The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stand up to your man > Comments

Stand up to your man : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 8/7/2009

'Shush girl. Shush your lips. Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips,' is not an appropriate anthem for 21C girls

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The first (and only) time I heard that song I thought that line rather ridiculous myself.
Helen Keller was certainly not mute - she was deaf/blind but anyone with a tv knows she could at least say 'wa-ter' even if you weren't paying attention to any other part of the Miracle Worker.
In any event - I am constantly surprised at the stuff that women will adopt and then hold up as some badge of liberation.
The most obvious example IMHO is the fact that the Playboy label is now much more popular amongst women than men. I still have trouble working that one out.
Posted by J S Mill, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 1:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most ironic thing about this article is the author describing what she finds ironic, without appearing to have any sense of irony herself.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 2:50:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m disappointed.

I thought this essay was going to set off a stampede of comments/links about all the heaps and heaps of ‘research’ that has been done to ‘prove’ that women really beat up men just as much as men beat up women and how feminists have been doing a dastardly cover up on this for years and years.

Or at the very least ... just a teensy little huffy about the irrelevance of any kind of women's advocacy since we all became so lovely and equal ages and ages ago?

... Anyone? Hel-lo-oo?

What’s happened? Has the sentry at MRA troll headquarters fallen asleep at the watch?
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:54:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is good that students have not forgotten how to get a rise out of the pompous crankypants that abound in academia.

Hold on, the little blighters were singing, you say?

Whoops, sorry, nearly lost it myself that time. Yes, of course, grab their student cards and off to the GULAG they go for 're-education'. There are ways of making them feel respectful and thankful.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 9:42:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why didn't the students sing the Lily Allen song (the one that starts with F), and why didn't academic feminists object to it being played so often on the radio?
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 9 July 2009 12:34:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF: We figured if we waited more than an hour you'd get bored and go away. Try it with hands on your head (thanks for the suggestion).

I believe the vast majority of males don't hurt women, already respect "inviolability", don't need further indoctrination, and with increasing resentment are getting sick of being treated like they "might".

The case described in the article is an appeal. The female involved has already had justice. More than she wanted, more than she asked for. The male involved has a similarly "inviolable" right to appeal. If his appeal is a nonsense as Pringle speculates, it will be thrown out and costs may be awarded, further demonstrating the folly.

I'm just not seeing where the problem is. There may be some dwindling amount of unreported violence specifically against women, but since police, hospitals, ambulance, and health clinics have mandatory reporting of every wound that is even suspected of being the result of domestic violence, and many workplaces have guidelines amounting to much the same, I'm sure it is getting small by now. There is also an unreported rate of violence against children by women. Let alone the reported stuff publicly available. You don't need links, SJF, you can read for yourself, I think.

Violent situations are perhaps rare enough per capita to be assessed on merits, rather than by the heavy hand of the Duluth model, in which the male is always removed and assumed the aggressor. Why not the female in a random 50% of cases if the situation is not easily assessable by police? Why not both in 100% of cases, "just to be sure"?

I seem to recall that restricting women's freedom of sexual expression was once touted a form of repression (though possibly only by "feminists", not their mothers). Now the next generation is expressing it's a form of repression/exploitation. Seems someone wants it both ways. Try and tell these sassy young ladies to cover up and see how respectful they are. Remember, telling her what to wear is unacceptable "controlling behaviour", so you may be out of line.

Rustopher.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 9 July 2009 12:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF, what's the problem. You were on sentry duty and had the gender war opening salvo covered.

As for research on DV, probably not worth the effort. I've posted that stuff often enough and I don't recall a single time that there has been a genuine attempt at rebuttal of the material or evidence of research which has demonstrated an attempt to remove collection bias which also shows the overwhelming gender disparity in DV you so love.

I assume that you would use the usual tactic of pointing out that the model is not perfect whilst ignoring the problems associated with not asking men about their experience of DV when doing surveys, of ignoring the problems associated with assuming it's justified and self defense when women do it (but never when men do it), ignoring the problems with describing non physical acts as DV and assuming that only men can use words to hurt etc.

Thankfully I think younger women are waking up to what power feminism has been doing and not taking you it seriously.

Cornflower I got the impression that the students were probaby stirring someone who had made their gender millitancy a little to well known as well.

Possibly the article title put me off, I wonder if the author picked it. Sometimes we do need to stand up to a partner but if it needs to be that way too often then it's not much of a relationship or partnership.

