MLK
I agree with your summary of the bulk of postings here. It is very difficult for men to take responsibility for their/our violence and crime for a number of reasons not all to do with men's avoidance of responsibility. And it is also increasingly possible for men to accept responsibility for their/our own actions, and to be less aggressive and criminal.

At the same time I suggest Bilson's aprroach will inevitably draw highly polarised responses. She clearly has some sort of aggressive agenda, though it is not clear whether that be feminist, fundamentalist Christian, or neoliberal. Re-reading the article the comment about "genetically determined strengths (sexual and otherwise)" prompts me to consider maybe she is a sociobiologist or evolutionary psychologist. Or maybe for some reason (competition?) she just wants to gain the maximum number of comments for her articles...?

At any rate, I suggest all the volatile postings here are responding to SOMETHING.

MLK, thanks for the links. The US article was very good. It reinforces the point made earlier, we need to pay attention to a lot more than the gender of those convicted of crime. We need to try and work out what are the societal factors that make it more likely that someone will turn to crime.

To all
I suspect that the male posters who don't share my approach to the article are reacting to what all to often seems to happen when gender is made the issue. People produce reports that claim men commit the overwhelming majority of DV (I've discussed my views on that often) and men find themselves fighting a loosing battle in the family courts and counselling centers to try and maintain a meaningfull role in their kids lives while surrounded by posters about protecting women and children.

They are tired of being dissed and then have people act on that dissing - imagine if blonds were paid less because of blond jokes.

I can see the likely hood that article was not intended to be constructive, it does have that tone.

Then I have a choice about what I do with that. I choose to take the truth that is in the article and ask what do we do with this. Are there some things we can do better to identify what contributes to people choosing to break the law seriously enough to be encarcerated and what can we do to minimise those factors.

R0bert

It was intended to help men and by extension all of us. It was intended to scratch the "politically correct" surface we live in. Attack the argument not the author. That would be positive - we - you deserve better.

MLK,
I have noticed that feminists do seem to like to malign and name call those who question feminism, such as calling them “good old, heavily right-wing funded culture warrior”. You’ll probably get a big hug from your fellow feminists for such name calling.

I have previously looked at the QLD government’s web-site on boy’s education and from memory the most noticeable thing was that it hardly said one positive word about boys. Nearly every statement made about boys on that web-site was negative of boys, and I would regard that web site as very feminist. For all the talk from feminists of “women and their children”, I have rarely heard a single positive word said by feminists about boys.

“Women and their children” basically means “women and their daughters”, and boys would have very little future in a feminist world.

DavidB,
You may be able to take responsibility for your own violence and aggression, but I don’t think all men are violent and aggressive.

To classify all men as violent and aggressive would be very much in the area of sex discrimination. But you might get a big hug from feminists as well.

Dear HRS,
As an outed feminist - even in this thread - I said something very positive about men, even to the extent of celebrating how much I have loved one of you for 30 years! I am afraid I only had daughters, not by design, just the way it turned out, but I can assure you, had I had a son, I'm sure I would have loved him very much. Many feminist friends of mine have sons and they are fierce in their determination to protect and nurture them, just as I am about my daughters.
Just one quiet perspective from the other side of the gender divide, my husband, to his outrage, has on occasions been commiserated with because he only has daughters - by both men and women, one man remarked it was a pity he was only firing blanks! Do you think this happens often to men who only have sons? I suppose it may happen to women who only have sons - though I can't imagine an equivalent firing blanks remark- that is not something I can comment on, never having been in that position, but, if it did, I can assure you my feminist friends would be just as outraged in defence of their dearly loved sons as my husband was in defence of his dearly loved daughters.

MLK
The US link you posted is at odds with what the thrust of the subject article. But maybe you did not notice that. I can see however how it was necessary for you to Google widely for an article that appeared to support a view. Why go to such lengths to disregard Australian facts that boys are not doing well in education?

What men and women see as problematic in gender and radical feminism is the construction, or cherry-picking, of 'facts' as proof for barmy theories. By definition, zealots are oblivious to theit own inconsistencies.

I am amazed that anyone in this modern age would support what is theorised, entirely without support, that there is a 'defective' gene of males that would predispose them to commit serious crime. As has been stated before, why not suppose there is a similar destructive gene in women, because 'women' are overwhelmingly responsible for child abuse. Child abuse is endemic in Australia, it is vastly underreported and it is rare that a woman perpetrator would go to jail for an offence.

Then again, why not suppose there is a crippling gene in Aborigines or in migrant men, who numbers relatively speaking, overwhelm those of Anglo-saxon origin in prison?

I suspect the author is recommending research to find the 'rogue' gene she assumes is in all boys and once found, out with the genetic shears or medication. However this also supposes that rogue genes are responsible for all sorts of human behaviour that others might find unacceptable. Is anyone worried about the ethics of the suggested research and treatment?

Of course it is stereotyping men to claim without qualification, that 'men' commit almost all crime in Australia. Prison populations represent a tiny percentage of either gender and one wonders why the author has chosen genes as the most likely culprit. Especially when it is only 'men' who would have a 'rogue' gene.

Again, both men and women oppose sterotyping and sexism and both men and women would be very concerned about ethics.