One of the problems with double-barrelled surnames is what happens when Mr Funnell-Webb marries Ms North-Sydney. Do their children become North-Sydney-Funnell-Webbs, or a more abbreviated North-Funnell, North-Webb, Sydney-Funnell or Sydney-Webb?

Our son-in-law changed his surname to that of his wife, mainly because he liked that name better than his birth-name. It caused some consternation among the very conservative colleagues where he worked; but they soon got used to it.

So what's the contemporary significance of the traditional practice of the female ceding her birth-name?

In the old days, women teachers had to resign their permanent position when they married. They could continue to teach, but could not have superannuation or promotion rights.

Does anyone know if couples with double-barrel surnames are more likely to divorce? I suspect they are more prone to divorce because the woman is more concerned about self instead of seeing herself as being one of a couple.

And Roscop takes it!

I was wondering who would get in first to make some petty anti-feminist comment about an article which is just about names and the right to keep them. I thought it would be a more regular contributor, but I guess I was wrong.

Yes, she said feminist. But take a deep breath and relax, there was no male-bashing.

(To answer your question roscop, it's probably a similar number of divorces as occur in cases where men feel the need to have docile wives).

I've always like the idea of merging names, though it doesn't seem to get much traction. Funweb? Webbell?

The 'merging' option would actually resolve the problems of hideously long hyphenated names, as well as resolve issues of equity.

Any man without the courage (not that it would take much) to insist on his family name being carried on is not worth marrying. Unfortunately to many males have been emasculated by this feminist crap. Thankfully their are still many ladies out there who don't have to use a foul mouth and are very content to allow their children to grow up with some sort of stability.

Humanly speaking, I think to give up one's surname is a gargantuan prospect.

Is it not true that all of our identity as people is tied up in our family history and personal place in that network?

If we had an accepted cultural expectation of either the man or the woman adopting the surname of the other.. then most of us would not question it.

That's why it has worked for so long.

I think some of this boils down to the nature of love.

If the union is based on a more 'political' than romantic love, then... the name issue might figure more prominently.
But it seems to me that when you meet that person with whom your spirit merges and joins... it would not matter which name was taken.
For convenience I think one or the other should be adopted for reasons clearly shown by Nina's article.

NINA...sounds like we could be related.. Funnell.... that's part of our family :) Did you have a 'Norm' (long since past away) who was a commercial artist/printer you know of? (Melbourne, Vic)

The Old testament was strongly concerned about carrying on the family name and this connected to the patriarchal system. If a man did not have offspring, he was permitted to father them through the servant of his wife or if he died, his brother was expected to father them in his name.

The New Testament does not seem to have any specific teaching whatsoever about the importance of family name, so.. I'm not too rigid on it.

Hi Polycarp...

Sorry, I don't know of any Norm's in my family, I know some of my extended family lives in Melbourne (Im in Sydney) but I'm not sure of their names :-(

As for runner- honestly, your views are horrendously outdated, parochial and insulting to women. I feel sorry for any women who have the misfortune of being associated with you.

Dear Ninaf,

It is telling that you only saw 'runner's comment as being offensive to women. What about 'TurnRightThenLeft's comment where she suggested that women who took their husbands names were "docile wives"? I think there would be a great many wives who would find that suggestion equally offensive.

I guess since your alleged bashing in a Hunter's Hill park you only now see out of one eye...the obsessed feminist one.

Roscop- I did not respond to the remark about "docile" wives, as I felt my article covered that when I wrote that there are many strong, assertive women who have taken their husbands names who do not feel as though their identities have been compromised or subsumed.

As for your gutless reference to the assault on me, I suggest you grow up and learn to argue with facts and ideas, not baseless assertions- and for the record i was a seasoned feminist well before the assault. Also your snide use of the word "alleged" is offensive and in fact its because of people like you who cast doubt on the veracity of victims' claims which makes it so difficult for individuals to speak out about their ordeals. perhaps one day your mother/ sister/ wife/ daughter will be raped and will confide in you. I'm sure then you would not refer to it as being an "alleged" assault, particularly if she were covered in blood and brusing as I was.

Gutless

Thanks for your article Nina. Just to add a little more diversity (or complexity) here's our family's story. When we married my wife retained her surname (and being a simpler name we use that to order take away). However, when our son was born she asked if he could take her surname. After some thought I happily agreed. Now it's going to cause some confusion I'm sure but for vaild and thoughtful reasons this was important to her. I find it fascinating that taking on another's name can seem so significant to the sustainability of relationship as suggested by another post. It would seem to me that being able to see past names to allow the focus to be on the relationship is a greater sign of maturity.

Roscop

TRTL merely mentioned "docile" wives. He (yep, he) was answering your inflammatory question in such a way as not to jump headlong into the gender war it appears you wish to promote.

Your personal comment to Nina was both crass and deliberately provocative.

So what is your purpose here?

It is obviously not to contribute to what could be quite a whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play. Have you anything relevent to contribute concerning the actual article or are we all expected to jump once more onto the tired old bandwagon of anti-feminism simply because ...Ping! the f word appeared and, like a laboratory rat, your conditioned response is to assign roles and try to persuade people to react for your personal gratification?

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to give up their name. My wife kept her own name and I kept mine. Our daughter has my surname, with a first name from her maternal great-great-grandmother and a middle name from her paternal grandmother. The only downside is that I sometimes get called Mr K, but my ego can handle these blows.

Polycarp says "Is it not true that all of our identity as people is tied up in our family history and personal place in that network?" I don't know that ALL our identity comes from family Polycarp, though family is important. What about friends, work, life experience, education, politics or even (dare I say it) religion?

runner says "Unfortunately to (sic) many males have been emasculated by this feminist crap." Do you really believe the trash you post runner, or are you just a troll?

Hi Runner - could you explain why a woman's name should not be carried on just as much as a man's? Why is a man's name more important? Just curious.

Hello Candice

Man was created to be the spiritual head of the family. We have seen the feminization of the school system, some Police services and many other areas of life. It is no wonder many young boys grow up with an identity crisis and that things are in such a mess. To go against the natural order of things always results in the further break down in society. To take on ones wife name is emasculating and unnatural. Woman was made to complement the man (not rule over). Man was made to rule his family and set an example to them. Just look at how many fatherless children end up in prison. Many men are to weak and selfish to take up their God given responsibility. As long as they get sex the woman can do what they want. It is time for men to stop being whimps.

Hi folks... ok Nina.. I'll cross you off the list of 'possible rellies' :)

This is a fascinating question. I can see Runners point about the creation order with man as the head of the family (in an attitude of servanthood..not tyranny) so, I suppose it logically follows that the woman could take the family name of the man.

If we were a culturally matriarchal society then it could be the other way around.

I'm a bit curious about why MRD's wife wanted "their" child to have 'her' name? I think that's where the rub is.. when children come they have to have a name, and they come from a family.. In my wifes culture it's simple. Every child is named after it's father, for example if the woman is named 'mary' and her father is 'fred'..then her full name is 'mary fred'. Fred also had a dad.. (John) so his name is 'Fred John', John also had James as his dad, thus he is 'John James'.

In order to differentiate one Fred from another, you just add the name of his father's father "Fred John James" which further identifies which 'Fred' he is.

When my wifes people embraced Christianity, the naming conventions did not change, nor did they need to.

The lineage and family tree is based on the line of the Father, but that of the mother is also well known.

The womans identity is still intact, but it simply traces different branches. A womans lineage is also important (in that culture)for reasons of social class and family history.

The Old Testament was like this also. Our naming conventions seem to be linked to geography (somewhat like some Arab names) and Occupation.
"Miller". So the 'John' who happened to be a 'Miller' in a certain place would be called "John Miller".

Given this, it seems to me that the family name is not so crucial in establishing identity... but the lineage is.
John Miller the son of '
James Miller the son of
Henry Miller....

The important bit is 'John/James/Henry' in establishing genealogy

Interesting article and thread. Clearly, the expectation that a wife should take her husband's family name is a vestige of former patriarchal arrangements in our society that linger on, unfortunately.

In my own case, my first wife changed her surname to mine, and retained it after our divorce. She had always detested her family name, so this wasn't really a problem for her. Twenty years later she still goes by it, as do our daughter and grandson. My grandson had a double-barrelled name for his first couple of years, until my daughter changed it to hers. Tragically, my grandson's father died before he was born and my daughter thinks it will be less confusing for the little fellow if he doesn't bear the name of someone he'll never know.

My second wife retained her surname, which she insisted that we include in our children's names (as middle names). However, when they were enrolled at school their names became duble-barrelled, but without a hyphen. Following our divorce, this continued through their schooling, often leading to confusion in minor but annoying ways. Now that they're old enough to think for themselves, they've both dropped their mother's family name, mostly for convenience sake.

Roscop - your comments were those of a knuckle-dragging oaf.

runner - are you sure you're not a closet Muslim?

If I recall correctly there in the past there was a tendency for women to increase their status, by marrying a doctor, lawyer ec.

So by using the same surname automatically established the hierarchy amongst women.

When I rule the world, the problem will be solved by the compulsory adoption of my surname scheme. It's based in biology, and everyone gets to have a double-barrel surname. What could be better - a scheme based in nature that lets everyone have those pretentious sounding surnames hitherto only enjoyed by the elite or the wanna-bees.

It works like this. Each new child gets a surname from Dad and one from Mum. The name Dad passes on is the part of his surname he got from his Dad; Mum passes on the bit of her name that she got from her Mum. The nature bit comes from its mimicry of the Y chromosome line and the mitochondrial DNA line.

So, if my Dad's surname had been Smith-Jones, and Mum's had been Brown-Black, my surname,and that of all my siblings, would be Smith-Black. If I, as a Smith-Black, then had children with a Potter-Redkin, then our children would be Smith-Redkins.

This system means no-one changes their name on marriage/partnering, and the child's surname reflects its lineage through the Y chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA lines, a boon for family historians. And just as females don't pass on Y chromosomes and males don't pass on mitochondrial DNA, the changes in surnames through time reflect the loss of one or other of these lines through time.

Vote for me when I stand for Parliament on this single issue.

There's another plus - the scheme outlined has scope for debate about whose surname-part would go first in the double-barrel, and how to cope with unknown parentage. Fertile ground there.

Ninaf:"i was a seasoned feminist well before the assault"

So much is obvious. What would be more convincing is if you were a "seasoned" humanist, rather than the rather one-eyed ideological obsessionist you seem to be. That might threaten your ride on the bandwagon though...
How much does the Rape Crisis Centre job pay again? It must be a fair whack, because your organisation managed to eat up $763,788 in wages last year, out of a total budget of $973,425. In addition to that, you spent $23,672 on "Professional Development" and a further $30,634 on travel, not to mention the $105,677 for "Administration" over and above the cost of salaries. Funnily enough, I can't see any line items in your annual report for the cost of actually assisting people in crisis. Nice little gravy train - you go grrrl.

As for the subject of this silly discussion, who cares? Children bearing the patronymic surname identify the father for anyone interested, while their maternal heritage is usually obvious because most kids live with their mother. What the mother chooses to call herself is up to her, I'd have thought, if that's not imposing too much responsibility on her, of course...

The lack of interesting subjects on OLO has never been more evident.

Meandering around an otherwise mundane subject without making any real points - feminism at its best?

Really, take the surname or dont. Hyphenate or dont. It doesnt matter. Just dont inflict your "double barrel soluation" on the children. If he is such a pansy he wont even stand up for the tradition of children having their father's surname, you go girl - give them yours.

I dont understand the pride taken by some in describing themselves as a "feminist". Its akin to a guy beating his chest and proudly proclaiming that he is a chauvanist pig.

Runner, I suggest since you allegedly resort to taunting someone about being the victim of an attempted rape that you are allegedly a twat.

If it is the mark of patriarchy to adopt the husband's name, why then carry forth the father's name from the wife's (is that another dirty word?) father?

I am in favour of following tradition and care little what others do. However, hyphenated names can be a source of embarrassment for young children, a nuisance in filling out forms and a chore when signing. Some friends carry their maiden names where the name was key to their business. As I say though, do what you will.

I am surprised this subject has attracted any interest, it is so seventies, but I guess this is the silly season. From experience I would have thought that hyphenated names died out sometime before the new millenium. Perhaps it was long before because I remember two people trying to get the subject up at a dinner party back in the early nineties only to be ignored because the subject was so old hat.

These days the few who might hyphenate or take their maiden (a quaint concept these days) name are the pretentious gits in comedy sketches. It is easy to imagine Todd Chester and his wife Margo from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation having a hyphenated 'relationship' with similarly hyphenated children while the snobby and trivial Margo would also go one better and keep her maiden name to impress (as if anyone would care).

I can't imagine why there is a marriage revolt. What is wrong with young men that they don't want to team up in an act where they are the prop for an endless whinge about men and the patriarchy?

No wonder so many young women run screaming from the feminists - they are so damn frivolous, vexatious and boring.

For the record, Roscop, I wasn't saying that women who take their husbands names are docile.

I was saying that women who would marry a man who insistent point blank, that they give up their name, and would hear nothing to the contrary, would indeed need to be docile, as any man who shows no sign of allowing his wife to make such a fundamental choice, must indeed want docile wives.

I was pointing out that your comment does indeed reek of old-fashioned attitudes and a refusal to let women keep a piece of their own history and personality.

So, I'll state it again - I in no way think that wives who decide to take on their husband's name are docile. Wives who allow themselves to be ruled by their husband however...

Docile wife?! That is an urban myth for Snopes.

Have a look around, there would be very few wives who let their husbands rule the household, family matters and the children's affairs. The archetype of the hen-pecked husband is real enough for many/most Aussie men. The children know who has to be asked first and it certainly isn't dad.

Similarly there would be few husbands who control the spending. Men wryly joke with one another that "What's mine is the family's, which the wife spends for us and what's hers is hers to do with what she chooses - I don't go there and I wouldn't be game enough to ask."

Honestly, who cares about names, all the majority want is an easy, predictable way of naming all who are part of the same family. Children need to know they are part of a unit that supports them.

What I do know is that if a man wrote a piece about the unfairness of having to buy his sweetheart an expensive engagement ring (and we all look at the latest sparkler on a finger), there would be droves of angry women who would question his 'commitment' and 'love' for his intended. After all, if he loved her he would make any concession, right?

I am not equating a ring with choice of name and I am not reflecting on the history and traditions of surnames or marriage. All I am saying is that having listened to many men there comes a point where they must question why on earth they would ever sign up for a contract that provides them with so much angst and probable loss of assets and children to boot, without any enforceable conditions that could be of benefit to them at all. Most see the name as a reflection of the responsibility which they gladly take on board, not as some right.

We wonder why so many young men are demanding some reliable pre-nuptual contract when there are those who would quibble at the altar over such a silly, mundane matter as the surname.

Antiseptic – A good part of the $30,000 the Rape Crisis centre spent on travel is probably for participation in conferences at salubrious destinations eg Gold Coast. This is one of the many rackets the Rape and Domestic Violence industries engage in. At these conferences contrived anecdotes are the order of the day, though the author of the article could go one better. She can talk about her own alleged life experience. Now you can’t question that, can you? The industry mantra is “you believe the victim”.

Sorry Ninaf, call me gutless as much you like, but you can’t expect everyone to come down in the last shower. Yes folks, this is the young woman who with her attacker on top of her and who had just given her a good bashing, was strangling her and was armed with a “box-cutter”, told him to “f___-off” and on hearing the roar of a feminist he was metaphorically castrated and he scampered off into the night.

Runner – I think you’re right. As you more or less say, it is young males who are growing up with an identity crisis and thanks to radical feminism society is in a real mess. Take a look at the military. The government is struggling to get young blokes to enlist these days, they have been so emasculated. I look forward to when we have a battalion of Jessica Lynches (do you remember who she is?) with their double barrelled surnames like Lynch-Fakehero and the kick-arse Madam commander going through the roll call. We can go down to the docks and wave good bye to all of them including the likes of Ninaf, as they sail off to teach the Taliban a lesson.

I would have thought someone fom the rape crisis centre with an opportunity to voice an opinion so publicly would use the opportunity more wisely.

"The lack of interesting subjects on OLO has never been more evident," says Leigh.

I'm afraid I agree with Leigh. This is a first. Am I losing it? Must be too much seasonal food and wine.

Wow anticeptic. You really might want to check your facts before you start levelling accusations at underfunded NGO bodies set up to support victims of assault. For starters, all of the Management Committee of the NSW RCC work in an unpaid volunteer capacity meaning that I do not see a cent from that so called ‘gravy-train’ and in fact I donate all money I receive from doing guest talks to the centre.
As for your breakdown of the budget, here goes- as you outlined the most money was spent on wages. These are the wages of the fully accredited counsellors who man the phones 24/7 and so provide direct service to victims/ clients (the same clients who you imply receive NO assistance whatsoever. Another significant cost for the centre is the phone lines (as it’s a free call)- though you didn’t comment on that amount. Personally I think these counsellors have one of the most difficult jobs in the world (dealing with victims immediately after they have been rape has got to be tough) and they are not paid enough for what they do (they are paid well below what they would receive in the private sector). The 30, 000 on travel was spent so that the manager could tour out to regional and remote locations to provide free training to people who work on the front line of sexual assault, who may otherwise be completely untrained. As for the costs on professional development this was well spent money as this year the RCC earned the top Work Cover award for their professional development work in vicarious trauma. And yes, admin costs money. But the sum of 100 000 is divided between 3 or 4 people. Once again- you might want to check out some of the facts before you going twisting and misrepresenting them to fit your abhorrent agenda.

Oh and Roscop- I'm not going to go over the traumatising events of May26th 2007 again- I've done it enough. If you want clarification contact Detective Briana Lee at Gladesville Police Station, Sydney. She will confirm that male DNA was taken from me and that I had injuries consistent with being bashed.
Meanwhile, your last comment suggests that I have been deliberately facetious. By implicating that I have lied about the assault, you have also implicated that I have lied to the mainstream media and the police and you have also therefore insinuated that my original article in the SMH is untruthful. To knowingly publish something you know to be false in a mainstream braodsheet is actually a crime. It's called fraud. Now by insinuating that I've committed fraud and by having the good sense to publish that insinuation here (which, FYI- consitutes publishing in the public domain) well, there is a word for that to. It's called defamation- and it makes YOU legally liable.

When I was 23, I DID fight off an armed rapist and there are police reports to prove that. If nothing else, that shows I can play hardball. Dont muck with me, you cowardly moron.

ninaf:"you didn’t comment on that amount."

Actually, no mention was made of any amount for telephone funding in the RCC's annual report. Care to elucidate? You might also like to give us some indication of just how much each of those "accredited counsellors" is paid and how many of them you employ to help the women suffering a crisis over their 70-year-old "rape"

ninaf:"their professional development work in vicarious trauma."

that would be the trauma sufferd by counsellors when asked to earn their money, I presume?

What you seem to fail to grasp,Nina, is that your organisation is funded by significant amounts of public money. You're a member of the management committee. I quoted from your own annual report to illustrate what i see as mismanagement and feather-bedding. Is the above your best response?

I note also there are several paeans to "feminism" scattered throughout your annual report. Is "feminism" part of the aims of your organisation? Strangely absent are any paeans to rape victims...

I thought the 'silly' season ended at Christmas. Obviously I was wrong.

We have a two page article about whether some shelia will change her surname when she hooks up with a bloke. That is REALLY important.

Today Fred Nile wants to cover up a few bare boobs on beaches.

Why do we fund these idiots?

runner: "Man was created to be the spiritual head of the family...To go against the natural order of things always results in the further break down in society. To take on ones wife name is emasculating and unnatural."

Beware the person who uses magic words like 'natural order', 'man was created to...', 'woman was made to...'. They usually have no reasoning other than a blind faith in the existing order which suits their place in the hierarchy.

You know runner when my son-in-law took his wife's maiden name as his surname people thought it 'unnatural' and that he was being 'emasculated'. Now that they have both reached the international pinnacle of their profession and are raising a wonderful family together, all the early critics have come around to seeing another legitimate way of being a family.

And where they live society is showing no signs of breaking down.

OLO rule #87: if you have been unable to manage your intimate relationships and/or selected an unsuitable spouse who later hurt you emotionally, you must approach every debate about gender as though everyone of your ex-spouse's sex is equally bad, equally to blame, and as though nobody else can possibly be in a loving, growing relationship free from the turmoil and betrayal you have experienced.

Nina, the answers you've provided in relation to the rape crisis center are more than enough. In fact, the information is out there for people who are genuinely interested.

What you need to understand, is that many of the individuals posting here regard it as a side-issue to their own causes, which more often than not can very clearly be chalked up to a harrowing experience induced by the opposite gender.
Instead of accepting that both genders have ar*eholes who take advantage of whatever they can, they seem to form a grudge and can't move on.

My honest recommendation is to cease giving them fuel to their fire, particularly in relation to community organisations, which typically have little money and little power, but are targets for ideologues. Sadly, these organisations tend to have less power to defend themselves, so it pays to be careful.
Regardless of what you say, it will be a reason to hate feminists, in fact, the moment you use that term, regardless of what you say, they will attack.
Many can't accept any form of feminism, regardless of what is espoused. I can provide links where I've argued with individuals who refuse to accept that anyone who calls themselves feminist for any reason could possibly do any good, even if they were simply opposing the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia.
Illogical? Yes. But if the word 'feminist' is used, in many cases, rationality appears to vanish.

This phenomenon can clearly be evidenced by the harmless, lighthearted article which prompted this discussion.
Because 'feminism' was mentioned, they started foaming at the mouth. What seems really sad to me, is that they can't see that they're a mirror image of the aggressive feminists that they loathe so very much.
There are two extreme sides of the coin, and in opposing one, they become the other. As in most matters, the sensible ground lies somewhere in the middle, instead of launching vitriol at any particular cause.

'What seems really sad to me, is that they can't see that they're a mirror image of the aggressive feminists that they loathe so very much. '

Bingo:-)

Although the feminists they loathe get books published and are often respected in the community, while they are normally dismissed as misogynist pigs;-)

USuss,

I'm interested:- can you provide a list of the books written by "aggressive feminists" in say, the last twenty years? They seem to have slipped by me.

Also, who do you consider to be the "agressive feminists" who are respected by the community?

Now Romany - stop being such a bully!

Happy New Year to you, wherever you end up.

This is not all that trivial an issue. Names carry immense symbolic and practical importance.

Under the traditional surname system, a family name can die out in as little as one generation due to the lack of sons. For example, despite my mother being one of 12 children, her family's name is now lost. Out of her 5 brothers, one died young, one never married, one married but died childless, and the others had daughters only. I know from general conversation with my extended family that many of us feel a small but significant sense of grief at the name loss - especially as this was the generation that first came to Australia as migrants.

From a practical point of view, and for anyone who has ever organised a school reunion or tried to trace their family tree, the name-change factor means that tracking down females after a period of time has elapsed takes a lot more time, effort and money than tracking down males. One simple and practical solution to this would be for the government to introduce a name-change Registry that is readily available to the public.

While less can be done to practically address the symbolic loss of family names, it is heartening to know that more people are now taking alternative options - e.g. some men assuming their wives' names, some children assuming their mothers' maiden names. I do believe that this is a positive trend and an important by-product of feminism.

[PS Has anyone ever noticed that some US TV shows like Law and Order still refer to a married woman by her husband's surname AND common name - e.g. Mrs John Smith, Dr and Mrs Michael Jones? Yuk! How can a supposedly liberal TV show, produced in a country that sees itself as the moral leader of the world, still uphold such an archaic and demeaning gender practice?)

Ah CJ -

Reckon I should put "Stop bullying" on my Resolution list, huh?

Thanks for the seasonal wishes - might be hard to believe, but until you wrote that and I looked at the calender, I had no idea it was New Years Eve. The whole Uni is quiet and still under the spell of exams and I'm surrounded by stacks of end-of-term papers - not a drunken yobbo in sight. Doesn't feel like New Year's Eve at all.

May 2009 bring you all that you wish from it.

Romany

I might be able to answer your query re what constitutes an 'aggressive feminist'.

After thinking at length on the issue, I would say that the term applies to those feminists who do one or more of the following on a semi-regular basis:

- invade a country
- blow up a crowded marketplace (along with themselves)
- hijack an aeroplane
- lynch innocent men within the glow of a burning cross
- use incendiary wording such as 'patriarchy', 'male privilege' or even 'feminism'
- make provocative claims about gender inequality, e.g. that more women get raped by men than vice versa
- apply for a grant to research anything at all about women.

Hope this is of some help...

Happy New Year to you and to everyone.

I had to suppress a giggle as I read your article Nina, as the words, "chlamydia" went through my mind.

Romany: re what constitutes an 'aggressive feminist'.

SJF's list is a start; but I think it needs also to include such unacceptable behaviour as:

- thinking they can think for themselves
- failing to kow-tow to men's sexual urges on demand
- falling over at the first blow from their man and running off to a woman's shelter
- refusing to have the tea on the table promptly at 6 o'clock and failing to keep the beer at the right temperature
- considering they are fit to stand for Parliament.

Happy New Year to you all.

A feminist is someone who has the audacity and arrogance and bad manners to believe that
1) women should not perform over half of the world's labour but own less than 1% of the worlds land
2) women should have the right to vote and sit on a jury
3) women should have access to education
4) women should have the right to own their own bank accounts, land, jobs and opinions
5) women should earn equal pay for equal work
6) men and women should not be raped or be victim to domestic violence
7) women should not be subject to gross double standards that are used to demean, control and regulate women (such as women are sluts, men are studs)
8) women should have reproductive control over their own bodies and should not be seen as incubators

this is my definition of being a feminist- to the moron who suggested that taking pride in these principles is as bad as being a chauvenistic pig- you clearly have an outdated and prejudicial view of feminism

You are prohibited from voting, having a bank account and so on?

