As one of the former 'marginalized young men' all I can say is well done to the author. This solical dymanic does not only happen in the small towns but in the large towns and cities as well. My school was rife with the Hegemonic Masculinity described in this story. "This revolved around boisterous, disruptive, and often highly offensive behaviour in which young women as well as marginalised young men were constantly subjected to denigrating comments", AKA bullying. Purhaps the author can focus his next investigation into the direct link between social values of sports and drinking and how it affects young people and the pandemic of bullying in Australian schools.

Up to about sixty years ago football was not the major focus of social life in country town. Churches had a big social role in many country areas as well as suburbs, catering for all ages and with many all-age functions as well as their own sports teams, youth clubs and mens and womens groups with special interests and links to other organizations like the Country Women's Associations, RSL, mechanics institutes etc. An important social role was for courtship. Learning public speaking and social concern were useful for many. Local events were often sponsored by churches, or churches were involved. Going to church was not essential although it was a popular way to meet the opposite sex.
So football for example, was in a wider social context.

Many things have changed this in both country town and suburbs. Among other things, the number of people willing to organize these things as volunteers is important. Local councils do a lot of organizing community amenities and events, but it can be a big charge on the rates and volunteer commitment can be difficult.

With the advent of increasing problems and emergencies on all sides, communities need better ways of having a common community spirit and bringing in everyone young and old, with more dedication and wider opportunities for everyone than just football. Leadership is a key. The media could give publicity to those local communities, rural and city, which are showing how this can be done in many ways. CFA and other emergency services, and adult-youth hobby-sharing and training would be part of this.
Our whole insurance system of personal liability and fear of being sued needs reforming, as it is preventing far too much of vital community life. It would even prevent ‘community soccer’ which is a great and cost-free way for everyone to play together.

The problem is not just with sport and alcohol but is epidemic in society. Feminist have added greatly to this problem by expecting to be able to act immorally and then be treated with respect. Parents without morals have left many young girls in a no win situation. We are simply reaping what we have sown as a society. Women are portrayed (often happily) as mere sex objects and men as dunces by the media. Many scream for the right for pornography to pervert their view of humanity and then cry over women been seen as sluts. Thank God some have the sense to look to their Creator and Redeemer to raise us above the level of animals.

A very clear and well researched article mirrors my experiences from growing up in the 70's.
Feminists have very little to do with this problem, if anything feminists have been fighting these Patriarchal issues for many years.

And unfortuneatly the churches are also complicit in promoting the a male hegemony.

I had hoped that the success of nerds such as Bill Gates and the work of Germaine Geer would have changed attitudes from my generation but unfortunately no.

Yes Runner we should bring back that old rule if a young single girl is raped we should force her to marry her rapist.

Now for the rest of us, having lot of time in a small town, and not been into sports I can fully agree with the author in the most part. How we fix it is very hard, the community as a whole need to led this sort of cultural change. We all need to be moral police. Maybe we should move to zero tolerance, if some break the code of conduct rules no matter who they are they should be stopped from participating any further. The sharks for ball club should be band from competition until they name all the names. The NRL needs to cleanup its act when it come to fighting as well, you still see regularly things that if an AFL player did would see them out of the games for months if not forever

“but it is nevertheless the yardstick against which all men measure their manliness.”

Would this statement appear discriminatory?
“but it is nevertheless the yardstick against which all women measure their femininity.”

The last statement would probably be shouted down by various feminists as being generalized and discriminatory, but so many of those same feminists take no objection to discriminatory, generalized, sexists and bigoted statements, when such statements are being made about men.

The author will probably get their PhD, as a PhD from an Australian university is now hardly worth the paper it is written on. All someone has to do is make discriminatory, biased and negative statements about the male gender, and any university in Australia will give you a PhD

The Author should have a look through their university, and see what has been built and installed by a male, and have a look at who is mainly paying their wages. If the author or any likeminded academics can’t think of anything good to say about males, then they should drop out of their universities and find a real job.

The author didn't visit country towns and remote areas to see how successful AFL has been in giving young men, especially indigenous, a healthy outdoor diversion that made them take pride in themselves, turning them away from drugs, alcohol and crime.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/22/2577942.htm

The author is wrong to base her article on the very flawed Four Corners story by Sarah Ferguson, where it is a matter of public knowledge that vital information, especially from independent witnesses, was overlooked.

There are many reasons why Scouts, Red Cross, Junior Farmers and other voluntary movements find it difficult to operate in country areas. For a start, country people are always poor and although such organisations run on shoestring budgets, the paltry kitties of a few hundred dollars a year cannot pay the pay the increasingly ramped up premiums for the insurance that is so necessary in modern times. Nor can they afford the upkeep for infrastructure that is already there.

Notwithstanding all of these problems, country people do very well with the poor resources they do have. Again, the author might have discovered that if she had looked further. Here is an example:

http://www.cwaofwa.asn.au/events_archives/young_leaders_workshop.html

Masculinity (and footy) might be the bete noir of feminists who are well represented in the sociology departments of universities but it is not the root cause of social deficiencies that might exist in some country towns.

Alcohol and cheap drugs, now that is a different story and there the city lads and ladettes have taken the lead. In the country, a pub is often the only social venue and you might have to travel hundreds of kilometres to get there.

What about solutions to the isolation, tyranny of distance and paucity of resources that city people take for granted? These are problems that are not easily resolved, especially where the main contributor is the refusal by large corporations to pay farmers fair prices for their produce and the insensitivity of city people to the plight of country people, especially in times of drought and flood.

It is almost as if we red different articles.
My understanding was this article pointed out quite clearly that if you do not play footy drink and or treat women as objects there is no place in the smaller community for you and you become lonely and isolated at best and or ostracized. Bachelor and spinster balls are another prime example.

Beefboy,
I thought the article was just another one of those “all men are bastards” articles that are churned out by university academics each year so as to maintain their positions in the academic system or perhaps get a PhD (although a PhD in sociology now means absolutely nothing).

No matter what the situation or circumstances, men are to blame and women are the innocent victims who are being oppressed by evil men. It could be playing football or rowing a boat or simply sitting on the back veranda, an academic feminist will still find something wrong with men.

How nice to see HRS/Timkins back under a new name.

C.J Morgan
Do you support academics to make generalised, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist and negative comments about males. If not, then nominate one academic feminist from an Australian university that doesn’t. In fact, you could nominate an academic feminist from any university in any country in the world that doesn’t.

