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