000_5.html

After reading that book (by an ex-feminist author), and then considering the situation in Australia, you will see similar processes occurring in this country also.

Robert,
I am quite certain that the male gender is going backwards in many ways. Various statistics will readily show that, but I also think that much of this is because of the way males are being negatively portrayed, and much of this is coming directly or indirectly from feminism.

The author has not mentioned quite relevant information. She has not mentioned the fact that the vast majority of men are not criminals, nor has she mentioned the many criminologists that already study crime, nor has she mentioned the estimated 30-40 % of male prison inmates who are believed to have a mental illness, with the prisons being used as mental hospitals.

In her positions on various boards she would know of such things, but she has not mentioned them, and by not mentioning them, she has now carried out misinformation. I believe that this was not accidental, and the author purposely wants to portray males as being criminals, which is the criminalisation of the male gender.

However any criminalisation of the male gender, or the constant negative portrayal of the male gender by feminists will not do women much good in the longer term, but I don’t think feminists look that far down the track

Well, as a woman, I saw absolutely NOTHING disparaging towards men in Sandra's article. To me the message was exactly as RObert understood it to be.

Those in this forum who see Sandra's article as another "feminist plot" have completely lost it (the plot) and should consider addressing their insecurity problem asap.

Besides, I don't know where one can find the kind of 'feminists' condemned in this forum. Personally I've never met any. Feminism (and I grew up with it) has never ever meant the hate of men. On the contrary. But that's another debate.

MLK

We differ because I do not believe that men and boys are genetically disposed to be violent. But then few men or women would think it either. It is stereotyping and sexist.

As a experiment, what about observing the children at the local Kindy or Preschool? I think you will find an absence of the 'violence' you attribute to boys and who knows, maybe you might learn that girls are not always 'sugar and spice and all things nice'.

In an earlier response I invited you to think about environmental and other influences (eg roles) that could affect the development of boys (and girls). For balance, the author could have acknowledged other possible influences.

I know many men who are co-operative, kind and caring. Some are in occupations that demand sensitivity, kindness and nurturing. In fact now that your rant has reminded me, many men I come across have nothing in common with the archetypal man your feminism so despises. I suspect my experience is not unusual.

On the other hand, some feminists are very much opposed to marriage, family and domesticity. For instance, Germaine Greer (in)famously declared that the reason western women were not having children was because they hated them. I cannot imagine that many men would be so coarse, callous and misled in their assessment of western women.

Maybe we pay too much attention to theorists and do not rely enough on our own experience, observation and judgement. We need to think for ourselves.