It would be a considerable challenge.

Timithy/Timkins/HRS/vanna: << Do you support academics to make generalised, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist and negative comments about males. If not, then nominate one academic feminist from an Australian university that doesn’t. >>

Of course not - and off the top of my head, Catharine Lumby springs to mind. Of course, her work is very relevant to a discussion about masculinity and football.

However, we've been down this path before under your previous pseudonyms, haven't we? Now that you've confirmed my suspicion, I have no intention of playing your sad little games again.

However, I will point out your dishonesty when you do.

BTW - are you still banned under your "HRS" alias?

Vanna
I do not agree about sociologists, my current research is on Car-free people in a car culture, and there is a gender component in that.

However, I do not see this article as anti-men nor does it paint women as victims to any greater extent than the men who do not conform to the stereotypes of small communities.
What is being highlighted is the lack of options and or support for any other social interactions. It is sad that nice guys come last (or not at all) and girls feel they need to put out to be popular.
I think this reflects more of our drinking culture associated with sports clubs than small community dynamics necessarily.

Beefyboy,
I consider your point "I think this reflects more of our drinking culture associated with sports clubs than small community dynamics necessarily." justified. The sports clubs seem to revolve around the bar and underage drinking - while I would not for a moment suggest it as being encouraged - nevertheless easily flourishes.

The problems of those who do not join in what, in many communities (I'm thinking suburban as well as rural or semi-rural)is the dominant culture, are exacerbated for those of school age who find themselvs ostracised both during their week-day lives and during their liesure time.

The poster who identified as having been one of those people might also have insight of how this, in turn, helps to contribute to the higher suicide rates which pertain outside of the cities.

I think most of us can, without bias, appreciate the validity of the toxic values which apply in many centres, but how do we find solutions? As the teacher quoted in the article said, academic achievement needs to become a recognised and valued part of our cultural capital, thus raising the status of the non-A-group types. But how? Public service campaigns, more Teacher education, more National academic competitions and events? Whats the answer.

BTW. As Vanna did not, as it is reasonable to assume that any newbie would do, ask what the hell CJ was on about, it is reasonable to assume that he is indeed HRS et al in yet another reincarnation. If this is so, don't bother too much. He has been banned in just about all his guises for good reason.

Another thread hijacked so the few can amuse themselves with negative parlour games. What a waste.

Thanks to Merete for describing what she found in one country town. However from my own life experience and travels I have found that the culture of different country towns and country areas differs markedly around Australia. There is also a depth and complexity to the masculinities (and femininities) that is not found in the OLO article.

Here is a link to a story titled Love in the Bush written by Jane Milburn that resonates more with my experience of country men and women. Jane was a finalist in the Queensland Media Awards 2007 or excellence in rural journalism.

http://rubyhills.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=2

Beefboy
The statement by the author of “but it is nevertheless the yardstick against which all men measure their manliness” is definitely a generalised, sexist and discriminatory statement, but such statements are being routinely made by various academics in universities, and universities are now one of the main centers for bigotry and discrimination in the country.

I personally lived in a small country town (pop 5000) for nearly 15 years and football was one of the main social activities. It brought together people on a regular basis, provided interest and provided fitness for many young men. Better football than driving around in fast cars.

Many of the young men married the girls they met at the football grounds and later raised a family, contrary to how the author portrays the situation in her discriminatory, bigoted and sexist manner.

Drinking is a problem for many young men and women. An increasing number of football clubs now ban players from competition (and/or fine them) if they have been found to be drinking excessively.

In the area of education I have personally known many teachers who have almost zero interest in male students. The best way to educate such teachers to have an interest in the academic performance of boys and young men is through their pay packet. If a teacher allows male student marks to decline, (which is often the case ), then the teacher is paid less or removed out of the education system. That is the fastest way of improving the marks of boys and young men, and it would be similar to fining or removing players from competition if they were excessively drinking.

Academic feminists who make sexist, bigoted and discriminatory remarks could also receive a drop in wages or be removed out of the education system. The author of this article would have to be careful.

CJ Morgan,
I’m not surprised when you didn’t include the author as an academic feminist who doesn’t make “generalised, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist and negative comments about males”.

I also thought you were joking when you nominated Catherine Lumby.

Ho hum, another dirge from a feminist drone.

This piece was all about the fact that young people tend to do well in hierarchical structures and that their peer relationships are often mostly about establishing their own place in the hierarchy. She then condemns that structure because it produces a situation in which some people are not well-placed within the hierarchy. What a shock!

If the silly woman had studied a group of young men in a different milieu (say at uni) she'd have found that hierarchical structures still evolve but that a different group is at the top and the footy players are largely excluded.

In the author's own words, the association of girls with footballers "frequently led to those girls’ exclusion from their own friendship groups", which seems to me to be a female hierarchy structuring itself, yet she doesn't make any comment about that hierarchy, other than to blame the footballers! Here's a tip, dear, women can be bitchy, especially when a girl is successful with the opposite sex.

My daughter started High School this year, which has lead to me having lots of opportunity to observe her and her peers. Her friends are "tactile", hugging each other and giving lots of affirmations of friendship, but all of them are "pretty". Others, who might be overweight or less interested in grooming are excluded. Hierarchies occur everywhere and are often "hegemonic", they're not an exclusively footy-player invention.

IOW, they're a biological imperative and no amount of feminist dogma can change that, just as it can't give women a functional set of testicles or men a working womb. It's about time that feminist dogma moved into the 21st century instead of remaining mired in the 70s.

Beefyboy, the author did no "control" studies or "double-blind" tests. The article is a simple rehash of feminist dogma with nothing of substance. Unfortunately, your lack of critical evaluation is typical of the way in which this sort of tripe comes to be accepted as part of the dogma.

There was much that I liked but I disagreed with the overly simplistic assumption that it's all about male expectations/needs/wants.

The author seems to completely ignore the role female expectations have on male behaviour painting it as a one way street rather than the rather tangled ill defined mess that it is. There is no one simple answer to a genders interactions with the other gender. An element of male toughness can be attributed to the often expressed female liking for tough guys. Just as female choices and presentation are impacted by what is perceived to be male preferences so to is male behaviour by female preferences.

The impacts on those who don't fit are the same but I'd much rather see these article addressing the whole picture.