Those subject to genuine DV should be able to speak up in safety (and if a glassing did occur then that would qualify). Those determined to stay in a relationship where DV is present will always have a problem and I doubt that society can ever do much about that without doing greater harm.

Is there any reason to believe that the woman in this situation is physically afraid to leave Bird, that there are indications that he poses a threat to her safety if she ends the relationship?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 July 2009 8:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah good ol' Greg Bird. A guy who trys to pin something he did on his mate and asks 'how do you feel about that?' That's the line of the century.

But I'm interested in the assumptions that are always made about this 'incident'. The term 'glassing' has been used by the media to paint their villain as someone who by definition smashed a glass into the face of his girlfriend.

Actually the true, northern English technique is to fracture the end of a pint glass to make a sharp edge first, then thrust with twisting motion at the face.

But what if (and I have heard this version of events from someone in a position to know) his lovely sweetness and light girlfriend came home in a drunk and angry, and started throwing glasses around (in true adorable, spirited, harmless woman style), and Greg reacted by throwing one back, which hit its mark. This would also go towards explaining the girlfriends reaction (and lets face it nobody really knows what happened), but sadly this doesn't fit in with the image we have of those violent thug footballers and domestic violence in general.

So, lets just stick with the deliberate attempt to disfigure a lover just because you can. Men have form for that stuff. It can be no more complicated than that, these things are normally pretty black and white.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 9 July 2009 9:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think the year 6 girls are so silly for wanting fame over 'substance'. By 11 years of age girls instinctively know that fame, money and sexuality = POWER. Women want power more than anything especially power over men. Look at how much power Bird's girlfriend has. She has the power to put a fit, wealthy and successful man behind bars - all on her say-so. Realising that he is not the orgre feminists claim all men to be, but is in fact a good catch (and excellent source of genetic material) she decided it's in her best interests to defend him. Feminists need not worry though. If at any point in the future she decides he doesn't treat her with the respect she deserves, she will leave and be 'entitled' to over half his earnings now and into the future. With his history no one will believe a word he says. Her word will be taken as gospel. She will be protected by the courts and legal system. She will get the kids; he will get the bill.
Why would 11 year old girls want to be doctors?
Posted by dane, Thursday, 9 July 2009 4:02:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The women of America … cannot hope to get anything unless they are willing to fight and suffer for it."

Please, please, please, pass this idea on to as many of your students as possible. Most young women these days seem to think that feminism means doing whatever they want and calling it "choice". It will get women no-where.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 9 July 2009 9:08:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Sexed up and dumbed down> Helen Pringle doesn’t seem to be able to accept the sexuality of her own sex. Two women alone in a room, one naked, one dressed in a sheet. Who is more intelligent? Probably they are both of everyday average intelligence.

Woman’s liberation makes this mistake of thinking women have to hide their sexuality to be intelligent. All women have bums and boobs whether you can see them or you can’t has no bearing on their ability to top the class in a university test. (Although it might affect the men's ability to do well in the test. That's their handicap not the womans.)

The fact is women have the power of potent sexuality as well as high intelligence somthing to be flaunted and celebrated not hidden from the light of day as though there is something not quite right about the existence of both. If men can’t handle the reality of women being both, tough. That’s their problem one they’ll have to learn to deal with. Helen Pringle shows in this article that she as a so called defender of women’s rights can’t handle it either.

Paris Hilton is eons ahead of women wearing black sheets and cowering behind netted hoods when it comes to the freedom to be a woman. I wouldn’t like to be the man who tried to make her wear that. She’d probably tell him to go take a flying leap at himself
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 9 July 2009 11:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen expresses disdain in this article for Grade six girls wanting to be movie stars or singers. How wonderful that they have the choice of expressing themselves creatively. Being able to sing and dance on stage in public. I saw an item on the news not long ago where two muslim women sang and danced joyfully on stage in very modest neck to ankle clothing and two men thought that they should die for doing so.

Helen who professes her desire for the freedom of women seems to almost be in agreement with the muslim men in wishing to frown upon women doing these things.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 10 July 2009 12:05:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Shush girl. Shush your lips. Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips,'

I think the above line is rather catchy.

The article is really a bit of yawn.

Typically it starts the usual boring way, with a high profile case.
Then like someone with attention deficit disorder, jumps from one issue to another and the another, in a rather disjointed fashion.

Song writers will use what ever they can to build the lyrics for a song, blending nonsense phrases together. It was once thought that certain records that when they were played backwards contained hidden messages.