Feminist = cherry-picking, factoids and pork pies?!

I wouldn't consider any things on spikey's or nina's list to be included under 'aggressive' feminism, when I used that term I was referring to feminists who simply attack men.

As Romany and others have pointed out, these specimens are more-or-less extinct, however I do acknowledge they exist. There are fringe nutcases in every movement, though I see far more posts from the extreme feminist-haters than I do from man-bashing feminists.

What really bemuses me is that so many slighted men appear to place these relics at the forefront of their perception of feminism.

Cornflower, my little man, you are either (a) very young and so can't remember when women were not permitted to have their own bank account (or be eligible for a loan to buy a house) or (b) you are no student of history and have no understanding of the days not so far back when no woman - no matter how well educated - could vote whereas any codger wearing pants could.

Ask your mother - if she was a teacher - whether she was allowed to stay in the teaching service the day after she married. You'll find that she and all other married women had to fight for decades for the right to on-going employment, promotion and superannuation whereas her teacher partner was automatically permitted to maintain all those rights after marriage.

The same discrimination can be found in the history of the right to vote, let alone stand for parliament.

It's sad to find in the 21st century men who still think it strange that women want to be regarded as legal equals to men. I think that says more about the state of brain-power of such men than it says about the innate abilities of women.

Cornflower: "Feminist = cherry-picking, factoids and pork pies?!"

I am not very old at all, but in my living memory and experience:

1. It is only very recently in my lifetime that women have been able to borrow or buy property without the permission of father or spouse.

2. In my lifetime women were prevented from entering university on scholarship - even with an excellent record and subject results. Boys, no matter how low their Gr12. passes, were admitted on scholarship before ANY girl.

3. I have been told that although my qualifications are higher; males of lesser education and experience have been given jobs for which I applied because they would have families to support.

4. In the 1970s a woman couldn't be promoted to bank accountant or bank manager, or enter many fields of work. That hasn't changed enough yet btw. Even when the law said that there should be equal wages between the sexes, women were still typically paid 75% of what men were paid.

6. In the 1970s and 80s, most men still refused to answer phones or type (even new recruits) but ALL women, regardless of age or experience or education, were expected to know how to type and to automatically perform any reception duties.

7. I remember my mother, who was quite well educated for her day, having to take any jobs she could get - garage attendant; clothing and fruit factories etc - to support the family. At the same time she was OFTEN berated and abused, and I witnessed it, by people who accused her of selfishly wanting a career instead of doing her duty and caring for her children. No question was ever put to my father about his role in provding for the family.

I could go on, but if you were the least interested you could look up some socio-cultural history for yourself. Suffice to say that the gains for women have been small, recent and hard won. Gains remain extremely tenuous and fragile - as your post and others regularly seen on these pages illustrate.

The strangest thing to me about Cornflower's petulant anti-feminist bleats is that I seem to recall that she is a woman.

ninaf,
In view of your definition of a feminist. Instead of writing about frivolous matters such as this article, would it not be far more productive to use the space to lobby for lessening of the oppression of women in some of our ethnic communities and to seek enforcement of our laws regarding FGM and forced marriages that are taking place in Aaustralia.

The article you wrote here belongs in a magazine in a hairdressers. What I have suggested would benefit women much more.

Cornflower.
Yes I can vote. Yes I can get an education, own a bank account etc. etc. But as it turns out, not all women in the world live in the sunny suburbs of Sydney. When I say I'm a feminist, I don't mean that I don't shave my legs or wear a bra. Nor do I hate men. I love them in fact. (though I admit that I don't care much for men or women who support archaic ideas about gender roles). The reason why I'm a feminist is because there are women in the world who are still being stoned to death for being raped. That's right. there are women who, after being raped, are accused of adultery and are stoned to death for it. Sure, not in Australia. But unlike some, I have the capacity to see my own politics through as being global. There are also women around the world who still cannot vote and cannot gain an education. More to the point, even in western countries some of our primary rights as women are being challenged. I'm sorry this makes you so uncomfortable, but suck it up.

Nina's latest post here on OLO found above provides us with a good example of your average, typical feminist who guides opinion with their propaganda pieces (yes this type of person is published...). The one that wrote the above has been published and teaches at a university according to the profile.

Nina Furrel,

1) Women are physically weaker than men. In fact it would be accurate to say that they are pathetically weak by comparison (yes this is a generelisation and there are exceptions outiside of this rule, ie when a strong female is up against a weak male). Why would you think this applies only to physical, and not mental capabilities or emotional spheres (which can't easily be observed and measured)? It's illogical to pretend that real differences are only skin deep, isn't it? This could mean women have advantages, but it also might explain why they are unable to perform in certain areas (that feminists go scrounging around in the base of the barrel for excuses to blame men like the bigotted sexists they are). It also might not. But it's something to keep in mind as a plausible explanation with a high degree of certainty.

2) Again, your comments above indicate how superficial you are. Why would you ignore the history of civilisation? As men were sent to their assured cruel and bloody deaths from the age of ten. The amount of blood men have paid through history is so staggering feminists like you will never comprehend it and will only dishonour and tread on the legacy. Lets pretend for a minute women were drafted to war. How does the idea of a whole generation of your "oppressed" women, in a single war, being killed and spilling their entrails appeal to your sensibilities? Now this happens century after century in hundreds of wars...millions of women would die in wars from the age of ten. Do not ignore history. The way human civilisation evolved was a process that was highly successful and required the support of both genders, with women benefitting from the relationship in many ways.

Banjo: The last para of the article says, "Of course realistically, the feminist movement has much bigger fish to fry than the surname debate. Still, as a young woman, it's worth thinking through why these debates exist, where they come from, and where we might want to go to from here."

One of the annoying things about the mainstream or dominant culture is the way in which people belonging to it assume the authority to dictate to others how they should put their case for equality or any sort of change. So, we often hear things like,

"If Aborigines would get their act together and agree on what they want... " / "The trouble with feminists is that they are all saying something different"/ "The trouble with gays is that they make such a spectacle of themselves."/ "The trouble with Aborigines/feminists/gays/women/whomever is non-mainstream/ is that they can't put a coherent case/lie/differ/complain/selfish ... and so on.

I think it begins from the premise that all people already have equal rights (or human rights) and that they want more. Instead there is no recognition that some people are positioned well behind the starting line in life's obstacle course.

Nobody reflects on the fact that if mainstream people differ in their needs; wants and preferences and the ways in which they express themselves.

Also, it's ok for feminists to have a sense of humour you know - and a light touch as well.

CJ Morgan: Sadly that isn't so unusual. I think for some women it's still the highest moment of their day to get that warm and fuzzy feeling of approval from traditionalist males. I think also that it's worked for them all of their lives so it's never questioned. I can understand that (like I understand why so many men refuse to question their entitlements - the world works for them, in a way.) It takes a certain kind of intelligence and empathy to see into others' lives and to understand what they experience - and some courage to step out and acknowledge what needs to change.

Thanks for your comments.

Spikey

You used a couple of totally irrelevant Aunt Sallys (straw man arguments) to misrepresent my question and added a dollop of personal abuse.

Rhetorical trickery and abuse do not assist your credibility at all.

Returning to my question for Nina, who cited a number of areas of discrimination as though they were enduring and self-evident, "Are you prohibited from voting, having a bank account and so on?"

I could have said instead, "Drag yourself into the future, it is already 2009."

(Last post refers to pg8 post by Nina.)

3)Your reading has obviously extended only to feminists that support your false conceptions and general ignorance, that are derived from the peer pressure exerted upon you as you were 'educated' by all these 'facts' (little more than propaganda in reality) that you splurge out as though you are a Christian talking about the Sins of Man.

As an opinion writer and teacher, your ignorance will be pressed into the minds of gullible, well-meaning listeners and students without a counterpoint.

Nina,"But as it turns out, not all women in the world live in the sunny suburbs of Sydney."

I'm going to simply bypass the gut feeling of stupidity I got at reading this comment with a straight answer that tries to ignore the sensation: Nor do all men...duh. why be so sexist?.... How many women for example are slaves in coal and diamond mines that collapse? How many women are conscripted by the thousand and sent to die?

The crap you read or are sent via emails are cherry picked and usually based on half-truths. They are effectively lies. You can see this rubbish printed when you look at any major politicised event that occured in recent years:

-last year Georgian-Russian conflict was a lie in that all blame was placed on Russia immediately
-Iraq War Fraud
-the current Afghanistan War is a Fraud also.

Stop reading the news and emails that feeds you this biased s!@#. The entire premise of your position is a Western one. It's not objective. For all the crimes that Mugabe and Hussein have done, the West has caused a million deaths in Iraq, and probably the same or more in Afghanistan by deliberately starting and continuing the wars.

The same people you say stone women for rape, did not kill tens of hundreds and thousands of men, women and children (as the west have done). Before you can even begin your rant against the Taliban you should accept that your country is part of a war that has killed more women than the Taliban. Period.

Pynchme,
Nina might welcome your assistance in argueing for her frivalous article but there was nothing tongue in cheek about it nor was it intended to be light hearted as her attacks on other posters shows.

I don't know why you find it annoying that mainstream expectations that others obey our laws and behavioural standards. After all it is our country and newcomers are here at our behest. If one were to go to any other country we would be expected to abide by their laws and standards.

But it is disheartening that persons like Nina and the 3 state politicians, on the public purse, cannot find anything more important to discuss than a womans married name or bare boobs on a beach.

You may not realize it, but it is most likely that a fair number of little girls will have to endure the cruelty of having pieces of flesh cut off their genitals this school holidays and spend a few weeks immobilised, with legs bound together, until the wounds heal. They are damaged for life with having to be cut again later to allow intercourse and then more cutting for each childbirth. Why we do not enforce our laws to stop this is beyond beleif. There is also likely a numbe of girls right now that are truamatized and stressed about having to go through a marriage they do not agree to, but are forced by their families to do so. They are threatehed and coerced to do this.

These are just a couple of issues I consider of far more benefit to women than a stupid article about a changed surname.

I also changed my name on marriage, partly because my maiden name is too difficult and it was nice to have an easy surname to contend with.

The main reason was I wanted to have the same name as my children and husband because we were to become ONE family. Without exception, every woman I know who retained her name, the children took the father's name. I did not want to be the outcast just to be able to carry my father's name on and his father before him.

Double barrelled could work with some of the suggestions and including SJF's register which would make life easier from a genealogical point of view.

At the end of the day it is our genes that go forward, our names are just dressing. I don't mean to demean the importance of the family name being carried on for some people but even a double barrelled name will be different.

Perhaps the couple in question could choose whose family name to adopt if it was a concern to some people.

Steel I would really love to know what your idea of a perfect woman is. I don't think your ideal exists if your rigid views on women are any indication.

Banjo: << ...would it not be far more productive to use the space to lobby for lessening of the oppression of women in some of our ethnic communities and to seek enforcement of our laws regarding FGM and forced marriages that are taking place in Aaustralia (sic). >>

Banjo, you're always banging on about this supposed epidemic of "FGM" in Australia, but I don't recall you ever referring to any supporting statistics or other valid evidence. Perhaps it might be "far more productive to use the space" to research, write and publish an article about this issue, rather than introducing it into every extraneous discussion you can.

As it stands, I can't see what your obsession with "FGM" has to do with Nina Funnell's light article about marital name taking.

Ninaf:"The reason why I'm a feminist is because there are women in the world who are still being stoned to death for being raped."

How many cases of that occurred in Australia in (say) the last 100 years? Take your time...

The fact is that you ard the rest of the pampered little grrrls of your generation are at the peak of female preferment in nearly any aspect of Australian life. If a woman and a man are even approximately equally qulaified for any kind of public position and many private ones the woman will be selected almost as a matter of course. If a woman and a man have an argument, the man will be hauled away - no questions asked. If a woman and a man have a marriage breakdown and cannot agree on how the children are to be cared for, the Courts will nearly always choose her as the primary carer, even in today's world of "equal shared parenting". In education, the professions, the bureaucracy, politics and on social matters, women are doing better than men. Low-paid women are seen as a social problem, while low-paid men are viewed as a social necessity.

At any social gathering of men, it takes only one to mention feminism for a surge of angry responses to be released. Make no mistake, men are very definitely unhappy with the way you grrrls want to run the world. The hypocrisy, lack of empathy with male issues, discriminatory language and practise and the constant barrage of anti-male advertising and legislation, all in the name of "feminism" has had an impact all right; it's created massive resentment.

Now, if you are concerned about the treatment of women in Iran or the Sudan, I suggest you go to those places and show them how it should be done or even write an article about them, instead of using those poor people to further your own career-oriented ride on the bandwagon.

How many male victims did you say the NSWRCC served last year? I seem to have missed your response.

I wonder how many children born in Australia this century will remember their feminist mothers for giving them their vote, and how many for less noble behaviour?

Antiseptic,

What a sad and pathetic response. So the men you know gather to pool their 'massive resentment' at women exercising their rights. Poor sooks. Real men are happy to share their privileges and power.

You remind me of the story in today's Age about the clubs in Melbourne that refuse point blank to talk about admitting women - the Athenaeum, the Melbourne Club, the Australian Club and the Savage Club. The Athenaeum is so misogynist that even the very talk about membership for women is now banned.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/antibias-chief-chides-mens-club-20090101-78jw.html

As for your comments about inequality in Iran or the Sudan, Angry Ant, I'd happily go and talk to the women there if you'd go and talk to the men!

Oh, and here she is again “poor little blossums”….the woman who epitomises the ugliness of feminism…and I ain’t talking only in terms of aesthetics…in today’s (2.1.09) letters section of the SMH:
“Emasculated females (Letters, January 1) get punished for not having balls in the first place, rather than by losing them.
Eva Cox Glebe”
Check her out on YouTube folks: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JYTCYWsmuyk

Spikey

You gave a link to an article in The Age where Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission chief, Helen Szoke, was upbraiding the Athenaeum club for its membership policy which Ms Szoke herself admits is lawful.

It is also lawful for the Girl Guides to exclude boys (and male leaders), but women's groups waged a relentless and successful campaign to require the Boy Scouts to admit girls, change the programs and become simply, Scouts. There are, as you very well know, many women's clubs and associations that exclude men.

Also, you did not mention 'Anti-Bias Chief' Ms Szoke's support for 'positive' discrimination against white men.

“DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged”

“Let’s open it up so everyone can have a fair go.”

Nothing discriminatory or racist in that is there?

This is reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Still, Victoria's proposed discrimination against white men is

Now Cornflower, it's not a very honest debating tactic to pass off a quotation from a Herald-Sun journalist as if they were the words of the Equal Opportunity Commission CEO. As you well know, Dr Szoke said nothing about "DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males" being encouraged - rather, it was a typically inflammatory opening paragraph from a tabloid journo.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-2862,00.html

It's an old news story anyway, in which all the evident racism is found in the words of the journalist, rather than in the proposed changes to Equal Opportunity Act.

Why do so many wingnuts at OLO apparently feel they have to tell porkies in order to make an argument?

No one ever 'got' a right. Rights are given.

Women, nor the non-land owning masses of men before them, got the vote. The ruling elites gave us that right. And there's no way in hell that the ruling class ever does anything to undermine their power. They only ever seek to expand it. They're very clever about it too. Take democracy. Its a fanastic ruse for getting us to 'invest' in the process and 'own' its outcomes, all of which are carefully selected and vetted before being put foward to us.

Thats one take on it.

Another one may simply be that the ruling class have periodic moments of reasoned enlightment and are capable of acting fairly. Heaven forbid that any feminist should ever acknowledge that many (most?) of us men are capable of seeing beyond injustice and righting its wrongs. And that this may well be what caused the ALL male parliament of the past to give women the vote. But in this day and age the concept of men supporting women is so passe, its almost considered mysoginistic to do such a thing. Even so, many of us will still come to your defence and protect you, notwithstanding personal danger or decades of your derisive projected hostility. Thankfully for you, some of us can step outside of our egoes, not let emotions cloud our judgement, put aside petty ressentiments and do the right thing.

Trade,

Ah yes, the privilege of compulsion is a powerful gift.

So are you saying that men prepared to give up their lives for damsels in distress, are simply exercising their male privilege and just reinforcing patriarchy? Or are you implying these pathetic guys are consciously entering themselves for Darwin awards while expecting no more than a snicker from those very damsels? Either way, very dark. Even for you.

trade215...
I'm actually interested in your post... I think this comes down to a really interesting debate about what human rights are. To me, human rights are inalienable. In other words, women have always had the right to say no to sex, and, as long as we've had a voting system, they have always had the right to vote, its just that those rights were not recognised for a f--king long time. I don't think women were 'given' the right to sit on a jury or to vote, I think they always deserved and in a sense had that right, it was just a really bloody long time until other people recognised it, and when they did recognise it, it wasn't becasue males decided to be generous and share the power... it was because women fought for and demanded their rights to be recognised. In the same way I think that Aboriginal people have always had the right to be land owners/ jury members/ citizens etc. etc., its just that white fellas abused and ignored those rights (and continue to do so in many areas) for a really long time...

go on anticpetic... hit us with some of your ignorant vitriol... it's providing me with amusing quotes for my university lectures... I think you could become something of a weekly running joke... :-)

Cornflower,

It's symptomatic of your biassed approach that you quote one part of the article I referred you to but not the others that do not suit your prejudice - but run clean contrary to it.

For example, the ruckus at the Athenaeum Club over admitting women as members "...has prompted Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel to walk out.

"Mr Samuel, who had been one of the club's strongest internal advocates for admitting women, said yesterday he had "ceased to be a member, full stop" and had no further interest in the Collins Street club. "I am a member of the RACV; it's a wonderful club," he said. The RACV Club admits women."

And Melbourne businessman and former Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia Ron Walker, an Athenaeum member, said that change was overdue. "As a natural progression, I believe the presidents of men's clubs in the city would be well advised to consider the rights of women," Mr Walker said.

As CJ Morgan says, if you've got a good argument, why do you need to tell lies - by not telling the whole truth? A dead giveaway.

Spikey

What bearing can two members' resignations have on the core issues which are:

- firstly, that the majority of members obviously want to keep the membership as it is;

- secondly, a government funded bureaucrat should not be sledging a private club or business where it is not doing anything against the law; and

- finally, what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander because there are women only clubs that are not being similarly attacked for being 'discriminatory'.

Of course 'discrimination' is a one-way street, otherwise you and other feminists would be in uproar about the forthcoming State-sanctioned prejudice against white men in employment.

If I hire a barrister I want the best available. Similarly I would want the best available surgeon operating on me and the best available CEO heading the company I invest in, not people who couldn't win by merit alone.

But tell me in your own words why it is OK to discriminate on the basis of gender and race as the Victorian government aims to do and why it is OK for a women's club to be exclusively for women but it is not OK for a men's club to do the same for men.

ninaf: "go on anticpetic"

Do they offer remedial spelling and grammar classes at that institution you're in, Nina? I recommend you investigate, like a good little "journalist". You might do well to ask someone about a little thing called "logic" as well.

In your world, the brave women have fought and forced the ignorant "other people", [can't even use the word "men"?] against their will and despite them holding all the power and authority and having no self-interested reason to do so, into giving women "rights" they always had. I'll bet your lectures are a real hoot without any help from me, hon.

Do make sure you provide proper attribution when quoting me in your notes, won't you? None of that naughty plagiarism.

As it happens, I agree with much of what I think you're trying to say, though. Women and men have equal capacity, in general, for survival and prosperity given equal opportunities. It therefore makes sense that there should be equality of opportunity, insofar as it is possible within the limitations conferred by biology.

The biology is where much of the problem arises: it is costly to compensate for the differences between the genders.

It is only within the last 100 years that our society has had sufficient wealth and spare energy to make domestic machinery possible, freeing much labour. Healthcare for women is extraordinarily good and very expensive, especially maternity care. Childcare as it is done today is perhaps the greatest cost burden, supportable only if the economy is running well. If the subsidies are not there and parents have to entirely self-fund, it becomes unviable for one parent to work, very often.

Because of the biology, it was men who made the decisions to fund or engineer all of those things that make modern women sufficiently free of toil to be able to be feminists. If the recession turns sour it may be women, who are now the Ministers, who have to make the decisions to cut funding for some of them.

Banjo I think you've misunderstood my post. I wasn't referring specifically to an immigrant or other minority.

One of the tactics of resistance by mainstream society against new and different ideas is for people in the mainstream to try to dictate how the issue should be presented or argued. An example, as I mentioned, is to imply that a group is disorganized or irrational by proclaiming that they are all saying something different and so "...don't know what they want".

People who are firmly in the mainstream don't always hold exactly the same views on every topic, or all live completely the same way. That is, the mainstream enjoys diversity only up to a certain (non-threatening to what is known) point. Any individuals beyond that point are cast as irrational if they don't all behave and speak the same way. It's just a way to dismiss the new idea rather than bother to genuinely consider new information.

One example would be the notion that all feminists are the same or have the same views on everything. We don't - feminism is as much a philosophy as anything about opposing injustice based on sex and reflected in patterns of power and control in society. Some feminists choose to live in a traditional relationship configuration; some choose same sex partnerships; some support pornography; some don't; some are Christian; some aren't and so on.

Some feminists feel particularly impassioned about the legal system; some about teaching; some FGM and other multiculural issues - all feminists care to some degree about all abuses and injustices based on sex - but the range of interest is wide. Nobody says that someone in the mainstream can't legitimately present an opinion on a lighter topic so there is no good reason why someone with a feminist philosophy shouldn't have opinions on such matters and express them.

Btw: feminists don't (and shouldn't) 'own' any campaign against FGM. It's something that all of the community should care about and oppose - and our laws reflect that.

Trade 215

'Even so, many of us (men) will still come to your defence and protect you, notwithstanding personal danger ...'

Just some thoughts on this ... not necessarily directed to you.

Saving people from danger is just standard human instinct. Given similar circumstances, women would do exactly the same for men.

However, as a feminist I am fascinated by the way in which the damsel-in-distress convention remains stubbornly entrenched in our dramatic tradition - despite decades of supposed equal gender rights. For example, I finally caught up with movie The Dark Knight the other day and was appalled at what a throwback this was to traditional gender belief systems - i.e. that the world is in a continuing struggle between good-violent men and bad-violent men, and women are either peripheral to that struggle or the victims of it.

Not that I'm totally against all damsel-in-distress scenarios. By contrast, another film, Twilight (which, BTW, I loved) has the heroine being saved by her vampire boyfriend about once every ten minutes. However, his vampire sisters help him out a bit on some occasions, and in most of these scenes the heroine is shown to be proactive in trying to save herself.

I suppose that when over 95% of filmmakers worldwide are still male, we can't expect much to change very soon. I guess we women have little choice but to keep on watching ourselves getting tied to railway tracks by bad men and getting untied from railway tracks by good men.

Pynchme

You make many good points, especially this one ...

'One of the tactics of resistance by mainstream society against new and different ideas is for people in the mainstream to try to dictate how the issue should be presented or argued.'

So true. Like the media constantly referring to business 'leaders' but union 'bosses' etc.

However - and in keeping with Nina's 'woman's identity' thread - another mainstream resistance tactic is to keep ensuring that gender language does not keep pace with women's changing role. For example, so many writers still cling to generic 'man' or 'mankind', when 'humanity', 'humankind' or 'people' would fit just as well. Same with the generic pronoun 'he', which still persists despite being easily substituted with 'he/she or 'they'. Or forms that still ask us to circle either 'Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms ...', subliminally reminding women that their marital status still defines their identity.

Cornflower,

Lots of undesirable practices are not against the law. That doesn't mean they are above criticism. Over time, the weight of public opinion in many instances creates changes in the law to make those previously unacceptable practices illegal.

Of course there will always be privileged groups who want to preserve their cosy arrangements. Self-interest is a powerful force against socially-desirable reform.

I think if you had an open mind on this issue you would see a world of difference between discrimination that requires the force of law and discrimination that ends as a result of education and changes of attitude. You would also see that after centuries of discrimination it is sometimes necessary to introduce positive discrimination as special measures for a specified time and specified context.

In essence, anti-discrimination laws are designed to ensure that the best-qualified and most meritorious person is appointed to the position (your examples - barrister, surgeon and CEO are exactly right). In the past - and some instances today - people who would be meritorious are not give an equal opportunity to compete with the people of privilege.

Pynchme,
I understand you very well. You are giving support to Nina and her article about a nothing matter.

You misunderstand me. I'll make it as plain as I can. I do not care if Nina is a feminist, fascist,communist, moralist, capitalist or any other 'ist'. There are many important and valid issues to write about. The examples I gave were but two that should be obvious to any woman.

I am quite positive any child can come up with issues of far more benefit to everyone than the stupid subject she chose. Its a nonsense article. A waste of time, energy and paper and without even the slightest entertainment value. To me it reflects the authors priorities.

banjo here is some advice. Instead of reading stuff you're not interested in and then whinging about it afterwards.... repeatedly...why don't you go and write your own god damn article. Nothing is stopping you. And as it turns out I've written dozens of articles over the years and many of them have been on hard hitting subjects. The fact that you don't find this an interesting or engaging subject is of little or no concern to me- go read something you do enjoy. There are plenty of websites out there dedicated to FGM why don't you go spend some time there instead of complaining that this thread is not a reflection of your own interests.

First l will acknowledge my tendency to project and understand the satisfaction that comes from pointing that stuff out. Still, its possible to take the ego/self outta the frame or at minimum acknowledge its clouding influences, whilst still being able to speak to an IDEA in a rational manner.