R0bert

Antiseptic
I would tend to agree, although I think most football players play football because they enjoy the game.

A problem everywhere is that girls tend to drop out of sports as they get older. The fact that they go to the football is not the fault of the football players, something the sexist and discriminatory author overlooked when repeating her 1970’s dogma of “males oppress females”

Another consideration is the huge cost in taxpayer funding to put such authors through the education system, only to produce a person so narrow minded, myopic and submerged in dogma.

2 out of 5 female university graduates do not even repay their HECS fees, (notwithstanding the cost of the rest of their education), and so many do social science courses to only repeat feminist dogma.

It is now a major waste of taxpayer funding.

Again I think the point of this article has been lost.

A study in a rural town found that young men and women who rejected either alcohol, football or both became socially isolated.

Lets dissect this
A study states clearly ONE study this is not to say other studies will not have differing views what is implied is A view. This now understanding of issues is formed by the collection of differing views which may or may not lead to a bigger picture and greater understanding.

Rejection of the dominant sporting and drinking culture leads to isolation.
Hard to argue against that, this was my experience of growing up in a small town, being a chess playing book worm non-drinker (until the city corrupted me LOL)

What is social isolation, for many this is a punishment (purgatory). Therefore it is often the case that young men and women will conform "reluctantly" just to fit in. This is where problems arise if you conform just to fit in, excessive drinking and unwanted sex will probably occur in these situations.( a major issue for parents of teenagers)

What the author is trying to highlight is that, this a problem and needs to be addressed by the whole community, this is not just an educational problem although it will manifest in school age teenagers as their limited independent decision making ability is more influenced by peer pressure.
This article in my opinion is not a critique of all small communities or of education and or sports clubs but an accurate reflection of a perceived social problem for young men and young women.

beefyboy's quite correct. This article, on the basis of of some firsthand research, simply affirms Connell's theoretical position and also fits well with current discussions about football and gender. It doesn't purport to generalise to the wider community, rather it's a case study that confirms general trends that have been widely reported elsewhere.

As such, I don't think that it adds much to the debate. The social milieu that Merete Schmidt describes is well-known to anybody who lives in a small country town (as I do), however there's much more going on in these communities than is apparent in the culture that surrounds football. Undoubtedly Ms Schmidt's wider project takes the bigger picture into account.

Those who decry the article for what it's not only draw attention to their own biases and lack of knowledge about ethnographic research. Such methodology doesn't involve double-blind studies nor control groups, essentially because it is conducted in the real world and is not experimental.

Lastly, I think that Antiwomen and HRS/Timkins/vanna should find a way to hook up in real life - they are obviously kindred spirits, and no woman will have them. Are you guys sure you're not closet queens?

CJMorgan:"Such methodology doesn't involve double-blind studies nor control groups"

Which means it's not worth much.

As I said.

beefyboy

There was so much going on in country towns in the Seventies that even a chess playing bookworm introvert would have experienced trouble wriggling out of headlocks applied by well-meaning people trying to get him to one of the dances, hops, fetes, fetes, home dinners, bbqs and so on that were so popular.

Contrary to the impression some might get from your tale, in the Seventies booze was actually frowned upon or banned at most youth entertainment and particularly from functions held at schools, church halls, town halls and so on. Similarly youth groups such as Junior farmers (both city and country membership), Scouts Australia (Venturers and Rovers), Red Cross an so on had strict rules banning booze from their premises. They still do I think.

Returning to the present, others can comment on the research method employed by the author, however my experience tells me that the findings are way off the mark. We volunteer at our son's AFL club and booze and tobacco are not permitted near the ground. Our son is quiet and an accomplished musician (saxophone, piano, classical and electric guitar). Few of his fellow players would qualify as jocks and most enjoy cultural pursuits. They prefer mixed groups and avoid pubs. There are many young adults like that, there always were and there always will be. It isn't booze or jock-strap masculinity that opens social doors for them it is their own efforts and love of people.

When volunteering we are forever encountering the same families that are represented in youth activities, be that the pre-kindy yard clean-up and sandwiches, the Year 12 band performance, or the university drama club. There are lessons in there for anyone with an open mind. It is quaint that some blame their lack of social success on others. Better to be a victim than look inwards for an explanation, apparently.

Sorry to point out the obvious which is that you have to make some effort too and there are options, even if that is putting your hand up for voluntary work.

CJ Morgan, "Lastly, I think that Antiwomen and HRS/Timkins/vanna should find a way to hook up in real life - they are obviously kindred spirits, and no woman will have them. Are you guys sure you're not closet queens?"

Closet Queen: Gay male who does not admit that he's gay and pretends that he is straight all the time to his friends/family.

It says volumes about your deeply held prejudice that you are oblivious to the heavy backhanded insult you deliver to homosexuals when you sledge your opponents as gays. Surprised you didn't also use 'homoerotic' which is also used by some feminists thinking to humiliate, disgrace and label men with opposing views.

It is shabby and unnecessary of you to twist the stiletto even more for homosexuals who already feel that the pain of coming out is too much to bear.

On the contrary, Cornflower. I have no problems at all with homosexuality - but I do know some terribly misogynist gay men.

Both vannakins and Antiwomen seem to be particularly miserable as blokey blokes, so I thought it might be best for all of us if they came out, should they happen to be covertly gay.

Absolutely no offence intended to the undoubtedly vast majority of gay men who don't hate women.

C. J Morgan
"Connell's theoretical position" is very much the point in question, as that theoretical position is extremly sexist, bigoted and discriminatory.

It could be anything, from country towns to cities, academic research involving gender nearly always starts from that "theoretical position".

Of course what has not been mentioned by the author is that youg women will often go to football matches to look at men's bums, flert and to try to attract a male, because at a football match there is often quite a selection of males to choose from.

Everyone knows this is the case, but not mentioned by the sexist, bigoted and discriminatory author.

C J Morgan, "Both vannakins and Antiwomen seem to be particularly miserable as blokey blokes, so I thought it might be best for all of us if they came out, should they happen to be covertly gay."

Those silly words compound your original error, evidencing your lack of sensitivity and adding insult to injury for male homosexuals.

No matter how you try to muddy the waters, your offence to male honosexuals and your underlying prejudice is crystal clear to others. Similarly you would be displaying prejudice to women if you used one of the disgusting sexual slurs to describe your opponent.