It was also claimed that ROck and Roll would lead to promiscuity etc etc.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 10 July 2009 4:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is probably not the best case of DV to use as support for the author's argument.

Regardless of the reasons Kate Milligan is refusing to testify against Bird, I doubt that fear of reprisal or ongoing domestic violence is the main motivation. Milligan's parents even supported Bird by claiming they did not think the act was wilful nor a regular occurence, but a terrible accident. Possibly both were fighting and throwing glassware around - who knows.

Who of us really knows what went on in that room? It does seem odd that Bird would try and lie about it in the first place and blame the attack on his flatmate who was, it appears, playing golf somewhere else at the time. Perhaps as a high profile figure it was an easy out to avoid media and public scrutiny.

Bird is probably no saint and this is not the first time he has been accused of violence. He is a footballer which usually means not much grey matter up in the top paddock and why they are all hounded by beautiful women beats me. Each to his/her own poison I guess.

Those suffering legitimate DV usually for many reasons cannot stand up to their man without a lot of support both practical, financial and psychological.

Despite the high profile, this case is not the template for why women sometimes support violent men.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 11 July 2009 11:30:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that Ms Pringle has interests in " Human Rights " Does that include MEN
Posted by oddy, Monday, 13 July 2009 5:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's face it. Beautiful females hang around men with earning potential. If the men are high profile sport stars so much the better.
Posted by oddy, Monday, 13 July 2009 5:20:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oddy, good point about human rights and men.

I have never seen or heard the two things 'human rights' and 'men' used in the same context.

Usually it is 'women and human rights' that maybe because feminists see men as be less than human or consider that men don't deserve to have human rights.

Typically if men were regarded as having 'human rights' then it would seen that trying to extrapolate the Bird case, would be a breach of the human rights of men. On the grounds that is sexist, biased, unfair, prejudical, inflammatory, fear mongering etc.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 5:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James
I am sure Amnesty International would disagree given their campaign history particularly in those countries where the political processes are corrupted.

Are you really serious in your statement that feminist ideology enompasses the belief that men are not worthy of human rights? Could you point me to your sources?

Using that logic does it mean that those who might fight against the enlisting of child soldiers in Africa must by contrast also believe that adults are not worthy of human rights. This is just fuzzy logic.

In those countries there are many more problems and people don't generally have the time or inclination to sit around over coffee lamenting feminism because some women did them wrong sometime in the past.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 2:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James
I am sure Amnesty International would disagree given their campaign history particularly in those countries where the political processes are corrupted.

Are you really serious in your statement that feminist ideology enompasses the belief that men are not worthy of human rights? Could you point me to your sources

Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 2:13:32 PM

Firstly Amnesty International, use to concentrate on political prisoners usually in third world countries.

My reference I should clarify is the most of the first world, english speaking, usually when feminist talk about human rights, it is women and human rights. Men are not mentioned unless they are portrayed as abusers, infringing on womens human rights.

Now what are my sources?

there are books titled

Spreading Misandry
Legalizing Misandry
The war against boys
The sex change society.

There was an article published on this site "The Dissing of Men."

Typically feminists grossly exaggerate certain claims and they do this by dissing on men. Certain recent articles published in the newspapers recently, rely on unreliable statistics and inflammatory annologies to point their point across.

I hypotheses that if men dissed women as badly as feminist dissed men, there would be a hue and cry for blood by the feminists.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 5:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I hypotheses that if men dissed women as badly as feminist dissed men, there would be a hue and cry for blood by the feminists".

I don't agree if OLO is a blueprint for what men really think.

The problem as I see it on OLO is that some posters use the most radical of feminist arguments and make it the norm. I could find as many unpleasant men talking negatively about women and say that all men are misogynists but it would not make it true.

When we lose reason we lose any real means of fixing the world's woes and gender becomes just another divisive tool when the real issues continue to be ignored. Sometimes gender is an issue but recognising the plight of women in particular situations is not spreading misandry.

Many high profile issues affecting men have been highlighted in the media including prostate cancer, shared parenting and fairer family relationship outcomes, depression and much more. Paying attention to men's issues such as prostate cancer does not mean that we are ignoring (say) breast cancer. The same goes the other way around. It is not a competition to see who is the most hard done by or who is getting the most attention
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 8:23:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"recognising the plight of women in particular situations is not spreading misandry. "

It is if men in analogous situations are not recognised. That is the situation that applies in western countries today.

