Pynchme, in the case of Joe the Plumber he will always be the same person, however if he attained the position of the President, it the position of being President that has the power.

As such this type of power is transitory, ie at present Obama is the most powerful person in the US, that is until he is voted out of that position.

A CEO is the most powerful person in an organisation, only whilst that CEO maintains his or her position. I have meet people who used to be at the top of their field, until some event or combination of events sent them into a downward spiral and are now living on the street.

Socalled Male power tends to be derived from achievements, successes, and recognition.

I know SJF doesn't particularly like Farrell and I read his book ages ago, and if I recall correctly it was about putting forward alternative ideas and trying to explore ideas. I did find the book difficult to read.

<First, because they have often argued or implied that all men are equally powerful when this is not so and second, because men's subjective experiences of power may not match their social position.>

I think Farrell also argued this position.

Bob Pease raises some interesting points, sadly he still falls back on the men oppress women tied old arguement and fails to examine the complicity of women.

Ive just come back from a session on how misdiagnosises happen, such things like an idea takes on a life of it's own, and nobody bothers to question the validity of that idea. Selective attention to indicators that support the idea, whilst other indicators are ignored or dismissed. Then there is gender/race biases and prejudices.

Pynchme:"Are there any social institutions - the economy, politics, religion, family, education, law - where women have gained a lead "at any cost, especially to men?""

Education springs out. Tertiary institutions have a large excess of women as a result of very deliberate policies that have demonstrably disadvanteged boys in secondary school for several decades.

Law is another - currently women outnumber men to a huge extent in the lower levels of legal practise and that will flow though.

Unions are another area, with the traditional male-dominated blue-collar union almost extinct as a result of deliberate social policies and Union power entrenched now in a few white-collar unions dominated by women.

Family life has always been largely the preserve of women, while Family Law has only recently acknowledged any role at all for fathers other than as financial providers.

In front of the criminal Bench, women are vastly more likely to receive a non-custodial sentence after committing a crime that would see a man awarded a jail term.

SJF:"For centuries, women were denied the means of making a living other than through menial labour."

So were the vast majority of men. As you said, "the fact that some Aboriginal people earn more than I do does not change" that.

In today's world, women dominate, either directly holding authority or manipulating men to produce outcomes disproportionately beneficial to women and often disadvantaging men as a result.

SJF:"the pattern nowadays is towards ‘associative coupling’ – doctors marry doctors, executives marry executives, graduates marry graduates, non-graduates marry non-graduates, tradies marry tradies."

Rubbish. There are simply not enough young male professionals to couple with the young female ones. In trades, there are nearly 5 times as many men as women, according to the ABS.

Whatever you regard as the intent of feminism, it has quite clearly acted to create a society in which women matter more than men.

No surprise I guess that the poorly researched Sarah Ferguson 4Corners report would spawn the usual feminist rants against men because that was probably the whole idea in the first place. Good one, Sarah, you go grrrl.

To get the discussion back to footy, wasn't the State of Origin game a great spectacle?

Anyway, for those who saw the lead-up to the game or the history of the sport that was shown afterwards, wasn't it a delightful reminder that footy is a boys' game, made especially for working men? I guess that is why some feminists have long had footy as a target for their spiteful comments and social reengineering - it is a boys' game. This helps to explain why Sarah Ferguson was so desperate to sensationalise a weak old case that had been done to death by police and why the grrls brigade didn't stop to put their brains into gear before swinging the Doc Martens and making fools of themselves.

I was directed to an article that puts the other 'side' of footy - why men enjoy it and what they think of the attention the feminists are giving THEIR game. Admittedly the article is about AFL but for those of us who want to understand the football and sports loving men in our lives it is as good a primer as any. It is 'Australian Rules Football as Secret Men's Business' by Patrick McCauley. Have fun:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/australian-rules-football-as-secret-men-s-business

Antiseptic you say; that it was the same girl with the two footballers in the toilet cubicle the night before.

OK; She agreed to have sex with two footballers in the toilet cubicle, does that automatically mean she agreed to have sex with all the rest of them. I’d say it was them that thought of that in relation to knowing about the toilet incident.
Can you rape a prostitute? Can you rape your wife? The muslims say no. But prostitutes have been raped and murdered. It doesn’t matter if they had sex with two men in the toilet the night before if they do not agree to have sex with a particular man and he sexually assaults them anyway it is still assault. Apparently there are some who still don’t understand that, like those in muslim countries.
Yes I did read Dr. Cannons piece on regret, but it still does not make sense to air that regret all over the media when there are plenty of doctors and physcologists to discuss it with in private.

It used to be (I don’t know if it still applies ) that defence lawyers in rape cases got more guilty verdicts if there were more men on the jury because women would blame the victim in self-defence. Because by subconsciously blaming the victim it gave them assurance that it couldn’t happen to them.
In fact that is why most of us have a subconscious desire to blame victims we don’t like to think that bad things can just randomly happen to us. (just threw that in as a matter of interest) We actually distance ourselves from victims for the same reason. A sense of self protection. Joanne Lees was treated the same way with doubt and scepticism over her story.

I think this might already have been mentioned:

Women can be called:-tramps-bitches-whores-trollops-scanky ho is a recent one,-cows-dogs..

Men can be called:-bastards-swines-cads.

I was thinking about this 'feminist rant' that Cornflower has regurgitated (how could I think you were female eh?).

A tad unfair, given the plethora of equally strongly expressed male opinions don't you think?

So;..I decided that this too must have its own title. I thought of Man-ipulative..nah! Man-ifest/Man-ipest...nah! Man-ge..tut!

Then I had it. And now I'll use it specifically to 'categorise' these 'male rants'.

MAN-TRA! Mantra. An accurate description I think!

And from now on I will use this phrase to refer to the virulent anti-female stance so prevalent on OLO.

OK; As a female I am sickened by the mantra rants that has flooded this topic. And while you mantra's continue your ranting. I will respond.

Fair enough?
_______________________

" Law is another - currently women outnumber men to a HUGE EXTENT in the lower levels of legal practise and that will flow though".

Unions are another area, with the traditional male-dominated blue-collar union ALMOST EXTINCT as a result of deliberate social policies and Union power entrenched now in a few white-collar unions dominated by women". (Quote: septic)

NOT TRUE.

Yet another mantra rant.

"Ginx, I I've put up enough references to the originals toi makie it clear if you were willing to take an honest look at your own responses. Any further posts would just seem to be digging into one of those silly personal conflicts that I try and avoid (not always sucessfully)." (Quote:R0bert).

References not proof. It is up to you to provide proof IF you accuse me of something, and you HAVE chosen to accuse me-so provide the proof-where is your evidence?

So nice to know that you try to avoid 'silly personal conflicts' (!!). (Not always successfully).<<How true THAT is.

Frankly R0bert; put up or shut up