Your unreasoning hatred of men and hubris lead you to make such telling slips. It is cowardly of you not to apologise to male homosexuals for your disgraceful insult.

Such 'off' comments really make others wonder if you really empathise with the goals of the women's movement or homosexuals' rights or if are simply bandwagoning, seeking opportunities to strike back at the men in your life who have rejected you. That would explain why you prefer gay insults to sledge men as a group. Gays are men too.

Cornflower's absolutely correct. I apologise unreservedly to all gay men for suggesting that a pair of misogynist idiots might be homosexual.

Back in the real world, I wonder why Cornflower (who, as I recall, claims to be a woman) so passionately defends a couple of this forum's most prolific woman-haters. On the basis of her posting history, one really wonders if she really empathises with the goals of the whining men's movement or homosexuals' rights or is simply bandwagoning, seeking opportunities to strike back at the women in her life who have rejected her.

For the record, I have numerous male friends with whom I engage in all kinds of blokey activities. However, neither they nor I would give the time of day to tossers of vannakins or Antiwomen's ilk.

CJMorgan:"I have numerous... friends "

Suuure you do, little fella.

Here's a clue: those people behind the checkout counters at Woolies aren't "friends". Hope that helps...

CJ

Cornflower claims to be a woman?

GET OUT!

C J Morgan, "Cornflower's absolutely correct. I apologise unreservedly to all gay men for suggesting that a pair of misogynist idiots might be homosexual."

No, what you did was call posters 'closet queens' to humiliate and belittle them. As you very well know, 'closet queen' is an abusive epithet for homosexuals who are fearful of making their private preferences public. It is a hateful epithet and the way you used it of it made that quite clear to your targets and to other readers. You certainly did not intend it as compliment to gays did you? It is because people like you bully and name call that gays fear public disclosure.

You apparently do not have the sensitivity, grace or goodwill to apologise properly and fully to gays and instead you are casting around for a diversion. I pity you for your prejudice.

CJ " so passionately defends a couple of this forum's most prolific woman-haters"

Perhaps it's because Cornflower does not see them as woman haters but rather opponents of feminism. The two are not necessarily the same. I happen to disagree with their views on most forms of feminism but don't accept that a disagreement with feminism is necessarily "woman hating".

Calling them woman haters is a useful wedge tool but it does not add to the debate, rather it's a tactic to try and silence their views or intimidate others from giving support to any of their views.

R0bert

Oh come off it R0bert - while some people who post here endlessly about gender issues restrict their antipathy to feminism, these two prats have evidenced their disdain for women in general time and again.

Cornflower, you positively ooze disingenuousness. Do you lie straight in bed?

C J Morgan

You are tricky with your fudging, baiting and diversions, but you can't conceal your adamant refusal to withdraw your homophobic remark.

That is cowardly and pitiful.

So until you accept personal responsibility for your mean disposition and bigotry, enjoy your tricky parlour games and have your usual rotten day.

BTW, gays are nothing for you to be afraid of and nor are the other men and women around you - they are most likely trying to give you as wide a berth as possible and for obvious reasons.

People like antiseptic and a few others on this topic need to drop their anti female dogma and antipathy towards females. Their stupidity and fear of women stands out like a sore thumb. They need to emerge from their 1950's dogma and grow up a bit. They provide a good laugh though. Why? Because the backward fools actually take themselves seriously. Pathetic, but comical nonetheless.

R0bert:"I happen to disagree with their views on most forms of feminism"

In what respects?

CJMorgan:"these two prats have evidenced their disdain for women in general"

Not at all, little fella. There are some women for whom I have the greatest of respect, because they contribute much and demand little.

On the other hand are the entitlement junkies and professional victims who I despise because they contribute little and demand much.

With me so far, little fella? I know that thinking isn't your forte, so take your time.

Now that you've got the idea that it's possible to hold an opinion of someone on the basis of their individual characteristics, rather than because of their gender, you might start to grasp that the reason people hold you in contempt is because you're contemptible, not because you're a rather limp male.

Glad we got that cleared up, feel free to ask questions if you're having trouble understanding the concepts.

TZ53HX:" "

Yes dear...

“Some girls were complicit in the sport/masculinity dynamic, but the cost was the risk of being labelled sluts and socially excluded, while the cost for those who rejected it was boredom and feeling unappreciated.”

According to this author’s each way bet on victimhood, the girls are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Yet she doesn’t directly suggest moving to the big-smoke as the solution for escaping either of these two seemingly predetermined outcomes of life in small country communities. The answer seems to lie in controlling masculinity to some feminist ideal. Fancy that. Sure - if an ideology can control climate change, then why not droughts or masculinity?

I’m no football fan and remain unconvinced that such social commentary on small town culture, is not yet another flimsily disguised attack on gender. If the choice is between football and feminism, I’ll take football.

A very good article, especially as it makes substantial reference to one of my favourite male pro-feminists, Robert (R.W.) Connell. Both he and Michael Flood (as well as CJ Morgan!) make me very proud of Australian manhood.

Research and consciousness-raising about hegemonic social behavior won’t really change the nature of the beast. It’s rife in all cultures, at all levels of society, across both genders and throughout all age groups.

However, the more we analyse and understand hegemonic behavior, the more it becomes disempowered and counter-balanced - as all of us beta-humans, who have been sidelined from the alpha-mainstream for many generations come to see that we are more of a silenced majority than pockets of isolated minorities.

Antiseptic

‘There are some women for whom I have the greatest of respect, because they contribute much and demand little.’

Priceless! Classic male-supremacist mantra! The ‘good’ woman gives and gives and gives, while asking for little in return.

No prizes for guessing which gender comes up the winner in this cosy little arrangement. No wonder you hate feminists.

R0bert

‘I … don't accept that a disagreement with feminism is necessarily "woman hating".’

From my own observation, anti-feminism is driven by conservative politics, not the hatred of women. However, anti-feminism uses misogyny as its favourite weapon of choice and thus attracts misogynists like Pooh bears to hunny.

When it comes to Cornflour, vanna (HRS … whatever) and the disinfectant gentleman, I can’t make up my mind which is their main motivator, their contempt for women or their worship of men. I suspect it’s the latter.

Merete Schmidt writes:

"Playing this game came at a great cost to many boys who seemed to genuinely like some girls, but any indication of close and sincere social and emotional bonding with a female was immediately ridiculed by the peer group."