You say that "some posters use the most radical of feminist arguments and make it the norm"

It IS the norm, that is the point. Look at any newspaper article, press release, political statement and you'll see radical feminism normalised. In terms of violence we have had the PM himself telling us "violence against women is never acceptable" while never mentioning the far greater number of male victims of violence. When the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics put out a report showing that violence perpetrated by women results in 1/3 of hospitalisations for DV and that women's violence toward men has increased by well over 400% over the past few years it was buried by the press, with no analysis or further investigation done, whereas if a report is released showing that men fart more than women it'll be all over the press for weeks.

We have enormous Government funding given to women to form "alliances" yet when men form networks we are told it's patriarchal.

When a child is injured or killed by a parent it is all over the news for weeks if the father is perpetrator yet disappears almost immediately if the mother did it. Look at the recent tragedy of the 7-month old twins in Perth. The News Limited Press couldn't even bring themselves to print that it was the mother for a full day, referring to the father coming home and finding his dead babies and his "partner".

Men are expected at every step to conform to a feminist ideal - there is no longer an option for men to set their own standards or come up with their own ideals. Any attempt to do so must mean we're "bitter divorcees" or "misogynist" or at the very least, not REALLY a man.

No one is saying that a lot of women don't live terrible lives, but so do a lot of men.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 16 July 2009 6:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Resources help many but men with breast cancer suffer in silence.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25783798-2862,00.html

It is only in recent years, that men's health has started becoming an issue.

Previously feminists had made a lot of noise, claiming that female health was neglected by medicine. Which is not supported by facts if one considers that in most Australian cities there are a number of hospitals that only admit and treat women, in other words the only patients these hospitals have are female plus or minus new borns.

< Sometimes gender is an issue but recognising the plight of women in particular situations is not spreading misandry. >

whilst this may be true in certain instances, Sue Dunlevy tried to apply the principle that women would be worse off than men in this recession, she wrote her article before employment data was published that showed that the majority of people who lost their jobs were men, not women.

Sure some women may be worse off if the male who lost a job was paying child support to her.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 16 July 2009 7:03:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James
That statistic is not relevant if there are more men in the workforce in the first place which would not be surprising given that more women are homemakers/carers than men.

Also what about the women who are raising their children without any support from their partners? If they lose their jobs in this economy they become "those dreadful single mothers" who sponge off the taxpayer.

Antiseptic, I don't think it is the norm so we will have to agree to disagree. I can certainly see situations where men are disadvantaged.

In the case of child murder, perhaps when women are the perpetrator there are issues such as Post Natal Depression which indicate an unsound mind. This does not excuse the act because no matter the reason the outcome is just as tragic. In the high profile case you referred to, the man concerned was acting in response to family breakdown where the motivation was purported to be revenge or spite.

Where women have been guilty of the same they have received just as bad press. No matter the gender I guess it is the motivating factor that determines how the press portray the incident.

Women cop bad press too. If they are free with their sexual favours women are considered 'sluts' or 'loose' and treated with scorn (even by men who are the benefactors of this sexuality). Whereas men of a similar ilk are perceived as 'studs' and there is much camararderie about the sexual conquest.

Both genders live with their share of discrimination.

The only way to get past all of this, as individuals, is to simply treat others as we would like to be treated in all our dealings and hope that others will do the same.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 17 July 2009 6:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican:"In the case of child murder, perhaps when women are the perpetrator there are issues such as Post Natal Depression which indicate an unsound mind."

This is trotted out every time a woman kills or injures a child, yet if a man does it he is rarely held to have been anything but malicious or at the very best, negligently careless of the safety of a child in his care. Situational psychosis or reactive depression is rarely accepted as a mitigating factor for men.

It's a classic case of the double standard in which women are held to be less mentally stable than men, but still more trustworthy as parents. If the first is held to be true, how can the second also be? Obviously it can't, which is why mothers and those associated with them are responsible for most child homicide, abuse and neglect, yet the Courts still accept the argument that you put forward.

pelican:"In the high profile case you referred to, the man concerned was acting in response to family breakdown where the motivation was purported to be revenge or spite."

Actually, it was the mother who was responsible, with the father coming home from work to find his dead babies and a mother who was drugged out of her mind. Never mind, she was probably postnatally depressed, the poor thing... The Westgate Bridge tragedy was massively reported, yet a woman strapped her 2 year old to her and jumped from the same place only two weeks earlier and got almost no press.

pelican:"Women cop bad press too."