Seeker,
yes l agree, psyche of patriarchy is dark (and deep). Takes dark to see dark. By examining mine own shyte, l get insight into method (which follows motivation). Men are at least as oppressed by that stuff. Like women, men have been sold a bill of goods. With men its done agressively/directly, with women its passive/indirect.

nina,
l dont think there is such a thing as 'natural rights'. All are constructed, boiling down to assertion of one's claims (in this case, rights). It can be done logically (consistent) and reasonably (fair), which is my preference. Or we can go primitive and start effecting a base relationship to reality, namely the physical. Hopefully humans will evovle beyond incessant self-interest, egotism, emotion, instead trusting in reason.

SJF,
damsel-lancelot dichotomy persists b/c its so base, so id in nature, its hard to push away. Carrot-stick approach. The idea is intoxicating, feels good in a short-term rush sort of a way, but the hangover is very bad. Addiction to (delsuion induced) feeling is what keeps it alive. Its also a social convention thing, folks fall into line, go with the flow, dont rock the boat. Path of least resistance... definitely human, maybe arising out of the want for peace, plus avoiding problems (fear). Takes a lot of effort to push past. Ressentiment develops b/w the sexes (social classes) as a result of falling into conditioned roles, adjusting our true natures, pandering to each others insecurities. Tiresome stuff at the best of times. The sexes constantly adjust in order to make oneself desireable to that which is desired. And also set each other up for co-dependency. Its obvious in how parents raise their kids. Difficult stuff to get past.

ninaf, while ever you can field dress your kill as you did banjo, the choice of names is yours.

banjo - OLO is about many subjects. Often there are lighthearted ones that aren't hard-hitting.
If you really have no issues with it, why does this one provoke your ire, as opposed to the many, many other articles along such lines?

That's what make OLO interesting. A wide diversity of pieces, with differing levels of complexity, seriousness, controversy and humour.

nina, I must disagree with your comment about rights being inalienable. Whilst I agree that every society should strive for equal rights and anything less than equal rights regardless of race or gender is inexcusable, I still believe rights are still a human construct, and that any particular society will view them differently.

That doesn't mean oppressive views should be acceptable to us. Nor do I advocate a post-modernist approach of viewing such differing societies as equally valid.
But to me, the only things that are inalienable are things that are physical realities which can't be changed. Everything else is fluid. So it's more a matter of a semantic viewpoint than anything else.

So in a sense I agree with some of trade215's points, that rights are simple a product of enlightened people who have seen that this is a better way to develop a society.
That's why I don't have problems with bills of rights like other people do - many believe that a bill of rights is simply a transfer of power from the legislature to the judiciary.
I view it as entrenching rights a little more, making them harder to trample underfoot. Usually, opponents of human rights legislation, tend to be those who favour the conservative, traditionalist status, which also often hinges on certain gender roles and viewpoints.
It's interesting how often the opposition to human rights legislation comes from voices who also favour conservative religious attitudes, but ask any one of them and they'll say it's purely a coincidence. I do have issues with many aspects of the adversarial legal system, but I think the problems with human rights legislation tend to be overstated.

Spikey

Your definition of discrimination is circular.

I can see how you think the 'positive' discrimination (George Orwell would have loved that) might benefit you. Just think, had your will been done in the US, Barack Obama could never have won the presidency on merit, it would have been handed to a white feminist on a plate.

Rule fixing and networking beats hard work, open competition and merit. Just think, our private companies can be just as 'efficient' as the federal and state public services and in education where these policies have been in vogue for decades.

TurnRightThenLeft

After reading your comment, I'm won over by your argument. I think you make a really good point and honestly I'm happy to admit that I hadn't thought through the issue enough (this comment is for TLTR, just because I am willing to admit I was wrong here, it doesn't follow that I'm wrong on EVERYTHING- more to the point- I am happy to learn and revise my positions on issues- I'm young and learning and I ma thankful to people like TRTL and Pynchme). I completely agree that human rights are cultural constructs... I think that what I was getting at was that although these things are culturally contrived (and I see the dangers in suggesting otherwise) I think that human rights may be fluid constructs but we should try to acknowledge the vulnerability of that constuctedness and try to defend against it by extending and solidifying those rights. I don't know if that will make sense to you- but I see your point, and it is the very fluidity of rights, which in my mind SHOULD be possessed by all, which makes me uncomfortable in this discussion...hmmm... given me something to muse about :-) I've also enjoyed reading your other comments here. Thanks. n

Hi Cornflower,

Just wanted to slip in a couple of points about discrimination that I don't think have been made yet.

1. I am not a great advocate of things like quotas and such (ie: 'positive discrimination') - like you and Spikey my ideal is that people progress on merit.

However I think there is a case for such action as an interim measure to redress inequalities that have resulted from long term discrimination.

People need to have an opportunity in such positions to show that they can do it (or not). In any case, even when hired under some quota or similar method; they still need the required qualifications.

I think we need a term other than 'negative discrimination'. One that expresses the fact that existing inequalities are being redressed.

2. Many men get into positions of power and into certain occupations not by merit but exactly by networking and by being mentored and buddied into position.

A few years ago I read some really interesting articles collected into a book. I'm sorry I can't recall the title and such. One of them was written by someone in the public service and outlined the many ways that women and other 'unwanteds' are excluded. These included things like emailing information around to all the males in the office but not to females. Other ways are challenging everything that women say in meetings and demanding evidence (flowcharts; graphs) then dismissing them; while accepting any utterance by a male as a piece of proven wisdom; by taking up lots of airspace in meetings by talking over the female's voice and so on. None of those and similar practices attribute merit where it might be due; but actively operate to discredit.

3. Men have always been welcomed into non-traditional roles like nursing.

Cornflower,

I think you need to read posts more carefully before bursting back with a response. In other words, be more discriminating in your choice of argument.

You claim that my definition of discrimination is circular. How so, since I didn't define discrimination as a single entity? There are many types of discrimination, including discrimination against women and discrimination against blacks and discrimination against men and against whites. Etc etc.

The smart thing to do is to discriminate among these various forms of discrimination as to which are unfair and which are justified in some rational way.

So I reject as nonsensical your comment: " Just think, had your will been done in the US, Barack Obama could never have won the presidency on merit, it would have been handed to a white feminist on a plate. " I have never argued (and never would) that in such a matter as electing a President of the USA that men should be discriminated against. Your proposition that Barak Obama would have been discriminated out is a figment of your anti-feminist imagination. You have set up a false competition between forms of discrimination to justify your anti-feminism. Not very clever. Try again please.

Pynchme

Oh wow, did your little precis about the book resonate with me!.

When I first started as a journalist "hard" news was, of course, men's territory. All of the tactics you mention were used but I thought I was being paranoid. Even when articles I'd written were printed with someone else's by-line I genuinely used to accept it was through error! Finally, a male mate who was leaving and I'd got friendly with (along with his gorgeous girlfriend) not only let me into the secret but armed me with counter tactics.

Went free-lance finally and always used to write using only my initials and surname: the way I signed everything. When a particular magazine found out I was female and they' spent a lot of time promoting my stuff they were furious, told me I'd deliberately decieved them, that I'd therefore been paid too much for a woman.

From every billboard and newstand in the country a huge banner headline labelling me The Ball Breaker appeared the day after they found out!

Now in acadaemia exactly the same tactics are being used all over again.

I nearly wet myself laughing every time someone posts about how all the universities are controlled by feminists and work places are now "feminized"!

Spikey

Discrimination has one meaning, but not for you it seems. That you are able to flex its meaning according to your prejudices means that you have a rather lot in common with Humpty Dumpty (see previous quote).

Of course the Victorian government's proposed 'positive discrimination' is stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of gender and race. How can you support such stereotyping, which even despite your jaundiced opinion of men must ring untrue. Honestly, how many 'dominant white men' do you know? About as many 'bludging Aboriginals' or 'neurotic women' I would bet. Why should any group be singled out for abuse and discrimination?

Worse, the discrimination will be enshrined in law to: "Allow the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed. Business and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint has not been received."

What sort of a mad law convicts without evidence of a complaint, where an 'unlawful act (according to the new legislation) was 'likely to occur', not just in cases where discrimination has taken place?

Pynchme
"..there is a case for such action as an interim measure to redress inequalities that have resulted from long term discrimination."

No, bad laws are bad laws. It is discrimination and it drives a wedge in society. After decades, the affirmative action policies in the federal public service have never been withdrawn.

"Many men get into positions of power and into certain occupations not by merit but exactly by networking and by being mentored and buddied into position."

No, SOME do as do SOME women and the vast majority of men and women object to it. There are rules and laws against it.

"Men have always been welcomed into non-traditional roles like nursing."

Why then the low numbers? Here is a re-worded quote to suit the occasion, 'Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said females had "been the big success story in nursing and education" and consequently an Act was being passed to positively discriminate against white women'.

I can only agree with what you've said there nina.
To me, the very fluidity of these rights is the reason why we need to constantly consider such issues.
Many attack feminism, claiming society's now equal. However, this isn't a war - it's updating and maintaining society.
It astounds me so many people react with negativity if feminism is simply mentioned, even when it's not a loaded issue.

I understand some men feel that they're not given a fair try in certain aspects of life, which is undoubtedly true in some areas - just as it's true for women. Gender constructs flow both ways, and anyone can feel imprisoned by them.
Instead of attacking feminism, I'd suggest they adopt constructive approaches, but very few seem to do that.
I'd wager the few who do have much more success than the legion of anti-feminists.
If a group of sensible men pinned down very specific, proven examples of discrimination against men and didn't allow themselves to get sidetracked by attacking feminists, then I think that persistence would lead to recognition.
Instead, they often give up and resort to name-calling.

Interesting tale Romany. From what I've seen it's easy for young female journalists to get into the profession and outside of metropolitan areas, most newspapers and regional networks can't afford to be choosy about picking only male journalists for hard-hitting articles.
I suspect there's some lingering attitudes that men should get the harder stories, but persistent women can still succeed, even if unfortunately they need to prove themselves a little more.
Take Janet Albrechtsen - although I generally always disagree with her views, I can't deny she's got guts and is successful.
I sometimes wonder whether she'd have made it if she'd been a female liberal commentator.
Undoubtedly she'd say it would have been easier if she had been, but I chalk that up to the persecution complex frequently displayed by commentators regardless of their politics.
My suspicion is that just as there may be attitudes toward men and women, the political views of people also shape attitudes in relation to their capabilities.

Cornflower: "Discrimination has one meaning, but not for you it seems."

Sorry to have to put the facts in front of your uninformed opinion. The Macquarie Dictionary gives no less than five different meanings of discrimination.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The resulting state.
3. The making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against person or thing.
4. The pwoer of making a nice distinctions.
5. Electronics. A specialised technical term.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Act lists 17 attributes that are proscribed; so that you act unlawfully, if you discrimination against a person on any one of those grounds. They are listed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa1995250/
(a) age;
(ab) breastfeeding;
(ac) gender identity;
(b) impairment;
(c) industrial activity;
(ca) employment activity;
(d) lawful sexual activity;
(e) marital status;
(ea) parental status or status as a carer;
(f) physical features;
(g) political belief or activity;
(h) pregnancy;
(i) race;
(j) religious belief or activity;
(k) sex;
(l) sexual orientation;
(m) personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a
person who is identified by reference to any of the above attributes.

So your one-meaning Humpty Dumpty is already an omelet

TRTL:"It astounds me so many people react with negativity if feminism is simply mentioned"

Why should it? If I were to declare myself an avowed "masculinist" would you be surprised if some of the women got off-side?

I doubt it, because you've been conditioned for the past 30-40 years that all the basd things in life flow from men, while all the good, nurturing things come from women. In simmple terms, your conditioning is "bad women are the exception, bad men are the rule". That conditioning has been so successfully accomplished that you are "astounded" that people should be skeptical or question the motives of a quite perniciously discriminatory ideology when I know from your posts that you are normally a perceptive and thoughtful analyst.

Spikey, I don't know about the Victorian Act, but the Federal law provides no capacity to act against discrimination aimed at men, except if they are sacked for seeking shorter hours. The Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, to her credit, has raised this disgraceful situation as a matter of concern, but as long as "women are getting stoned to death for being raped" in Iran, we blokes here will be held to be second-class citizens, free targets of discrimination, thanks to UN treaties that have no relevance to mainstream Western society.

I'm probably a bit late on this topic, but I think some of the feminist posters here do appear to be quite aggressive. All this cynical sarcasm and dragging up injustices of the past. Surely there are some more current injustices to talk about. It's almost as if men from the current day society must be constantly admonished for the wrongs of different men in a totally different society with different values. I can see how that would create negative attitudes to feminists.

TRTL,

'If a group of sensible men pinned down very specific, proven examples of discrimination against men and didn't allow themselves to get sidetracked by attacking feminists, then I think that persistence would lead to recognition.
Instead, they often give up and resort to name-calling.'

I would like to see it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It's easier to bleat on an internet forum. Regardless, I think society cannot see men as victims in comparison to women in general (fair enough too), so it would be a remarkable effort to raise support for any specific area or areas whether they are valid or not.

It would be too easy for all the chips on the shoulder from past wrongs endured by women to drown out any particular male complaints, as evidenced by a lot of the posts here. Then you have the punish men/help women culture to deal with. You've got the Men should tough it out or 'harden up' attitude. It's a non-starter basically.

The momentum of the feminist movement and feminists issues would preclude any movement where men might seek rights that could possibly disadvantage women in any way. It would be seen as a 'step backward'. Only when women are in general at a significant advantage to men would any 'men's issues' get a look in.

Antiseptic,

You say: "I don't know about the Victorian Act, but the Federal law provides no capacity to act against discrimination aimed at men, except if they are sacked for seeking shorter hours."

That is not the case either with the Victorian Act or the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The latter makes it unlawful to discriminate against "a person" because of their sex, marital status or because they are pregnant or might become pregnant. It is also unlawful to sack a person because of their family responsibilities. The object of the Act is to promote "recognition and acceptance within the community of the principles of equality for women and men."

It is true that the Act was introduced decades ago with the primary purpose of addressing discrimination against women, and of course discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy will be against women, like the Victorian Act the Commonwealth Act makes it unlawful to unreasonably discriminate against any person - man or woman - on the grounds of their sex.

There have been cases, for example of sexual harrassment against men, brought under the Act.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/info_for_employers/fact/sex_discrimination.html

The legislation works in a reflexive manner. That is you can't be discriminated against for having the attribute or for not having the attribute. For example, in Victoria, you are unlawfully treated if you are sacked because of your membership of a trade union or for not being member of a trade union or for having religious beliefs or not having them.

I'm intrigued to understand what you mean by 'as long as "women are getting stoned to death for being raped" in Iran, we blokes here will be held to be second-class citizens, free targets of discrimination, thanks to UN treaties that have no relevance to mainstream Western society.' I just don't get the connection. Please explain!

TRTL,
I was happy enough to leave my comment to that of my first, being reference to the 'silly season'. How ever some came to defend the article by trying to make out it was done in humour. Then NIna listed her definitions of a feminist which, given the plight of many women in the world, were quite worthy.

This prompted me to suggest better use could be made of her time and effort, than this article.

While most can engage in trivia, people on the public purse have a responsibility to engage in worthwhile matters. It does get my ire when they engage in nonsensical issues. Further examples are the three state politicians, Nile, Clarke and Gibson, talking about some bare boobs at beaches. Another example was a politician taking up Parliamentary time by complaining about the size of meals in the dining room, for which he had to pay a whole $7.50 for.

There are many worthwhile issues a feminist,or others, can pursue. What about sweat shops, child slavery, child abuse, the treatment of Indonesian maids in Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

I expect more than trivia from public funded persons. Not some silly matter like whether a bride should paint her toenails red or pink. This article was in that catorgory.

Spikey:"The latter makes it unlawful to discriminate against "a person" because of their sex, marital status or because they are pregnant or might become pregnant."

Erm...know lots of pregnant men, do you?

In fact, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has called for comprehensive reform of the Sex discrimination Act because it does not confer any powers upon her to redress sexual discrimination aimed at menm in the workplace.

Don't believe me, go to this link and read it for yourself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24289177-2,00.html.

I quote:"A FAMILY discrimination commissioner with the same powers as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has been proposed to ensure men get equal rights to flexible work conditions."

and:

"Under the current Sex Discrimination Act, men can make a claim about discrimination only if they are sacked for asking for part-time work.

WOMEN HAVE GREATER RIGHTS [my caps] and can make a case if they suffer indirect discrimination such as being placed on a mummy track without promotion if they work part-time".

Spikey:"I just don't get the connection."

The connection is that our HREOA and our SDA are designed to be compliant with UN treaties that are themselves justified by the appalling treatment of some people in some countries. That treatment does not and has not ever been a feature of our own country. It's akin to me being banned from eating fish because someone else who lives somewhere else doesn't have access to fresh fish. The fact that their fish stinks doesn't mean my own shiny-eyed specimen should be treated as fit only for the garbage.

As I said, the incidents I mentioned happened in the past (though well within the 30-40 years it is claimed that women have been copping it sweet for) - the "ball-breaking" thing happened 15 years ago. I think it's funny and others do too. But then they know me. I could quite see however, that on a forum such as this people might not understand I brought it in as a light incident and think I was citing it "aggressively". Nope. I still think it’s funny.

That was why I used the word “resonated”. I do try to choose my words with care.

The attitudes in academia however are real and on-going. I'm living and working in a country where women are still considered second class - and I'm doing my damndest to raise awareness about what is now governmental policy to combat the situation that has already led to an imbalance in gender distribution. But the reason I'm leaving after 3 years at this institution is that I’m a realist: these attitudes are so entrenched that they are affecting the way I do my job. I’m going to have to find another route.

Perhaps because my area of private research is so contentious and threatens change (to the English canon of Literature which, I expect, the average person could not give a damn about anyway) I very definitely encounter resistance also in Australia.

But golly-gee campers - I'm not frothing at the mouth about it. It’s simple: some people think that discrimination concerning females is only positive. My personal experience shows that discrimination - of all kinds - still happens.

When I was a kid we used to call it "getting picked on". You get picked on in life in all kinds of circumstances and for all kinds of reasons. You do what you can about it and what you can't change you suck up. That's life.

My efforts to effect balance are directed at areas where I can make a difference. Not to arguing with disgruntled people who thrive on stirring.

Hi Nina,

I can't believe that your harmless and lighthearted article has generated so many comments and I am shocked and disappointed that so many of the comments come from readers who have vehemently attacked feminism, the NGO where I gather you work and you personally. I am horrified. I thought OLO was read by people who are open minded, reasonable and empathetic.

I thought we had moved on as a society from attitudes where rape victims are blamed for causing their rape or accused of fabricating the assault and from attitudes where feminism is blamed for society's ills.

Feminism is about equal rights, removing discrimination based on gender and promoting choice. Unfortunately the attitudes of some of the posters show that feminism still has a lot of work to do.

If a woman chooses to change her name when she gets married, if the man chooses to change his name, if they hyphenate etc etc - it's their choice. It doesn't affect me what other people do and I'm so grateful that people have choices and can do what they see as best for themselves and their relationship.

Thank you Nina for your column and your work with/support of those who have experienced sexual assault.

Antiseptic, calling people 'conditioned' is weak. I'd expect better from you. It's a hollow insult that can be directed at anyone.
Clearly, you've been 'conditioned' as well. We all have, but it's only people flailing for arguments who need to use it in a debate.
No, I wouldn't react to the word 'masculist'. Nor would most. It's the content of criticism.
This piece was lighthearted, yet it still provoked ire. Nina clarified that most of her attention in relation to feminist works, was directed at people overseas suffering very real abuse because of their gender.
Yet, it still provoked ire. Simply put, some people can't think logically when this word is used. They fly into a frenzy and lose their ability to apply logic.

That's my core point. Do you have a problem with women keeping their name? No? Then why has this article provoked such ire, hmm? If not for a deep seated issue with a word.

It's just a word, antiseptic. Before you start on about the significance of other 'words' consider that this simple word is typically used to describe people who believe women deserve equal rights to men.

To some, it will be different. Some might be negative people. Some might cause harm to men. Many won't.

It's just a word, for a very broad group of people.

Get over it.

Banjo - publically funded people can do what they wish on their own time. Just because there are more serious issues doesn't mean lighthearted ones should be banned. I'd be more worried if 'publically funded people' could only speak about sanctioned 'serious' topics.

So, then, I take it the only valid topics for discussion here at OLO are the crisis in Sudan, and the economic crunch?
Really, everything else seems pretty tame compared to those. Thus, according to the latest directives, anything that is deemed lighthearted is banned because there are more significant issues that must be discussed 'first.'

banjo... just one more thing... exactly where did you come up with the notion that I'm publicly funded? Not only do I contribute to OLO in a voluntary capacity, but I also do not receive any money from the RCC (I volunteer there and have donated my own money to the centre). Similarly, although universities are publicly funded bodies, my contract with them is a private one and has no bearing n my decision to contribute to OLO in my own unpaid holiday time. Moreover, TRTL makes a sound point- if this is such a non-issue, why is it the most commented on article for the week? Clearly it's hit a nerve and although I intended it to be light hearted and comical, it's obviously sparked a number of other debates. Isn't this the point of a forum? Generating discussion?

Spikey

The meaning of a word should remain consistent for at least a sentence. However, as you explain, such an important word as discrimination can mean whatever you like and apply to any of the chosen ones, which excludes white men of course.

Problem is, you believe that white men are the enemy and any prejudicial treatment of them is quite OK because the end justifies the means.

Plainly I disagree with that and I am horrified that any democratic government could even contemplate such bad law as that proposed by Victoria. I am happy and honoured to be abused by you and any other who would support such a mean, disgraceful piece of legislation. Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke should hang her head in shame for supporting and probably recommending, this unfair and spiteful law.

ninaf "..if this is such a non-issue, why is it the most commented on article for the week?"

Ahem, that would be to take credit for the hijackings too ;-)

Cornflower says: "However, as you explain, such an important word as discrimination can mean whatever you like and apply to any of the chosen ones, which excludes white men of course."

And: "Problem is, you believe that white men are the enemy and any prejudicial treatment of them is quite OK because the end justifies the means."

Four strong lies for the price of one. Is this an OLO record?

(1) I pointed out that the Macquarie Dictionary gives several meanings for the word 'discrimination' - as against your ignorant claim that it had only one meaning. No one - except you - is claiming that the word means whatever one want it to mean.

(2) Neither the word 'discrimination', nor the laws underlying anti-discrimination, exclude white men.

(3) I do not believe that white men are the enemy - and have never made any such claim.

(4) I do not condone - as you claim I do, without any factual basis to do so - any prejudicial treatment of white men 'because the end justifies the means', or for any other reason.

I argued for a merit-based approach to equal opportunity; but you chose to ignore that. Blinded by you paranoia, it seems you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand what merit-based opportunity means.

I can always tell when OLO posters are losing the argument. They distort what others have written and hope readers won't be bothered to check. When exposed for what they are they normally just move on to another thread.

I hope that Antiseptic took the time to read some of the readers' comments. I am thrilled to think that men will get out from under the discrimination exerted by the macho culture where the only value people have is as units of production. As a whole population, it's long overdue for family wellbeing to be given priority by everyone and I would love to see men in general getting more time with their kiddies.

Please see post by; Brian Pascoe of Maroochydore 11:22am September 04, 2008
Comment 72 of 78

- and here is one that I liked very much:

I am a single dad who have my children one week on and one week off. I am a white collar worker. I have to be honest here. During the week that I have the kids, I come in late and leave early. I then make up the time when I don't have the kids. I am very lucky to work for a company that allows me to do it. If they did not let me, then I would leave the company. My kids come first, period! I know people look at their watches when I leave, I know they don't all respect my decision, buy you know what? In 20 odd years I will be retired (I hope). My work won't remember my decisions, but my kids will.
Posted by: Bov of Adelaide

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24289177-2,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24289177-2,00.html

TRTL:"calling people 'conditioned' is weak. "

Only if it's not true. The fact is that we in our Western culture have been bombarded with propaganda for decades about the terrible plight of women and the wonders of feminism. The clear and stated intent is to "construct" a sociological change toward the broad, unconditional acceptance of feminism. Whether you like the word or not, that is "conditioning" and you have obviously been a successful subject. Yes, I have also been subject to the same stimuli and i was also conditioned in the same way. It took my own experience of victimisation in the name of "feminist" principles to break the conditioning and prompt me to examine what I was being asked to accept as fact. So far, I've found it as full of holes as a prostitutes' picnic.

Pynchme:"it's long overdue for family wellbeing to be given priority by everyone"

I couldn't agree more. One of the first things that has to go to achieve it is the discrimination imposed by the various legislative instruments designed to promote the hypocritical goals of "feminism". As long as half the population remains under the impression that they are more valuable and more worthy of societal protection simply because they have a womb, those of us seeking genuine equality will be on an uphill climb.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner regarded this situation as so obvious and important for equity that it was one of her first discussion topics upon taking office and yet we have heard nothing more and there is no sign of any kind of action being taken toward this end by HREOC. She has been told to shut up and toe the line, I suspect, all in the name of the noble goal of the preferment of women at the expense of men.

Antiseptic,

I suppose it’s a sign that you can’t debate the substance when you reiterate exactly my point about pregnancy – as if you’ve discovered something really clever about sex. So trite!

I note you conveniently omit to make any response to my reference to the laws covering discrimination against "a person" because of their sex or marital status. Nor do you answer the point of substance about the laws covering a wide range of attributes not just gender.

Nevertheless, let’s go back to pregnancy for a moment. Suppose a man were treated badly by an employer because he needed time off to attend to his pregnant wife whose condition required lots of support. Would you not consider it discriminatory if the boss sacked him for needing time off?

The fact that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is seeking stronger powers under the Act she administers seems to undermine your proposition that discrimination legislation is only about women.

The proposal for a Federal Family Discrimination Commissioner has my full support. It would bring the weaker Commonwealth law into line with tougher anti-discrimination laws in the States.