And we can watch those same dynamics occur here on OLO. Where any male who genuinely cares about women is denigrated. Watch the impotent hegemony of A-septic, C-Flower, Vanna/HRS twist any comments made by CJ Morgan into an unrecognisable version of their original intent.

And these "men" are not callow youths in a rural town, presumably they are mature men with some experience of the world. Playing the same game. Yet, unlike the sporting prowess that is the draw-card for the boys who aspire and the girls who desire the reflected glory, this OLO hegemony has no status whatsoever. Here they are anonymous, they hold no dominance over other posters, nor can they control any of the dialogue conducted on these pages.

No wonder they are frustrated: wanna-be alpha-males have to endure the honest opinions of other males and females over whom they have no power.

C.J Morgan and Fractell

Exactly what is it you are trying to say.

The author made the statement of ““but it is nevertheless the yardstick against which all men measure their manliness.”

“All” is a very big word, because it means that the author must have surveyed ALL men right throughout the world.

This would be impossible, and it means that the author has no understanding of statistics (or doesn't care). How can a university run science and maths courses, and then run social science courses at the same time, or, can anything coming from an academic in a university be trusted or relied upon in any way shape or form?

If so, what?

SJF:"The ‘good’ woman gives and gives and gives, while asking for little in return."

Well, yes, but so does the 'good' male. It's very revealing that you find the concept of giving much and receiving little ridiculous - you're a classic entitlement junkie, giving bugger-all and expecting the rest of us to make up the shortfall. Freeloaders are never happy when their scam is pointed out.

SJF:"anti-feminism is driven by conservative politics"

LOL, "anyone who disagrees with my view is a heretic"

and asking questions is bullying...
Well done, Fraulein Hitler...

Antiseptic I have the impression that you give almost no credit to the role of feminists who are genuinely interested in equality. I don't want to get into a game about phrasing but your view of feminism seem's to be almost entirely in the negative. I get very disappointed that equality feminists rarely challenge those who see feminism as being about advancing women rather than being about creating equality of opportunity but do have the impression that most genuinely seek equality rather than a turning of the tables.

By continuously attacking feminism in it's entirity you hinder dialog. Discussion about the points where feminism has got it's wrong is relegated to the backburner for the sake of an all in fight.

I think that feminism has played an important role in addressing some very important inequalities for both men and women. Some will argue that society might have changed without the body of thought known as feminism but we will never know if that's the case. I'm not confident that's the case. I'm happy to acknowledge the important role that feminism has played to give a wider range of opportunities to both men and women. I accept that has come with costs but freedom almost always has a cost. I disagree with those who see feminism as just about advocating for a better deal for women regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation (although sometimes they have valid and important stuff to say as well).

I don't accept that you are anti-woman but I do not agree with your blanket attacks on feminism.

R0bert

SJF: You're not sure what motivates Antiseptic? Look back through *all* his posts on this forum and others. He objects to feminism being an employable industry (as opposed to self-funded lobby) above and beyond equality as recognised and long established by the courts, minister for same etc. He objects to such an "industry" (including actively involved and therefore open to criticism government agencies) being above question, above discussion and above correction, short of prohibitively expensive court proceedings. When he supports women and selected feminist issues it is because these are holdouts, where female equality, or a reasonable opportunity for the able, is not established. Where he overtly commends women or feminist groups it is because thay have met applicable standards of productivity or dedication without asking for government or social recognition (Money$). It is not enough to seek positions of high pay or power. If you are not equally willing to seek a mining or other socially isolating job as (for example) a senior management position of same pay, then you are not *really* seeking equality at that pay scale (the oft mentioned criterion), are you?. In other words, he supports equality, not privelege and political power.

He is not alone. Many who share his views only speak at the ballot box, hence your confusion. Have you ever wondered why a population that is 52% female supports "male dominated" parliaments? When swings of less than 1% dominate policy? Think about this for not less than one full week. I will assume that a reply in less than such time frame is a knee-jerk and not the product of anybody with greater than primary education (merely graduate womens studies, hence ignorant). If you have friends in the Child Support Agency, ask if they are aware of the Ombudsmans report 2007-08. Have they applied the result in all other similar cases? Brought trhem to a supervisor's attention? Surely honeesty requires them to do so?

Rustopher.

This article manufactures spin to justify the behaviour of football groupies. Too many reasonable people audibly questioned these young women’s roles in recently publicised incidents, so the feminist machine got busy to fabricate suitably counterintuitive pseudo-scientific psycho babble.

Rusty very well said.

R0bert

R0bert

‘Rusty very well said./R0bert’

Are you for real??

Unless you had tongue firmly planted in cheek when writing that, then I’m afraid you’ve really screwed your credibility in my eyes … big time. It’s rare for someone to out-arrogance Antiseptic, but old Rusty definitely gets the guernsey. Just what is it about anti-feminism and condescension that makes them so compatible?

Rusty Catheter

‘In other words, [Antiseptic] supports equality, not privelege and political power.’

Well, let’s have this debate if or when women ever even get within coo-ee of attaining 'equality', let alone ‘privilege and power'. At the current rate of progress, don’t hold your breath.

‘Have you ever wondered why a population that is 52% female supports "male dominated" parliaments?’

Ah …. Compared to what?? Male-dominated parliaments are all women have got to choose from, so that’s all they’ve got to vote FOR. Same reason women mainly go to see movies made by men – because men make 95% of films.

And, while we’re at it … have YOU ever wondered why any self-respecting feminist is not the slightest bit interested in pandering to people like yourself who choose to view feminists as greedy freeloaders and speak to them like they are foolish children in need of correction?

‘[Antiseptic] objects to feminism being an employable industry (as opposed to self-funded lobby) …’

ANY field of activity is employable and, if you ever bothered to look into it, much feminist activity IS self-funded. The ‘feminist industry’ is a capricious put-down term that has no basis in reality – other than the trope you’ve probably read on Angry Harry … oh, and Angry Antsy’s prolific postings.

‘Think about this for not less than one full week.’

… And do I have to sit up straight and put my hands on my head as well? What I would prefer to think about – for maybe 30 seconds or so – is this: What weird kind of worldview would inspire someone to adopt a pseudonym as grotesque as ‘rusty catheter’?

SJF
There is an area where feminist have achieved equality, which is in universities.

The majority of students are female and you won’t get a job in a university unless you are negative towards males. However, almost 50% of female university graduates do not repay their HECS fees, now creating a $14 Billion HECS debt.

