Having explained my problems re posting elsewhere, I get frustrated at not being able to post whenever I want. So, although it might seem I am regressing to refer to Yabby again, bear with me.

Yabby, - there is no evidence whatsoever to support the fact that mens and womens roles were always separate. To base ideas on contemporary (albeit it is said the culture goes back 40,000 years) tribes has nothing to do with our Neolithic ancestors. Cave drawings show stick figures so we have no way of knowing whether indeed "women picked berries and men went out to hunt". Until the advent of writing we had no way of knowing either that Celtic women went into battle alongside the men...a fact which Hollywood has always ignored.

I find it ironic therefore that The Usual Suspects get so steamed up about perceived unfairness and blame "feminists" when women have been fighting for change for centuries. Ever since we emerged from what some still refer to as the "Dark Ages" and Christianity imposed a strictly gendered society women have been fighting it. Yes, we have made a lot of progress recently in European countries but we are still, it seems from these threads, being opposed tooth and claw.

It took us centuries and we fought every step of the way...I join the other posters who invite you to do the same. Go and have tubes pushed down your throats; get slung into jail, be burnt at the stake, march through the streets. If you feel so strongly about it go and do something about it. Several women on this site have offered to join you. If you don't wish to, then stop blaming the entire female sex for your own bad choices!

Here's Aemilia Lanyer (1569-1645)objecting to the Church teaching that women were responsible for the downfall of humanity:

"But surely Adam cannot be excused;
Her fault though great, yet he was most to blame;
What weakness offered, strength migh have refused,
Being lord of all, the greater was his shame."

And Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673)
women, she feels
"are kept like birds in cages to hop up and down in our houses, not suffered to fly abroad to see ...thus by an opinion, which I hope is but an erronious(sic) one in men, we are shut out of all power, and Authority, by reason we are never imployed either in civil nor marshal affaires."

and..."Marriage is a Curse we find/especially to Womenkind/From the Cobblers Wife we see/To ladies, they unhappy be."

SJF, I’ll admit to undermining feminist rhetoric when it is 'rhetoric' rather than honestly addressing genuine inequities.

This author provided a list of 'facts' which taken at face value provided a misleading picture. I’ve attempted to provide links to material which provides a more balanced view of the data. All of the links in the post you refer to were to ABS documents.

I provided a link to that info on unpaid housework so fair minded readers could get better overview of the situation than snipping a couple of convenient stats.

The author is correct but only tells a part of the story. Did you notice that the difference in the value of unpaid housework performed by employed men and women while still significant is much less than the proportions suggested by the author (20.7% and 27.5% respectively). As I understand it men have a higher participation in the paid workforce so we should expect some difference in this group. The big difference comes in when you look at the work done by the unemployed (that term looks ugly in this context).

The authors stat was accurate but misleading the way it was used.

Similar issues for the volunteer and community work items except that employed men did more of that than employed women (25.1% and 21.4% respectively although the difference seemed to be mostly in travel time). Again the real difference is about employment status rather than gender.

cont'd

Daniella, well said.

R0bert

Vanilla,

to be honest I havent given much thought about an office for men. It is an idea. It would interesting to see what would happen if there was, and hopefully they do not have people like Michael Flood dominating it.

Personally I would prefer to see courses at the uni level, which are not controlled by or under the umberalla of the gender studies departments.

Has there been any lobbying? I have no idea.

I do know and I am sure your husband will support this, is that the vast majority of men do not want touch these subjects with a barge pole, if they can avoid it. I think this for two reasons, firstly by discussing the subjects covered on OLO many men will get in touch with areas of their life, feelings they would prefer to avoid. The second reason as amply demonstrated here time and time again, to have a view point which is different and not politically correct, invites some very personal attacks.

so it not a very safe area to try and explore or discuss.

I previously asked the question if any of the women had read any of the books by Warren Farrell, Maggie Hamilton, Melanie Phillips,David Thomas, etc and nobody had answered.

I have read books by feminists, even if I did not agree with what they were saying and the reason I read these books was in order to develope an understanding.

*Excellent point re Branson. He's such a tosser.*

Vanilla, sounds like Branson will be able to cope without you or Billie after
all :)

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23354806-462,00.html

Romany, I tend to rely on anthropologists to figure out what our ancestors did
or did not do. People like Helen Fisher and others. Its only 500 grandmothers ago,
which is nothing in genetic terms, that they lived in caves after all.

Fisher has some interesting theories about pair bonding etc and blames the
plough for the enslavement of women. If we look at women in hunter gatherer
societies like the Kung and others, they seem to have had far more freedoms.

Now it is possible, that women passed their kids to the menfolk, as they picked
up their weapons and went out hunting, while the men chatted and picked berries,
but its improbable. You need to question why pair bonding evolved in humans,
in the first place.

*we are still, it seems from these threads, being opposed tooth and claw*

I don’t know about opposed, we just point out that these days, you girls are
on easy street and complain loudly for few good reasons. If you fail in life,
rather then addressing your failings, I guess its easier to just blame men..

SJF, (continued)

The point is so that people read the whole story, no questions about context or selective stats.

In regard to the violence point my post clearly showed that the figure was for a 12 month period. No misleading. Perhaps 2005 was a very bad year for men but I doubt it. Again I posted a link to the article so that readers could form their own opinion and compare the various figures. The article gives some demographic info which is relevant.

No attempt to mislead, rather an attempt to promote a more balanced look at the issues. Rhetoric and the selective use of stats which promote a misleading impression harms the cause of those seeking to deal with genuine injustice and unfairness. Those who are not 'true believers' get cynical about claims when they are used to exaggeration and misrepresentation.

Vanilla, I'd have mixed views about the idea of an "Office for Men"
There are some issues where a dedicated focus on mens issues might be good, our lower life expectancy would be a good place to start.

In other regards the idea horrifies me. Offices like that all to easily fall into the trap of persuing agenda's which damage the community as a whole as they seek to benefit their group. They can be devisive and we don't need more of that. Can you imagine competing anti-DV campaigns each seeking to portray the other us wrong. I'd rather the one campaign that attempted to stop all non-consentual violence. People find themselves with cushy jobs and seek to show that they are still needed by exagerating claims. True believers jet jobs in those kind of offices and persue their agenda's regardless of any concept of fairness or truth.

At this point in time the negatives look far greater than the benefits.

R0bert