Your explanation of the tenuous link between Iranian women being stoned to death for being raped and Australian men being ‘second-class citizens’ is patently absurd. You are ignorant of the history of international conventions and their application in Australia.

Your introduction of the stinking fish analogy is most unfortunate but will do as a descriptor of your recent posts. Please do some homework. Any homework!

Spikey,

'The fact that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is seeking stronger powers under the Act she administers seems to undermine your proposition that discrimination legislation is only about women.

The proposal for a Federal Family Discrimination Commissioner has my full support. It would bring the weaker Commonwealth law into line with tougher anti-discrimination laws in the States.'

I'm sorry I still don't understand that. I remember reading that story, and I never could work out WHY the sex discrimination minister had no power to address discrimination against males. Why was this necessary? To create a whole other department with a new name? To me it did suggest the sex discrimination minister was basically only there to help women, so a new department would be needed to help men.

Banjo

You claim this to be a 'trivial' issue. I beg to differ.

The issue of a woman's surname as an expression of her identity is not a trivial issue even though it is routinely treated as such. The issue of gendered names and titles is every bit as important as it is underrated.

Assuming that you are male, I wonder to what extent you would see this as a trivial issue if you suddenly woke up tomorrow morning to find yourself in a world in which social convention required all married men to operate under their wives' surnames. And I wonder if you would deem it 'progressive' if we 'tolerated' some men 'choosing' to use their own surname. And I wonder how you would feel if social convention required your children to use your wife's surname, even if you kept your own.

To continue the scenario, I wonder how you would feel if social convention required 'womankind' to be the generic name for the human species (instead of 'mankind') and that 'she' (instead of 'he') were the default generic pronoun. And I wonder how you would feel if forms routinely required you to circle either 'Mr' or 'Master', while women only had to circle 'Ms'. I wonder how you would feel if you routinely had to read wording that rendered men invisible ... such as: 'Womankind needs God, because without Her, our lives would hold no meaning ...'.

After living under this system for a while, I wonder to what extent you would start to feel that the quintessential human being was female and that men were an inferior sub-group. I wonder if, over time, you would start to feel inferior to women and if your confidence as a human being would start to wane.

The really sad thing is that women have been conditioned from the cradle to accept this linguistic double standard as perfectly normal - to the extent of believing that to 'choose' their own surname is the sign of a progressive society!

I agree SJF, it's a valid gripe. But I wouldn't say it's as important as reducing the incidence of rape. The way I see it, this 'humour' filled article that supposedly creates an opportunity for a wholesome 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play' (Romany's words, I obviously have very, very different taste) fell well short of it's potential.

Some would say it's due to the belligerence of the anti-feminist nutters, but I would say equally by the very existence of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Lets face it, the topic is a famous feminist hobby horse, and the response was exactly as anticipated and intended; A platform for content like that in your last post.

I'm sure Nina would have enjoyed reading that little spiel just as much as you did writing it. And good luck to you both.

BTW: I have a book of politically correct bedtime stories that would enthral you.

SJF, the social convention of giving children the father's surname is quite useful, especially in an age in which it is increasingly common for the children to be estranged from their father. The maternal link is usually obvious due to the fact that it is mostly the mother who has majority care of the children, especially post-divorce.

Young children may end up with little else of their father but a surname if a mother decides to sever contact and you are arguing to remove even that. Do you think the children in question would be well-served by such a situation?

<that men were an inferior sub-group.> SJF

I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group. Women as a group often occupy the high moral ground.

In fact I have heard it said by some women that they beleive, "Women are better people than men!"

Antiseptic:” SJF, the social convention of giving children the father's surname is quite useful, especially in an age in which it is increasingly common for the children to be estranged from their father.”

Useful but often dishonest. Hidden advantage of not doing so, could be to avoid default assumptions about paternity.

JamesH: ‘In fact I have heard it said by some women that they beleive, "Women are better people than men!’

Nothing fringe about that, James. That’s bedrock feminist fact.

<that men were an inferior sub-group.> SJF

I should also add feminist research relies heavily on taking the worst case senario, (which doesnt happen too often) and extrapolating that to applying to the majority. Alot involves demonising men as a group.

<Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade.>

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0301/wt030108.htm

Notice that social work is fairly strongly a female domain.

<"Most males are not delinquent, neglectful, abusers, AIDS victims or gay," Mr. Kosberg wrote. Yet in the last 10 years, "just a handful of studies at best" addressed "normative issues" of males.>

Houellebecq,

(Love your pseudonym!)

‘I agree SJF, it's a valid gripe. But I wouldn't say it's as important as reducing the incidence of rape.’

By whose criteria?

Why must the more ‘important’ feminist issues be mainly those that involve death and injury towards women (rape, domestic violence etc) or those that involve their ability to be cogs in the commerce wheel (childcare, EEO etc) or those that make us Westerners feel superior to other cultures (FGM, stoning adulteresses etc)?

Perhaps because I am an editor by trade, I have always been more interested in linguistic sexism than any other form. I believe that it is the sense of gender inferiority that linguistic sexism manifests in the universal female psyche – regardless of the caring and support little girls receive from their families or how 'progressive' their society is – that is the biggest enemy of women’s advancement.

If, as you say, the author's essay was a 'platform for content like that in [my] last post', then why can't that be a good thing? Issues about gender word usage have to keep on being raised, as our very own language keeps subliminally conditioning new generations of women to feel that they are the culturally inferior gender.

A 'famous feminist hobby-horse', maybe ... but far from a dead one.

Antiseptic

‘Young children may end up with little else of their father but a surname ...’

Ah! So you do admit that the retaining of a surname DOES carry symbolic importance. Or does the anti-feminist’s rule book state that symbolic importances must only apply to men?

JamesH

‘I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group.’

Permit me to clear up your indecision, James. Yes, you ARE mistaken.

Well, from my perspective, this thread has lots its value. We have descended into the following:

1) People arguing that calling others 'conditioned' is a valid debating style.

To me on the other hand, this is utter rot that people use against others who disagree with them. It's pseudo-intellectual shorthand for 'waaah! you disagree with me! Your opinions aren't actually your own unless they're MINE too!'

Like I said. It's rubbish.

2) "I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group."

Also, rubbish. Some might. They're idiots. Regard them as idiots who also happen to hold some feminist beliefs.
I may be mistaken, but it's my very strong impression that this is a foolish statement. Does this mean men are fools?

3)"Young children may end up with little else of their father but a surname if a mother decides to sever contact and you are arguing to remove even that. Do you think the children in question would be well-served by such a situation?"

Theoretically, we could tattoo them too. How about some kind of barcode for easy electronic tracking?

4) "JamesH: ‘In fact I have heard it said by some women that they beleive, "Women are better people than men!’
Nothing fringe about that, James. That’s bedrock feminist fact."

Hooray for more idiotic generalisations! Can I join!

Those who criticise feminism are idiots!

No? Does that sound like a sweeping generalisation that insults many people who are making valid points and doing good work?

Yes, it probably is. But regrettably, this thread can't help but contribute to the former perception, rather than the latter. I don't hold this belief, but were I to adopt the debating style displayed here, that's basically what my argument would sound like.

Good grief. I must bid you adieu, lest this descend further into half-arsed rhetoric.

SJF - loved reading your posts (and Spikey's and Romany's). The scenario was especially well put but so far I haven't seen any responses where people have actually reflected on it and honestly expressed how they'd react.

"...if you suddenly woke up tomorrow morning to find yourself in a world in which social convention required all married men to operate under their wives' surnames. And I wonder if you would deem it 'progressive' if we 'tolerated' some men 'choosing' to use their own surname. And I wonder how you would feel if social convention required your children to use your wife's surname, even if you kept your own."

Really, if a law was made overnight that the scenario be brought into reality - how would each of you feel; how would you react? What do you think the longer term consequences would be ?

TRTL - Yes I tend to agree that it's a pity when what could be an interesting discussion is gobbled up in nasty generalizations, untruths and silly, hateful statements. I think what astonishes me most, however, is that the people who have posted such things have some preconceived mental image of what a feminist is and believes. It seems they forget that we're people who have children, parents, spouses; or that our convictions have some valid base to them.

TRTL:"To me on the other hand, this is utter rot that people use against others who disagree with them. It's pseudo-intellectual shorthand for 'waaah! you disagree with me!"

I gave you a perfectly rational explanation for my use of the term and that's the best rebuttal you can come up with? Conditioned much? Perhaps you might make some effort to point out why I'm wrong if that's your opinion, rather than simply spouting the same unsupported statement over?

The fact is that the conditioning is constant and on-going and quite deliberate. When people like Michael Flood refer to "social constructs" they're referring in large part to the mostly unquestioned assumptions inherent in our responses to given situations and their position is that through proper conditioning, those responses can be manipulated.

As for the rest of your argument, it was nicely summarised by you yourself:"'waaah! you disagree with me!" Not a substantial point made in the entire melange.

You are capable of much better, so try to overcome your conditioning and see if you can't produce it.

SJF:"Ah! So you do admit that the retaining of a surname DOES carry symbolic importance"

I have no opinion on a woman choosing whatever surname she likes, my point was in relation to children, who benefit from having the patronymic in that they are thus linked to their father, even if their parents are estranged, when they might have no other link. Do try to keep up with the game.

Seeker:"default assumptions about paternity"

Well, in most cases the default is the true state. If certainty is required, it can be determined.

SJF,

Language is powerful. I aggree. I'm always banging on about the business leaders and union bosses myself. But if a world had say limited government funding and limited attention span for issues in the community, and you were talking to a woman who'd been raped, do you think she would be comforted to know that you couldn't speak about her or help her as you were concerntrating on the more long term goal of politically correct language.

'then why can't that be a good thing?'
It can be, I just said let's be honest. I won't have it that the article was made for a 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play'

SJF
As someone whose work has always been primarily concerned with language I also was interested in your posts. Long before I had ever heard of feminism or misogynism I remember asking my parents why we used the words “mankind” or “man” when we were talking about everybody. Neither of them were in the habit of giving glib replies and both of them, after a lot of discussion, agreed it was a rather silly convention.

But then, when I started studying history, I realized that The History of Mankind was exactly that: a recording of the world of men – battles, treaties etc.

I was very lucky though, to have a mother who was a born storyteller and she used to tell me stories of the “other” side of history.

She also used to answer all my questions about things history books didn’t tell me like: how women used to give birth, what they used to do about their menses before the days of packaged sanitary products, when and why they started wearing knickers, when bras were first invented, and even about attitudes towards sex.

But I found that at tertiary level, in order to continue to learn about history and literature in a well rounded way one had to depart from the well worn paths of academic study and strike out on ones own, and then fight incredibly hard to get permission to submit theses that required twice the research than if sticking to the world of men.

I had grown up honestly thinking that women simply were not present in the fields that I specialized in – Literature and Drama – until relatively recent times. It was a revelation to discover not only that this wasn’t historically true, but that “The Woman Question” (now called Feminism) has a 400 year old history.

The fact that this is still not common knowledge speaks rather volubly I think.

You can argue about societal conditioning all you want antiseptic.

You can chalk anyone's opinions up to 'conditioning.' It's a way of dismissing people's opinions and saying that they're not capable of deciding matters for themselves. It's plain insulting.

I could say that you can't escape what appears to be 'conditioning' due to some negative experiences at the hands of the opposite gender.

Sound patronizing?

Indeed it does. It's because it is.

My political views differ considerably from those of my parents and most of the teachers I've had in years gone by.

How is it I managed to escape such 'conditioning?'

My conditioning comment and yours both a) make an assumption about the individual's history rather than the argument.

b) are a way of dismissing what people have to say.

c) Are indeed a way of saying 'your opinions aren't your own unless they're MINE'.

I stand by my remarks completely. It's a low argument that sidesteps the issues. When someone pulls out this chestnut they're on the road to conspiracy paranoia.

To get back to something resembling relevancy, the point I've been getting at is that these attacks on feminism do nobody any good.

You made a point about how many more fathers don't get access to their children. This matter actually generates some sympathy and is a valid cause.
Then you somewhat foolishly tie it to the 'name' matter by saying that the name is all the children will have.

Do you really think people are going to argue that women should be made to take men's names on the basis of this argument?
If you strive for equality between genders, then you'll be supported - if you attempt to reinforce old-fashioned male supremacy then you'll get shot down.
Surnames are a personal matter for many. Forcing women to take the man's name is unfair and I don't see how it can be called 'equal.'

Or, alternatively, you could discuss how decent fathers are sometimes denied access to their children and this puts men in an unfair situation.

Which do you think sounds more reasonable?

SJF, Romany and Houellebecq.

Houellebecq says, " I won't have it that the article was made for a 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play' ".

If one comes across a group of people telling blonde jokes, or N jokes, or jokes about men being buffoons - they are necessarily reflecting their worldview and personal beliefs.

That this article has wider implications is a given and neither here nor there - that it reflects the author's personal value system is a given. Nothing to crucify her about. Nothing sneaky going on. it's what we make of it as readers (reflecting our own beliefs and convictions) that is reflecting that the issue still carries some importance.

Romany I related very closely to your post about wondering why certain things didn't seem to make sense; about learning more about history and especially at a tertiary level. I remember one of those, "Damn! Really?" moments when reading up on female inventors and patents.

<If you strive for equality between genders, then you'll be supported - >

TLTR

Women can vote, own property, have a business, go to university, dont necessarily need a man to have children. etc

So how do we now define equality so that when we reach it, we know we have achieved. Or is it something that a small group of women will decide when we have reached it?

<The phrase "Apex Fallacy" sprung to mind as it elucidates fully the inaccurate fashion by which they assess the status of women in America. The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy. >
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1008/1008ihelensmithinterview.htm

Or is "Equality" one of those rubbery figures that is constantly having its definition changed so that it is never achievable.

Many moons ago, our engagement notice read 'Muirhead-Fites'. Husband's uncle remarked, "Should have read 'Muirhead-Capitulates'".

Pynchme

It really gets up my nose that so much of this kind of information only gets taught at Tertiary level and is not part of the public domain.

Like the whole thing about Shakespeare's sonnets. Even the average anthology does not explain how many and which were written to his male rather than his female love. (It always amuses me when staunch homophobes quote some of the most beautiful homo-erotic lines from Shakespeare to illustrate what "real" love is about!)

These kinds of things are not some esoteric cabbilistic secret - yet they add so much to societal divisions. The whole way we look at our history and thus at our present is informed differently. Not just regarding women and sexuality, but our entire worldview.

I know for certain that there is a lot I would have done differently had I known more about women's history and place in the world.

Although I might have turned into a fire-breathing dragon too!

Hiya Romany - yes - same sentiment. Btw I apologize that the last post was a draft in progress. I stuffed up and pressed send before it was completed.

James: The site that you linked is another very conservative anti-feminist American site. The writer is very poorly informed and is a protege of Glen Sacks; who is well known for his anti-feminist rhetoric. For example, her comments about chivalry are historically inaccurate and socially absurd.

Women and children were not protected because of a code of chivalry -think about women and children who lived and worked then and now in poverty; nevermind the crime issues related to violence in and out of the home. Chivalrous behaviour was a luxury afforded by men to middle and upper class women who they deemed worthy of the effort.

I always liked this write up about chivalry:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth2.html

It's a great pity that people who want to live in the idealized 1950s are resorting to steeping themselves in hate speech that seeks to maintain and justify the attitudes and behaviours that have caused so much harm and which gave rise to the feminist movement in the first place. That isn't progress; it only perpetuates problems rather than contributing to solving them.

I hope you give at least as much time to reading information from other sources. Here is a fair range of articles from many authors that addresses a lot of mens issues:

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Politics_of_Father_-WAV.doc

Talking derisively with respect to a man's family name...does that belong in "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics"? make him feel guilty once again, huh. Go to it fellas.

My apologies about all this cross-referencing stuff.
http://americanwomensuck.com/

Romany,

'I know for certain that there is a lot I would have done differently had I known more about women's history and place in the world.'

What a strange comment. What exactly would you have done in your day to day life based on a different understanding of history? I would think it better to place your decisions on the current times and your own reality of 'place' in the world rather than look to women of a different time and place.

pynchme,

Good to see your list of approved pynchme reading material. James, go and read what pynchme has set out for you, and don't go to those nasty mens rights sites. I remember one topic where you somehow decided for yourself the males were all visiting Mens rights sights.

You seem to have good points, but it looks as though when someone counters them you just ignore the counter punch. There's been a few times I've been looking forward to what you might have to say in response to someone and it gets side-stepped.

Here James talks of some kind of propper measure of feminist progress (and a naive assumption of an end-point), and you just rubbish the site he posted a link to, and then talk about chivalry.

Just to ruffle your feathers, I like the joke about black men being expected to stand up for whites to sit being evidence of subservience, but when men stand up for women it's chivalry.

A woman keeping her father's name, in preference to her husband's father's name, does nothing for the women of generations past that have conceived, birthed and raised her ancestors.
She simply shows a certain rigidity regarding the importance of her own self identity.
Who cares what her father was named? Or, indeed, what her husband's father was named?
For me, it came down to an insistence of having the same last name as my own kids! After all, I did all the pushing!
So I took my husband's name. Doesn't make a jot of difference to all the women of my history, or of my husband's history, who remain nameless regardless of my own small decision regarding family names.
Perhaps we should call ourselves by our grandmother's maiden name...hmmm, still doesn't really take the edge off the conundrum, does it?
Perhaps if we want to do something for the perception of women, we should go run a company instead.

Pynchme,

I do know Michael Flood, and when I first met him I was keen to hear what he had too say. Later my position on him has shifted. I have read many of the articles at his site and find most of them to verbally obtuse and contorted reasoning, and basically mimicing feminist discourse.

His site is promoted as being male friendly and positive, yet much of his material is anything but, unless one conforms to his version.

In one discussion I had with micheal about what is known as maternal gatekeeping, he believed that the incidence was very low, yet other research shows that up to 30% of mothers will be acting as maternal gatekeepers.

I think the concept of the Apex Fallacy is interesting and worth exploring.

So what, if you regard the writer as being poorly informed, he did however interview a woman who made these statments.

I have read Greer, Mackinnon, Fauldi and a few others whose names escape me at present. Have read David Thomas? Farrell? Melaine Phillips?

I am so over the hate speech bit that you accuse others of doing. Usually someone pulls this type of accusation out in an effort to discount what another is trying to say.

The big problem I have with judging or interpreting history, is that we are interpreting the past from our own present set of values, (surely you have heard of values conflict?) we can only interpet mostly the written word, which often sometimes leaves out a lot of information, plus one word will mean different things to different people.

Plus there can be overt meanings to what is written or said, and covert meanings that are hidden, and depending on ones own bias, or belief systems there can literally be thousands of hidden meanings.

Pynchme you talk about hate speech, yet Erin Pizzey, Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus, Daphne Patai, etc have been subjected to some really vile, hateful material.

Read Neil Lyndons case
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

Now what Neil was subjected too, that a real example of what is vile and hateful.

Houellebecq

Without departing from the thread to go into a full-scale autobiographical account –reflection, new knowledge and information has definitely shown me the how and why of various decisions and paths taken. I think that at some point or other most of us engage in a period of reflection. It’s not regret: - I don’t regret anything as each stone in the path has led me to where I am now. But at times our lives seem to be a huge, scattered jigsaw and until we put the pieces together we don’t see the whole picture.

For one thing I would have handled both the incidents I mentioned earlier in my career and the fall-out from both differently

I would not have let myself get expelled because I was abused by a Catholic priest, while he got off scott free. Although maybe that carries a little bit of regret as I found out on the News a couple of years ago that he went on to do shocking things to the kids in a nearby orphanage which maybe I could have prevented if I’d acted differently.

When I was raped I would have told my parents straight away instead of waiting ten years to do it. I would not have married the person I did. I would have got my kids out sooner. I would have known and fought for my rights instead of losing everything my kids and I owned. I would have changed my area of study and gone back to University long before I actually did.

You will just have to take my word for it that I meant what I said. I don’t think this is unusual: many people go the “Ah, if I’d known then what I know now” route. I think it’s all part of working out the meaning of one’s life and taking a grip on the present.

As I said, no regrets. The string of my Fate uncurled the way it did and that’s that. But surely one’s future depends on learning from – not uselessly brooding on – past mistakes?

James: Thanks for another link. Btw my comments were not in response to the link you provided to the 'he' but to the 'she'. Yes I believe that Michael Flood is a very approachable and helpful person though I don't know him personally. The one that I posted separately that time, however, was written by someone named Mandy Dunn (I think).

D:\Resources\Politics_of_Father_-WAV.doc

The thing that I find most problematic in the sites that you favour are that they pose men and women in adversarial roles that cast men in a position of hopelessness and play on their insecurities.

If these sites were genuinely interested in male wellbeing, they would be, with feminists, questioning the violence they experience (which is overwhelmingly done to them by other men); the exploitation by employers (who are overwhelmingly, other men) and seeking ways to reduce that. Holding women as the enemy, especially by using madeup statistics, does nothing to reduce the suffering of men.

When we have as many high powered female politicians, business leaders, high level public servants and others, as we do men, then women too can be said to be oppressing men wholesale.

As to the apex fallacy. That, as I understand it, has a mathematical basis. A fallacy only exists if one group as a whole outnumbers the other and population wise, that isn't the case between the sexes. I thought that was obvious therefore didn't bother. If you want to elaborate and explore it further ok we'll do that.

I think this quote from your recent link says a lot about why feminism (bear in mind that it's a philosphy for all people) needs to continue:

"Educated middle-class men soon learn the new verbal rules; we don't say chauvinistic things any more - openly. Feminism is merely frivolous wordplay. Journalistic fashion has favoured women over men for 30 years. Let them twitter. They're still frightened to go out at night."

J Luker London NW3

I don't know if you can grasp what a comment like that means; but it's significant to me.

Romany,

Maybe I misread what you are saying. I thought you were saying that with a better knowledge of the history of women through past centuries (missing from the history books) you would have made different decisions in your life. I considered that peoples decisions would more likely be based on their observations of their current environment, or the limitations made on women in the current society, or the status and expectations of women they see around them, and not of previous generations they had read about.

Pynchme, the quote you provided is very ugly but it's interesting that you have ignored in your response the entire content of the articles by Neil Lyndon which is what was being referenced and commented just on that one quote.

Perhaps you could have quoted from the inspired comments by Julie Burchill Brighton instead to show the reasoned and fair response of a feminist "I wonder if she drank that much before she married such a whining bore?".

There will always be idiots on the side making nasty claims, throwing dirt etc. The link provided by James was a piece worth reading and pondering on even if you don't agree. Your choice to only refer to J Luker's response in your reply misses the point.

Robert

Pynchme,

In regards to mens websites, I use material from both men and women.

Secondly, I dont know exactly how to articulate this, but mens websites that try to explore issues and ideas are important. These ideas and issues are important in the developement of understanding and knowledge. These websites are another part of the jigsaw puzzle of human behaviour.

What you appear to be suggesting is that these sites only discuss issues that are deemed to be important by an elite group of women and if the material does not meet feminist approval it should not be explored or discussed.

<When we have as many high powered female politicians, business leaders, high level public servants and others, as we do men, then women too can be said to be oppressing men wholesale.>

Are you saying that because there are not an even number of men and women in politics and business, that women are oppressed?

That is not logical.

Actually there a very large number of females at the high level of public service.

Many people men included make decisions about whether they are prepared to pay the price of what it costs to reach the top. for some the price is too high.

I understand that many politicans, CEOs put in 60-80+ hours a week, the higher up the career ladder, the more time at work. Men are often caught in a catch 22 situation, where their partner wants the benefits of the extra income, but then resents the time that is spent earning that extra income.

I will start a thread in the forum section in a day or two.

Robert does point out a very pertinent point.

I had an idea that if you are at uni, try and find a group of undergrad males, and really, really listen to what they have to say, if they trust you and feel safe with you and drop the bravado act, you will hear things that will surprise you.

They may not be as articulate as the females, so it really does take some very careful listening.

JamesH,

You say: "Actually there a very large number of females at the high level of public service."

Could you direct us to the data? It would help the debate if you could give relative numbers and proportions. I look forward to what you can show us.

James

Where, oh where, on earth do you get off? No matter what the subject matter of any gender thread on OLO, you always, ALWAYS turn it into another POOR FELLAS, POOR MENZ ten-hanky weepie!

If you wish to get on your high horse about feminists ‘dismissing’ the awfully, awfully important links you keep setting them for homework (assuming they can spend copious amounts of time away from the ironing in order to read them), then please use some links that are a little less dismissable. That Lyndon effort really had me running around the house looking for a chunder bucket.

OK. OK. I’m quite happy to stand accused of being just like all those howwibly howwible womenz who turned poor old Neil Lyndon into a mental and physical wreck, because he … ahem … wrote ONE article criticising feminism. (I’d hate to think what would have happened to him if he’d written two.)

Romany, Pynchme

Some great posts from you both and would love to write more in response. However, I can’t post much at the moment as I’m sharing a computer with my howwibly, howwibly oppressive husand – so time is at a premium. I can only write huffy dumps like the one to James above – which require very little time or brain power. If I were an embittered man, I could blame the demise of my computer on feminism, and just ignore the fact that it got fried in the latest Qld storm (which the feminists probably caused anyway).

Will try to post some more on the weekend.

Spicky, research your own plausibly deniable appeals to authority.

But b4 that, google 'passive/agressive' then, 'prebuttal'.

After that, look up... yourself.

toad215

If I were a man, would you be so rude? And transfer so much aggression?

I simply asked JamesH to show me some data to support his claim that there are a very large number of females at the high levels of public service.

Is it a problem to you that I request some evidence? Or is it that I don't happen to be a male and people like me - in your view - are not expected to have a brain?