Maths and science is being gradually pushed out of universities and being replaced by social science, which has no credibility at all, and the acceptance of social science into universities means that other courses also have no reliability and credibility.

Universities purchase almost nothing from Australian companies, and import the lot. They also train students to use imported products only. This does nothing for Australian industry, and although universities absorb huge amounts of taxpayer funding, they return almost nothing back except public debt.

Although a major employer of feminists, Australian universities produce almost nothing of reliability, and now rely upon foreign students to prop them up economically (ie they don’t return wealth back into society, but absorb wealth from elsewhere)

SJF: “Well, let’s have this debate if or when women ever even get within coo-ee of attaining 'equality', let alone ‘privilege and power'. At the current rate of progress, don’t hold your breath.”

If SJF confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, what hope for all other freeloaders?

Fractelle, "Watch the impotent hegemony of A-septic, C-Flower, Vanna/HRS twist any comments made by CJ Morgan into an unrecognisable version of their original intent."

That is a lie, C J Morgan's contemptuous insult directed at gays is quoted word for word and he has refused to withdraw it. Do you really believe that the end justifies the means? You would strenuously object and so you should if C J Morgan used similar disgusting epithets for women to sledge his opponents.

Thanks SJF and Fractelle.

I think it's pretty obvious that this just another misogynist hate-fest from the the male losers and their allegedly female cheerleader.

Speaking of whom - Cornflower, you didn't quote me "word for word" at all. Rather, you pounced on a throwaway line at the end of my post, twisted it in order to try and score some points, and have subsequently avoided any discussion of the actual article.

As I've said previously, you are the "liar" here. Anybody who is even slightly familiar with my posting history here knows that I strongly support gay rights and frequently argue against the homophobes.

Mind you, it's kind of pleasing to know that I annoy you enough for you to bother.

For a real laugh, check out Antiwomen's new thread in the General section, where he claims that the NRL ses scandals are all a feminist plot to take over football.

Well said, Rusty. Of course, poor old SJF is going to need urgent counselling after you bullied her with all those questions...

You expressed my position very well, though. The Feminist doctrinaire position is not about equality, it's about achieving dominance and "jobs for the grrls" and putting the "boys" in their proper place: digging ditches.

Equality was achieved some time ago and all of the Feminist cant since has been about dishonestly pretending otherwise in order to continue to claim victimhood and the special consideration given to victims. No wonder they get upset when they're asked questions.

SJF:"Male-dominated parliaments are all women have got to choose from"

Are women not involved in political parties? Certainly my experience of Labor politics is that it is dominated at branch level by women, while the Union movement is controlled by and for women predominantly. Ask yourself why women aren't pre-selected, despite massive "affirmative action" targets and female-dominated branches and why, when they are pre-selected, many are rejected by voters. Oh, sorry, there I go asking questions again.

SJF:"much feminist activity IS self-funded."

Like the NSW Rape Crisis Centre? How about the CSA? What about the Qld Women's Legal aid Service? The Office for the Status of Women? The Sex Discrimination Commissioner? What about the Union movement? Academic institutions, especially "gender studies" and sociology departments?

There are many women, yourself among them, who are paid to do a professional task and spend a great deal of their time agitating as feminists instead. Self funded? Ha!

CJMorgan:"Youse are all poofs, keep away from me"

Don't worry, little fella, no one finds you the slightest bit attractive.

C,J Morgan
Name one thing of any reliability from an Australian university, (except theory only).

Name one academic feminist who doesn’t make “generalised, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist and negative comments about males”, (and nominating Catherine Lumby is not even humour).

C J Morgan

Lets face it, if your really believed in a fair go and equality you wouldn't be paying out on gays to stir and sledge opponents, now would you?

Antiseptic

By far the most common type of feminist organization is self-funded by subscriptions and donations – the most high-profile being The Women’s Electoral Lobby. They are run mainly as collectives, using minimal professional and maximal volunteer labour.

A huge contrast to the extremely wealthy and well-connected anti-feminist industry that is mainly driven by libertarian right-wing think-tanks (Heritage Foundation, Centre for Independent Studies), with strong ties to the media (Fox News), which are in turn funded largely by the private corporate sector - arguably the real milkers of the public purse.

As for your pitiful list of government or publicly funded women’s bodies supposedly milking the public purse dry, their combined annual funding budget would barely equal a professional NRL player’s salary (how much is the NRL government funded BTW?), a backbencher’s superannuation payout or a couple of spare parts on a military helicopter.

As far as power is concerned, the Office for the Status of Women, for example, is just a minor advisory body within the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It doesn’t even have its own website.

Another of your examples, Qld Women’s Legal Aid Service, is just a sub-section of Qld Legal Aid that services that miniscule portion of women whose income (in combination with spouse/partner) is below the near-starvation levels required to qualify for general Legal Aid. It’s just a sideline service that gives legal advice specific to women, such as rape.

Unless you can do much better than this, please don’t waste my time or your own trying to milk a debate out of it.

SJF, I'm not a "conservative" and I don't agree with much from the CIS, nor does it provide funding to any men's group I am aware of. Perhaps you could give us some examples of their largesse? I'd be interested.

Also, I'd be interested in the basis for your claim that men's groups in Australia are "extremely wealthy and well-connected". The only group of any significance that receives any funding at all, as far as I'm aware, is LFAA, which was set up specifically to support men going through family breakdown.

Fox news is also a US organisation that panders to a right-wing audience. I don't watch Fox news and I suspect that most Australian men are in a similar position.

The WEL was funded by the Office for the Status of Women between 1985 and 1999 when Jocelyn Newman, as the Minister, discontinued funding on the basis that the WEL was a front for Labor Party interests. I have no current information as to whether that remains the case, because it is almost impossible to find anything out about the organisation via the net.

Under just 1 grants program, the OfW provided funding of well over $2million to women's organisations in 2007-2008, many of whom are principally activist in nature.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/funding/Pages/womens_leadership_development_program.aspx

How much taxpayer funding was provided to "extremely wealthy and well-connected" men's groups? Take your time, you'll have to look hard...

The Qld Women's Legal Aid service is principally funded to pay for women to take on their ex in the Family Court.

From their website:"WLA is based in the Brisbane and Woodridge offices of LAQ and provides direct services mainly in the areas of family law, domestic violence, criminal injuries compensation and care and protection matters. WLA also does some limited work in criminal and anti-discrimination matters."