There is a large contingent of "Feminist" journalists, which is hardly surprising, given that "Women's Studies" is a mandatory part of the curriculum. These people routinely suppress stories that they perceive as unfavourable to Feminism. Perhaps that is worthy of a separate topic.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 18 July 2009 11:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<James
That statistic is not relevant if there are more men in the workforce in the first place which would not be surprising given that more women are homemakers/carers than men.>

"That Statistic is not relevant!" Mmmh an interesting point of veiw.

I guess then, that you would only regard it as relevant if the unemployment data showed that it was women who became unemployed instead of men.

I do know the saying "Damm Lies and statistics". It is amazing that some female journalists still trot out the old lie that women are paid 84 cents compared to a mans dollar. Like the saying goes "put rubbish in, you get rubbish out."

It nolonger amazes me when women seem extremely ready to accept data that supports the supposition that they are oppressed excetra, and strongly oppose any questioning of the supposed facts.

There was a program that I only caught the tail end of that showed if you were male and got cancer, that you were more morely likely to die when compared to women. The figures were astounding.

Now if it was reversed and more women than men died from cancer, there would be hue and cry. Politicans would be tarred and feather and be accused of sexism.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 18 July 2009 10:47:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH:"There was a program that I only caught the tail end of that showed if you were male and got cancer, that you were more morely likely to die when compared to women. The figures were astounding."

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=2&ind=68

This gives the figures for the US, which is 225.1/100,000 for men and just 155.6/100,000 for women. that means that a man is more than 60% more likely to die of cancer than a woman in the US.

For Australia the situation is not quite as bad, "only" 50% more men die of cancer than women(in 2001).

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/can/ca01/ca01-c03.pdf

Much of the difference can be explained by the fact that many more men than women spend time working in the sun and historically, more men than women have been smokers. The first situation is only going to get worse as we watch the rapid transition of higher ed into a female preserve while men are forced into menial jobs, while the second will level out as the majority of smojers are now female. Of course, it is likely that as soon as female cancer mortality from smoking-related cancers looks like getting close to men's there will be a big injection of research funding...

As an aside, breast cancer was responsible for nearly 25% of all female cancer mortality and that has been the subject of massive funding and research so I'm sure the figures will be much lower today.

Prostate cancer was responsible for nearly the same number of deaths as breast cancer, yet we rarely hear of it. We don't have a "yellow ribbon" day for prostate cancer and we don't have high-profile sports people promoting "Foundations", so it is likely to be higher today I expect.

"Cancer in women is never acceptable"
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 19 July 2009 6:36:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James your comment proves to me that you will twist the meaning to suit your own purpose.

Think about it for a minute: if there are more men in the workforce than women then the GFC will probably (but not definitely) mean that more men will lose their jobs. Coupled with the fact that in general there are usually more women than men who remain in the home to raise children the probability is that more men will lose their jobs.

Now, do you understand what I am saying in relation to your statistic?

What is wrong with you men getting together and lobbying for a day for prostate cancer or other men's health issues. You are probably right that traditionally we have heard more in the media about women's health issues but this is changing:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/national%20mens%20health-1

I am not sure why perhaps because women traditionally talk more freely about health issues whereas men can in many cases refuse to even seek treatment or have check-ups. Although men are becoming more interested in their health over time as government programs continue to target men.

Antiseptic given your interest in absolute equality do you think we should enforce a law that CEO roles should be shared across the board 50/50 between men and women? That men should do more housework in the case where both spouses work as statistics show that women are still doing more than 50% of the share of home duties, childcare while holding down a full time job.

I suspect you won't be interested.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 19 July 2009 1:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican:"I suspect you won't be interested."

You're right, because your questions are fatuous. If the best-qualified person for the CEO job is a woman, the Board will appoint her. That is becoming increasingly likely, since women make up 60% of Australian university students today and already nearly 53% of all practising professionals are women.

If women want a cleaner house than their men do, let them clean. If women want to work full-time, they have to prioritise their non-work time, just as men have had to do for a long time. The domestic arrangements of individuals are surely the preserve of individuals? Why would you advocate State interference?