SJF,

You could’ve saved others the drama and yourself the head trauma by a more strategically positioned chunder bucket right under that ironing board. Your oppressive husband could have then enjoyed his male privilege (and computer) in peace.

He could have been even complimented for his optimism by his equally testosterone intoxicated buddies, for having so many shirts ready, when in fact all know that any woman within a cooey could have done his job just as well, at half the price.

Now Spikey,

I had noticed that in the government reports that I occasionally browse through more and more female names were appearing with titles like excutive director or deputy.

My sister in law (I could give you her number)reports that in her section/department more and more women are in the excutive level. She is at excut level herself.

Now I had also noticed that female public servants were appearing more and more in the news, when there were stories about government reports etc, there seems to be an increase in the number of females in commissionor roles as well.

Previous female colleagues are now earning salaries that I can only dream of.

Now without much effort here is the data

"The major change in the SES over the last 15 years has been the steady increase in the representation of women, from 16.9% at June 1994 to 37.0% at June 2008" APS statistical bulletin 2007-08

I would surmise from the trend that in another 5-10 years women will either be 50-50 or significantly out number men at the SES level

Dr JamesH,

They are indeed impressive figures included in your post addressed to Spikey.

You talk about what will be the situation in 5 to 10 years time and suggest the PS SES at State and Federal levels, will be swamped with women like in the teaching profession now?

What are your thoughts on the chances of the rather quaint expression “affirmative action” being written out of the English language and history books about then?

SJF, it would appear that something contagious is going around.

"MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, who, hearing Summers, "felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow." And, "I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill." She said that if she had not bolted from the room, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

I reccommend taking some Prochlorperazine as an effective anti nausea agent. It belongs to a group of drugs known as phenothiazines.

I hope your delicate disposition does not stop you from giving me a hard time.

Houllebecq,

Now that this thread has inevitably descended into the interminable “mine’s better than yours” gender quarrel much beloved on OLO, I wasn’t going to bother joining the dots between my life experience and women’s history.

But the last two posts can be used as illustration.

Before researching history to include women I would have read that women’s inclusion in one particular working sector stood at “37.0% at June 2008" and probably considered that real progress –happily prepared to ignore lower figures in other sectors in the hope that they too, in time, would increase.

But rather than positioning that as a result of the feminist movement from the 1960’s, or even from the late 1860’s, when one contextualizes this as a result of a struggle that has been ongoing for over 400 years one’s views change.

Read, for example the Women’s Petition to Parliament of 1649: which commences:We have “an interest in Christ equal unto men, as also of a proportional share in the freedoms of this Commonwealth” yet “ appear so despicable in your eyes, as to be thought unworthy to petition or represent our grievance to this honourable House.”

It goes say “Have we not an equal interest with the men of this Nation, in those liberties and securities contained in the Petition of Right, and the other good laws of the land?...And can you imagine us to be so…stupid, as not to perceive..[when our Rights]..peace and welfare are broken down and trod under foot by force and arbitrary power?”

Or consider that as far back as1640 Marie de Gournay claimed intellectual equality for men and women and made the radical assertion that sex was a physical distinction which did not affect the mind.

Read Lanyer’s Salve Deus Rex Judaerum published in 1611 which disputes why “We poor women [are} blamed or, by…men so much defamed?”

Then perhaps you’ll start to understand what I meant. Women haven’t suddenly changed: we’ve been fighting the same fight for centuries.

Puts our progress in a different perspective.

Workplaces are going to be "swamped by women" in 5-10 years?

Yeah, right.

Women are the big success story in the federal and state public services and this is testament to thirty years of affirmative action.

Their success would be even more apparent if cohort analysis were used to compare their progression with men. The Australian Public Service Commission has always had the records and computing power to perform regular cohort analysis and over large populations of employees. Similarly departments and agencies can do the same. However the political imperatives of the womens movement has always prevailed over advice from the government's own statistician on how to gather and interpret reliable, meaningful statistics.

Returning to the SES (APS), senior leadership is more a vocation than a job and very few people have the skills, commitment and the will to sacrifice lifestyle to get there and stay there. Few wannabes have the ability in the first place.

If feminism is about anything at all it is that women have choices. If some women see more to life than being yet another suit climbing a greasy pole, that is fine and they should be applauded for their choice. Since when was career success the sole or best measure of a happy, fulfilling life?

I can see how some respondents could feel bitter about their life circumstance, but that probably results from their own choices and genetic inheritance: self-limiting beliefs, lack of ability and lack of application. Still, it must be good to be able to sheet the blame home to an alleged white men's patriarchal conspiracy. Give it a break, at the end of the day life is what you make it and in Australia the biggest problem is the range of choice and only one lifetime to take advantage of it.

Hello Houellebecq,

You said to Romany: “I would think it better to place your decisions on the current times and your own reality of 'place' in the world rather than look to women of a different time and place.”

An interestingly absurd comment. I’d like to see your mental gymnastics in applying that to, say, descendants of slavery.

Also it’s remiss of you not to apply the same argument to male posters who proclaim their entitlement on a mistaken belief in exclusively white male heroics. We should all be grateful to men like our Anzacs, though I doubt that any of them can be numbered amongst the posters here. History is full of heroes of all races and of both sexes; as well as people who have died who were not soldiers.

Re: counter punches: Sometimes they are too obvious to bother making. Sometimes it’s just a matter of posting limitations. I would gladly respond to all, at length, but instead respond to what I can.

Re: The site link: I read all such sites and links with great interest and am fairly familiar with many of their affiliations and sources. Male oriented sites are a great idea for men and could be positive and informative for both men and women, but they are few. In contrast, those “naughty menz sites” are replete with complete fabrications and untruths.
Posts that many of them carry are sickening. While they give many men an outlet for their rage and hurt; they maintain unnecessary antagonism between the sexes and they incite further hatred by men who have no capacity, it seems, for seeing their own role in bringing about events that enrage them. For example, abusers who expect women to stay and accept whatever is done to them. Those sites offer nothing whatsoever as a way to reduce violence for anybody.

Feminism has always had supporters from both sexes; that’s because it’s a philosophy and a way of seeing patterns of power and abuse of power. Men are just as hurt by exploitation and violence – by other men.

cont'd

cont'd

It’s so much easier to blame women than to revise a culture of violence. As to feminism ending; when do you predict the end of humanism ?

As to your joke, you crazy funster. You’ll have to try harder than that to ruffle my feathers. What you miss in that joke is identifying the one of the three who has the choice of when or whether to act or not; it is of course the white male. See how useful a feminist perspective is &#61514;

Robert: What particular aspect of the article did you expect a comment about? That the fellow feels victimized because everybody didn’t rave about his anti-feminist tome? There are many published authors who have written in opposition to feminism. I don’t know of any other complaints about being victimized for “heresy”. There are no laws stopping him from writing; he hasn’t been denied publication because of his sex.

Maybe he needs to consider that the problem with his book might lie in the writing itself; or in some nexus between his thesis and his personal or public life. I can’t say because I don’t know anything about him; about Scottish and English Family Law; we haven’t heard his wife’s side of the matter. I haven’t read his book. Have you? Or are you just too thrilled to engage in the drama of a male’s perception of victimization because the world won’t work the way he wants it to.

James you forgot to post a link to your quote. The following may be it – showing the awesome power of women in the public service; the 37% “clustered at the more junior classifications…”
http://www.ofw.facs.gov.au/publications/wia/chapter7.html

So Spikey asking for sources is aggression. Gee. Here is a prime example of a matter I posted about recently. A bloke says anything (no sources) and because a male utters it, in some minds it’s cemented in as iron clad fact. A female references and verifies statements and they are just ignored and dismissed.

I suggest that many of the men here either grow up, or starting dating each other

JamesH: "The major change in the SES over the last 15 years has been the steady increase in the representation of women, from 16.9% at June 1994 to 37.0% at June 2008" APS statistical bulletin 2007-08

In another 5-10 years, he surmises, "women will either be 50-50 or significantly out number men at the SES level." A brave extrapolation from 14 years of data on one indicator.

Stung by Trade215's instruction to "research your own plausibly deniable appeals to authority", I read "Australia's Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, July 2003-July 2008. http://www.ofw.facs.gov.au/publications/wia_2008/p5_2.htm

It shows the following:

In 2006-07, women made up 57% of the Australian Public Service. They now hold 36% of Senior Executive positions.

At February 2008, of the 226 Commonwealth MPs, 67 were women - less than a third. In state and territory parliaments women MPs range from 40% in the NT to 29% in NSW.

Governments can make plans for affirmative action in the public sector, but what about the private sector?

In companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (at 1 February 2006) women comprised 12.0% of executive managers; 8.7% of board directors, 3.0% of CEOs and 2.0% of chairs. However, half the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange have no female board directors. The number of companies with no female board directors has increased by 2% over the past five years. That is, the trend is down.

Australian full-time average weekly ordinary time earnings in February 2008 were $1202.70 for men and $1,008.10 for women - a gender gap of 16.2%.

In January 2008, women occupy 7% of the top-earner positions (80 positions out of 1,136). In CEO positions, a female earns two-thirds of her male counterpart's salary. ('Top Earners' = the five most highly paid executives in the top 200 companies on the Australian Stock Exchange).

I don't think you boys ought to be too worried about us aggressive women usurping your power. At least, not in the next 50-60 years. So just relax and enjoy!

What’s in a name? Well...we all know there is a surname but why get fixated on that. If you don’t like your surname because it pays tribute to patriarchy, my suggestion is that you add a title and/or post-nominals to your name as a distraction. That’s easy these days, particularly it you are into gender studies. Eg Prof Catharine Lumby

Same thing applies to feminist blokes eg Dr Michael Flood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=COwute9Kgro
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2421205.htm (see editor’s note)

Spikey,

if you were a man, l would be much ruder, as defined by your standards of that notion. Only, 'rude' is irrelevant and thats only happening in your head b/c you are really deeply into your SELF identity. Its a blinding thing.

It has nothing to do with your reproductive organs and its telling how folks are so fond of dragging everything back to such a primitive base of reference. One fascinating thing about gender politics is that its so heavily steeped in self-identity and persisently shows up people's fears (what else can it really ever do?).

Dont take my jibes so personally, they are an attempt to dislodge ego (mine, more than anyone else's in this place) and the emotional folly it constantly uses to obfuscate. This l think is why the sexes are in constant 'battle' mode... confused about irrelevant non-issues.

If we dont get serious and actually drop the deluded non-sense of self-identity, then nothing will go the way the gender (h)activists claim they want it to go. Quite the contrary, its satisfying to actively procrastinate behind the facade of analysis. Its a great way to not do anything and hence not effect any conscious change. In the name of raising awareness or whatever, which sounds like the ego stroking itself at the thought that its being 'inspirational.' pffft, vanity.

Of course you have a brain, everyone does. And its a great thing when people use it to think and un-cover things themselves. Without the constant emotive appeals to ego which is just an automatic way for a fearful individuals to push the truth away. Very hard to do.

Anyway, OLO is an opinion forum and in the world of opinion, everyone is their own authority. Independent thinking of a rational kind will enable everyone to figure it out, without dressing things up in appeals to things like external authority.

The way l see it, the world is in so much strife b/c people take themselves, their self identities so seriosuly, that they take words as weapons and then start firing actual mortars at each other.

Trade -

I haven't said anything before because I kept waiting to see what the catch was. Now it appears there isn't one.

O.K. Spikey may have considered you to be rude but, compared to the way you used to post, your posts have been an absolute model of forebearance. You used to reduce me to tears regularly - and once even more than just tears.

Hey, I don't wan't to pry into your personal space, man, but it's like some huge Damascan Road-type Event happened!

So really, all I wanted to say was that I at least appreciate it. You haven't changed your personality I'm sure, but the way you express it now is so different.

Would it seem condescending if I said Good on yer? Not meant to be: merely an acknowledgement and appreciation.

trade215,

you trade in pomposity while all the time pretending to be ego busting.

Worse, you make the mistake of conflating ignorant opinion with informed opinion. In the real world informed (i.e. evidence-based) opinion is infinitely superior to opinion which make no pretension to have a foundation in facts.

"Anyway, OLO is an opinion forum and in the world of opinion, everyone is their own authority. Independent thinking of a rational kind will enable everyone to figure it out, without dressing things up in appeals to things like external authority."

In your case, you could benefit from time to time with a glancing acquaintance with 'external authority' in the form of evidence. And that's my opinion!

Pynchme,, "What particular aspect of the article did you expect a comment about? That the fellow feels victimized because everybody didn’t rave about his anti-feminist tome?" Maybe another read of the piece this time with a little more compassion. His complaint is not that "everybody didn’t rave about his anti-feminist tome", rather how effectively his career has been shut down as a result of his writing on that topic.

I don't know if the claims he makes are true. I can see that they appear to be at least partly backed up by the other comment I referenced. I've seen similar claims of widespread attacks on their professional and personal lives from other writers and researchers who have published material on gender issues. If there is any thruth to the claims then they should be of concern to those who support feminism but don't support oppressive tactics.

Sometimes one of the better tests of a belief system/movement which claims high ideals is how it treats it's critics.

R0bert

R0bert (Romany, Spikey, Pynchme etc)

'If there is any thruth to the claims then they should be of concern to those who support feminism but don't support oppressive tactics.'

Why should they? Any self-respecting feminist treats these 'feminists made my life hell' stories with the contempt they deserve.

As for what ‘truth’ there is to the claims – if you live by the sword you die by the sword. If you earn a living from attacking feminism, you will cop a lot of flack from feminists. Duh!

The anti-feminism genre comprises a multi-million dollar worldwide industry (although I notice it’s now definitely in decline) that has made a number of writers very rich and earned a nice little living for others. Having worked in publishing for over 20 years, I found that from the early 90s, publishers couldn’t get enough of the what-went-wrong-with-feminism/resurgent manhoood genre – so much so, that I often encountered publishers and literary agents actually commissioning writers to produce these kinds of manuscripts.

The only moral criteria was sales – NOT gender insight or understanding. Once the feminism genre waned towards the end of the 80s – as all genres do – publishers and writers followed their well-honed publishing instincts and rode the new backlash genre for all it was worth. It wasn’t at all hard for writers who had once written favourably on feminism when it was all the rage to simply shift gears to write about what was bad about it.

There is another side to this argument as well. It’s well documented that the key writers and figureheads of feminism have been the targets of hate attacks all their lives – including, and especially, threats, intimidation, ridicule and slander. (I don’t need to provide links – just a retrospective of OLO gender posts would suffice.)

Rather than running off to write their 'Mum, he hit me!' books, they mostly just got on with the job of getting justice for women.

Romany, Pynchme, Spikey (and anyone else interested)

Just getting back to this wot's-in-a-names business - before it got hijacked by the usual 100 or so posts about how horrible feminists are - here's a hypothetical...

What if all women simply kept their surname on marriage ... and all daughters took their mother's surname and all sons took their father's surname.

Is there any practical or symbolic reason why this couldn't exist as a viable social convention?

SJF, Good suggestion but it wouldn't please abalone divers who tend to have more daughters than sons. Must have something to do with pressure on the gonads or something like that.

SJF:” What if all women simply kept their surname on marriage ... and all daughters took their mother's surname and all sons took their father's surname.”

Isn’t this just more sex discrimination with potential to incite whole new waves of feminist unrest? Oh, I get it!

SJF,

To tell the truth, I don't actually give a rat's about the whole surname thing. It's a complete non-issue to me: I've used my family name for years while my two sons use their father's family name though, so I suppose it's a little like your hypothetical? Never had a problem, question, or so much as a raised eye-brow about it. Which has kind of led me to believe that all that "But what about the children?" rhetoric is a bit of a crock.

Robert: "I've seen similar claims of widespread attacks on their professional and personal lives from other writers and researchers who have published material on gender issues". Does that include my earlier post?

It's a funny story but it had ramifications: not the least of which was my kids arriving at school to an entire schoolyard who had seen their mum described as a ball-buster in every cafe, newsagent and general store they passed on the way to school.

Romany, I'd missed that earlier post. I disagree with any attempts to destroy the personal lives of people because of views they express on issues like this. If you have suffered damage through the misuse of power by those who objected to material you have written then it most certainly includes you. If comments you have made have been responded to in a manner which is way out of proportion to your comments then it certainly includes you.

I don't know the truth of the claims the author made. Taken at face value the author supports the ideals of equality but has changed his views about the claims made by many in the feminist movement regarding ideas of gender privilige in the past and the role feminism has played in changing the status of women. He has published those views and by his account suffered great harm as a result of his personal and professional life being attacked in other quarters unrelated to the pieces about feminism.

If his claims are true many supporters of feminism have abused power to do him harm and played an "all's fair" game that I can't respect. Neither do I respect it when abuses occur to silence anybody else trying to make a meaning contribution to debate regardless of how much I like or dislike their views.

Those who treat such stories with contempt rather than asking serious questions about them, those who think that critics of their "ism" deserve whatever they get are just trying to exchange the tyrany they think they are fighting with one where they are at the top of the heap. There is no love of justice or equality in them, just a nasty game of an eye for a skin graze.

If the story I read is for the most part true (and it's critics have not rebutted the detail, just attacked the author and defended the tactics) then it represents a very vile side of feminism. I'm confident it exists, I would hope that self-respecting feminists would rightly reject such abuses of power.

R0bert

Robert: "... if his claims are true...". Exactly. We don't know.

However, whilst you're still up on your podium waving a flag for Neil whatshisname, I take it you missed Roscop's post about Dr. Michael Flood and Professor Catharine Lumby.

Have you anything to say about the vicious, lifelong attacks against Andrea Dworkin; Germaine Greer, and how about the ongoing attacks against female public figures like Hilary Clinton ? Have you ever posted an expression of disgust and despair at any of the criticisms levelled at any woman in public life, writer or otherwise?

Until you demonstrate a balanced regard to all injustices meted by people who misuse power, please refrain from lecturing me on what I should read and consider (I did of course read and consider it, without your sanctimonious prompting) and worse - dictating to me what I should feel about it. Until I know more about him and the truth of his claims, I will continue to withold an opinion one way or another

"Until I know more about him and the truth of his claims, I will continue to withold an opinion one way or another", for this I respect you Pynchme.

Pynchme, it is a good thing that michael flood admitted to the mistake, however the damage is done, because people will remember the first instance.

It would seem that material written by men are offensive to your sensibilities, so how about material written by women.

Eeva Sodhi did have a website Nojustice.info it is now archived here

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

I found the articles on "Manufacturing Research" and "Perceptions are not Facts" really interesting.

<[I]ndividuals do not necessarily possess sufficient knowledge to explain everything about their lives (Maynard and Purvis, 1994: p. 6).

The above, if nothing else, infantilizes women and makes any gender based research meaningless as all that is given at the end is the researcher's personal bias.

Contractors are further instructed to "make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied" because the indicators have to reflect the gendered approach they are developing. Under no circumstance is it permissible to conclude that Canadian women are not subjected to a systemic bias. Every undertaking must be premised on an understanding of the "historical and continuing reality of women's inequality" in Canadian society.

What is interesting is that, after potential contractors have been told that they are to treat men and women differently, they are reminded that a double standard

involves treating, measuring or interpreting identical behaviours, traits or situations, in either gender group, by different means.>

Pynchme, if I saw someone responding to a similar piece by a feminist writer by citing an extremist comment and ignoring the main piece I hope I'd have the same reaction.

The criticism that I've seen of Flood has been about bias in his handling of the DV topic, not about the size of his penis or his ability to form relationships. I've not seen any indications that his ability to publish on non-DV issues has been in any way attacked or hindered by those who disagree with his stance on the DV issue.

My impression is that Greer and others have copped criticism which goes well beyond the content of their writings. Again I've not seen any indication that her ability to publish on other topics has been hindered by anti-feminists in the publishing industry - that may have occurred but I've not come across anything on that topic.

It gets messy, responses are often part of the flow of a discussion so the fact that I've never felt the need to write similar comments about responses to Flood, Lumby or Greer does not mean an clear imbalance, it means that issue has not sparked me in the same way in other discussions.

I think I have missed Roscop's post or if I saw it then it obviously did not have the same meaning to me as I gather it's had to you.

I support feminism when it is about trying to provide equality of opportunity for males and females. When it's about trying to grab the upper hand and being the oppressor then I'm against it.

I'm going to be away till late in the week so I won't be able to make any more responses until I get back.

R0bert

Spikey,
what you say is true, my ego is exceedingly pompous and busting it out and breaking clear of its confining rubbish is the point, the whole point and at this point of my life... the only point. Thank you for making that clear, l find this very helpful. l understand you are upset, so am l, and l have a tendency to upset others. Let us let it go.

To the notion of evidence. What is evidence? From where does it derive? Do you see a colour or hear a sound the same way as l? Do our minds put that stuff together the same way, is there any point in even trying to agree? Does agreement or consensus make evidence, a fact ? You'll have to forgive me, lm on an unremittengly 'what is THIS' 'existential' bent of late and its got a hold of my me.

Romany,
nice to read your words. They satisfy my silly self on the one hand and give me some hope that lm managing to go FURTHER into THIS, on the other.

trade215

Evidence doesn't matter? Did I write something to which you responded? i don't think so. It was just an imagined moment. I won't remember a thing in the morning. Will you?

Pynchme you wrote, "Until I know more about him and the truth of his claims, I will continue to withold an opinion one way or another",

Here is a link to a speech by Christina Hoff Sommers who if memory serves me correctly, SJF does not like her very much.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29165/pub_detail.asp

I however find it a fascinating read.

I could add some quotes from her speech, but all that will do is bring the warth down on me, so for the sake of some peace, if you are interested, some of what Hoff Sommers is saying tends to support Neil Lyndons case.

JamesH,
Very interesting link you pointed us to.

Christina Hoff Sommers:
"In my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women's movement. First, today's movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same."

Click here to view the full text of this speech as an Adobe Acrobat PDF:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf

spikey,
not whether evidence matters, but specifically, WHAT is it? l posit that evidence is about validating/substantiating ideas, theories, perspectives, products of mind. In the world of science, physical empirical sunstantiation trumps all.

Evidence offered in support of scientific theories and observations is one thing. Evidence offered to support personal opinion, perspective or agenda is quite different... that stuff can certainly be very much like offering the pieces of one's dream-like sense of self and to that end, that stuff can, as you suggest, have the capacity to disappear on waking in the morning. Which for me these daze, is the whole point (l know, broken record).

The thing about scientific evidence is it tries to be objective and based on how science defines that it seems fair enough. There are other ways of thinking that say there is no such thing as objectivity as the observer changes/influences the observation (or possibly the outcome itself). There's some stuff in physics that claims to demonstrate that, l cant remember the experiment at the moment. l might look it up at some point.

Another interesting thing about scientific evidence is that its all contingent and hence what one accepts as fact today is subject to revision or replacement tomorrow. None of it is immutable.

l hope we can get past the ill-will and what not and leave the personality stuff out of any further dialogue.

peace.

romany,
l was thinking about your post that said you were 'waiting for a catch' and it now occurs to me that lm growing most weary of getting caught in my own catches. Alas, thats the folly of self-identity in my estimation... it eats itself.

trade215,

Thank you for those comments. My opinion, however, is that your distinction between "Evidence offered in support of scientific theories and observations is one thing. Evidence offered to support personal opinion, perspective or agenda is quite different..." is not sustainable.

To illustrate:

One person is of the opinion that Indigenous Australian women are disadvantaged. Another take the opposite view but, for sake of argument, asserts that if they are disadvantaged they simply have to get off their backsides and change their attitudes. The one is able to point to evidence from health data, access to education, employment and housing. The other is a skillful rhetorician and sticks to his position that it's a matter of women's attitudes. The one replies that while their may be something in the attitude question, attitudes are not free-floating but related to the context including the power relationships with Indigenous men as well as the opportunity structure and resources at their disposal.

Is it not possible to say that in this instance the one opinion is superior to the other?

If you don't concede the point (at least in principle) we might as well forget about research in the social domain and just let everyone fly by the seat of their pants. That opens the door for superstition, prejudice and idiosyncrasy.

Another option is to take the 'might is right' position where the opinions of the loudest and strongest prevail. Thankfully, that hasn't happened on OLO - yet.

I'm finding it hard to think of an opinion of any value that can be evidence-free. Perhaps you can supply one?

This discussion has deteriorated into the usual scenario.

Why is it that some posters choose to forget the environment that gave birth to the feminist movement. One reason, was women were being paid less for equal work under the cultural assumption that men were the 'head of the household' and had to support a family. Many women were also supporting families and proved themselves in wartime to be as capable as men of performing essential worktasks. At one point abused women had nowhere to go until women's shelters were established. Up until then women were told 'you made your bed...', 'why do you make him angry', 'it must be your fault'.

Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing. Are there really people who believe feminism was a philosphy that pushed the view men were an inferior sub-group?

It only serves to diminish the original theme of the discussion and one might question the motivations and emotional baggage behind this behaviour.

And I would love to know where all these feminised workplaces and institutions are. I have never yet in my 47 years experienced a workplace where men in senior management were in the minority (in private or public sector organisations).

As someone succinctly stated above shouldn't we be concentrating on the wellbeing of families no matter what shape or form they might take.

Changing your name is a personal choice, I chose to change it some choose not to, some hyphenate it. No big deal. We all make our own choices for our own reasons.

Can we take it then, that Trade is no quantum physicist. Many women aren’t either, and never will be, regardless of how much affirmative action is legislated.

Proportional gender representation in every field of human endeavour is as unrealistic at our current point in evolution, as it is improbable any time soon. No matter how loudly the gender feminists scream. We’re different. Even if there were no discernable biological differences found in inherent skills or capacity, and all were given equal opportunity, there will be differences in motivation, preferences and therefore outcomes.