It is my view that the existence of this and similar organisations increases the prevalence of unsubstantiated DV claims.

I do wish you'd be honest occasionally. The constant disinformation simply wastes everyone's time.

Antiseptic

'It is my view that the existence of this and similar organisations increases the prevalence of unsubstantiated DV claims.'

That is utterly paranoid male-supremacist rubbish! Unfortunately, I know from talking to Family Court insiders and police officers involved with DV cases just how much so-called mens support groups are peddling this poison.

As for the rest of your long and unbelievably tedious litany of petty, non-sequitous quibbles, you have not made a single argument that I can address with any degree of respect. You have yet to undermine even a single point I made about feminism being mainly self-funded. However, you seem to be under the illusion that you have - so good luck to you.

SJF:"I know from talking to Family Court insiders"

The Qld women's Legal aid Service will only provide funding up to the point of mediation unless the claimant for aid can demonstrate either fear of violence (no actual violence need be demonstrated) or intractable issues that require a Court's decision. Which do you reckon is the easiest of those claims to make? Once again, take your time and try some research, instead of asking us to take your word for it.

SJF:"you have not made a single argument that I can address"

Well, that's because my arguments are based on facts, not Feminist cant and disinformation. I'm glad you've finally accepted that's not sufficient.

Perhaps you might even consider thinking before you post your claptrap in future? Nah, I know that's never going to happen...

BTW, I forgot to mention the 4 "alliances" of women's organisations provided with unspecified funding by the Office for Women.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/equal/Pages/engaging_womens_org.aspx

according to that website:

"The role of the National Women’s Alliances is to:

* work collaboratively to provide informed and representative advice to government on policy issues, development and implementation relevant to the diverse views and circumstances of women
* represent the diverse views of women through consultation with the women's sector, their own constituencies and other groups and organisations relevant to women's concerns
* act as a conduit for the exchange of information between Government and the women's sector
* undertake specific policy analysis on individual areas of organisational expertise and concern"

That's on top of the $2.3million in specific grants.

How much did you say was provided to all those "extremely wealthy and well-connected" men's rights groups that you claim exist?

You might also let us in on what the "women's sector" that is referred to might be. I thought you said most feminist activity was self-funded?

Antiseptic

‘How much did you say was provided to all those "extremely wealthy and well-connected" men's rights groups that you claim exist?’

Huh?? I claimed what?

I did not say that men’s rights groups are wealthy and well-connected. I said that the anti-feminist industry is. The very wealthy and well-connected New Right played a critical role in the culture wars of the last twenty years, which have directly or indirectly financed a huge network of anti-feminism lobby groups. There’s been quite a bit written on this – regarding both the New Rights culture wars and the gender wars, which were both designed to feed off people’s prejudices (and misogyny is one of our oldest and most embedded prejudices).

It was within this nasty culture wars climate that the largely pro-feminist, female-friendly mens groups of the 1970s and 1980s morphed into the misogynistic, self-pitying, angry, divorce-obsessed pack-men they've become today.

‘Well, that's because my arguments are based on facts’

If that’s the case, then I wish you’d tell me where those facts are. I can’t find a single one in your last couple of posts … anywhere. If there is one lurking somewhere, where is it? Just give me a grid reference.

Oh … hang on. Are you referring to all that slap-dash cut-and-pasting you did? Is that what you delicately refer to as ‘fact’? If so, then I beg to differ.

And as for that pathetically pitiful sum of $2.3 million that these bloodsucking bitches are ripping off the public purse (out of a government budget of how many trillion?) - now I understand why the handles keep falling off the doors in women’s shelters.

But you could have a point … There are poor little NRL players out there that are struggling on as little as a million a year – and there’s only so much that the pokies can finance. And maybe that $2.3 million could have been put to much better use in Afghanistan – like renovating the ADF officer’s mess.

I'm going into a busy period at work, so I'm not returning to this debate.

SJF:"I did not say that men’s rights groups are wealthy and well-connected. I said that the anti-feminist industry is."

LOL, speaking of "quibbling"... There is no anti-feminist "industry" in Australia, but there is a huge publicly-funded feminist industry, with massive taxpayer resources poured into supporting it and growing it. There are whole Departments in every state, with a Minister, each one of which has as its principal function the propagation of feminism and the proselytising of Feminist doctrine, not to mention disbursing lots of funds to Feminist activism, as the FAHCSIA website link clearly shows.

I'm sure all the Ministers for the Status of Women are well-pleased with their decision to pursue a career in publicly-funded Feminism. In fact, I'd reckon all the deadweight hanging around those departments doing very little would be pretty chuffed at the rise and rise of publicly-funded Feminism.

SJF:"I'm not doing too well in this discussion, so i'm going to pretend to have work to do"

Yes dear, we know...

SJF, "I did not say that men’s rights groups are wealthy and well-connected. I said that the anti-feminist industry is. The very wealthy and well-connected New Right played a critical role in the culture wars of the last twenty years, which have directly or indirectly financed a huge network of anti-feminism lobby groups. ......misogyny is one of our oldest and most embedded prejudices...
It was within this nasty culture wars climate that the largely pro-feminist, female-friendly mens groups of the 1970s and 1980s morphed into the misogynistic, self-pitying, angry, divorce-obsessed pack-men they've become today."

With the greatest respect, that is crazy, angry talk. It is fair to assume you don't have a professional background, so what is your role that it seems to involve advocacy, or have I got that wrong?

I did a 30 second Google to pull some 'men's' sites at random and I cannot find this huge 'anti-feminist industry' you are so fearful of. Surely you don't mean sites like these:

http://www.campconnect.org.au/resources_media_and_literature.shtml

http://www.stevebiddulph.com/

http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/

http://www.mhwaq.org.au/

http://www2.nor.com.au/community/dids/information.html

There is a husband and wife MRA site which looks like it struggles by on participant donations, but it is small beer surely.

Most of the sites I found were trying to help men improve their communication skills and deal with their lot and their grief - usually at the loss of contact with children. I would support counselling services like that, wouldn't you?

Please list the sites and organisations you are concerned about and the sources of their funding. Because men's counselling and health don't seem to attract any government funding of note.

What counselling and support services do you recommend for men?