On the other hand, cancer is a set of diseases that has been subject to massively disproportionate and genderised funding, leading to enormous inequities in the outcomes for men and women. To conflate the two issues is risible frankly and neatly encapsulates much of what is wrong with the gender debate.

pelican:"What is wrong with you men getting together and lobbying for a day for prostate cancer or other men's health issues. "

Good question, actually. Prostate cancer is an especial problem for men because of the method of screening, I suspect. Women are not often happy about having to submit to the speculum, but men are even less pleased about the finger. There are now other tests available, but the definitive test is still palpation. I suspect it is too late to change the current susceptible generation of men, but a well-supported advertising campaign directed at 30-something men might well help in 20-30 years.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 19 July 2009 3:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antispectic
You mistake my meaning, I personally don't care if there are less women CEOs however, I thought you might given your devotion to absoulte equality in all things gender related. Despite women making up the higher % of uni students they are still less likely to become a CEO. I don't care about this as there are always reasons such as women are more likely to break careers midstream to raise children.

Unlike you I don't expect nor do I think we can ever achieve absolute equality.

My only hope is for some rationalilty and reason without inteference from personal baggage. If you are honest with yourself you have never once on OLO acknowledged when women are genuinely disadvantaged in comparison to men. You all but ignored my earlier comments about how the media and society perceive men and women differently in terms of sexuality.

C'est la vie.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 20 July 2009 3:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s incredible what can be turned into a feminist plot!

While breast cancer and prostate cancer both have gender-hormonal causes, it’s making a false comparison to play one directly against the other.

Heart disease, which afflicts more men than women in virtually all Western countries gets the lion’s share of attention from the medical profession – of all diseases – because it kills the largest proportion of people in any Western population. I could play the gender card and argue that this discriminates against women because fewer women get heart disease, but I won’t because the argument is ridiculous.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer afflicting both men and women. However, of all the cancers that afflict women, breast cancer is the next most common so it gets a lot of attention from women’s health professionals. By contrast, more men develop heart disease and lung cancer than prostate cancer, so these get the lion’s share of attention from men’s health professionals.

Also, prostate cancer has been neglected as a medical issue in the same way that bowel cancer was for many years – because of the yuk! factor. Social debate surrounding medical issues has a tendency to prefer diseases that afflict less embarrassing parts of the body.

You could argue all day long about the politics of disease, but certain diseases capture more attention and funding for a variety of reasons, few of which are ever fair. Leukemia in children, which is relatively rare, gets more sympathy, attention, and most likely funding, than does arthritis in elderly people, which is as debilitating and painful as it is common. AIDS gets far more attention than diabetes or malaria, which kill far more people worldwide … and so on.

And for the record … feminism never adopted breast cancer as an issue. It’s had far too many other battles to fight.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 20 July 2009 4:00:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Unlike you I don't expect nor do I think we can ever achieve absolute equality. "

Ah, well we're in agreement then. One of the reasons I dislike feminism so much is that it purports to be about equality while really being about shifting the balance point to significantly advantage women over men.

Biology made the genders different and able to achieve different things, from reproduction to physical activity to emotional responses to life expectancy, even to the types of cancers and other diseases that afflict us we are more different than similar. Feminist dogma ignores all of that in favour of a doctrinal position that men and women are, despite all their obvious differences, identical intellectually. They still want to have two bob each way so they look for the worst of male behaviour to compare with the best of female behaviour just in case anyone doubts that women are "nicer" and more deserving of support.

What all of that has lead to is the current situation in which male behaviour and motivations is examined solely in terms of how it fits with Feminist doctrine.

"Good" behaviour (deferring to women, lack of aggression, non-confrontational modes of interaction, quiet compliance with instructions) is "progressive" (sounds like a prison-officer's wet dream to me, but I'm one of the "other" men), while any form of rambunctiousness, self-directed initiative, independence of thought, unwillingness to accept feminist doctrine at face value is "reactionary" and those who act that way are obviously "living in the past" or "patriarchal" or one of the many other epithets that mean "he doesn't do what I want him to".

All this is leading at an enormous rate to a two-level society, in which women are to be the professional class and men are to do the ditch-digging. As I've pointed out in another thread, already at Aus universities we see Australian women outnumbering men 3 to 2 and almost no women undertaking trade or semi-skilled training, largely as a consequence of a determined program of indoctrination within schools.

"Girls can do anything, boys can do what they're told".
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 7:46:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF:"Heart disease"

We were talking about cancer, thanks. I'll happily discuss heart disease independently if you like.

SJF:"certain diseases capture more attention and funding for a variety of reasons, few of which are ever fair. "

Well yes, that was my point. having identified this particular unfairness, which has been ongoing for many years, a genuinely egalitarian State should be working to fix it, but we both know that won't happen as long as men's issues are only interpreted in terms of women, as they are now.

