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.