To actually adress the original article, as I had once intended:

I grew up in a country town, yes there was lots of football and a fair emphasis by some on alcohol. but it didn't seem too severe.
About half would never be footballers in even the smallest way, nor soccer players, nor tennis/top swimmers/you name it. We may have been crack shots at archery, bowls, golf etc, but there just wasn't much scope. Once you know you're good, you know forever, you don't have to prove it weekly.

The home of Artie Beetson loves footy. Fooballers like beer. and girls. And some girls like footy players. Fine. I don't believe they don't talk before getting involved, they know exactly what *may* happen, if not often, just like the girl at that footy club in the news.

The rest of us like books, TV, music, talking, the opposite sex. Just like everybody. You *know* you can discuss a given book with a given girl, her name is on the library card.

It is in fact possible to discuss Philip J Farmer's "Henry Miller Dawn Patrol" with a girl you've had a crush on for years with a straight face, because you *know* she read it too, along with a dozen other books in common. and vice versa.

Wasn't that isolating, is all I'm saying. Then again maybe that town was too large....

And to address SJF: See? knee jerk!

Feminism has spent millions of Fem-hours on the problem of controlling the democratic outcomes, but SJF can rattle off an answer in minutes. You should join them.

I *should* have said hands on head. It would have helped (thanks for the suggestion).

I *said* many think as Antiseptic does, and vote. Bitching at me doesn't change my vote.

The only substantive contact many men have with "feminism" is the shitfight they get from legal aid lawyers the day after their wife leaves and the iron fist in the iron glove of the Child Support Agency ensuring they can't pay a lawyer to fight back. Their enforced separation from their kids often hingeing on the sort of evidence-free DVO's (and AVO's fer gawds' sake) that Anti objects to. If the CSA could interpret their own hallowed formula and were competant in standard business accounting, you may never have heard of him.

Others withdraw their uncritical and broad support the more workmates they meet that have been done over by the few worst examples of "feminism" in public policy. Many already refuse to cooperate with the CSA. where next? The only people guaranteed any particular quantity of money by the CSA are the staff. The same money would help divorced women in genuine trouble if available.

To answer your knee jerk assertions about preselection: Tough luck. *get* preselected. Not actually my problem, *your* problem. *I* think only a subset of women and a shrinking number of men support "feminism", and the peak has passed. The reason your brand of feminism isn't more supported by existing parliaments is that there are absolutely no more votes in it. The pollies would turn up in a tutu for a 2% swing, but they know there isn't one.
Cont'd next

I believe that the *vast* majority of men are never physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The rest of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do.

I further believe that a substantial majority of women like blokes (even our idiosyncracies), children and family, and recognise that the single greatest ally they have in raising their kids is their husband. Above government and do-gooder "help", even if divorced, I believe he usually does near enough the right thing for the kids, and women know it. I would prefer my taxes directly help the families of those who don't, rather than be misused to employ the CSA to intimidate.

I believe that "feminism" does as near as nothing for functional females as years of training and effort and post-modern spin can manage, rather than recognising their choice as valid. Instead, it supports the dysfunctional few who, unable to negotiate any kind of (even separated) arrangement with men, attempt to dominate their arrangements in a way that is a sad caricature of the worst, not the best, of male practice. I don't think that *these* are the women I want in positions of responsibility. Or even in the gene pool.

Professionally and otherwise seriously (lawyer, nurse, ambo, first-aid trainer, occasionally academic) employed females with families that I know almost unanimously report that the single worst class of manager/roster-officer/postgrad-supervisor etc they have ever had is "childless career (only) women". Why? men will retreat before "womens business" but the dead-end feminist thinks she knows it all. She means to be boss, with a capital, of her workplace and *your* family. The least "female" females are held up as examples to others. "feminists" know better than females. I laugh to scorn.
Cont'd in 3 of 3

We encounter that type a lot at the CSA, they make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes (even your accountant makes notes, even petty cash vouchers have to be explained in real business, why can't a contractor CSO?) about more of your earnings than the taxman, and cannot add up (COAT team can't even add up in excel). She does so despite clear and just objections, yet She leaves at a dead run at sight of a tape recorder (courage of her convictions, perhaps?). She is the product of "feminist" sociology courses which would rather spiral dive into irrelevancy than address the real needs of the majority of women who involve men substantially in their lives, who recognise that men are critically necessary for both the existence and health of children, regardless of difficulty in living together.

You think my pseudonym is grotesque - so is a male-excluding feminism that does not exist and could not survive outside of the considerable wealth of a few nations, that tries to pretend men *can't* care for their kids but complains when they don't, and objects to 50% shared care in which they do.

Remember, "feminism" *needs* my vote, and others like me. "feminism" has to convince and persuade a growing population of sceptics that it really delivers to all women, and it really has to do some horse trading on bizarre excesses, pre-emptively, just to demonstrate fitness to manage it's own affairs. Start by wondering if an allegation is the same as evidence, by calling the CSA and ask about "ignorance of standard accounting practice". Ask about their right to harangue, based only on their inaccuracies. Is it true that the office of "National Compliance Manager" is colloquially known as the "departure Lounge" in memory of a recent Queensland Registrar demoted to the role? ("fear our call" indeed).

Rustopher

Rusty Catheter:"I believe that the *vast* majority of men are never physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The rest of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do."

Cue Sancho claiming this means your wife "smacked you around (hee hee)" and the Pomeranian claiming this means you hate women while the rest of the conga line of suckholes line up to see if its safe before jumping in with the boots when they think you're already down.

That was very well said, Rusty. The mythology is that women are "better" than nasty, brutish men in every way. The facts, of course, don't support the fantasy.

As you wrote your piece yesterday, WA police were investigating the case of a mother who has apparently killed her 7-month old twins. Naturally, before the investigation can get underway there has to be headlines from the media telling us she was "suffering post-natal depression" because that makes it all OK. The subtext being "normal" mother don't hurt their kids, she must have been temporarily mad. Funnily enough, men who are charged with violent crimes never seem to get away with that one...it must be because women are "better", eh?

The latest figures from NSW show that 30% of all hospitalisations for DV were victims of female perpetrators (most were children) yet the report appeared for only a short time in the press before being "buried" and I have seen not a single page of analysis or comment on it since.

If a man complains of his treatment within the FL system he will be labelled "disgruntled" because "he didn't get his own way", yet if a woman does the same, she'll be called a "victim" and the conga line of suckholes will form rapidly behind her.