Let's face it, if a bloke drops off the twig through prostate cancer, his wife will inherit the lot and have another 10-15 years to enjoy it. Not only that, but another "patriarch" has bitten the dust. In the skewed world of feminist politics today, that is known as a "win-win" situation...
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 8:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic this is old ground for us but you still seem to lump all feminists into the same basket. There are feminists who are very much as you describe but it's not the only form of feminism.

I've gained the impression that in recent years more attention is beginning to be paid to men's health issues (and not just because it keeps us earning longer). I've noticed as a single dad that there has been a significant shift in attitudes over recent years when dealing with schools and other's in the child related sector. I've noticed a range of places where there are genuine changes in the way some issues are discussed.

There are feminists who genuinely support equality of opportunity who also recognise that individuals will make their own choices and that outcomes will not always be the same. I may not always agree on which outcomes are relevant to the discussion on how we are travelling regarding equality but for the most part we are on the same side.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 8:59:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

'It is not a competition to see who is the most hard done by or who is getting the most attention'

Oh yes it is! To the biggest victim go the spoils. That's how the world works these days. Haven't you heard about 'Raising Awareness'? Lobby lobby lobby! Gimme gimme gimme! Play those violins!

anti,

'Let's face it, if a bloke drops off the twig through prostate cancer, his wife will inherit the lot and have another 10-15 years to enjoy it. Not only that, but another "patriarch" has bitten the dust. In the skewed world of feminist politics today, that is known as a "win-win" situation...'

Hahaha. Classic.

robert,

'I've gained the impression that in recent years more attention is beginning to be paid to men's health issues (and not just because it keeps us earning longer)'

Yeah. I think it's because they have identified that men's health may affect women in some way;-)

'There are feminists who genuinely support equality of opportunity who also recognise that individuals will make their own choices and that outcomes will not always be the same.'

They may recognise it, but any unequal outcome is still ammunition for... Lobby lobby lobby. Gimme gimme gimme! Play those violins! for any feminist worth their salt.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 11:54:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I'd one day like to hear from SJF....

The vast majority of men are good people, who don't rape even though many have the power to do so, who want to be good fathers to their children and provide for their family, and love and respect and often worship the women in their lives. Each gender has it's own crosses to bare, and while I'm interested in problems specific to women, I recognise that by concentrating so much on how women are disadvantaged at the hands of the mostly men in power, it can come across as just hating men sometimes. The majority of men are not any more responsible than women for that power given we live in a democracy and most people don't really have much power.

What I'd like to hear from Antiseptic....

Women are gorgeous. I love the way they are different, and have different needs to men in some areas. As society has been traditionally set up from a man's perspective, which was a decent way of getting things done, women 's needs weren't given enough attention. These days society is in a transition of women being more accounted for, involved and included in society and the added input and change can be a good thing. It might be hard to adjust and men might seem neglected for a while, but it will even out in the end and it will all be ok. Women love us for some strange reason, and even though they can have babies without us they seem to want us around, and they look good too!

Alternatively...

SJF....
I wish I had a penis, but let's face it men are really all just perverted abusive potential rapists.

Anti....
That bitch screwed me over and I'll be bitter about it for the rest of my life.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 12:07:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert:"you still seem to lump all feminists into the same basket. There are feminists who are very much as you describe but it's not the only form of feminism."

As long as those who hold more moderate views are willing to let the radical examples speak for them there is only one kind. I have taken several members of Dads on the Air and other father's groups to task for views which are not reflective of my own and i've frequently seen the same from other men, yet in all the time I have been lurking and then posting here, I have never seen a single case of a woman telling another woman anything but "you go grrrl" on a topic related to feminism regardless of the views expressed. I've experienced all too frequently the immediate efforts at ad hominem and some really quite horrid personal comment directed at me for questioning a view put by one of the radicals and never a word of "he might have a point, let's talk about it".

On the rare occasions that a moderate feminist has attempted to engage, as soon as one of the radicals jumps in, out goes the other.

R0bert:"There are feminists who genuinely support equality of opportunity who also recognise that individuals will make their own choices and that outcomes will not always be the same"

So why dont we hear from them? Why do they allow the radicals to speak for them and to make laws and policies in their name?

Houellebecq, I couldn't agree more with your "what I'd like to hear from antiseptic". How many times do I need to repeat that before the numbskulls actually read it do you think?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 24 July 2009 7:56:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic I do share your frustration that the moderates are conspicuous by their absense in rebutting the more extreme views put to support women or to attack men. They will say some great stuff on their own but I've rarely seen moderate feminists taking issue with the excesses from the female side of the debate.