To legislate for equal outcomes would be no better than socialist slavery. Providing unequal opportunity and incentive to achieve such outcomes, would be social engineering at its worst. Neither is economically efficient nor morally correct. Both are just plain wrong.

Pelican: “This discussion has deteriorated into the usual scenario.” No, I read a much more powerful argument of feminism deteriorating. Have you not read the link to Christina Hoff Sommers?

Pelican:” Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing” Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?

Pelican:” Why is it that some posters choose to forget the environment that gave birth to the feminist movement. One reason, was women were being paid less for equal work under the cultural assumption that men were the 'head of the household' and had to support a family.”

Then as now, men competed in labour markets, regulated or not as they may have been at any particular time. They will continue to do so. They may need to compromise between how much they need to support a family and what the market will pay, but will happily take more than they need if the market values their effort so. It was always thus. If you are a victim feminist, you will see that a market is all about discrimination. A glass half-full kind of person on the other hand, will view it as competition.

You know, it would be really nice to see more women supporting their families. No, not those families on single mother benefits. Traditional families, such as the ones being destroyed by the more reckless branches of feminism. If for no other reason, just to show they can.

Catch,

"Alas, thats the folly of self-identity in my estimation... it eats itself."

This statement, coupled with your rationale about evidence directed to Spikey, sounds almost as though you've opted for nihilism?

"Self-identity"? As long as I keep in mind that self-identity and the identity of one's self as defined by others are always two distinct beings, I find that cannibalism can be avoided.

Robert: re: the article by Neil Lyndon. Please take the trouble to check a couple of matters to which he refers. For example, something simple and easily verifiable like women getting the vote. He lies by omission and minimizes the efforts that women have made and their achievements. If he can’t tell a simple truth about something like that… pffft.

He says that women obtained the vote only 11 years after men. I’m not going to quote everything (word limit) but note key dates: 1832; 1867; 1884; 1885-1918; 1928.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

Men were never excluded because of their sex; they first gained the vote based on ownership of property. Women were not only excluded because of their sex; but also on the grounds of property, and age for that matter. Women had to be over 30 yrs of age.

<” Millicent Fawcett, the leader of the NUWSS during the campaign for the vote, was still alive and had the pleasure of attending Parliament to see the vote take place. That night she wrote in her diary: "It is almost exactly 61 years ago since I heard John Stuart Mill introduce his suffrage amendment to the Reform Bill on May 20th, 1867. So I have had extraordinary good luck in having seen the struggle from the beginning.">

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/W1928.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#History_of_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3153024.stm

As to Christine Hoff Summers: – I disagree unreservedly with the 3 point characterization of feminism. It’s complete trash. Nevertheless, I haven’t noticed any feminist conspiracy exerting undue impact on her career as a conservative anti-feminist. She has done very well with book sales. This will do for her:

http://coolbeanscool.blogspot.com/2003/07/what-to-do-with-those-im-not-feminist.html

James:

Why do you say that material written by men offends my “sensibilities” when many of the articles I’ve referenced are written by men ?

Of your most recent link (again, menz sources). I take it you’ve never heard of the terms incidence and prevalence, or that you don’t understand them. Please look those terms up then follow the links in your page and compare what’s provided there with studies from – well, anywhere that isn’t one of your dumb sites.

Follow that site's references and read the whole material. One link provides information that detracts from the menz sites claims that men are victimized by bitter women who make false allegations about child abuse.

One study there shows that by far most reports of suspected abuse are made by professionals – teachers, doctors and so on. After that, neighbours and various others. The other parent accounts for a very small number of reports. (Which is problematic in several ways, but none in the way you’d like it to be).

Also, the figures there deal only with reported cases; not whole populations. Women do most of the child care so it’s not surprising that they generate a higher proportion of reports – which in the case of females is mainly neglect; including failure to obtain medical care (in a country with very high costs of medical care).

Your menz sites actively encourage men to avoid paying child support. Therefore we have many women raising children alone without fathers contributing adequately to the costs.

A much smaller number of men are responsible for children than are women, yet except for the postnatal period, higher figures of violence and child sexual abuse are still attributed to males.

Re: DV:
<” Of course we must have compassion for those relative few men who are harmed by their wives and partners, but it makes logical sense to focus our attention and work on the vast problem of male violence (96 percent of domestic violence) and not get side-tracked by the relatively tiny (4 percent)problem of male victimization. The biggest concern, though, is not the wasted effort on a false issue, it is the fact that batterers, like O.J. Simpson, who think they are the abused spouses are very dangerous during separation and divorce. In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims [38]. Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped world view is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.”>

http://www.nomas.org/node/107

http://www.xyonline.net/Nonviolentmenhavenothing.shtml

Pynchme:"Your menz sites actively encourage men to avoid paying child support. "

Which "menz" sites do that? I regularly visit the 4 major sites devoted to men's and father's issues in this country and I've not seen anything at all on any of them encouraging the non-payment of CS.
In fact, on Dads on The Air and Dads in Distress, it is a point of pride among many posters to state as part of their signature that they pay CS. Those sites also actively welcome women posters, which contrasts very sharply with some of their many counterpsrts run for the benefit of "grrrls".

Pynchme"Therefore we have many women raising children alone without fathers contributing adequately to the costs."

On the CSA's own figures, the total amount of uncollected CS each year is a trivial $50 million out of a total transferred of $2.6 billion. That is approximately 2% of the total, or approximately $5 per taxpayer per annum. If the poor dears are worried about their children, they might consider getting a job, instead of always relying on men to pay their way.

Pynchme:"http://coolbeanscool.blogspot.com/2003/07/what-to-do-with-those-im-not-feminist.html"

Oh dear, radfem much, hon?

A quote:"If a woman answers no to the question "Are you a feminist?", she should immediately be stripped of her voting rights, her right to institute divorce, her legal protection from domestic violence and marital rape - oh, and her pay should be cut to 19% less than that of her male colleagues."

Nice to see a decent respect for difference in the Sisterhood. What a selfish rant from a self-satisfied fool. I'm not surprised you liked it.

[Random quote from typical MRM guru] "In my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women's movement. First, today's movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same."

[Ctrl C] "In my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women's movement. First, today's movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same."

[Ctrl C] "In my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women's movement. First, today's movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same."

Get the picture?

The nature of such borrowed, endlessly recycled accusations against feminism don't really matter. The point is to keep repeating and linking to them on forums like these. Consistent repetition is the essence of the deceit used by those who are hostile to any reasonable discussion of women's equality with men - post after post, thread after thread. This consistently runs the discussion off the rails by keeping feminist-sympathetic posters continually bogged down in a burden-of-proof mire. The more divorced the accusation is from the topic at hand, the better ... because distraction is the real name of the game.

It saddens me that feminist posters here still take these capricious accusations at face value, believing that the accusers want to engage with them when all they really want to do is argue. Because it's human nature to want to disprove an unjust accusation, I can't see this situation changing any time soon. Also, women want too much to be liked.

SJF:"feminist-sympathetic posters continually bogged down in a burden-of-proof mire."

And naturally, the last thing that pro-feminists want is to face a burden of proof on their unsubstantiatable guff. Nice of you to point that out.

As always, your view is that women must be hapless and helpless and must never, ever be challenged and as always, that is simply contemptibly weak-minded.

SJF:"the deceit used by those who are hostile to any reasonable discussion of women's equality with men "

Which would, of course, be you. It's about time you woke up to yourself.

Well, I can see where you're coming from SJF. But really, I still think when one poster posts an opinion and another poster wants to dispute that opinion, it's pretty silly to ask the original poster to do their research for them. If anyone wants to prove me 'wrong' they can do their own work. As it happens, I'm not the type to be bothered trawling the internet to prove a point in an opinion forum.

With regards to the hijacking of the topics, I agree, but I'm not sure it's a deliberately cynical endeavour by those posters. They just happen to have an axe to grind and who better to grind against than an audience supportive of the ism they have a problem with. They should make their own topic and leave the feminists to their supportive 'haven't women been treated terribly throughout the ages' fests.

I see a lot of arrogance in yourself and Pynchme's posts. You dismiss all 'masculinist' sites in one swoop, decide who is a legitimate or respectable gender author and which authors opinions are allowed to define feminism, and then complain about the posters who dismiss feminism. To me, you have a particular image of what feminism is to you, and fair enough. It's no more or less valid than the image other people have of feminism. These categories of gender, equity, radical, victim feminists are subjective. You seem offended by what people say about feminism, but you needn't be. You're all probably talking apples and oranges.

And the disease to please isn't exclusive to women. I think what these male posters really want is a woman ( a feminist even better) to say 'you're not the evil rapist abuser all-powerful war mongerer objectifier.... Please say I am none of these things'.

I think....

Pelican:” Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing”

Seeker: Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?

Sums up all these debates really.

runner

Christina Hoff Sommers is just one person sharing her opinion and even she refers to the "noble cause of women's emancipation". Have you seen where any of the OLO feminists take a dim view of men. Most of the time they are just defending women when they are being attacked by people who appear to hold a dim view of women.

In years past, ideas promulgated by the Church that women were mentally and biologically inferior to men was accepted as the cultural norm. Anyone holding a different view might at that time have been considered radical or a man-hater.

As far as the "overstating of victimhood" - I can see where that might occur in any struggle whether it be gender, race or political. Equally it could be said of men who are angry and bitter about the child support system. Some may have a valid gripe but if you were to project the image they were overstating their victimhood their would be a huge outcry yet many of the posters understate and minimise the problem of violence towards women without flinching.

Sometimes bitterness, resentment and hatred are the real issues for those who take the extreme view on either side, and until we get past that as a group there is not much hope in these perceived gender wars.

"Pelican: Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing” Runner: Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?"

How does feminism do this of late? If anything feminism is losing its appeal especially to younger women because it has achieved much of what it set out to do.

Feminism does not demean men. In fact truly loving and supportive relationships can only come when each partner views the other in a respectful and equal light. Not one being the head of a household but both working together for the wellbeing of their family.

Apologies

I've just realised I responded to runner when I meant Seeker. I someties get you two mixed up even though you are very different posters - probably something to do with the act of running and seeking. :)

Now I bought into this debate after SJF posted this generalization;

"After living under this system for a while, I wonder to what extent you would start to feel that the quintessential human being was female and that men were an inferior sub-group. I wonder if, over time, you would start to feel inferior to women and if your confidence as a human being would start to wane."

Pynchme posted;

"It's a great pity that people who want to live in the idealized 1950s are resorting to steeping themselves in hate speech"

Now I linked the Neil Lyndon case as an example of real hate speech, again Pynchme made generalizations.

I, like Neil Lyndon once supported feminism, in my search for answers and understanding I have read a wide variety of authors, the first male author I read was David Thomas's 'Not Guilty'

< Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped world view is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.”>Pynchme.

Lets look at warped statistics, for every woman murdered in a DV situation in australia, approximately 4-6 men die in work place accidents, at least 62.5 people will be killed in car accidents.

More people will win lotto in a month, than women killed in DV over a year.(actually I exaggerated the lotto bit, it more like every two months)

JamesH,

You sure have provided "warped statistics".

The phoney juxtapositioning of woman murdered through domestic violence, men dying in work place accidents and people killed in car accidents are an artificial and cynical construct of your own choosing.

Whether there are more deaths caused by one or the others is irrelevant. Every death by domestic violence and every death by workplace accidents and every death by road accidents are all equally tragic. We need to do all that we can to prevent all such deaths and not play debating games with relative statistics.

I think relative statistics put things in perspective. Too often we concentrate on one area because it's more sensationalised, or political or 'awareness raised' and ignore other areas. Like people who are scared of flying but have statistically more chance of being killed if they drive somewhere.

Look at people's reaction to 3000 deaths on September 11 and the current attention the war in Gaza is getting, and the lack of reaction to deaths via malaria, AIDS and war in Africa. I think we have to face it that lives do have different importance. Well that's what an alien looking down on Earth would think. White western lives are more important than African or Middle Eastern lives. It could be said that female lives are more important than male lives too.

Not wanting to fan the flames, but how many times do you hear of the 'innocent' civilians comprising only women and children. Men, whether they're in the army or not aren't ever considered innocent. I once even heard a news report on a death toll from a natural disaster relate the tragedy that women and children were amongst the dead! Just like when they say 300 people were killed somewhere in the world, and 2 Australians are amongst the dead! Or sometimes you even hear 'no Australians were involved' (so, nothing to get upset about then).

Houellebecq,

The general point you are making is valid. What I struggle with is the practical consequence of the relativity argument.

What comfort is it to the family of a woman killed by her partner to learn that many more people are killed somewhere else by workplace accidents, road accidents, 'natural' disasters, war, famine or disease?

I don't believe that some lives are more important (Australian or otherwise). But I do argue that all preventible deaths are a tragedy and we should do everything we can - wherever we are and at whatever level we are able - to agitate and take steps to minimise such deaths.

Action on domestic violence is not an alternative to action on other senseless killing. We can and should work on many fronts.

Spikey:"What comfort is it to the family of a woman killed by her partner to learn that many more people are killed somewhere else by workplace accidents, road accidents, 'natural' disasters, war, famine or disease? "

What relevance does that have? The point is that some well-publicised issues, such as DV and breast cancer, receive far more funding and far more attention than their relative prevalence justifies. If a problem creates 10 times the death/injury then it should have approximately 10 times the funding, yet the DV industry receives many times the funding per incident that other, more serious problems do, especially problems that mostly affect men and not women. Whay do you think that is justified?

I'd have thought in this modern day and age no-one would fret over such a trifle. Keep your name if you want. Change it if you prefer. Make it double-barrelled if you can't decide (your grandkids will be called Sydney-Funnel-Webb-Spider-Bites-Finger)

Whassat, Poly? The bible doesn't tell you what to think, so you don't? Get some substance, man. Be daring. Have an original thought someday!

romany,
"sounds almost as though you've opted for nihilism?"

Nah. That's just how it sounds.

"... self-identity and the identity of one's self as defined by others are always two distinct beings, I find that cannibalism can be avoided."

l think they're prolly exactly same thing, tho one might be chicken, the other one egg. Either way they're the same intra-dependent thing. What lm alluding to here, is the identity part, which lm starting to see as false, illusory. Its not so much about nihilistic cannabilsm for me, more a case of self-immolation, in the spirit of Ishmael lives after fighting off the big white whale of ahabs inner-demeons.

seeker,
"Can we take it then, that Trade is no quantum physicist."

l can speak for we, but in may case.. Yes. Er, and huh?

"Many women aren’t either, and never will be, regardless of how much affirmative action is legislated."

Again, huh?

http://www.lowersupport.com/

The high death rate amongst separated men is strongly associated with their mistreatment at the hands of government agencies, including the Child Support Agency (CSA), the Family Court, Legal Aid, Centrelink and their supporting bureaucracies. These agencies systematically strip fathers not just of their beloved children but of their assets and their incomes, with devastating affects on their physical and mental health. What makes this so offensive is that the bureaucrats and judges enforcing this antiquated system perpetuate the myth that they are acting "in the best interests of children".

http://www.dadsontheair.net/About/ChildSupportAgencyDeathTollCounter/tabid/57/Default.aspx

<”CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION ISSUES - STRATEGIES
WHAT CONSTITUTES EMANCIPATION TO RELEASE A PARENT FROM A CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
STRATEGIES FOR MINIMIZING SUPPORT OBLIGATION
Planning Considerations
SOME REASONS FOR MODIFICATION (FROM PAYER'S POINT OF VIEW
CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION WHEN THERE IS AN EXISTING ORDER IN FORCE…. “>

http://www.ancpr.org/handbook.htm

http://www.ancpr.org/

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3198

“…my view is that a woman who chooses to get pregnant and to remain pregnant should, at the very least, be required to obtain a signed document from the prospective father testifying as to whether or not he is willing to be legally identified as the father of the child should a birth take place. If not, then I would argue that the 'father' has no legal liability for any birth…. “

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm

a) The Child Support Agency does not work to the benefit of the children or to either parent of separated families. The liable parent currently pays child support on the basis of 18%, 27%, 32%, 34% and 36% of gross income (depending upon the number of children).

b) As a result, the liable parent often leaves the workforce or takes employment that is below the income taxation threshold. Currently 43.2 per cent (311,953 no.) of liable parents are effectively unemployed. (Child Support Agency’s Child Support Scheme Facts and Figures 2005-2006). The parent who is most often in need of child support is not receiving it.

http://www.ncpp.xisle.info/family.htm

Pynchme:"The parent who is most often in need of child support is not receiving it."

I suggest such parents should grow up and get a job. Only children should be entitled to child support.

SJF,

I understand exactly what you mean and many times I've thought - these people really don't want any information. They are too happy nursing their hate. I haven't seen any changes - not the least recognition of new information; just same old lies repeated and repeated.

It's a real drag to constantly feed information that seems wasted; but then I think well maybe I need to do this (time permitting - and I don't have much holiday time left btw) for others who might read what they say and believe it if there is no corresponding information to check.

James: I seriously doubt that either you or Neil Liar ever supported feminism. If either of you did; you'd know more about it and that would be reflected in your posts.

Houellebecq: I don't suppose the arrogance of any of the male posters ever bothered you. In any case, doesn't matter. I think you're arrogant; therefore we are even.

SJF - I like your suggestion as a general social convention but it would be good to also maintain lots of choice. There are cases where one name is preferable to the other just because it's a nicer name. I don't like blended names much; hyphenated is useful up to a point. I like some sort of tradition handed down from one generation to the next so that people have a sense of belonging. Your idea is a good one.

I did laugh at the hyphenation someone just did - Sydney-Funnel-Web-Spider-Bites-Finger. It was good to get a laugh off this thread :)

Pynchme,

Arrogance: An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Pynchme: 'I take it you’ve never heard of the terms incidence and prevalence, or that you don’t understand them'. 'one of your dumb sites', 'I suggest that many of the men here either grow up, or starting dating each other' 'I don't know if you can grasp what a comment like that means' 'Of your most recent link (again, menz sources)'

SJF: 'all they really want to do is argue' 'POOR FELLAS, POOR MENZ ten-hanky weepie!' 'quite happy to stand accused of being just like all those howwibly howwible womenz'

See, as my point was, you both are upset about the generalisation and critisisms of feminists, but retort with generalisations of the male posters and all 'menzzz' sites'. What I see is posters blindly attacking feminism, and feminists blindly attacking posters. I'd rather see posters critiquing feminism, and feminists critiquing those arguments.

BTW: I didn't say you were arrogant, I said I saw some arrogance in your posts. Please accept the invitation (as I'm sure you will) to highlight the arrogance in my posts.

Pynchme:"http://www.lowersupport.com/"

Never heard of that site. I quote:" A FATHER HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW HIS CHILD SUPPORT IS BEING SPENT ON HIS CHILDREN AND SHOULD PAY THE MINIMUM LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO THE EX-WIFE AND SPEND THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DIRECTLY ON THE CHILDREN."

Can't see anything there promoting paying no child support.

Pynchme:"http://www.dadsontheair.net/About/ChildSupportAgencyDeathTollCounter/tabid/57/Default.aspx"

This one highlights the number of male clients of the CSA who have taken their own lives and correlates that with the CSA's approach to collection. Nothing at all about not paying Child Support.

Pynchme:"http://www.ancpr.org/handbook.htm

http://www.ancpr.org/

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3198"

All US sites. Af you'd like to bring the US example in, perhaps you'd appreciate me lnking to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of sites published by "feminists" vilifying fathers and providing hints and tips for maximising the "take" from them?

Pynchme:"http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm"

Some sensible questions and not a single suggestion about not paying CS.

If that's the best you can do, I thank you for taking the time to make my point above so explicit: there is NO effort by Fathers' rights groups or their websites to encourage the non-payment of Child Support. In addition, if there were, they must be spactacularly useless efforts, since less than 2% of Child support remains uncollected in any given year. I'd be interested to know if the uncollected tax in any year is higher or lower than this rate, because I suspect it is of the same order.

In other words, Pynchme, it seems that 98% of men are prepared to pay through the nose to support the mother of their children, regard;ess of whether she can be bothered to get off her burgeoning arse to do so herself. You might like to have a bit more of a read of those father's rights sites you referenced and find out a bit more about what mainstream men think about your idology.

It might help you to get over your contempt for women and your overwhelming sense that men are the only gender capable of taking on responsibility.

Antiseptic,

The grief of a family who have seen a person killed not relevant? Weird. All deaths are a tragedy no matter the cause and no matter the frequency of that cause.

I might equally ask what relevance has your simplistic accountant's approach to public funding? "If a problem creates 10 times the death/injury," you say, "then it should have approximately 10 times the funding."

Governments make budget allocations for all sorts of reasons including their assessment of cost-effectiveness and capacity to prevent escalating negative consequences. If it were as simple as applying your kind of mindless formula, we may as well let the ABS run Treasury.

Hey, now there's a thought!

Spikey,

'What comfort is it to the family of a woman killed by her partner to learn that many more people are killed somewhere else by workplace accidents, road accidents, 'natural' disasters, war, famine or disease?'

It's not as if anyone is suggesting that quoting statistics is a way to comfort people. That's a bit of a red herring. In fact I don't think anything you say would be of comfort to people with such a loss. I've heard the argument used in DV topics that many more women are victims than men. I don't think that would comfort male victims, but it's neither here nor there with respect to the topic at hand.

'I don't believe that some lives are more important (Australian or otherwise). But I do argue that all preventible deaths are a tragedy and we should do everything we can - wherever we are and at whatever level we are able - to agitate and take steps to minimise such deaths.'

Sure. But the catch is, people have a finite amount of time for worthy causes. Governments have a finite amount of money. So they must choose. The squeeky wheel gets the grease and all that. The effect of all these choices by people and governments reacting to those choices makes some lives worth more money/votes than others. Why do you think everyone keeps 'raising awareness' with stupid gimmicks?

Houellebecq,

"It's not as if anyone is suggesting that quoting statistics is a way to comfort people. That's a bit of a red herring." Absolutely right. That was my point.

"In fact I don't think anything you say would be of comfort to people with such a loss." Ditto.

"I've heard the argument used in DV topics that many more women are victims than men. I don't think that would comfort male victims, but it's neither here nor there with respect to the topic at hand." Agree, but that was not my point. Why did you introduce it?

So your post comes down to the squeaky wheel argument? Have you got a suggestion to offer? Or were just in need of a whinge, again?

Pynchme, if a writer is misleading by ommitting relevant data then the way to deal with it is by filling in the blanks not by attacks on his or her personal life and restricting professional opportunities in other areas.

I've not seen the original article nor the book refered to in the article which was linked to, my issue is primarily with the means described by the author to silence him. I get the impression that I would not agree with him regarding the role of feminism from what I read in the piece I have seen. My issue has been with the lack of concern over the methods he claims have been used to silence him and any other male who makes similar claims.

Deceipt by deliberate ommission is deceipt, I've not got the background to make sense in the short term of the point that you make about the difference between timings for men and women and weigh that against the real impacts. I'm hapopy to accept your version pernding further information if that lets us move on from the rights and wrongs of his arguments to the values stuff. If he is omitting critical material which significantly alters the picture then his aqrguments lose value.

Is it OK to attack an opponents private life if they publish material you disagree with or consider incorrectr? Is it OK to try and deprive an opponent of their income in unrelated area's if they publish such material?

R0bert

The reason I broke down the stats and compared a relative mortality rate is to put a perspective to it.

Grief is a personal experience and any sense of perspective flies out the window, it doesn't really matter how a person died, or whether they are male or female, there will people who will experience this loss very deeply.

It is totally natural in the case where the death is caused by another party to feel anger towards that other party or even anger at god.

Pynchme posted a quote where it was deemed that because men in theory only tiny numbers of men experienced DV, it was not worthy of attention.

To look at another angle, roughly 6 women are killed in workplace accidents each year, compare that to around 100 men, would it be fair to say that just because the number of women is small, workplace safety is not a big enough issue for women, because only a small number die from workplace injuries?

"Action on domestic violence is not an alternative to action on other senseless killing. We can and should work on many fronts.
Posted by Spikey"

Correct Spikey, if what you mean is looking at ALL aspects and factors!

Now I am going do a 180.

"After living under this system for a while, I wonder to what extent you would start to feel that the quintessential human being was female and that men were an inferior sub-group. I wonder if, over time, you would start to feel inferior to women and if your confidence as a human being would start to wane."

Now lets look at a hypothetical.

Imagine two married women, both with the same surname and are married to lets say Doctors.

Imagine now that one is happy and content with her life and status, the other feels miserable, insecure and is unhappy.

Now there are a number of factors that can influence a persons feeelings of well being, personality and how that person views or sees life has a big bearing on this.

The first wife feels happy and content even if her husband works 60hrs a week, the other feels unhappy and resents the fact that her husband works 60 hours a week.

One of the biggest sellng books "The Secret" hit the nail on the head when it showed that if a person looks at life in a positive manner good things will happen and if all they see is negativity, that is all they will find.

Sometimes meaning is attributed to something that is not there, for example viewing women as a inferior sub group (it is true that women were once seen as being the gentler and weaker sex), If a woman believes this, there is nothing any man can ever do to prove other wise. Because his actions and the actions of other men will always be viewed from the perspective that this woman or women as a group have chosen to take.

SJF and Pelican re: how stereotypes about feminists are perpetuated.

Pelican your post (was a beaut post btw):
<"Pelican: Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing” Runner: Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?">

Here's a study of interest:

"They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm

I see a lot of positives for the future when I observe and listen to my son and his groups of friends. The young blokes seem to seek, prefer and feel more comfortable around assertive and capable young women who have study and career goals. I think younger men are better adjusted to a worldview that accords with feminist philosophy than some of the men who post here seem to be.

James: You've done a 180 but you're still standing on the same spot. Maybe the problem IS that someone (one partner) has to work 60 hours a week - losing contact time with partner and children - for - what... um financial pressures? Career competition? Organizational politics ? From a feminist perspective, if a couple chooses that traditional division of labour and household configuration then that's that; however it should also be a viable and respectable choice for each to work 30 hours, or to take turns at being earner and homemaker; or to reduce consumerism and livemore humbly or.... whatever. One vision (historically - neither accurate nor viable) of man hunter hero and woman cook parasite, can no longer be imposed on others.

Antispectic: Re: Ignoring the US sites. You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose, everyone has access to them via the 'net; many of the views you and others express reflect them and Australian sites carry links to them. Also, please read message boards attached to the Aussie sites.

Robert: I don't agree that it's cricket to attack someone's personal or professional life just because they hold different views. However, he suggests something like a conspiracy. I think Romany gave a full explanation about publishing priorities and I think we've covered just about everything worth saying about that page.

Houellebecq: Your admission is noted and discounted. I wouldn't be bothered. Maybe you could reflect though on why you think it's worth pointing to mine (and SJFs) while ignoring that which is apparent in posts by males.

Pynchme:"You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose"

I don't, although as the US models are picked up more and more by self-serving "feminists", perhaps I should. Regardless, none of the links you obviously spent time searching out actually supported your contention that there is widespread support for the non-payment of Child Support, merely a recognition that as it is currently constituted, Child Support is unfair to all, especially fathers who are kept from their children by mothers intent on mazimising their take.

Pynchme:"You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose"

As i said, I regularly visit and often contribute to the 4 major Australian sites, including their forums. There is nothing on any of them to suggest that non-payment of Child support is an option that should be encouraged. In your zeal to make women into victims you seek to place the blame for the situations of lazy women who won't work on the men who do. As always, in your world women anre never capable of being responsible for the outcomes of their own decisions, the poor helpless things.

Pynchme:"I think younger men are better adjusted to a worldview that accords with feminist philosophy than some of the men who post here seem to be."

They might well be, having been subject to the massive propaganda campaigns that have been run for decades and without the benefit of sufficient experience to see the faults. Still, they'll soon learn that the reality doesn't add up to the propaganda spiel when the "assertive and capable young women" decide that the best use for the young men is to shut up and pay Child Support and that they themselves are somehow no longer capable of lifting a finger to support themselves.

Pynchme, a conspiracy would be hard to prove. On the other hand I assume that for a writer the group of people who get to decide what gets published and what does not is relatively small and likely to know each other, it's not hard to imagine the kind of discussions which might lead to some kind of agreement to shut him down. Have you read Graham Youngs comments on tribalism? Attacking the core beliefs of tribe can draw a tribal response.

I'm glad we agree that the described tactics are not OK. I've no way of telling if what was described happened in this case but I've seen the theme often enough to be disturbed by those who think that anybody telling such a story should be dismissed with comtempt.

R0bert

Trade,

as regards self-identity and the identity others give one you say: -"l think they're prolly exactly same thing, tho one might be chicken, the other one egg. Either way they're the same intra-dependent thing."

See that, right there, is where we disagree. Personally I think the two exist with no relation to each other whatsoever...and yeah, both of them could possibly be illusory. In fact I'm damned sure that that other peoples perceptions of one's self nearly always are. But the juxtopisition of the word "false" with illusory as you coupled them, gives a feeling of deliberate deceit?

While that may be true for public figures or some people, I don't think its a given. Everyone brings their own interpretation to things so I figure I can't be responsible for other peoples illusions any more. When/if people people cannot bring themselves to believe that what you see is what you get with regards to my own self then I can no longer concern myself with that inability.

The last few years have brought a lot of changes with them for me, and while I may not have a complete handle on my self I have no illusions left at all. The biggest change of all is that I can now not only accept that, but am content with it as well.

Antiseptic,

<"it seems that 98% of men are prepared to pay through the nose to support the mother of their children, regard;ess of whether she can be bothered to get off her burgeoning arse to do so herself...">

- and there you have it. Child support doesn't support mothers; it helps pay to raise the children.

According to this study, "...98% of men..." are hardly paying "through the nose". In any case, one wonders how they think they'd be paying less for their children if they were living in a family situation.

"Child support is of minimal assistance to most
families. According to the Child Support Agency,
mothers constitute 91% of parents who are entitled
to child support and 41% of single parents receive
no child support. Related information on child
support payers, who are overwhelmingly men,
demonstrates that:

• 40% pay $5.00 or less a week
• 16.2% pay between $5-40 a week
• 22.3% pay between $40-$100 a week
• 21.4% pay over $100 a week child support

(Family and Community Services Committee 2003:14, 127,128.
cited in Keebaugh 2004a: 1).
This statistical data reflects the experiences of the
participants in this study, few of whom were
receiving reasonable entitlements of child support
for their children.The number of men manipulating
and minimising their child support responsibilities
contributed to a corresponding number of women
and children living in poverty.These facts need to be
made widely known to counter prevailing societal
beliefs that most separated mothers receive
lucrative child support entitlements, to the financial
detriment of their ex-partners."

http://www.csmc.org.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/his%20money%20or%20our%20money.pdf

http://www.csmc.org.au/?q=researchandpapers

Romany, I give you the best of wishes and all the best for the future.

Pynchme:"Child support doesn't support mothers; it helps pay to raise the children."

What a lot of rot. Its principal purpose is to offset the cost to the Government of supporting mothers who choose not to work. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that CS payments received reduce the amount of Centrelink benefit such mothers may receive. In latter years there has also crept in an ideological "punishment" theme, promoted by those such as the website you've quoted.

Pynchme:"one wonders how they think they'd be paying less for their children if they were living in a family situation."

If they were living as an intact family, they'd have only one rent to pay, one set of clothes to buy, one set of toys to own - the list goes on. In addition, they'd actually get to see their children daily and might even be able to develop a proper relationship with them directly, instead of through the maternal gatekeeper. I know you're not stupid, so this must be a bit more of your "telling lies for women". Can't help yourself, can you?

Let's examine the figures you gave, in the light of the CSA's own figures that less than 2% of all CS is untransferred in any given year and on their own merits.

"41% of single parents [including the 9% who are men] receive no [CS]"

And what are the reasons for that, do you think? Could it be that 41% of separated couples simply don't want the CSA involved at any cost so their cases don't get counted? My own ex, now that she has managed to get off her bum and use the education I was expected to pay for has decided that the CSA is a terrible organisation and must be taken out of the picture.
Could it be that when both parents work, there is no compulsion from Centrelink to register with CSA to offset the cost of supporting the mother and the parents just get on with working things out, leaving the CSA in the dark where it belongs?
[CONT]

Let's look at your next offering:
"• 40% pay $5.00 or less a week"

As the $5 minimum applied only to those who could demonstrate no income other than Gov't benefits, that would mean that 40% of all payers [91% of whom are men, remember] are unemployed. This at a time when the population unemployment level was at all-time lows of less than 5%. That the CSA creates unemployment among men would seem to be a reasonable conclusion to draw. How does that benefit their children? Take your time...

"• 16.2% pay between $5-40 a week
• 22.3% pay between $40-$100 a week
• 21.4% pay over $100 a week child support"

IOW, the CSA deals mostly with the low-paid, while those with money make their own arrangements. No surprises there. Those figures represent at best 18% of the payer's gross taxable income [assuming one child only], so anyone paying only $40 per week must be on at least a partial benefit and even those paying $100 a week are earning less than the average full-time wage

"The number of men manipulating
and minimising their child support responsibilities
contributed to a corresponding number of women
and children living in poverty"

Where is the evidence for this little piece of hate-mongering? The figures you quoted indicate clearly that the outcome for low-paid men is overwhelmingly deleterious, with 40% of all payers ending up on the dole as a genuine alternative to working 40 hours and ending up with less than the dole's meagre allowance.

In fact, all that your quotes do is demonstrate that the CS scheme and the corrupt organisation that administers it are irretrievably broken, even with the Howard Government's reforms.

Thanks for showing us the work of the grrrls hate sites, though, it contrasts markedly with the rationalist approach of most of the men's sites.

Good work Antiseptic,

I think the NSCM relies on the emotive arguement, that because of the figures they quoted, it must mean fathers are minimizing income.

Now from my understanding many intact couples who can do it, minimize their income to save on paying taxes and anecdotal evidence suggests that the wife could be driving a BMW and be receiving the family tax benefit.

The NCSMC is a group of radical feminists who are committed to a world in which the only role of fathers is as a payer of money to the mother. They are of the firm view that the only parent is the mother and that a father, in seeking to have time with his children, is doing so solely to reduce the amount of such money the mother may receive.

Of course, in the world of the NCSMC, mothers are magically exampted from any requirement for self-support - that's men's work. Women are such helpless victims, the poor things, and it's all because those terrible men knocked them up, no doubt as a result of rape or alcohol, either way it couldn't have been their own doing...

Meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment among CSA-registered payers of CS remains at a level many times higher than the general population and women who choose not to work continue to impose an enormous cost burden on the productive members of the community.

Also in the real world, men are continuing to commit suicide at the rate of about 30 a week, very frequently as the final outcome of actions by these same women and the CSA. That's all right though, after all, they're only men, the dole cheques will still arrive for the women and "their" children, so all is right with the world...

Anti, I don't know if NCSM is a group of radical feminists or just a group of self centered narcassitic women.

There was one woman from the CWA who said that separated men should not be allowed to have another relationship, because it would affect their ability to provide for the previous relationship.

So I guess in the view of some women, men are little more than sperm donors and pay packets.

Pynchme wrote 'adequate level of support'. What does adequate mean?

One womans version of adequate could mean the difference between buying a new pair of shoes a week, compared to once a month. Or is adequate the difference between a cheap red and a Grange?

Now I do know there are parents male and female who do go without, in order to provide for their children.

Why so much hatred of women here? It can't be healthy and certainly seems to diminish the ability of some OLO posters to think clearly. Several of the posters here are clearly using their own unhappy experiences to extrapolate to all relationships with women.

JamesH:"I don't know if NCSM is a group of radical feminists or just a group of self centered narcassitic women."

Aren't those the same things?

Speaking of self-centred narcissists, Spikey, I see you're maintaining your usual high level of vapidity. I suppose that must be considered some sort of achievement.

Antiseptic,

I rest my case!

'women who choose not to work continue to impose an enormous cost burden on the productive members of the community.
'
That's a bit much really. I think rearing children is productive work.

Pynchme:"Your menz sites actively encourage men to avoid paying child support. "

"It's a great pity that people who want to live in the idealized 1950s are resorting to steeping themselves in hate speech"

Humpty-dumpty, straw man, phoney juxapostion etc.

And Spikey it is true that there are some women who beleive that separated men should not get involved in another relationship because they feel/believe that his primary responsibility is to the previous (failed) relationship.

This is not extrapolating.

Houellebecq:"I think rearing children is productive work."

It's assuredly necessary work, but I don't think that the productivity of those women who choose it as a career is up to much.

I have two children who spend their time with me and their mother week-about. I still manage to run my own business, more-or-less successfully and I've never asked for anyone to pay my way. For 5 years, however, their mother tried every possible legal maneuvre to prevent me having more than 2 days a fortnight, thereby maximising her "entitlement" to Government handouts and child support. Whilst she was doing that, the children spent 2-3 days a week in child care facilities, so she could go back to uni for her third undergraduate degree (and also get the additional Government handout payable for undertaking "higher education"), having never used her previous two.

The entire time, the CSA was harassing me on the grounds that I had a higher "capacity to earn" than I was exercising and the Government was paying for the legal fees she incurred in trying to stop me having contact with my kids.

Over that 5 year period, the State would have subidised her (not counting HECS, of which she now has a debt approaching $80k) to the tune of $100k-$150k, while in the same period, I paid Child Support of over $40k, taxes of a similar amount and had to self-fund my own legal defence of her State-sponsored efforts to keep me from my children.

To put it all in perspective, in 2001 I had a gross taxable income of about $43k, while her gross taxable income was under $15k. After tax and the CSA, I had less than $25k left, while she had an after tax income of over $32k. That's right, over $17k of tax-exempt income, all thanks to the kids.

Productive work? If I was that "productive" I'd be bankrupt.

Spikey, congratulations, you get the prize for "most content-free post". Keep up the good work.

Gawd. I go away for a week and return to find the bitter and twisted men's contingent still banging on in this thread about these awful conspiratorial feminists.

While I was away I happened to have dinner with my daughter and her fiance, and the topic of surnames came up. They're getting married in May, and it transpired that he just assumed that she and her child would take his name, and she had just assumed that she'd be retaining hers. After a slightly uncomfortable moment, we discussed various options - with hyphenation coming last in terms of preferences.

They're still talking about it, but leaning towards taking an entirely new surname for all of them, including the kids that they each already have. Of course they should do whatever they think's best for themselves and their kids, but it was interesting to me to observe the evident implications of some unspoken assumptions they apparently each harbour.

Finally, might I suggest a short vacation to our embittered usual suspects? You're really starting to look bogged down.

Antiseptic,

http://www.csa.gov.au/ChildSupportCalculator/Calculator.aspx

Your calculations don't seem to add up.

As a parent, even if I never got to see the children, I would consider paying to raise them the minimin duty that I would WANT to fulfil irrespective of the level of income of the other parent.

I've always worked and been the main financial support since the children were tots. Having paid for raising three, I know for a fact that it costs a lot more than $70.00 a week per child.

It must be a great source of pain for your children to be aware of what an awful burden you consider them to be.

If your ex really is so dreadful, perhaps you just deserved each other... but your poor kids :(

Antiseptic: “To put it all in perspective, in 2001 I had a gross taxable income of about $43k, while her gross taxable income was under $15k. After tax and the CSA, I had less than $25k left, while she had an after tax income of over $32k.”

Grossly unjust under equal shared parenting. Punitive even.

It is not difficult to see how high effective marginal tax rates further skewed by child support can discourage single mothers and lower paid men from working. As James mentions, men are also discouraged from forming new relationships as CS discriminates against any children of subsequent relationships. Heck, in my experience, it even discriminated against our own children - but only if one believes that all child support is destined for children.

For many years I paid my 18% of gross income for one child while providing full care for the other two children of the same marriage. According to the “18%, 27%, 32%, 34% and 36%” rule, the 2 children in my care were entitled to 27% of someone’s gross income. Being their father, guess it was mine.

One possible explanation for this curious situation is that the state actively sponsors the view that women are less capable than men. What else could one conclude, when it systematically attributes less responsibility to one gender? This is probably also why we have nonsensical debates about surnames, and why related decisions are billed as the more political.

Most would agree there has to be some income redistribution in a caring society. Marginal tax rates and social security attest to this. However, when it comes to gender, there are whole new layers of social mechanics designed for redistribution. The danger of this redistribution mania is that we inadvertently reallocate too much responsibility away from those who need it most in their daily quest for gender equality.

CJ Morgan: “They're still talking about it, but leaning towards taking an entirely new surname for all of them, including the kids that they each already have.”

How very progressive. Seems like a great way to integrate children into the new family unit, and at the same time, acknowledge the impact on a man’s identity. More of us should change our surnames to mark each such event.

Pynchme:"It must be a great source of pain for your children to be aware of what an awful burden you consider them to be."

LOL. I fought for 5 years through the courts to get some time with them and you think I consider them a burden? Dimwit.

Pynchme:"Your calculations don't seem to add up."

As I said, the CSA deemed I had a higher "capacity to earn" and assessed me on that, not on the formula. Do try to keep up.

Pynchme:"Having paid for raising three, I know for a fact that it costs a lot more than $70.00 a week per child. "

I agree. Your point? Doesn't Mum have some responsibility to contribute?

Gday CJ and congratz on the lovely events that are pending for you and your family. It's a great thing isn't it that these things can be discussed, negotiated and creative ideas considered.

Yes the bitterness. Oy mate. If it weren't for being aware of millenium men like yourself, Flood and his cohorts; many men in my life and being aware of the statistics that tell us that the majority of men are good fellas; I would lose faith - and that would be in humanity as a whole, since we're talking half the human race.

Antiseptic; I saw someone; maybe you; post a way back that the man who is paying had to pay two rents etc. That isn't correct. Each parent pays for their own rent. There is the same basic living amount allocated to each adult. Wherever you lived you'd pay rent. People who have their spouse and kiddies with them would generally pay higher rent than a single living alone, who can do fine with smaller accommodation. As for your five years battling; it could just as well be thought that it was a way to harrass your ex and to reduce your financial burden. Did you fight just as hard to care for and spend time with your children while you were still married to their mother? Maybe that would have made a difference in the outcome.

I note the blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity and of mothers/parents who prioritize that. Yet many men such as some posters here have the audacity to blame their woes on feminists and to puzzle over why so many women want to dump their sorry asses and stay as far away from them as possible.

Pynchme: “I note the blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity and of mothers/parents who prioritize that. Yet many men such as some posters here have the audacity to blame their woes on feminists and to puzzle over why so many women want to dump their sorry asses and stay as far away from them as possible.”

I take it that “sorry asses” does not refer to contrite parts of their anatomy, but rather to a useless whole. Nice. Above that, you did acknowledge useful men such as CJ and Flood, so I guess it’s OK. Gives an impression of balance.

Men do get involved in caring for their children, and I’m sure more would do so if allowed to. Remember that we live in society in which they could be harassed for taking pictures of their own children in public places. Don’t also forget that at least as many women as men prefer to segregate duties and to specialise in certain areas in the business of running their family. This includes a whole range of female behaviours from lady of leisure or maternal gatekeeper, all the way to senior partner. Usual distributions of sad and useful asses here too. Some get dumped. No gender has a monopoly on this despite the feminist inspired myths.

Had a look at your CS calculator link, and noticed that the latest round of reforms implemented by Howard government have changed the current situation that slightly dates my comments above in my last post. Ran the calculator for 2005 and 2006 and in my situation (standard formula, mother provides full care for 1 child and father for 2 children), came up with significant differences for those years than was actually the case. My CSA total for the 2 years was 35300, while the calculator estimates 24500. Big difference.

continued ...

I expected the calculator to use the earlier formula and calculate something very close to the actual that was paid for those 2 years. To some extent it did use a different formula, because the calculated amounts were different for each year (as well as for 2008), but it was still very wrong for those prior years. Typical incompetence I guess.

Rhetorical as it may seem, my question is this: If we are equal parents under the law, and mother is healthy and capable, children healthy and have no special needs, how can a standard formula produce outcomes that do not require the mother to do her fair share of parenting. Doesn’t even expect one third. Would this indicate I was right to dump her sorry ass or that the state is justified in systematically punishing children and their fathers in order to validate her ass? Where does a feminist stand?

Professional women have to decide whether to change their name to their husband's surname on marriage because their license to practice is in the name they qualified with. It's very difficult to change your bank account, drivers license, passport, professional registration upon marriage or divorce. In some fields where reputation is everything women simply can't change their name upon marriage without losing the goodwill they have built up.

Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men. Women still pay the same university fees for the same qualification - probably with higher marks than their male counter parts.
Australian women still don't have control over their reproductive life with access to RU486 being limited and sectors of the community trying to raise barriers to abortion.

Many Australian professional women are still denied jobs because they are trying to do a "man's job".

And when the marriage goes bust its usually the women left rearing the children.

Pynchme:"People who have their spouse and kiddies with them would generally pay higher rent than a single living alone, who can do fine with smaller accommodation"

It's interesting that you assume a father would only require single-persnon's accommodation. I guess the kids can sleep on the floor when they are with him...

Pynchme:"Each parent pays for their own rent. "

No, the custodial parent, especially if she chooses not to work, has an entitlement to rent subsidy, while the NCP does not. In addition, the NCP has to pay for premises that will be fully utilised only occasionally, thus incurring more expense than he would otherwise have. As I showed earlier, a CP can have a much higher net income than a NCP, yet a much lower gross, thanks to CS and tax-exempted benefits.

Pynchme:"it could just as well be thought that it was a way to harrass your ex and to reduce your financial burden."

You really don't think much of women, do you? No doubt you find it difficult to conceive of a woman being capable of actually initiating anything at all, but that's still what happened. All I did was respond, in every case. Some women are actually quite competent, you know, despite your constant efforts to belittle them.

Pynchme:"Did you fight just as hard to care for and spend time with your children while you were still married to their mother?"

Why on Earth would I have had to fight to do that? You have a very peculiar view of what constitutes a normal relationship.

Pynchme:"blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity "

Me (on 24/01/09):"It's assuredly necessary work"

The value of the task is not at issue, it's the performance standard that's in question.

billie:"Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men."

mycareer.com doesn't make any mention of that. http://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre/graduate/.
What is your source?

billie:"when the marriage goes bust its usually the women left rearing the children"

You failed to mention that in most cases that's because they want it that way and will fight tooth and nail to protect their right to do so. To then turn around and complain because they've succeeded in what they set out to do is the height of hypocrisy. for too long women have been given carte blanche to behave abominably toward the fathers of their children, safe in the knowledge that their custody of the children translates directly to personal immunity from any punitive measures should he seek redress. It also translates into access to a massive support network, much of which is staffed by bigoted feminist ideologues.

Meanwhile, the father is left bereft, fending for himself against a frequently multi-pronged legal and administrative asault, often State-funded. He has the choice of going broke over legal fees with an uncertain outcome or simply acquiescing to whatever is demanded. Unsurprisingly, most comply.

Antiseptic - the Mycareer statistics would be more meaningful if they quoted the median wage for each sector and quoted teacher and nursing salaries as these occupations require university qualifications.
I was referring to the ACER survey published last week http://www.acer.edu.au/1/?/news-item-short/lsay55

When marriages fail women generally end up with the children. Men who don't see it coming may be good at angst but that doesn't make them reliable caring parents per se. Frankly some of the emoting divorced men on this forum convince me that they are too psychologically damaged to be allowed near their own children without supervision.

Billie: “Frankly some of the emoting divorced men on this forum convince me that they are too psychologically damaged to be allowed near their own children without supervision”

With family laws (domestic violence, family and child support) in this country privileging women you can be as arrogant and callous towards fathers, who have been unjustly separated from their children, as you like. Yes, in this country we have “easy unilateral separation/divorce” thanks largely to the Labor Government starting with Whitlam. Children are only an issue after the fact and that is pre-determined in the vast majority cases.

If you want to understand what I am talking about I suggest you read “Kangaroo Court” Family Law in Australia, by John Hirst, Quarterly Essay Issue 17, 2005.

Antiseptic: Just to jog your memory, here is your full remark re: raising children: "It's assuredly necessary work, but I don't think that the productivity of those women who choose it as a career is up to much."

It's not just that though, but in combination with stupidities about women getting off their butts to work and James' inanity that adequate income for a woman would be ascertained by how often she could buy new shoes, and so on... It's clear that you blokes have no idea what's involved in raising children and that you have only one narrow frame of reference for women - that you're incapable or stubbornly determined not to see all the different types of women that there are or how much women contribute.

Just to bring you back from the Lala-land of he-victims; any citizen is entitled to rental assistance; depending on income. If you need assistance, try talking to a customer service officer to see what the eligibility requirements in your situation would be. The DOH also takes into account size of residence for visiting children. Again, nobody pays two rents and so on as you claim.

As to fighting for time with your children. Let's then use the term, "interest" or even "want". When you were married to their mother, were you as comparably determined to spend time with your children as you have been since divorce. It's also interesting that none of you dare think about why women seek divorce - like you all are such princes that another person should be honoured to devote their lives to your needs (and get told they're a worthless parasite for their trouble).

As to the younger men. Most in my acquaintance really like the women with whom they work and spend other time regardless of whether they're in an intimate relationship or not. I think they have a chance of choosing their life partners for compatibility on many levels and therefore their relationships have a much better chance of succeeding.

Seeker: I'm not sure what you're asking.

If you're talking about your personal situation (did you say that you care full-time for two and she for one child?) then you'd have to explain how your child support payments were determined and what method you chose - like did you go through the CSA or make some private arrangement? Even so I am not conversant with or very interested in CSA matters. As I said, as the main earner, I have always regarded it as my responsibility and pleasure to pay whatever is needed towards support of my children and their father. He works part time when he wants to. I couldn't tell you what he earns or does with it. It doesn't matter. He has been a stirling parent of our children and a great homemaker. I have only succeeded in my earning capacity because he has relieved me of having to worry about childcare and household matters.

Anyone who devalues the importance of and amount of labour involved in raising children and homemaking is a "sorry ass". It just so happens that on this thread, it's been male posters who have been doing that. I think that reflects pretty much how such work is seen and regarded by many men. The notable exceptions would be men who have actually worked as primary care givers (like the father of my children once they reached a certain age; widowers; some divorced fellows).

For many having partial visitation, it's more a matter of dropping the kids off with their mother or getting the girlfriend to babysit. As such, I'm not surprised that their partners dumped their sorry asses. It seems to me that they blame feminism for making it possible for women to leave an untenable or even perhaps an unsafe situation (to the extent that they can); instead of questioning why the women would want to leave at all. Some no doubt leave for frivolous reasons but even then the children still need some measure of financial security. I don't see why providing that is a source of perceived victimization.

pynchme,

You make a lot of assumptions...

'I think that reflects pretty much how such work is seen and regarded by many men. '

'another person should be honoured to devote their lives to your needs'

'For many having partial visitation, it's more a matter of dropping the kids off with their mother or getting the girlfriend to babysit.'

'it could just as well be thought that it was a way to harrass your ex and to reduce your financial burden.' (That was pretty hurtful I think)

There's some pretty unbalanced and unfair generalisations about men there. You rightly point out the bias in anti's opinion of women, but your opinion of men seems pretty much on a par with him. Sure you throw out the odd disclaimer which anti doesn't (normally for younger men only, or the 'millenium men' that are the exception to the rule) but I think your comments generally reflect a very low opinion of men.

You say '...statistics that tell us that the majority of men are good fellas; I would lose faith', but from a lot of the assumptions and generalisations of men you use I think your view of men is really skewed nearly as much as antis. That's probably why you both argue so much.

With regards to the 'blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity and of mothers/parents who prioritize that.'

As I said, I agree with you on that.

But in your posts, and in quite a few divorced women I have spoken too, I see a blatant devaluing of providing financially for the family as worthwhile activity and of fathers who prioritize that.

'Did you fight just as hard to care for and spend time with your children while you were still married '

This is a convenient position of a lot of women. 'Now we are split up you suddenly want to see the children?'. Never mind that the reason the ex doesn't have the relationship with the kids you do is because he was earning the family money. This is most often a joint decision in family roles made by the couple from the beginning.

But somehow after the split, when the man is extradited from the family, it is somehow wrong for him to want to hold on to some semblance of his family that is still intact, and to want to make it flourish. To try and have some good come out of the trauma of his relationship breakdown by wanting to spend time with the part of the family that still love him. But no, he's just being selfish now if he isn't still happy to play provider without being able to enjoy the resulting benefits for the family unit that has now ruptured.

It's dripping in the same callousness from antiseptic that offends you so.

BOTH roles in the family are equally important. Just because a man is absent to earn the family money doesn't mean he loves the kids any less than the mother. It could even be said he loves them more because his role doesn't have the emotional payoff of getting direct feedback of love in return for his efforts.

Houellebecq,

Well said.

Houellebecq;

You make an endless array of assumptions yourself. For example, you can't seem to get your mind around the notion that men are not necessarily nor automatically sole or even primary financial providers. (Historically, they never were either).

The jig is up. Those of us who have exchanged roles know full well that it's possible to work full-time - even extended hours - and still build strong bonds with our children (and partners).

Yes it may have been "hurtful" to question Antispectic closely, however, he has the option of answering those questions or not. His unsupported and factually unsupportable statements that denigrate women as a whole can't be left unchallenged. He isn't a singular case - James' eager support and yours, Roscop's and that of other men posting here stand as examples of an unquestioned readiness to believe anything negative about women that's uttered by whatever male takes up the most air space.

I even once put the idea that the men posting in such ways couldn't represent the majority and some one of them stated with absolute confidence that they represented a mainstream male view. If that's so, then what I've said does apply to (too) many men. In any case, my remarks were not about all men but the posters here - and anyone who shares their views on women.

Just think about the things said about women that you've read (condoned and elaborated upon) here and on the other thread - for example: lazy, can't make a decision; irresponsible; liars; manufacturing evidence; unwilling to work; soap opera junkies; preoccupied with baubles and trivia; dependent on men for everything - and these statements are made broadly about all women; no disclaimer. If those things were being said about people from some ethnic group you'd all be shouted down as racist and hateful. There is no justifiable reason to paint women with such attributes.

Again I put it to you; if you're suddenly so mortified by "callous" remarks; you might take some time to ponder why you haven't found it problematic when male posters are the source.

Pynchme,

'you can't seem to get your mind around the notion that men are not necessarily nor automatically sole or even primary financial providers.'

I think you need to get your mind around your prejudice about men and what you assume they all think.

'The jig is up. Those of us who have exchanged roles know full well that it's possible to work full-time - even extended hours - and still build strong bonds with our children (and partners).'

Ha. What jig? Just imagine, if good 'ol Anti said the 'jig is up' for all those women who say they do valuable work at home because some women have managed to juggle full time work and caring for the kids. Regardless I never said it isn't possible for primary earners to have a strong bond with their children. I said the primary carer will have a strongER bond due to the extended time with the children.

My point was that why would the father (yes father, not primary earner because I'm countering your claim about a fathers 'sudden' interest in their children) still be happy to only see his children on weekends after the marriage breakdown? I think I explained many of the reasons they aren't happy with this.

I find it interesting that you think I support Antiseptic. If anything I've ignored his posts and referenced his bias as something I though you should/would aspire not to emulate. I may have over-estimated you.

I think it's indicative of your low opinion of men that you see all the male posters as an 'other', all having the same thoughts and opinions. Because I am silent on poor form from some male posters, and I am male, you think, well, logically, I must agree with everyhing they say.

'you might take some time to ponder why you haven't found it problematic when male posters are the source.'

I have found it problematic, but I see them as a lost cause. I only point your remarks out as I see you as the pot calling the kettle black all the time.

Pynchme, you made the claim that Men's (Menz) websites encourages fathers not to pay child support.

Where is your evidence?

In all the sites that I have visited I have not found a single one that encourages dads not to pay child support.

"I even once put the idea that the men posting in such ways couldn't represent the majority" Pynchme

If you had read either Thomas or Farrell, you would notice statements made to these authors that a bloke may tell them, but not share with his best mate, even though the mate expressed the same ideas, when the other wasn't present.

I know males who share some of these ideas, but never ever infront or within earshot of women, especially their wives.

I know males who would prefer to talk about football, etc, anything but talking about feminism.

I as wrote before, Melaine Phillips and Maggie Hamilton have both written good books. NOTE these books are written by women not men.

Alot of the material I relie on is because it also has been supported by female authors.

So are you telling me that the female authors are wrong! or is only female authors who do not agree with feminism are wrong!

billie’s Acer study does not support her claim that “Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men.”

As I read the media release, women study longer, do not necessarily choose courses using money-making criteria, then settle into jobs with higher levels of occupational status but less well paid careers to work shorter hours.

Perhaps she meant women “experience” (rather than “suffer”) [their own] discrimination whenever they make a choice … Should we ignore victim feminism, or act to discourage some of those choices?

Pynchme:” If you're talking about your personal situation (did you say that you care full-time for two and she for one child?) then you'd have to explain how your child support payments were determined and what method you chose - like did you go through the CSA or make some private arrangement? Even so I am not conversant with or very interested in CSA matters.”

Of course it was standard CSA formula as mentioned more than once i.e. no special circumstances, no variations. Houellebecq’s assessment seems so apt and Anti’s frustration understandable.

Even though you posted that link yourself, you can be so dismissive when it suits. What other content of your own posts are you “not conversant with or very interested in” ?

Having explicitly stated that you do not know and do not care about the subject, how can you criticise men’s sites in the way you did?

"As to fighting for time with your children. Let's then use the term, "interest" or even "want". When you were married to their mother, were you as comparably determined to spend time with your children as you have been since divorce. It's also interesting that none of you dare think about why women seek divorce - " Pynchme

"Mothers can be very encouraging to fathers, and open the gate to their involvement in child care, or be very critical, and close the gate."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080601092230.htm

It would then suggest to me that it is the mothers who are critical will most likely be the ones who get divorced.

pynchme:"lazy, can't make a decision; irresponsible; liars; manufacturing evidence; unwilling to work; soap opera junkies; preoccupied with baubles and trivia; dependent on men for everything - and these statements are made broadly about all women; no disclaimer."

Ah, the shoe is starting to drop, I see.

I, along with many others have complained frequently about the broad-brush demonisation of men in advertising, the media, from politicians and especially from "feminists". There is never a "disclaimer" saying (for example) "most men never commit violence, this ad is aimed at the very small number who do"; or "most men pay their Child Support in full, this campaign is aimed at the very small number who don't"; or "the rate of motor vehicle accidents among young men is higher than the population average, but most young men are perfectly competent drivers unless they drink too much or try to show off for other young people, especially young women".

It's not much fun being included as part of a group you don't identify with, is it, especially when that group is being vilified? Ask yourself why you find the standards applied to the vilification of men are acceptable and why you find the much milder criticisms offered here so personally affronting.

It has taken thousands of words for you to grasp this basic point, which is indicative ISTM of your deep-seated prejudices. Those prejudices have been carefully nurtured in you and other women over the past 40 or so years, using the time-honoured method of inducing envy. "Poor women, they have it hard, while men have it so easy", never once mentioning the large class of women who are entirely happy to have little to do all day but ensure the children don't dribble chocolate on the new carpet, or the similarly large class that have historically worked alongside their men in agriculture and in business.

Feminism has become a means of securing a sinecure for a few, using the poor circumstances of a different few to "justify" it. It's nothing but self-interest dressed up as altruism and it's rotten to the core.

Houellebecq:"skewed nearly as much as antis"

I find it fascinating that some people find any disparaging remark directed at a woman offensive, but a far more insulting comment about men to be entirely unexceptionable.

Having said that, my comments are rarely directed at women generally, but are nearly always directed at specific groups ("single" mothers; "career feminists" who expect preferment solely because of their gender; self-serving politicians who pander to them or in some cases, are them). The thing they all have in common is that they expect someone else to do the hard stuff.

My other principal theme is State-sponsorship of the envy politics that is victim feminism. I can see no systematic discrimination against women in any field. As Seeker points out, what often happens is that women want it both ways - they want "easy" jobs that are high status, but they want to be paid the same for them as those who take on high-commitment, high-pressure jobs. I'd go so far as to suggest that many of the jobs that women are doing today are simply not necessary work, including institutional child-care, much of the social work "profession" (it's really just a glorified clerkship in most cases) and several other newly-created non-jobs. As well, much of the growth of the bureaucracy in recent decades has been in areas devoted solely to discriminatory treatment in favour of women, including no less than 10 separate departments specifically set up to benefit women (mostly by employing them).

In today's world, girls are encouraged to go to uni (28% of "gen Y" girls compared to just 21% of boys; according to the News Limited press, this is "closing the gap" rather than creating a 33% imbalance) while boys are encouraged to "take the quick buck" and get a trade. No doubt that will enable them to pay for the young women going to uni and getting a Government handout to do so...

There is a clear division being created between productive, earning men and women who "can do anything" (as long as it doesn't involve getting their hands dirty).

<It's not much fun being included as part of a group you don't identify with, is it, especially when that group is being vilified? Ask yourself why you find the standards applied to the vilification of men are acceptable.>

Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 1 February 2009 6:52:42 AM

I second that Anti.

What a bunch of sookies. I haven't got much time to play with you lot anymore for now so I'll just give a quick couple of responses.

Anti - you say that women get an education the government pays for. Is there any law; has there ever been any law against men aiming for and getting any education they please? The answer is no, of course. That hasn't been the case for women.

Houellebecq: If you didn't agree with much of what the men here say, then one would expect you to speak up. Are you afraid of not being one of the lads? Is it only 'safe' to challenge women, but never challenge cherished notions that hold them as despicable.

James: I already posted links to sites; many American; to Antispetic.
Here's something you might want to read about how the groups are connected. In any case, if you're really the least interested go Google some more.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php

If you'd rather read it in word you can Google and get it in that format.

I saw on one site where a mother who is breastfeeding a baby asks what to do about the father wanting overnight visits. The father already had access. The responses were all about how she should express milk etc etc rather than deny the father's RIGHT to have the baby overnight. Whose interests are best served by putting the baby through that ? I can't fathom the level of selfishness that would deny a baby it's greatest comfort and best source of nourishment.

As to interest in child support payments; I can comment on matters without having a primary interest in them. Personally, I pay for my family. I don't cry about fulfilling my responsibilities.

You'd presumably support the children before divorce so what's the damned difference with paying for them afterwards.

As to loving them so much you work so hard without emotional reward. If that's the case and you found it satisfactory before divorce then there's no rational reason to be moaning about having the same type of relationship with your children afterwards.

Pynchme:” You'd presumably support the children before divorce so what's the damned difference with paying for them afterwards.”

Why would you suppose “paying for them” is so deeply ingrained?

Pynchme: “Here's something you might want to read about how the groups are connected. In any case, if you're really the least interested go Google some more.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php”

So this is where you get your opinions from. The recommendations of this paper are astounding.

“In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO to develop misogynist sites inciting hatred, and the number of growing discussion groups used to promote anti-mother propaganda, it is suggested that closer monitoring of these groups be undertaken by either a hate watch organisation, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) or by HREOC to focus on gender social relations (Bouchard et al 2003). Such monitoring should be used to provide warnings to government agencies such as the Child Support Agency and the Family Court, also politicians, and non government organisations which are the target of hate actions. Authors of hate mail and incitements to violence should be investigated and prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent offenders should be identified on a national security register.

Also it is proposed that the “Window on Women” site be the central information, reference and factual data site for journalists and academics and others to access on the status of women in various areas such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must always be supported by analyses that provided the context, since without it the data only fuels the masculinist discourses. This site and social responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of a strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women’s groups of positive egalitarian messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA propaganda.“

So if men’s sites were to engage in monitoring for, uncovering or discussing “hate speech” against themselves, or discussing their roles in the context of femocentric social, economic and legal frameworks that define modern families, its members should be prosecuted and placed on a national security register. Ouch.

Antiseptic: << ...my comments are rarely directed at women generally...>>

That used to be the case - previously Antiseptic restricted his antipathy towards women to those whom he identified as "feminist". However, lateley I've noticed that he's been extending those negative sentiments to women in general.

What's happened, Antiseptic? Could it be that the personal strategies you employ with respect to women are actually damaging to you?

It seems that you've morphed from supposedly anti-feminist to overtly anti-women over the last week or so.

You really should get over it.

Seeker, g'day -

You did well to read the whole article, but no, I don't get my opinions from any one source. I read and study widely and consider my observations of others' and my own life experiences as well. I compare opinions as well as research; follow the links and weigh up all the information. This is one of my favourite sources of articles:

http://www.xyonline.net/

Financially supporting children doesn't need to be "ingrained"; it's a basic responsibility.

"So if men’s sites were to engage in monitoring for, uncovering or discussing “hate speech” against themselves, or discussing their roles in the context of femocentric social, economic and legal frameworks that define modern families, its members should be prosecuted and placed on a national security register.."

Here's an example of one site that I found by following links in the menz sites (note the site links) - I'd do excerpts but it's too revolting. Here is a write up and comments about Jonbenet Ramsey:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/jonbenet-never-did-get-laid.html

Here's another that I came across while following links between menz sites;

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/every-woman-is-a-cheating-whore/

The next one refers to Marc Lepine as a hero:

http://masculistman.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=misandry&action=display&thread=698

An example of how they link:

http://masculistman.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=213

Here's an article about hate talk and how it's expressed against women.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/sierra/

A couple of points:

1. The sites give the worst sorts of people a rationale for continued abuse of women, children, homosexuals and any men who don't share their opinions.
2. The sites incite hatred and violence. (For example, one of them has an article saying that women who are unfaithful should be dragged out and shot.)
3. We have seen on these boards here how some men are buying into the misinformation - they are not checking the 'studies' or the 'statistics'.

I don't see why men shouldn't monitor hate speech if they can find anything as remotely hateful about men. I haven't seen any women saying that men should be killed wholesale nor any celebrating the death of a boy because he was prevented from growing into an adult male.

cont'd

cont'd:

In fact - Here's an article that men have complained about as being hateful against men. It is sexist and I don't like that (though I like the part about the positive relationship between father and daughter). Read the comments too; plenty of people of both sexes take her to task over it. In any case, it pales against the Jonbenet and other sites and comments. (The link for this came from one of the forum pages on a site posted above).

http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/01/14/lets-play-whack-a-man/

Finally, I also check comments because it's a relief to see men condemning some of the hateful comments too. Men like that help to remind me that they might be self-regulating. However, there will always be some who will be gobbling up the hatred; believing and perpetuating the lies, and acting on them because they feel justified in doing so.

Pynchme:"That hasn't been the case for women."

So? We're talking about today and today, there are 30+% more women doing undergraduate studies than men. That is not "closing the gap" it is opening a massive gap.

Pynchme:"I can't fathom the level of selfishness that would deny a baby it's greatest comfort and best source of nourishment."

I take it you breastfed all of your children all the time until they stopped wanting to suckle? How very deicated of you. There are several models of breastpumps on the market, some of them quite expensive. They all seem to manage to stay in business. No doubt you think that's due to all those nasty, brutish men wanting to rip the baby from its mother's teat, but you WOULD think that...

Pynchme:"http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php"

Speaking of hate-sites...

Pynchme:"www.xyonline.net"

You would like that one, because it doesn't have anything to say anout how men actually are and is all about how you'd like to see them. The author has built what passes for a career out of "pro-feminism".

As for the rest, you really did go digging, didn't you? No wonder you took so long to respond; it must have taken you hours just searching. All that and still no Australian examples? I think my point is made, thanks.

CJMorgan:"Yappity yipyipyipyip"

Would somebody let the pomeranian out before it soils the carpet please?

Pynchme, much of the type of material mentioned in the Kids-in-distress website is similar to what is written in "Who Stole Feminism", "Professing Feminism" and "Heterophobia" also "The Sex-change Society"

"Hate propaganda, bogus and statistical inventions overlooked."

I have already posted links to "Manufacturing Research" and "Perceptions are not facts"

So it OK to criticize and alleged that the statistics that are posted on mens websites as being bogus, yet much of the gender driven research has been shown to be extremely bogus, yet get accepted as geniune.

There are a few books on Misandry that I have not read.

I could post links to some feminist sites where men are really denigrated, there was the SCUM (Society for cutting UP Men) manifesto.

The point is that there some very destructive people of both genders.

Antiseptic I didn't have to dig at all; I just followed the links, as I said. Btw parochialism just won't do when we're considering the internet and connections that transcend territorial boundaries.

James the SCUM manifesto - I thought one of you would dredge that up. It was a piece of fiction written in the 60s - a piece of literature made into a movie in the 70s. It actually was a parody and many of the ideas expressed about men were seen by some critics as a mirror of popular views of women at the time (and possibly still though not as widely, nor are they unchallenged beliefs).

Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man; or anything comparable to the loathing and hatred that is directed at women generally from those sites.

Btw: Cross check the research - that's what I do.

Antiseptic:

Pynchme:"www.xyonline.net"

You would like that one, because it doesn't have anything to say anout how men actually are and is all about how you'd like to see them. The author has built what passes for a career out of "pro-feminism".

- - -- -

What do you mean it doesn't say anything about how men actually are?

I take it you haven't read anything on it.

At any rate of course it's how men are - it's full of articles written by men. Men who understand what's going on. Just because you don't share their beliefs (or perhaps even know or understand what they're saying) it doesn't make you more of a man than any of them.

You're rejecting their views without even knowing what they are and that's a pity. I wish you would read some of their articles with an open mind and heart.

Pynchme, have you read any of the books that I listed?

They were written by women!

How about "Lying In a Room of One's Own"?
http://www.iwf.org/files/d8dcafa439b9c20386c05f94834460ac.pdf

or

"Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts"
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

The article at kids in distress applies one standard to men, and another to feminists. One only needs to look at quotes by feminists such as Greer, Dowrkin, MacKinnon ect.

http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/
This site is much better than XY.

Pynchme:"parochialism just won't do when we're considering the internet and connections that transcend territorial boundaries. "

The US is a different country, with different laws and a different culture to Australia. You might just as well link to sites from Outer Mongolia for all the relevance they have to the Australian situation.

On the other hand, the US example is instructive in terms of providing a view of the extremes of radical feminism, including such egregiously flawed examples as the Duluth model for dealing with domestic disturbances, the Tennessee model for enforcement of Child Support Assessments (including such wonders as disenfranchising men who are behind; a nice way to ensure that there can never be any effective political protest by that group) and a few other examples of State-sponsored feminist policies that are specifically gender-discriminatory. Unlike the various men's groups, the feminist movement is very much in communication across national boundaries.

Pynchme:"I take it you haven't read anything on it. "

In that case you take it wrong, as usual. It is a collection that is essentially polemic in nature, rather that providing any insight into men who are not "pro-feminist". Frankly, it's crap by a third-rater.

Pynchme:"I wish you would read some of their articles with an open mind and heart."

I have. I wish you could post something that actually responds to what has been written previously, instead of regurgitating your own tired, inaccurate and frequently dishonest polemic. Frankly, I think you spend too much time in feminist male-hate sessions and not enough time in the real world.

For example, the current situation in higher ed is that there is a 30+% greater number of women than men entering undergraduate courses. Do you see that as a good thing? Why

"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man; or anything comparable to the loathing and hatred that is directed at women generally from those sites." Pynchme.

You really are hitting below the belt with that one. But I'll respond.

Last part first.

1)"anything comparable to the loathing and hatred that is directed at women generally from those sites."

How can examining and trying to discuss, the destructive behaviour of some women, loathing and hatred? Sure some strong language gets used and in part this because of the image that is portrayed of men by the media. Case in point is an article in todays Telegraph.

The journalist would never write the same type of article that accused mothers of killing their children. One bloke on ABC radio spoke about how is ex, killed the child and herself rather than allow him to have custody.

2)"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man;"

That is really sick.

However there was recently a protest about certain advertising that used the phrase, "The second ad pictures a smiling boy beside this message: "When I grow up, I will beat my wife."

Now lets look at research methodology, Lets say I research men as domestic violence victims and never ask them if they had initiated or perpetrated violence, my research was only interested in expanding the definition and there by increase the incidence. Imagine if I refused to research men in initiating violence.

Wouldn't there be a hue and cry about researcher bias.

Yet this is exactly what feminist researchers do. There was time I noticed that they researched men by asking women, no one bothered to research men by asking men.

Antiseptic in regards to the kids in distress website, it seems to present itself as caring about kids and mothers, yet in the writing there are some very subtle and not so subtle negatives.

I found it disturbing the comments about Jamie Bulger and the boys who killed him.

"Because the terribly sad thing is that two young men, so horrifically sadistic as boys, will be entitled to form relationships and have children. Their chosen partners/wives will not be entitled to know anything of their past, unless they disclose voluntarily to them."

Ok there is no denying the death of Jamie was sadistic, and there is a low probability that one or both of his attackers are psychopaths or have psychopathic tendecies.

But basically what is scary is that this site seeks to create anxiety or fear, for all the owners of this website know, these boys could grow up to be model citzens and extremely good parents.

<James: "2)"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man;"
That is really sick.>

No James. What IS sick is that a man has actually written that about a little girl who died a cruel and horrible death and not only have other men endorsed his comments about "the little trollop" who "never did get laid..."; but only one or two have commented against it. (Nevermind that he attributes both heroic and victim status to a rapist of multiple crimes).

How come there is no male outrage from you, for example, that another man is portraying men this way? Instead - just as he blames the child victim and her mother (she did have a father after all didn't she) - you say my comment is sick. The point of my comment, as you well know, is to say that I would be astonished to have you find anything comparable to those made on that site.

The reason that comment was made was because of the incessant claims that women say nasty things about men. Some women do, of course, and it's contemptible (like in the complaint on the menz site that a female journalist said some men can't change their own car oil and get cranky that a woman can do it). However, that sort of comment PALES in comparison.

It's not just the rough language of the menz sites - it's the concepts about females that are formed by that language and portrayed to others. Mind you, they are concepts with which we are all well familiar - from everywhere on the globe including some of the most reprehensible gender backwaters imaginable.

James re: the DV ads. The ad actually continues to say, "Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives. Break the cycle of domestic violence."

Personally I don't like the ads because of the pics of children but I get the point that they are intended to convey.

Btw: Tell me how Glen Sacks (unsuccessful) campaign to have funding removed from this service: http://www.familyplace.org/Page.aspx?pid=328 , which also provides services to abused men; men who were sexually assaulted as children; and to DV offenders, is supposed to help male clients of that service, or reduce DV against men ?

As to your articles written by women - so? There are conservative women who subscribe to traditional sex role stereotypes, just as there are men who are progressive and confident enough to think beyond the confines they impose. You seem to have the notion that feminism refers to a group of strange women whose life mission it is to vilify men. Feminism is a philosophy - a world view that opposes oppression and which sees the socio-cultural connections and patterns of abuse, control and subjugation. Feminists can be people of either sex: fathers, mothers, all sorts of people who lead other wise unextraordinary lives.

Antiseptic:

1. What lies are you talking about ? Show one. I think you have the lies department entirely covered.

2. I need a link to your stat so that I can see evidence of what you're talking about. Then I'll be glad to comment. Thanks for asking about it.

3. As to not answering questions or whatever; in only two posts I respond to what I can. Is there something specific that you've been waiting to discuss ?

4. Yes we have different laws and culture to the US, but that doesn't stop you and James from regurgitating Glen Sacks and other notables amongst the menz groups, when it suits your purposes.

Pynchme, I once thought that I could drill down through all the layers of facades, false fronts, misconceptions.

I read Myrna Blythes book "The Spin Sisters", in her book she writes that the women of the media tend to think either that all women think like them or that all women should think like them.

This either red-neck liberlism or they are liberal red-necks.

You talk about traditional sex roles, that kids in distress website, ascibes to the traditional sex roles, let me ask you a personal question?

If you are heterosexual, who is it that initiates sex most of the time in your relationship?

I have undertaken study in areas and done other things in socalled non-traditional sex roles.

My conslusion is that inspite of liberalism, even women who ascribe themselves as feminists, still ascribe to traditional sex roles, or behave in such a way, that encourages or influences men to behave in certain ways.

That's a great point James and you're right I think.

However, there is nothing wrong with traditional sex roles - or sex -in my book viva la difference. Yes I'm hetero and been married since I was a teenager to the same bloke. We haven't though maintained any sort of traditional roles (for several reasons) and we've been astonished over the years at the - social disapproval we've encountered. That's what brought us both to feminism - it makes sense of what we've experienced.

The point of feminism is not to make women and men the same or to hold that they are; the point is to make sure that nobody is excluded or prevented from fulfilling their personal potential by formal and informal rules and rewards and punishments that dictate that they can't aim for something because of their sex. Like laws that prevented women from some educational opportunities, and notions that girls didn't need an education.

Feminist analyses simply imvestigate the way that things are connected and operate in society to keep people in or out of certain opportunities and who benefits from that.