I don't know if that is one of those differences in the way men and women are wired, that's not my impression in other area's but it does seem to be a factor in public discussions around gender.

I do strongly believe that the moderates exist, I don't always agree with them but generally hold the view that it's about which evidence we consider is more credible than a difference in overall views. Both Pelican and Fractelle have written some great posts recently (and over a sustained period). Likewise with Foxy and others who have been part of OLO over a sustained period.

I understand that they will say things I disagree with and I understand why they fire up at times when all of feminism is attacked (or when they personally are attacked). Most of us are not our most moderate when under attack.

I think that we would be far better served by discussion of specific concerns (and points of agreement) than by broad attacks on feminism.

Have a read of the attacks on the the motives of those involved in mens groups at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#146366 my impression is that the feeling I get from that vile stuff would be similar to that experienced by feminists when all of feminism is attacked. That and some of Chaz's comments on that thread are ones which I'd hoped some of the moderate's might have taken issue with but then I didn't often respond to HRS's posts.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 24 July 2009 9:03:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic: “What all of that has lead to is the current situation in which male behaviour and motivations is examined solely in terms of how it fits with Feminist doctrine.”

So true. Here’s a recent example which should be of interest on a number of fronts, possibly even as a rebuttal to more extreme feminist views. I think.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/judge-feels-the-heat-for-acknowledging-human-behaviours-shades-of-grey-20090724-dw2z.html?page=-1

“By all means, women's advocates should feel entitled to condemn Sloan for what he did, but let's not interfere with a judge who is clearly working hard to deal with the nuances of a difficult case in a way which is fair to both perpetrator and victim.

And let's not forget that judicial discretion, which allows judges to acknowledge shades of grey in human behaviour, has been incredibly important in protecting women's rights. Without it, it would not be possible for battered women to avoid jail when they freely admit to killing their abusive partners.”
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 26 July 2009 1:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
Excellent points about seeing things from both sides. Unfortunately the world has become a circus of lobby groups and the sad fact is it became the norm, it is now percieved as vital for others to join so they do not miss out on the spoils. It is a pity commonsense cannot be harnessed to achieve the best results.

RObert
Thanks for you comments and ditto. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of debate which can be difficult but not impossible with rational input.

Antiseptic
I think most feminists (I can't speak for all) have redefined feminism to include equality for men as much as equality is achievable.

I spoke recently to a women's refuge director about feminism and what we thought in terms of relevance to the modern age. Despite her exposure to battered women on a regular basis (her group also supports homeless women) she shared her view that feminism has morphed into a discussion or movement about fairness particularly for the most disadvataged. It has in essence become more egalitarian. I tend to agree.

Although I can only say about the SMH link is that if I was having sex with a man and he passed out I would stop as a matter of respect and courtesy. Maybe physicall the act could not continue in any case?

Consensual sex implies two people and I guess we can argue about the fine detail such as - does consent mean up to and including the sex act itself? If a woman says no at the last minute (prior to penetration) it is considered (in law) to mean the end of consensual sex.

If she is unconscious she can no longer make that call and I don't think many women would say "look mate if I pass out feel free to continue in my (spiritual) absence". Not going to happen. What about dignity. Whether or not you can be jailed for being a thoughtless jackass is another matter.

But I can see why this would be one of those difficult grey areas.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 27 July 2009 8:35:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<James your comment proves to me that you will twist the meaning to suit your own purpose.

Think about it for a minute: if there are more men in the workforce than women then the GFC will probably (but not definitely) mean that more men will lose their jobs. Coupled with the fact that in general there are usually more women than men who remain in the home to raise children the probability is that more men will lose their jobs.

Now, do you understand what I am saying in relation to your statistic?

Posted by pelican, Sunday, 19 July 2009 1:56:54 PM>

Pelican it is not about twisting the meaning, I do understand the assumption that just because more men are employed than women, it easy to assume that more men will loose their jobs.

However if one looks at where the jobs were lost, the jobs were lost mostly in male dominated fields, such as mining, fianance and constuction. Female dominated jobs tended to be protected from the effects.

<It's no secret that men have been hit hard by the recession. From November 2007 to November 2008, the U.S. economy lost over 2 million jobs -- 82% of those losses were male jobs and only 18% female jobs. The reason is because men are concentrated in the sectors devastated by the downturn: manufacturing and construction.

This employment gap prompted University of Michigan economist Mark Perry to dub the downturn a "man-cession in the lipstick economy>
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.516
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:30:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy