great article, thanx. boys role models are of course their fathers first and foremost, but i would humbly suggest we need to start in primary schools, and we need to highlight "equality" and feminism as something that was never, ever only to do with jobs, and work and pay scales...but as a set of quite reasonable, polite, decent 21st century human ethics - my grandfather always said it was important to "be the gentleman, never the cad"...while the notion of the gentleman itself can and should be subjected to feminist critique..a “gentle”man would never, ever do half the things that NRL players and other male role models think is "ok"! so somewhere between basic politeness and feminist inspired self analysis is a set of universal ethics which all Australian men and women (and grrls)could (must) aspire to, if Australia is not to continue its collapse into a shameless excuse for a decent country.

WTF?

At first I thought this article was going somewhere until I read:

“Indeed, in 2009, nearing a decade after the turn of the new century, gender equality and justice, and women’s liberation seem further out of reach than ever before.”

Let’s start to ask the hard questions.

Rather then ask why men act so appallingly towards women ask, “Which men act so appallingly towards women?”

Rather then worry about “raunchy” but harmless behaviour by young women ask the question - “Which women accept an invitation to have sex in the male toilets with a footballer they met only one minute ago?”

I believe a pattern would very quickly emerge. I believe this pattern would challenge the fundamental beliefs of many men and women.

Ask the question – “Which women find gender equality and justice and women’s liberation further out of reach then ever before?”

'young women also commonly report experiencing unwanted sex,'

Well they had better make more sensible decisions next time. This is purely an education of women issue. You know, making adult decisions and examining and taking responsibility for the consequences.

'what we expect of “men” and “women” in terms of how we should “think”'
Scary. I'll think for myself thanks.

'We also need those men who oppose rape, and who actively negotiate their relationships with women on the basis of equality, respect and mutuality, to speak up and enter into these debates.'

Very funny. That'll never happen. And not because of the men. Anyone who uses the 1 in 3 women are this and that type exaggerations will never get the trust of men. Call it the collateral damage of the raising awareness, standard misrepresentation and exaggeration culture for all lobbyists, but this particular issue is easily perceived as man bashing.

Why do you think re-education is the key? The young men with these attitudes have been force-fed feminist propaganda since they were in nappies. How well do you think it has worked?

Government-sponsored advertisements telling him he's a violent, binge-drinking, speeder with a small dick don't help either. Every message young males get is negative, don't do this, don't act your gender, while every message he sees young girls get is positive and celebrating the female gender that can do anything, and I reckon it leads to a lot of resentment and a self fulfilling prophecy.

WTF, I fully suspect that even when Women make up the golden 50% mark in politics and in the boardroom, there will be women who will still claim that women have a long way to go to achieve equality.

You see once one bench mark is achieved, still another is created, so it will be an never ending cycle and totally unachievable.

There are also problems with equality, in that what is one womans equality, is anothers oppression. Just like, what is one woman's knight in shining armour, is anothers sleazebag.

"Indeed, in 2009, nearing a decade after the turn of the new century, gender equality and justice, and women’s liberation seem further out of reach than ever before."

Can I speak to the Dean, please? I want to arrange for a compulsory enrolment in Modern History 101.

What is the difference between ‘unwanted sex’ and sexual abuse? Surely if you do not want sex you would make that clear to anyone who suggests it. If your decision is not accepted and sex takes place then it must be sexual abuse or rape.

It seems that ‘unwanted sex’ is a new category where women do not have to communicate their decision until after the event. Or maybe it is sex that they participate in because there will be some pay-off for them in other ways. They would rather not have the sex but accept it as the price to pay for what they see as other benefits. In that case they do want sex but for the wrong reasons. What they are trying to say is that they do not like having to participate in sex to get what they want. The problem is not with sex but with their attitudes to the things they want like home, children, security, companionship, success, promotion. They value these things more than they value personal integrity. Many women do not know how to obtain those things without compromising their own integrity and they do not like that about themselves. Instead of owning their own betrayal of themselves they point the finger at men’s attitudes to women. They project their own dislike of themselves onto men.

These articles are not about sexual violence or rape which are quite clearly defined even if they cannot always be proven. There is no doubt they should never be condoned. There is nothing to debate. The real purpose of these articles is an unconscious one. They are about women trying to understand themselves and why they sell themselves for the acquisition of those things that other women tell them are important. Women need to stand up to the emotional blackmail of other women. That is their real battle – it is not with men.

Oh phanto when you're good you're very good.

Houellebecq, I second that!

In addition, I should add, is that women (maybe it is only some women) do not want to take responsibility for the results of their own behaviour.

Firstly, if men do not try to initiate sex, it simply wont happen.

Secondly, the great paradox. (some) women both resent and desire male attention, some beleive that if a bloke doesn't try, she then believes or feels that he isn't attracted to her anymore.

Mostly I liked the article but a number of bit's leave a nagging concern

Like others I think that the authors have a differnet view of the state of Australia as it exists for most than I hold.

" We also need those men who oppose rape, and who actively negotiate their relationships with women on the basis of equality, respect and mutuality, to speak up and enter into these debates." - seems to imply that we are not already speaking up or entering into these debates and possibly makes a rather nasty suggestion about those who are already speaking up.

Like others I have concerns with the broadness of the unwanted sex category and complexity of the idea of "and often as a result of pressure from a sexual partner". What pressure is considered acceptable in relationship with an expectation that the parties are monogamous? I'd assume that physical intimidation is already covered by existing laws so pressure from sexual partners is something else, maybe a threat to end the relationship.

The author's closing comments left some scope for a broad discussion about sexual expectations within relationships. I don't think as a society we currently have a good framework to discuss some of the issues around this.

I'd like a clearer understanding of of what types of "pressure" from a partner the authors would consider legitimate. I think given the complexities of human nature there are a lot of times people do something because of the partners expectations which may not suit their own mood at the time. Often that may involve some pressure from the one who want's to do it (whatever the it is).

I don't think the whole issue is nearly as simple as some would like to make it, the discourse is all to often built around a piecemeal historical context and often with what appears to be an underlying assumeption that "mens" sexual wants are somewhat less valid than "womens" (with an acknowledgement that sometimes the stereotypes go the other way).

R0bert

I think women throughout time have had unwanted sex. I find it better to embrace masturbation. Men may just be as happy to self satisfy but a bit hard without rocking the bed and alerting the other half. If it was consider healthy and normal to accept masturbation then women would not have to lie back and think of England just to get him from pestering for it. Seems a taboo subject in many marriages though, should be ok to say "can I have the bedroom for half an hour on my own" then everyone happier. Afterall usually they do want it more, let them have their fun without guilt.

equitable power is achieved with law enacted by agreement between a women's legislature
and a men's legislature evidenced in absentia with the observation that legislation has "had
absolutely no effect whatsoever in reducing violence against women over the past quarter
century, in public or private".
http://2mf.net/inexpertise.htm

"what young women endure in their everyday lives would for men be considered prison conditions".
http://2mf.net/news158.htm

women suffer while men feign expertise.

.H
You prove your point you really are generation X ,
Where X = Don't understand (others sensitivities) but are willing to slag it off anyway.
Don't know anything. But willing to display it.
Don't stand for anything, but willing to attack those who do.
Don't see further than your own self interest.
Don't have any empathy and proud of it.
don't want anybody to be any more than you.
and therefore you limit yourself to you and your opinion(sic) don't matter.
It's good the authors are the antithesis of you.

and crew
Oh ye of little depth and even shorter sight.

Ladies.
Fortunately very unattractive yobs (extremes) doesn't define the gender. Consider the Bell curve distribution.

My mum used to say "a man chases a woman until she catches him".
I made a lot of drinks by matching up guys with woman by simply watching, body language, glances etc. Ok, I hid my technique with BS about Astrology.

I find it sad to note how many of the younger generation have lost that skill of observation replaced by self fulfilling cynicism.

I blame our impersonal communication both technological mobiles, texting, face(less) book and a ME culture.

A wise man (gay) once told me that "if you want to catch a fish appeal to the fish (girl) not your mates...(the rest is unrepeatable here)

With that I changed my dress sense, toned my larrikinism down, drank in lounge bars etc not clubs and front bars. Surprise, surprise I started to notice 'those' looks coming to me, and from a better type of woman despite my average looks.

The point is (girls too): Psychological fact, first impressions are made in the first 20 seconds and are hard to shake (whether you see them looking or not).

So, dress to what you want to attract and behave accordingly. It might be fashionable but what does it says about you? And look for key clues.
Nothing new there, every good rep is taught a business application of that.
How do you think your grannies found their love at first sight, soul mates

Exchanges like these about gender issues, particularly feminism always leave me asking what is meant by liberation (more than the simplistic - equal pay, voting).

Discussions about liberation are superfluous if they don’t include discussions about men’s liberation, of which one cannot exist without the other. Perhaps we are destined to remain at an impasse on gender matters.

Despite the feminist movement there remain issues about pro-rape culture, consent, unwanted sex etc. Liberation has not done much for women in this regard if one were to believe all the hype.

We all make choices about the way we behave, the risks we take and how we treat others.

Liberation is not going to eradicate some men’s propensity to sexually abuse women. However, in general men appear to want pretty much the same things we do – respect, love and security.

Young men are more likely to be influenced by peer pressures, alcohol and hormones. Assaults and glassing incidents have also increased between women.

You cannot possibly change other people’s behaviour - other than through example and upbringing. It may be that we best spend our energies teaching girls about safe behaviours, self-defence, the effects of alcohol and risky situations.

It is reasonable to argue freedom to reclaim the streets, but the reality is that it is not always safe to act as though we have reclaimed the streets. It is all very well to say a woman should be able to walk freely at night – yes she SHOULD but the reality might be different. Some behaviours increase the risk of assault. This is just a fact of life. Men experience similar risks.

On a positive note, there have been great improvements in the workplace in terms of sexual harassment and the workplace is a much more respectful and professional place than when I first started work in the early 80s. Some of the behaviours at work back then would make front page news nowadays. It is not all negative.

Social change takes time and even in the best of worlds there will always be risks.

Ooohh pullleeease!

The bigest problem women have today is finding a man, instead of a "puppy-dog-boy" who pants and drools and says "please please let me buy you a drink, I'm really nice, truely!" Yetch!

When are yo going to give up on the pogrom against men and hetrosexual marrige?

What a lowed of sexest crap!! Pair of man haters !! in my opinion. On your broom sticks!! and out of town!!

pelican:"in general men appear to want pretty much the same things we do – respect, love and security."

Actually, I'd say most men want those things more than most women and they show it by sticking it out in jobs they hate so that their women can live in the style they prefer.

I don't know a single man who thinks that buying new curtains to replace the 5 year old items in the lounge room is a high priority, but nearly all will say "yes dear" and put the plans for the new workshop tool on hold when the missus suggest they're needed. On the other hand, when she is planning to get that nice shiny widget that she desperately needs for her jewellery box, he'd best not suggest that it be put on hold while they save for the repairs to the fence.

There was some research reported on yesterday that attempted to quantify the cost/benefit of various life experiences, such as marriage, divorce, bereavement
http://www.smh.com.au/national/money-can-buy-you-love-economist-says-20091115-igd8.html

It found that men are much more significantly affected by marriage or divorce than women are. I quote:"WHAT'S a marriage worth? To an Aussie male, about $32,000. That's the lump sum Professor Paul Frijters says the man would need to receive out of the blue to make him as happy as his marriage will over his lifetime. An Aussie woman would need much less, about $16,000.

But when it comes to divorce, the Aussie male will be so devastated it would be as if he had lost $110,000. An Aussie woman would be less traumatised, feeling as if she had lost only $9000."

The research is not to do with the actual financial outcomes of divorce settlements, just the emotional cost/benefit.

That accords with my own observations - women regard being in a relationship as OK, but once it ends they'll quickly look for a new one, where men tend to have much more invested.

power and control in Australia is derived from legislatures.

the Constitution of Australia provides for men's legislatures only to which women are admitted under male supervision.

the imbalance of power and control is that simple.

as a consequence women live with violence in what for men would be considered prison conditions.

if the Constitution provided for men's legislatures only to which men were admitted under female supervision men would be screaming!

a few men behave as if they are terrified of women achieving equal rights with the provision of a women's legislature, perhaps as a consequence of their own actions under patriatchy.

the overwhelming majority of men support equal rights between women and men.

Men do receive messages that sexual assault is unacceptable. In fact, we receive messages that a wide range of behaviours are unacceptable. However, we also receive a series of contradictory messages from other sources. When we see which men seem to be top of the social pecking order, which men get promoted and, most importantly, which men have least trouble getting a girlfriend, we start to think about which qualities are really rewarded in our society. The message that we receive is that being nice will get you no-where. People standing up and talking about how they don’t accept sexual assault achieve little, because men understand that rules aren’t meant to be taken seriously.

This is what needs to change. Women need to take the first step and think about which qualities are getting rewarded with sex. Women whose love-life is just one disaster after another need a little tough love and alot less sympathy. More than anything, young girls need to be force fed alot less garbage about their rights and told alot more about their responsibilities. Us men are increasingly sick of being asked to help women who won’t help themselves.

PS Exterminator: Any woman who is making any effort at all to avoid sleaze is going to be very suspicious of an over-dressed man. The women that you attracted were sluts.

is australia a decent country or is it a haven for ignorance and prejudice? imho if one based an analysis of the country on the majority of the posts here one could not help but rate it ignorant and deeply prejudiced!

While reading this nonsense I had the image of two monkeys hurling their excreta randomly at a wall in the vain hope that if there was enough of it someone might mistake it for creative effort.

Sure makes a prospective employer wonder about employing social science graduates.

E Sykes got something out of it, but maybe that was just confirmation of his/her world outlook.

pontificator,

All you are proving is that you're ageist and fall for marketing furphy and generalisations. There is no such thing as generation X.

If you wish to fall for such pathetic generalisations, perhaps you are a 'baby boomer', the generation who by their own example left such a cynical example of how the world works for their children to observe, and penned the term generation X to slag off the very same generation they taught so well. The type that the advertisers seem to be aptly appealing to gleefully and almost spitefully spend the inheritance of their offspring (who no doubt wouldn't give a rats, and would be more than happy for them to do just that).

If you want to attack me because you are upset about my mocking of your candlelight suppers Hyacinth, just do so directly. Don't hide behind some sort of lazy generational generalisations. Don't blame people either, blame the latest gadgets, like your parents blamed Elvis' swaying hips. Everything was better in the good ol' days huh.

BTW: You sound like as much a larrikin as Kevin Rudd.

antiseptic,

Waah waah waah. Grow a spine if you don't want to buy new curtains. You're always going on about personal responsibility then have such a whinge about that kind of crap. With regards to the shonky 'happiness' surveys that's normally the kind of crap research you lament in the feminists you despise so. Regardless, I'd say it would have more to do with the support systems women and men choose to surround themselves with. ie. Women making a bigger effort with their friends and families, building deeper friendships etc

pelican,

You're a beacon of hope for feminism. Replace the general feminist author's male hating hyperbole with your reasoned pragmatic outlook and the men would all be jumping on board in no time. I think the authors here could learn a thing or two from you.

whistler,

What ever happened to 'absent'!

Yikes,

If it's so bad here perhaps you should move to a nicer country.

Houellebecq:"With regards to the shonky 'happiness' surveys that's normally the kind of crap research you lament in the feminists you despise so"

LOL. Actually, it's a 9 year (so far) longitudinal study of about 10,000 people who agreed to complete personal surveys regularly and to also provide some data as to events that were occurring in their lives at the time. My first reaction was similar to yours untill i read more about it. His conclusions may be way off the mark, I've not seen his number crunching, but the data is very extensive, unlike the typical advocacy "research" quoted by feminists. One other significant difference is that the professor is an economist and this was an econometrc analysis, rather than the sort of rubbery guff beloved of sociologists, especialy the pro-feminist variety.

Is there any aspect of his conclusions you take particular issue with?

The ladies write

'Today’s young women (like many young men) are free to actively embrace their sexuality, and to put their bodies on display without fear of sullying their reputation or experiencing sexual taunts and violence. They aim to determine their own reality and reject constructs imposed by society’s expectations.'

This might be a nice little myth to believe in but to deny the outcome of such philosophy is naive. Just ask the many women in the Western suburbs of Sydney whether this philosophy works. Its as silly as saying that being a stripper is not going to make a man think any different of you. Until these feminist face up to some facts in life they are going to add to the problem of rape rather than come up with some solutions. That is sad for everyone.

No Runner, what is sad is that there are still men like you in this modern world who still think that women who dress how you think is provocatively, ask for rape or sexual assault.

Apparently the weak men of the world , upon spying a scantily clad woman, cannot stop themselves from ravaging that woman? If we follow that line of thinking, why is it that some rapists attack copiously clothed elderly women or nuns, as they have before?

Rape has occurred throughout history, during times when the scantily clad woman was few and far between.
Rape is about power and violence, not sex.

The majority of men do not feel the same as you do Runner, thank God.

Rape is about power and violence, not sex.

Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 17 November 2009 6:22:44 PM

Is it really, then how come castration be it chemical or surgical works very well.

To my knowledge euncuhs or castratos do not commit sexual offenses.

How come the majority of alleged rapists are young men?

Also damage to the frontal cortex from what ever cause, is related to loss of inhibitions. I wonder how many men who have committed rape, have had damage to the frontal cortex?

There is an interesting progam on the ABC about primal instincts.

JamesH:
Men rape women. When those men are castrated they no can longer rape women even if they want to. Therefore rape is about sex.

That is not very good logic. If someone loses the ability to do something it doesn't mean they no longer want to do it. People who rape do so for reasons other than sex and when that capacity is no longer available they just meet those same needs in other ways. They may become physically violent or seek to cause harm in other ways.

As Suze has said why do men rape women who are otherwise sexually unattractive. They are not looking for a a satisfying sexual experience they are looking to meet some other neurotic need. It is like saying people binge drink because they like the taste of alcohol. When you are half concious you can't taste anything.

phanto from what I've seen of the topic it's a mixture. Rapists tend to have a more negtive view of women than most men. They tend to be angrier at women and there are indications that power comes into it. It's also reported that they don't generally show a preference for rape over consentual sex, that they are more turned on my depictions of non-consentual sex than average but not as turned on as they are by images of consentual sex.

It's claimed (but I've not seen much on this) that attractive women are significantly more likely to be raped than unattractive ones.

I think both sides of the debate miss the mark by trying to tie it down to simple explainations.

R0bert

suzionline writes

'No Runner, what is sad is that there are still men like you in this modern world who still think that women who dress how you think is provocatively, ask for rape or sexual assault.'

Wow what a conclusion you jump to Suzi. 'Men like me' nothing like a woman jumping to conclusions. I suggest you calm down. If you don't think that women's behaviour contributes to some rape then you are very naive indeed. I suppose you also don't think that porn contributes to rape and child abuse. Their is a big difference between asking and contributing to a rape by being naive. Girls dressing as sex objects are far more likely to attract attention. What beats me is those who are dumb enough to deny this simple fact. Your personal rage and insults certainly does not change this.

"Although rape involves sexual acts, it is motivated by the desire for power and control over another person
rather than by sexual attraction or the desire for sexual gratification. In other words, rape is a crime of violence." http://www.apex.net.au/~samssa/rape.html

a male will achieve nothing by seeking power and control over a woman who is not answerable to men.

a Constitution with provision for the enactment of law by agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature eliminates rape.

No Runner, I don't have rage and insults towards you, just exasperation that such ancient patriarchal views still exist.

I wonder what you and JamesH felt about the recent case where the male taxi driver picked up several drunk men over a period of time and took them back to his unit to anally rape them while they were drugged or drunk?

Did these poor men dress provocatively and contribute to the eventuality of being raped by this taxi driver? Was it because they were drunk and allowed themselves to be taken advantage of while under the influence?

Should we now tell all men not to drink excessively because it may lead to them being raped?

Thankyou to everyone for your posts in response to our article. It is always both challenging and of interest to me to hear others’ views about issues of gender and sexual violence. Like some other contributors, I am however often shocked at the number of people who seem to defend sexual violence; by saying that either women and men are ‘just different’, or women invite rape by dressing provocatively, or that rape is a rare occurrence and therefore not a big deal - and that any woman who suggests otherwise is automatically labelled ‘man-hater’ or ‘witch’.

Personal name-calling aside however, please let me address a few points. Firstly, that to me, every person’s sexual autonomy is a serious issue. Even though women have gained much in terms of equality, unfortunately it is the case that many women will experience forced sex in their lifetime – this is not something I believe should be tolerated or trivialised.

Secondly, that as many (not just feminists) have pointed out: there is something in our culture at the moment that seems to valorise male violence – and this is not just a ‘battle of the sexes’ type issue (as some posts have described it). After all, it is not only women who suffer from men’s violence. Men too, are victims of other men’s violence – you only have to look at the current concern and debates about night-time violence to see that there is something serious here to be addressed. I do not believe that it is simply ‘men’s nature’ or ‘difference’, that somehow makes such violence ‘inevitable’ – I believe that many men abhor this violence (whether against other men or against women) and that they (like many women) want things to change. However, there are also a large proportion of both women and men who subscribe to this particular version of ‘what it means to be a man’.

What I am hoping for is a discussion about what are the other possibilities? How can we work towards a society where violence (whether against women or men) is no longer tolerated?

AnastasiaP,

'this is not something I believe should be tolerated or trivialised. '

Is it something to be exaggerated? What do you think of the general standard procedure of inflating figures for the purposes of 'raising awareness'? Now normally in most of the lobby lobby lobby industry, the only harm done is a lack of trust and the 'cry wolf' effect. But inflating figures for effect when it comes to gender politics has the effect of getting half the population off side.

Why isn't 1 in 10 women raped enough? Why not 1 woman? Why not retain the power of rape as a word, rather than conflate it into 'sexual assault' to appropriate lesser crimes and give the rape figures a boost as these days the terms 'sexual assault' and 'rape' are used interchangeably?

You talk of genuinely wanting for men to be included in solutions to these problems, but so much is done to alienate and tar them all with the same brush.

Imagine if women were on the receiving end? Imagine if the definition of infanticide was changed to child murder, and then child murder was infused with verbal abuse and used to create statistics of 1 in 3 women is a child murderer?

Some men rape, most don't. Screaming this 1 in 3 women propaganda is deliberately creating the impression there's a lot more victims, and likely more perpetrators than there really are. That's pretty close to man bashing in my book.

ana p - there is a really long way to go eh?

houellebeceq...but 1 in 3 is not feminst agitprop mate...it's real. why not deal with it?...becaue if you don't you simply sound like a woman hater? long term, what kinda society do you really want your mother, sister and daughter to live in? this one? really?

do you really want small girls like your daughter to be constantly sexualised in junk mail catalogues (forget Bill Henson have a look at Target & Big W.!!)..do you want your sister to be date raped in the student union bar? do you want your mother to be attacked in her home by someone posing as a meter reader? i mean really is that what you want?....i don't think so...but you sure sound as if you do..because instead of responding in a rational way you instantly see women trying to negociate with you on equal terms as a threat. get over it, and have a chat with women, don't be so afraid, they really don't want to hurt you, they just want to talk.

<Founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, put it even better in the New Scientist a few months ago when he said: "The most important thing we can do as individuals is to think. Instead of responding with your gut reaction, get the facts, get a complete picture of the problem and the possible solutions." >

<"As an exercise take one of your strongly held opinions and challenge it. Spend a week, or better a month, researching it. You may find that you were mistaken. And if it turns out you were right, then so much the better," said Wales.>

< "I can't see many people doing it, but wouldn't it be great to start any argument with an agreed set of facts, before disputing opinions?">

Now for starters, chemical castration is a method used to treat some sexual offenders and it works very well provided they continue to take their medication.

I hypothese, that if all males between the ages of 14 to 24 were to be chemically castrated, the rates of alleged sexual by males would plumment.

The other advantage would be that the level of male violence against each other could also possibly plumment.

I agree with AnastasiaP, that we should continue to work towards a society that does not tolerate violence agianst any person, regardless of gender.

Runner, phanto, Robert, you do raise valid points, that word limits dont allow for much exploration.

Suzonline, male rape is very much underreported problem.

AnastasiaP:
“What I am hoping for is a discussion about what are the other possibilities? How can we work towards a society where violence (whether against women or men) is no longer tolerated?”

There is absolutely no way anyone could have inferred this from the article that you wrote.

Violence is not tolerated. There are and should be consequences for behaving violently. This is one of society’s core values. Another core value is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. There has to be proof. The problem is that a great deal of aggression cannot be proven to those who are given the task of administering consequences and so it goes unpunished in the way it would be if it could be proven. There seems no way around this unless we do away with the need for proof and just take the victim’s word for it.

The fact is that there can be consequences of violent behaviour which is not provable but which involve the victim taking a stance. Many women know this but are reluctant to take that stance because they are afraid of the consequences for themselves. Women have to choose between their safety and their desire to be in situations where men can take advantage of the fact that any violence cannot be proven. Many women are not prepared to make that choice in favour of their own safety and the real question is why not.

If men are as bad as these articles make out then why do women consistently put themselves in a position where they are at a distinct disadvantage? What drives them to ignore the fundamental need to be safe? What could be more important than that?

While women wait for men to change they could prove they are genuine by changing their own behaviour to make life much safer for themselves but the cost to them seems too high to pay so they continue to try and get men to change. The problem women have is that they value these other things more than they value their own well-being.

Yikes,

Nice hysterical use of hyperbole. Believe everything you read do you? The use of the term 'sexual assault' is deliberately ambiguous. Were 1 in 3 women raped, or were 1 in 3 women pinched on the bum? Who knows? All I'm asking is for the word 'rape' to retain it's status as a heinous crime, and for it not to be watered down or the figures exaggerated.

Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between wanting honesty about gender violence and condoning it.

The author wants

'to advocate for a zero tolerance to all forms of gender violence and inequality.'

But, apparently female violence doesn't count as 'gender violence', as it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Does she condone female violence as you accuse me of condoning male violence? The levels of female violence are hardly insignificant...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9960605/Male-Victims-of-Domestic-Abuse-Key-Statistics

The Authors also want men 'to speak up and enter into these debates'.

As I am here.

But as I said, the example of the White Ribbon Day's campaign last year inhibits a lot of men from doing this...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15904162/Domestic-violence-the-other-half-of-the-story

1 in 3 boys think it's ok to hit a girl huh? Not so it seems.

If it were serious about getting men onside, the White Ribbon Foundation would apologise for this false assertion and correct the record, giving it as much publicity as the original false assertion. Maybe it could have added this retraction to this years campaign.

Rather it decided to leave young boys with this false stigma for it's own POLITICAL ends. A whole generation of school aged boys labelled like this. I will be watching closely this year to check up on all their claims.

As the author says,

'Perhaps then, we can imagine and create a more robust reality that is not skewed towards distorted expectations of women and men'

What about the distorted 'reality' of women and men that is created by the constant distortion of statistics for the purposes of 'raising awareness'?

AP
Thanks for responding. I don't know why violence is increasing. It appears to be an increasing problem probably fuelled by the increased consumption of alcohol, family breakdown and disenfranchisement of youth, particularly amongst minority groups.

Any program that seeks to reduce violence has to be an inclusive effort involving men and women for men and women (and children).

Anti
I don't know how you can make firm generalisations about how much more or less women or men need respect, love or security. If you think all women care about are curtains and carpets, that we are all high maintenance contributing little else to our communities or families, then you need to get out more and meet some new people.

Houlley
Please don't make me a beacon. Beacons tend to become dazzled by their own light while the ships are crashing against the rocks. Most of life is just as you put it, pragmatic common sense.

I wonder if we should dispense with the term feminism and start a clean slate, thinking whollistically as humanists or humanitarians.

Much of the issues of violence (IMO) centres on the breakdown of family and the rush to become an economy first and foremost. Lack of respect for others, failure to raise children in loving and secure environments, demise of manners, and most importantly, over-commercialisation.

We have become consumers first and citizens second. It pervades the media and advertising - "You're worth it". There is a big difference between instilling confidence and self-esteem and over-emphasising the importance of self.

How we instil those values of respect for others I don't know but it needs to start in the home and maybe we are too late and the fixes will be bandaids rather than cures.

phanto...keeping a women locked up indoors forever would certainly lower the instances of sexual violence. and men would not have to change. but what happens if they wanna go shopping, or take their kids to school, or go out drinking on their birthday....i mean listen to yourself.

again...don't be frightened, women don't want to hurt you, they just want a chat about how you can help.

Sykes if you are serious about wanting to reduce aggression in the world you might begin with your own behaviour. Putting people down by using patronising language and behaving like a drama queen are two ways of perpetrating the status quo. The aim in both instances is to try and hurt someone simply because they disagree with you. Sometimes that behaviour can do more damage than being physically violent.

The authors of this article are just being opportunistic. Whenever the media report a case of sexual abuse or in this case bad attitudes to women it is seized upon by women like these authors who then conclude that most men are like those being reported about. It is this pathetic logic that annoys most men. We are the victims of a very different kind of aggression where people distort reason in order to promote a personal agenda.

Using the same logic you could say that some men commit murder therefore it is likely that most men are murderers. You could say the same about women murderers. It is this absolute disregard for basic human fairness and justice in reporting the truth that makes a mockery of suggestions that these women are trying to find a solution to the problem. Which version of the problem is it? Their version or the version held to by people who respect reason and logic as the cornerstone of behaviour between equals.

There are some men who indulge in sexual violence or abuse or rape. To deduce from that that most men have bad attitudes to women is just plain dishonest. It doesn’t matter what their problem is until these women learn to be honest and to treat men with respect by following the norms of human decency then they will never be listened to. I suspect from their attitudes towards men that finding an answer to the problem of why some men are sexually abusive is not their real aim.

Phanto I often enjoy reading your posts and considering your POV. Having done that, I can't agree with the thrust of your last post.

Phanto: <"It doesn’t matter what their problem is until these women learn to be honest and to treat men with respect by following the norms of human decency then they will never be listened to.">

So, unless men obtain some level of respect that men in general deem appropriate, women cannot expect even men who don't rape or abuse women, to express disapproval of those who do.

Sounds very Taliban to me.

Either you disapprove of men who rape and abuse women (and other men and children of both sexes) or you don't.

If men oppose those behaviours - please say so.

Men who won't and don't openly and unconditionally condemn such behaviour, are by default allowing it to continue; ie: they have a bad attitude to women.

Pynchme:"unless men obtain some level of respect that men in general deem appropriate, women cannot expect even men who don't rape or abuse women, to express disapproval of those who do."

Sounds about right, especially given that any time a man says anything that is not fulsomely supportive of the most extreme misandry he's labelled misogynist by the likes of you and the authors of this article.

The Feminist movement and the whole push to reduce sexual assaults against women was based on the notion that women are worthy of respect and that their views should be listened to. Now we have you ridiculing phanto for daring to suggest that the same thing may be applicable to men.

As I said, you never met a man you weren't prepared to despise on sight. I can only put it down to penis envy.

Pelican:"If you think all women care about are curtains and carpets"

Not at all, but let's face it, who makes those decisions in your home? Who decides the decision even needs to be made? I bet your hubby has a great line in nodding into his paper when the subject is raised.

The point, of course, is that on the whole men invest a great deal more into a marriage than women or feminist-ideologues would have us believe. We feel the loss of a spouse more deeply and we take longer to get over it than women do. Previous studies have shown the same thing. Perhaps the difference is down to differences in socialising outside the home, as Houellebecq suggests, but it exists.

The usual response from the nitwits is "oh, he's just bitter cos the wife left him", implying "he must be a real loser", when in fact he's expressing a genuinely-held sense of bereavement.

Divorce is initiated by women in about 80% of cases in this country, usually without any context of violence in the home. It is an epidemic of violence against men.

pynchme,

Why is it so important that men 'express disapproval' all the time for what other men do? It is taken as read that women disapprove of rape. That you don't think it is taken as read that most men disapprove of rape means that you think that men are somehow responsible as a gender, and you see us as all the same entity. I refuse to apologise for my gender, but obviously like 99% of men I disapprove of rape.

antiseptic,

'.... It is an epidemic of violence against men.'

WTF? Violence against men? That's the kind of melodramatic hyperbole used all the time by the feminists. It's even better than 'regretted sex' or 'unwated sex' being thrown in there with rape.

'The usual response from the nitwits is "oh, he's just bitter cos the wife left him", implying "he must be a real loser", when in fact he's expressing a genuinely-held sense of bereavement.'

I suspect you are right that many women probably don't appreciate the depth of men's feelings (maybe that's why they leave), but that's probably because men don't show them. But bitterness is easy to spot, and no offence, but to me you seem quite bitter. So does pynchme though, you make a great pair.

'Not at all, but let's face it, who makes those decisions in your home?'

Haha, I've been watching all these renovation/relocation shows from the UK because I miss the place at times. Now they always interview what the husband and wife want at the start and quite often it's different, or they're buying one house for one and another for the other in a different town near work. Can you guess who ALWAYS gets their way, and where the budget ALWAYS gets spent?

As I said before though, the men need to grow some balls. I suppose that makes me misogynist wanting there to be some compromise though.

BTW: The argument is very compelling when you relate it to gender wage gaps. There's no denying that whatever men and women earn, the women do most of the spending.

Houellebecq:"That's the kind of melodramatic hyperbole used all the time by the feminists."

Yep. Good, wasn't it?

Pynchme I doubt that I could make it any clearer than I have done in previous posts that rape and sexual abuse should never be condoned.

What I am saying is that if women have a problem with men’s behaviour there are respectful ways and disrespectful ways of trying to deal with it. When any group tries to solve their problem by abusing the norms of logic and reason to which we adhere as mature and equal adults they should not be listened to. If they have a reasonable argument they should present it in a reasonable way. When they don’t do that then it is natural to suspect they are trying push an agenda which is unreasonable. It is not what they say but the way that they say it.

The agenda here is to make most men feel bad and to take responsibility for the behaviour of some men. When you try and force guilt upon someone who has no reason to be guilty then you are acting aggressively. That is what these articles try and do because they cannot come up with a reasonable argument. Some men do behave badly that is a fact that no one can deny. That is the problem. The problem is not the attitudes of most men.

How will those some men change? Certainly not by women trying to force most men to feel guilty for something they have not done. Men do bad things and so do women. That is not news and it does not need to be debated. Nor will those some men change by being told to change by women or other men. They have to admit they have a problem first. You would not expect an alcoholic to stop drinking just because you tell him to. Those men know what they do is wrong because they have a conscience like everyone else. How do you stop men and women from doing the wrong thing in any situation – that is the issue.

Hi Phanto,

Just for now I'm offering some opinions from men on why they've chosen to adopt a pro feminist position.

http://www.xyonline.net/category/article-content/mens-fathers-rights

http://www.nomas.org/tenets

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/Connell-bp.pdf

Thanks for your responses.

E.Sykes - Hiya. Do you have any other literature from fellas on the benefits for men of working with women on these issues ? I always enjoy seeing your posts too; but confess that I need you to elaborate your point so that I can try to understand what's involved.

Pynchme, most of what it demonstrated is how far some and especially Michael Flood go to demonise the fathers groups. You never see the same kind of material from him attacking the extremes of the mothers groups who have often pushed and dishonest and genderised view of child abuse for their own benefit.

Rather than paying attention to the vital role some fathers/mens groups go in helping men through an incredibly traumatic time Flood and others attack the groups ruthlessly. I had support from one through a period where I did not no where else to turn, when my ex was trying all sorts of stunts and manipulations to change child custody arrangements to suit her lifestyle and handout preferences regardless of the impact on myself or my son. At no stage did I recieve any encouragement to do wrong, to intimidate, to lie. Rather I got advice on what options I had, I got the reminder that countinuing to be the best I could be often pays out in the long run (kids grow up and often work out who played the nasty games). There were some pretty angry men around (and mostly with very good cause) but my impression was that the support they got helped them make better choices about how they dealt with terrible situations.

There are examples where some men assoiated with fathers groups have done extreme stuff, pushing people into blatently unfair no-win situations tends to do that to some. That does not make it OK but it should be cause to consider why it's happened.

I think a lot of the issues which men complain about in family law are paternalistic in nature (women are and should be the prime carers etc) but while all to often (but not always) feminists are seen as defenders of that system feminism is seen as sexist.

I'll take Flood and others like him seriously when I see them applying the same standards to mothers groups that they apply to fathers groups but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

R0bert

Pynchme,citing Michael Flood in any context is admitting you don't like facts. Yes, I realise he's pro-feminist, but sadly, he's far from pro-truth.

I did read the third link you gave, which is a report published on the UN site, but which the author is careful to state is his personal view, not an officially-sanctioned UN position.

He makes the following bald statement, which I'd like your comment on:"Even when they cannot see personal benefits, however, men and boys have a responsibility in this area. As long as any systematic gender inequalities persist, delivering advantage to men over women and promising future advantage to boys, the advantaged have an ethical responsibility to use their resources to change the system."

He offers no supporting argument and without it, his statement is nothing more than fluff. What behooves me to support a schema in which I will suffer disadvantage? Sure, if I want to make a personal decision to do so, that's fine, but if I don't, what is the basis on which I "have a responsibility" to those who would seek to their own advantage over mine?

I run a business, like many others. If I have a competitive advantage (better products, bettter service, larger capacity, better networks, whatever) do I also "have a responsibility" to my competitors who don't have that advantage to "use {my} resources (gained by my competitive advantage) to "change the system" to remove my own advantage?

A strictly utilitarian view may be that if I possess such an advantage, then my competitor should "use [his] resources" to adopt the superior system, thus leading to improvements all round, rather than the stutification and disincentive implied by the author of the report you like so much.

As Col Rouge pointed out, the UN is essentially a toothless tiger that has lost all purpose other than the employment of third-rate bureaucrats. Even they couldn't endorse this report.

The title 'Post feminist' or 'pro-rape' indicates that if a person does not support feminism, they then must be supportive of a pro-rape culture!

Nothing could be further from the truth!

It is a form of entrapment, one does not need to be supportive of feminism in order to show that they do not support rape or sexual assault.

Suzy and Sykes and others, take the view that if any men challange or do not agree with their ideas or opinions, that these men just have to be misogynistic.

So basically if Suzy, Sykes and co do not get their way, it must be because of misogyn. This is an attempt at guilt tripping and emotional blackmail, basically designed to get opponents to attempt to prove that they are not supportive of the alleged rape culture.

This is similar to a tactic used by a person who accuses another of not loving them, and it doesn't matter how hard the accused tries, they will never be able to prove to the accuser, how much they love that person.

Psychologist Toby Green pointed out that some people truly beleive that if their point of view is challanged, they then beleive that they are not loved or cared about and that they are being discounted or not valued as a person.

Various road blocks are put in the way of really and seriously exploring digging below the surface of serious issues.

Typically I seen written and also expressed verbally that there are women who truly beleive "Women are better people than men."

Yet there is, a not very well hidden tendency where it is common for some or a lot of women to " continually find fault" with others.

"The title 'Post feminist' or 'pro-rape' indicates that if a person does not support feminism, they then must be supportive of a pro-rape culture!"

I agree that the authors have created a false dichotomy, especially when "feminist" is defined quite ridgidly. I am concerned about sexual assault, but have little time for the orthodox feminist position of "any woman can do whatever she likes and any criticism will be either blaming the victim or undermining her right to choice."

Taking the Brimble case as an example, she made some silly choices. Anyone who will-not admit that is sending a dangerous message to other women. Anyone who fails to criticise any decision, no matter how stupid, because it might hurt some woman's feelings, is being paternalistic. Dianne Brimble probably consented to at least some sex with these creeps, which adds to a culture of "jerks always get the girl." The makes the world a worse place for other women. By attempting to defend everything that she did, people are focussing discussion on her. If they just admitted that she was reckless, this debate would end and focus would shift back to the creepy blokes involved.

Antiseptic

I believe that we all have a responsibility to make this world a better place, even if that comes at a cost. This explains my problem with "feminists" who want the world to be a better place for women, but don't want to pay any cost.

pynchme,

I stand by my assertion. It is taken as read that women disapprove of rape. That you don't think it is taken as read that most men disapprove of rape means that you think that men are somehow responsible as a gender, and you see us as all the same entity. It's a cry for men to 'prove' they're not a rapist like the rest of their gender.

It's inescapable. And it's the root of the problems women will have in getting men to join their crusade as the authors wish.

Other branches of the problem are highlighted in your article, the patronising of traditional masculine traits, as if they are inferior to traditional female traits.

There is no corresponding pressure for women to be more aggressive, more assertive, more physical, more competitive, less neurotic, less emotional, more stoic, more independent/detached from their friends, physically tougher, less vain, more dominating etc. ie Nobody would want any of these 'masculine' traits, as they're bad. ie Men are 'bad', they need to be more like the 'good' women.

It's one thing to encourage men to live a full life and broaden the definition of masculinity for the benefit of men and women, but the propaganda as far as I can see is that all traditionally make traits are undesirable, and all traditionally female traits are the ideal. I don't buy it, and it reaks of man hatred.

What man would want to join a cause that heckles men to prove they are not a violent abusive rapist, and defines every aspect of the traditional definition of masculinity as undesirable. Some PR campaign.

Anyway isn't one of the gripes of feminists that femininity was imposed by men? Sounds like they're now guilty of attempting to impose a new definition of masculinity to me.

James,

'"Women are better people than men."'
That's what I hear in all this re-definition of masculinity sponsored by feminists.

phanto,

'The agenda here is to make most men feel bad and to take responsibility for the behaviour of some men.'
Bingo.

Pynchme..maybe some reading around the idea of "male gaze" might be a good way to start. just google it. especially given the responses of the "capitalist sexist pig dogs" ;-) on most OLO threads when a woman dares to speak about women and womens experience...like they keep harping on "what about men what about men" because they are afraid (threatented) to even consider that it might be possible for a women to talk about her experiences without reference to "how men feel" all the time....

"male gaze" suggests that women are denied human agency, relegating them to the status of objects, hence, the woman can only experience life by identifying with a man's perspective. sound familiar?

patriarchy is the problem.

men who rail against feminism do so because with provision for men's legislatures only, Australia's Constitution, the source of power and control in the nation, requires that all men govern all women ... a proposition taken for granted a century ago but a nonsense in the modern world.

criticism of feminism isn't criticism of women, it's criticism of male supervision ... using women to have a cheap shot at other men.

the longer men collectively decline to use their power and control to grant women their own legislature the longer these lost souls will live amongst us.

it's not as if women are going to put up a fight to remain under a crumbling patriachy.

Howler: << That you don't think it is taken as read that most men disapprove of rape means that you think that men are somehow responsible as a gender, and you see us as all the same entity >>

I've been reading this thread and the parallel one by Nina Funnell with my usual bemusement at the same old gender wars.

One thing that I've noticed is that very few - if any - of the male protagonists has expressed dismay at the Sydney Uni Facebook "Pro-Rape" group that was the instigation for both discussions.

On the basis of these discussions, at least, it would be very hard to take it as read that most male participants disapprove of rape. If they do, why haven't they expressed their disgust at the clearly and viciously misogynist actions of these college brats?

CJ,

'I've been reading this thread and the parallel one by Nina Funnell with my usual bemusement at the same old gender wars.'

They're great aren't they? I'm lovin' it!

'One thing that I've noticed is that very few - if any - of the male protagonists has expressed dismay at the Sydney Uni Facebook "Pro-Rape" group that was the instigation for both discussions.'

I haven't seen the site, as it was taken down. As far as I could gather, nobody was raping anyone, the term rape was used as a callous metaphor, and in the context of 'raping' other *male* sporting teams.

BTW: It wouldn't be 'fun' for them to pull such pranks if we didn't have the feminists salivating at the chance to use such pranks to further their agenda of painting all men in this light. They actually really love it! Like a news crew loves a natural disaster, and whoop high fives when they find an Aussie victim to report!

I really think some of the motivation is a South Park style backlash to PC sanitation of society, and a flipping of the bird to these kind of feminist opportunists. If it is, I like their style. Try this on for size girls, something to get your teeth into.

I can consistently enjoy this aspect while not condoning rape. I don't feel the need to grandstand my abhorrence of rape, as I am comfortable in the fact I've never raped anyone, and never covered up or condoned rape, and I try to remain oblivious that I am seen as a rapist just because I am male.

As usual, it's a yin/yang thing. Feminists are indebted to childish university pranks the world over. What better advertising campaign. See, see! We told you all men were bastards! Look what they do behind those closed doors, they sit around dissing us.

Only, they weren't. They were mock intimidating other male sporting teams.

Now come on all you men, stand up and denounce rape! Like all Muslims should have to denounce terrorism!

CJM:
On the basis of these discussions, at least, it would be very hard to take it as read that most male participants disapprove of rape. If they do, why haven't they expressed their disgust at the clearly and viciously misogynist actions of these college brats?

That would be to presume that the original article was about the college brats. The original article was just an excuse for the authors to state the obvious and to interpolate for their own propaganda purposes. It is not news that some men have bad attitudes toward women. That hardly warrants an article to be written about it. Writing an article which states the obvious but contributes nothing to the solution of the particular problem must have some other agenda.

It is for the university authorities to deal with the problem. When each instance of bad behaviour towards women is exposed then it should be dealt with in the appropriate way by the appropriate people. These authors have made no contribution to that process by what they have written.

The type of writing these authors and others like them indulge in is less about problem solving and more about exaggerating the scope of the problem for personal gain. There comes a time when the argument is resolved and practical applications need to be put in place. That is happening on a daily basis. When they keep on emphasising an argument (that some men have bad attitudes toward women) which is already conceded then they want something else

Thanks E.Sykes; I'm enjoying exploring your lead and yes it is certainly familiar. If you have any more suggestions I'd be most interested ^5
Whistler - you too seem to come from an interesting perspective. Any readings or search terms that you'd suggest I explore?

In response to the various annoyed males who complain that it's a given that most men are against rape; in some sense they may be. One thing I have noticed is how appalled and shaken men are when for some reason they encounter the immediate aftermath of a rape. I have never seen a man respond without compassion once he is witness to the immediate impact of it.

However, all types of sexual assault, other violence towards and daily murders of women are (a) not aberrations from a rape culture norm because there are too many incidents to be that (b) are a direct outcome of social and cultural patterns of beliefs about women, their place and value in society in relation to men.

There are a couple of blokes who will front up when someone says something that devalues women. However, some posters - like Antiseptic as an example - is always referring to women negatively: women only care about furnishings and frippery; women are wasteful; women exploit and cheat men; women's work is of less or no worth in comparison to men's work; women are only interested in the gravy train and his remarks in relation to sexual assault are a disgrace.

Is that the bloke you want as your spokesperson?

Except for a couple of fellas like CJ, is there any reason not to believe that Antiseptic is representative - ie: the average male ? Are people like CJ, or my spouse or son - exceptional or average blokes ?

If Antiseptic and his retinue of posters IS representative then you shouldn't be surprised that women so often seek divorce. The male image problem isn't wrought by feminists and other women, but by blokes who speak and act (rape etc) as if they represent the average male.

Thankfully Pynchme, Antispectic is not representative of the majority of blokes I know and I expect most blokes would not want a spokesperson who is so blatantly hostile to the opposite sex.

I always wonder why the most anti-feminist blokes, those who rage about bra-burning, ball breaking man-hating women, are themselves mirror images and ultimately their own nemesis.

We still have a bit of a way to go in getting on with the business of making society a better place which can only be done when we collectively leave behind the shackles of gender politics.

Pynchme a good read is Diane Bell [1982] Daughters of the Dreaming.
an ethnography of Aborigines in Central Australia.
Dr Bell was received into the women's business of indigenous tradition
because she was single and not dependent on a man.
for two centuries ethnographers weren't told about women's business
because mostly they were men and famously, 'it was none of their business'.
enjoy.

Antiseptic- <80% of women instigate divorce>

You seem to be blaming the women for that 80% divorce rate because they instigate the legal separation proceedings.

It seems to me that if 80% of people return a product to woolworths because it is not working then there is something wrong with that product. At least it is lacking some performance value that those people thought it was capable of.

Statistics show that married men have a longer life span than single men but it doesn't lengthen the life span of married women to the same degree when compared to single women. In other words marriage isn't as beneficial to women in terms of improved life expectancy as it is to men. That also indicates that marriage has more benefits for men in some way.

Hi C.J.

Sometimes I think you are just a big kind-hearted cuddly bear underneath that prickly academic intellectual exterior.

sharkfin:"if 80% of people return a product to woolworths because it is not working then there is something wrong with that product."

Speaking of man-hating... 80% of men are defective, are they dear? That'll play well down at the collective. You go grrrl!

Yes, narriage is better than single life for most people, just as partnerships in all sorts of fields allow individuals to achieve more than they could alone. Of course, just as in any other field, a marriage partnership is not lkely to survive the prospect of one of the psrtners getting access to the lot if they decide to split. Given the level of support offered by State institutions to women, especially women woith children and given the likely outcome of divorce property settlements and the prospect of a few hundred extra (tax-free to wifey) dollaes in child support each week it's hardly surprising many women suddenly decide men are "defective".

I see there's a new "antiseptic hates women" fest being promoted by the weak-minded. Whatever floats your boat, dears, at least you'll have something to fume about while you're watching "Days of our Lives"...

It's truly amusing that the same people who love to stereotype men as "80% defective" are so offended when the mirror is turned on them. Why aren't all women condemning the radical man-hating of pynchme, sharkfin, SJF et al? Do you all think 80% of men are defective, as sharkfin says? Do you all hate sex and envy the possession of a penis as much as pynchme? Never mind, just tell yourself "antiseptic hates women" and you need not think at all. You go grrrls!

the one certainty is that the blanket male supervision of all women in Australia mandated
by the nation's Constitution, which seriously disturbs many men as well as women, is
on the brink of total collapse.
there is now no way forward other than with the provision of a women's legislature.
some men in particular appear utterly desperate that men be relieved of the increasingly
dysfunctional and onerous male supervision of women, whether in parliament, the courts
or the community, in perpetuity.

Thanks Pynchme and sharkfin - funny, my partner says similar things about me :)

phanto - so you're suggesting that the establishment of an avowedly "pro-rape" website by by some St Paul's college boys is something that feminists shouldn't write about? It seems to me that if such attitudes persist among these priveleged kids who will undoubtedly grow up to take their place among our society's elite, then that is strong evidence for the continuing relevance of feminist analysis of such blatant misogyny.

The fact that most men participating in this thread have either ignored the execrable behaviour of these college brats, or have sought to excuse it, is strong evidence to me that decent men should support feminists who seek to draw attention to the ongoing prevalence of misogynist attitudes among significant numbers of men. This is, of course, why 'white ribbon day' was devised by men and aimed at other men.

<< It is for the university authorities to deal with the problem. >>

That's a cop-out, and besides which the university and Anglican college have sought to deal with the problem in the way that universities and churches so often do - by attempting to sweep it under the carpet.

As stated succinctly by Richard Ackland in an article linked to below, "a bucketload of tripe has been the official response to... this tawdry abhorrence. Apart from the desperate little jerks behind this wheeze, the leadership of the college, the university and the Anglican Church itself need to be hung out to dry on this one."

http://tiny.cc/tgYQs

With men like these college creeps and some of OLO's more vocal misogynists around, it seems to me that feminism is still as relevant as ever.

CJM:
“That's a cop-out, and besides which the university and Anglican college have sought to deal with the problem in the way that universities and churches so often do - by attempting to sweep it under the carpet.”

Well which is it then a cop-out or a failure by those whose responsibility it is to take action? It can’t be both.

I fail to see why the whole issue has to be aligned with the feminist cause. Violence is violence and should be dealt with in appropriate ways. Attitudes are different altogether. Everyone is entitled to whatever attitudes they like including these college students. They have not committed any crime and in no way can their behaviour be equated to sexual violence or rape. It is when those attitudes become behaviour that some action needs to be taken. Attitudes are not behaviour. If you don’t like someone’s attitude then ignore them. Why do feminists like these authors have to take these attitudes and interpolate them as evidence of bad behaviour in most, many or even a ‘significant number’ of men.

If they want to write an article which states explicitly that most men behave violently toward women then let them back up such claims with solid evidence. They should either put up or shut up. Sweeping generalisations can work both ways. Men may decide to campaign that women are the more violent gender. Women are violent towards their male partners and probably more violent towards their male children than men are because they have more opportunities to be so. This would make men less violent overall towards women than women are towards males. You would have a hard time proving it but that does not make it untrue.

So when authors equate attitudes to behaviour and ignore logic and the burden of proof they are behaving in an aggressive way. They should not be listened to nor supported until they stop using emotional blackmail to put forth their argument

Almost all of the senior management &/or spokespersons of the Femanazi movement both past and present have been radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, misandrist, paedophiles. The authors of the current article & their whack job supporters, actually want to increase the incidence of rape, by reducing male respect for women.

Respect is a two way street. Why should any male have respect for women today? They don't respect us. The article proves that, with more of the same misandrist propaganda about men & boys being responsible for everything that is wrong in the world.

"Grow a pair of ovaries girls & woman up". Take responsibility for something, anything, anywhere in the world that you may share some responsibility for. Runner is absolutely correct. Are you seriously suggesting that a young, attractive, woman should dress in an extremely, provocative manner, go out to singles bars, rave parties, etc, where almost everybody there, including her, is drunk &/or drugged, and there is NO increased likelihood of rape, sexual assault, violence etc, because "it's her right to behave like an idiot".

The incidence of everything you femanazis complain about, DV, rape, child abuse, etc, all of it has in fact been steadily worsening over the last 40 years as direct result of femanazism and the pro child abuse policies you have been pushing. You ARE the problem, not the solution.

"Male apologists", backing femanazism, come from 2 paradigms. Commonly having a dysfunctional, alcoholic, violent, father and being stupid enough to believe femanazi propaganda, that ALL other fathers are the same. The other is radical, extremist, loony, red/green/left politics, where the purpose was to destroy western families and capitalism with it & sadly, usually both.

Listening to these terrorists IS abusing our children.

Antiseptic-<"Do you all hate sex and envy the possession of a penis as much as pynchme? Never mind, just tell yourself "antiseptic hates women" and you need not think at all. You go grrrls!"

I can't speak for the other women 'Septic, but I rather like men and all their bits, it is just women-haters like you that I dislike.

Formersnag <'Respect is a two way street. Why should any male have respect for women today? They don't respect us.'

I am sorry you feel that no women respect you formersnag. Could it be because of your rather extreme hatred of ALL women, even those you don't know? Don't you have any nice women in your life? I feel sorry for you.

You seem to take alot of notice of some extreme feminist groups. I tend not to take any notice of extreme men's groups formersnag. Doing that sort of thing too often can make you all bitter and twisted, and to have a warped version of what most women are really like.

suzeonline:"
I can't speak for the other women 'Septic, but I rather like men and all their bits, it is just women-haters like you that I dislike."

Oh dear Suzie, not merely thick, you're determined to avoid facts any cost. Sad, but entirely understandable given the bias intrinsic in the sexual discrimination laws.

Mind you, I quite like women's "bits" as well...

phanto: << Well which is it then a cop-out or a failure by those whose responsibility it is to take action? It can’t be both. >>

Of course it is - it's a cop-out by you and a failure on the part of the university, college and Church.

That you refuse to see that just means that you're part of the ongoing problem that feminist analysis seeks to elucidate.

I can't believe that you think that feminists should just shut up about this kind of appalling and entrenched institutional misogyny among some male elites in our society.

Anticeptic <"Mind you, I quite like women's "bits" as well..."

Well there you go! Human after all, Anticeptic.
Maybe there is hope for you yet.

Cheers, Thick Suze. :)

I can't understand rape at all for a $100 you can get a r//t which is a lot less these days than taking a shiela out and wining and dining her in the expectation of a r//t
If rape is not for the domination and violence thing then I am at a loss
From the time I got with my ex I only had one other woman and that was because SHE, the ex wanted a threesome
I wanted most times just to be held but she wanted it to be sex all the time while still running half the blokes and shielas that she ran before we were married
There are just as many warped shielas out there as there are blokes
While I was working my guts out trying to get something together for our son and her giving me the injections of anti-inflammatories (Toradol) to ease the pain from the work that I was doing her bludging boyfriend was r//ting the ar/e off her not working schemeing with her so they could take the house that we "supposedly" were buying for our son, then she says I am the bludger

Thanks
From Dave

I think a cop-out is a failure to take responsibility. These students of a university have said things that some people do not agree with. If we do not agree with them expressing their opinions then what should then be done about it and who should do it.

What should be done and whose responsibility is it to see that it is done. Responsibility to me means using the power you rightly have over someone else to administer consequences for behaviour you deem unacceptable. Without that power you cannot change their behaviour of expressing their views. You may be able to change their views but in this case I cannot see how it can happen when those who seek to change them by reason and logic are themselves perpetrators of abuse of reason and logic. These authors are not trying to present a logical counter argument to their views they are trying to silence them not by authority or by reason but by trying to manipulate most of the rest of the male population to rise up against them so that they will change their views out of peer pressure or fear. That is not change that will benefit anyone least of all women.

CJM: That you refuse to see that just means that you're part of the ongoing problem..

Who said I refuse to see it? Maybe I cannot see it. It is one thing to refuse to look and another thing to be blind.

CJM: appalling and entrenched institutional misogyny among some male elites in our society.

Do you have a lot of evidence to suggest it is entrenched, institutional or misogynistic or is it just a wild swipe in the dark like the authors make?

Why are they the elites of society? Is that not an attempt to make them feel guilty about some material advantage and shame them into changing their views for that reason rather than present a good counter argument to their misogynist views?

When good counter arguments are presented men with integrity will listen. Emotional manipulation will get nowhere.

suzeonline, i have never said anything, misogynist, in my life, ever, & neither has anybody else. As you well know we, members of men's groups have always specified radical, extremist, red/green/loony/left, femanazis like you, not ALL women. Real women are not feminists, never have been & never will be. They, like, men, like me, repeatedly. You will just have to take my word for it, for the moment, but, like most men, i am better at parenting, cooking & housework than most women. Most of the women, i have dumped, want me back, because i am also charming, attractive & good in bed.

The purpose of women's studies, at university is to train females to abuse themselves, while simultaneously fooling themselves into believing, men are responsible for, their own, self inflicted injuries. Femanazism is the globalisation of Co-Dependant, dysfunctional, personal relationships. It is training females to believe that their friends are their enemies & their enemies are their friends. Not only were you silly enough to fall for it in the first place, but you still are defending the indefensible. If i did not know any better, i would think that, you are trying to prove that, the male chauvinist pigs were correct all along & that females, really are, a weaker, less intelligent subspecies of human beings.

suze,

'Doing that sort of thing too often can make you all bitter and twisted, and to have a warped version of what most women are really like.'

You have that about face. Men who hate women, look to these sort of things to confirm in their heads, yes woman do hate men. People tend to attempt to confirm what they already believe.

Just as your average feminist loves incidences like the facebook page in discussion, as it helps to confirm what they already believe. They get an instant wet spot, as it's more fuel for their rage. Just like formersnag gets a hard on when he reads some feminists hate literature.

CJ Morgan,

'I can't believe that you think that feminists should just shut up about this kind of appalling and entrenched institutional misogyny among some male elites in our society.'

I don't think he's said that at all. He's said that they should stop extrapolating that behaviour to the rest of the male population. Big difference.

phanto,

Good last post. I was thinking the same about the 'elites'.

Pynchme,

Nice use of divide and conquer. You gave CJ a nice little smile for being the good boy, and castigated antiseptic for being the bad boy. Pity neither are looking or needing your affirmation.

'(a) not aberrations from a rape culture norm because there are too many incidents to be that'

Yep, your average man in the street is a rapist.

'(b) are a direct outcome of social and cultural patterns of beliefs about women, their place and value in society in relation to men.'

What about when men get raped and bashed? Men don't discriminate (I know you see us as one entity), and actually are more likely to bash another man. I think that women are bashed less often by men shows they are held in higher regard than other men. That less men are raped probably shows more men are heterosexual.

'Is that the bloke you want as your spokesperson? '

I don't need a spokesperson, I think men are individuals.

What's the term to describe the male version of Feminazi? I'm assuming that refers to extreme unpopular ideas or demands of feminists, not just anyone that does any work or thinks positively about caring about women which, in my humble view, works with women to address their flaws and challenges, developing qualities and in time, working for a better world. This does not at all equate with hating men (but might involve denouncing violence, rape and sexual or any other type of assault or violence).

The word can't be just 'nazi'. Would it be mannazi? Couldn't be manlynazi cos there's nothing 'manly' about the rabid end of any continuum of male behaviour. (Or female continuum ditto) Ideas welcome.

You have to hand it to the almost perfect man 'Antiseptic' - perfect in every way, but seems to hate women who might want to 'be equal' in any way. And the women who leave him want him back? It's so indicative of 'we're all right Jack', so as we have nothing valuable to add to thinking about what can change positively, we'll knock and patronize anyone who has anything to say (unless it is exactly what we already think. As in 'all feminists are bad and the root of all evil types of comments, and if some men are rapists then all men are blamed type nonesense.

Someone was on about 'the norm'. what do you reckon are societal norms that might take us forward as human beings to a safer world for all.

with provision for men's legislatures only, Australia's Constitution confers on men the right to control every
aspect of the life of every woman in Australia. in 1902 the men who occupied these legislatures exclusively,
agreed to allow women a say in how women should be controlled through the granting of franchise and
parliamentary representation.

over the past century women's influence has increased to the extent that men are now swamped with advice
from women as to how women should be controlled. the Constitution has generated an untenable
situation in which controllers are so beseiged with advice from the controlled some have lost the plot.

with a Constitution affording brutal disregard for women these men vilify women to communicate distress
to other men.

whereas, women are perfectly capable of controlling women in the modern world, the resolution to the male
dilemma is to grant women a women's legislature.

Whistler, I'd like to idealise the idea of women politicians doing the right thing if they had the right legislature too, but where's the evidence that women are women's best friends?

Do you think that there are many women who are quite ignorant about how women are victimised, and in fact who deliberately or ignorantly find excuses for poor / even criminal behaviour, and blame the victim rather than make the perpetrator responsible?

I just find that women are often other women's nightmare by supporting the aggressor - if that person is a male, but being very quick to blame a female who is violent - to anyone?

I shudder at the probability that women, expecting safety and equal rights, will become more aggressive, and more likely to fight back, and in turn, more likely to become more predatory. The increasing numbers of women in jail seem to suggest either this is happening, or man's dominant intolerance for female fightback is having that result.

Phanto,

Lets not pretend that these sexist attitudes don't exist. We all know blokes with disgusting attitudes towards women. We all know blokes who remind us of the scum in the Brimble case. Antiseptic has a teenaged daughter and would be well aware of these blokes.

However, as you have pointed out, there is no reason why the rest of us men should feel any collective guilt and nor should anyone imply that we should. Secondly, any discussion of what women could do to reduce the incidence of rape is labelled "blaming the victim". Men have a right to be cynical about being asked to help people who will not help themselves. Lastly, whenever an incident occurs, professional feminists rush to write articles that push their agenda and promote the author. They need to check their facts, because others will. The Brimble case was complex. The Auckland case was a beat-up. This Facebook scandal appears to be a bunch of immature rich tossers, who have used the term "rape" as a metaphor. The people who have beaten this story up have only damaged their own cause.

Formersnag <"They, like, men, like me, repeatedly."

What the ....? Are you saying men like you? Well good for you.

Formersnag <"...like most men, i am better at parenting, cooking & housework than most women. Most of the women, i have dumped, want me back, because i am also charming, attractive & good in bed."

I always thought maybe your words were too controversial to be true formersnag (neversnag?).
Now I am certain of it. I think I will leave you to it now.

Cotter, you have given me plenty of food for thought with your recent insightful posts.
<"What's the term to describe the male version of Feminazi?"

Can I suggest chauvinazi? A marriage of the terms 'chauvinist pig' and Nazi sounds pretty apt to me anyway.

I agree that female politicians may not be the saviours that many women believe. One only has to look at the female doctors who first dared to join their male colleagues in the health professions.

Many of the female nurses found many of these female doctors very hard to work with initially. They seemed to be even more grumpy than the male doctors! They always seemed to have something to prove. I don't blame them, as I am sure the old boys gave them a hard time.

Things have certainly improved in recent times, now that there are far more female doctors around. Maybe we just need to give the female politicians time to gather their numbers!

I read a quote about feminism today which I find is true for me anyway.
" You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman."

suzeonline:"there are far more female doctors"

Yes, thanks to quotas, preferential entry standards, biased primary and secondary schooling curricula and methods that favour girls and all the rest of the paraphernalia of "affirmative action", women outnumber men in the professions, with the imbalance predicted to grow massively over the next few years. At present, at Australian universities, Australian women outnumber Australian men nearly 2:1.

When the situation was reversed, as it was in the 50s, feminists used the data to "prove" how badly women were being discriminated against, yet strangely they seem remarkably complacent about the current state of affairs. There is much denial and name-calling as soon as it is pointed out, just as the 50s feminists experienced.

What do you think? Should we be aiming for a society in which most professionals are women and men get the menial jobs? Do you think that most men will be happy with a world in which their most grandiosely realizable ambition is to be a carpenter, while any thought of becoming {say) a nurse or a doctor is simply out of the question for most, regardless of their talent or how hard they work unless they can find a woman to sponsor them?

Most women weren't when the positions were reversed.

anti..you really are a women hater, big time. massive chip on shoulder...well...that is certainly how you sound. like a woman badly mistreated you in your youth or something?

and i am not trying to be condescending or trying to shut you up, i am trying to understand where such vicious views actually come from? certainly not from feminism, because your understanding of it is clearly gutter press sensationalism driven at best....women want to take over and there’s a conspiracy against men...another spoke in the wheel of the

elitist communist post-modern latte swilling chardonnay gulping curry eating intellectual rag headed gay multicultural feminist global warming conspiracy to take back the world from decent ordinary blokes who for centuries have got a away with...doing whatever they want.

E. Sykes

You aren't a donkey farmer from out Broken Hill way by any chance? You just remind me of someone else...

Seems that a lot of people are still being conned by the idea that "feminism" has anything to do with "equality". Where in the word "feminism" is there any reference to either equality or male?

This is just another "ism" no different from all the other isms "nazism", "racism", "fundamentalist religious ...ism" etc etc.
The most common factor being tunnel vision and a twisting of fact or even fiction to support their agenda, and the blaming of the worlds problems on to someone else. One cannot reason with them or convince them of any other point of view. That is the way with all fanatics.

Of course the first response to any challenge is always "you are a male chauvinist" or "you hate women" or "you do not believe in "equality", which in fact is often wrong. I personally fully support "equality" in all facets both positive and negative, but cannot stand followers of any "ism".

The problem with this whole "sexual assault/rape" and for that matter "violence" business is that as a part of the vilification against men by feminists the definitions have become so broad over the past 20 years, that now more and more females are getting caught in the trap. As a male I can now say, based on today's definitions that I have been raped/sexual assaulted by females many times, dating right back to the 70's.
I do not believe I am Robinson Crusoe

benk:"You just remind me of someone else."

No doubt we'll be getting told that "TWO CHILDREN DIED" (sic) any moment now...

Lav:"Seems that a lot of people are still being conned by the idea that "feminism" has anything to do with "equality""

Absolutely right. What started as a genuine attempt to redress an imbalance has become an industry based on taxpayer funds. In order to ensure funding each year, the groups have to come up with yet another way to vilify men, since to acknowledge equality would be to sign their own death certificate and of course, that would mean no more lovely taxpayer funds that no one has to work for.

The UN released the WEF Global Gender Gap 2009 report recently, very quietly indeed. It contained some very revealing quotes and some even more revealing statistics.

"the Index rewards countries that reach the point
where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it
neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are
outperforming men in particular variables."

IOW, "if women are doing better than men, we simply won't use that data in our calculation of the headline Index." Nice, eh?

And this one:

"To capture “gender equality”, two possible
scales were considered. One was a negative-positive scale
capturing the size and direction of the gender gap.This
scale essentially penalizes either men’s advantage over
women or women’s advantage over men, and gives the
highest points to absolute equality.The second was a
“one-sided” scale that measures how close women are to
reaching parity with men but does not reward or penalize
countries for having a gender gap in the other direction.
Thus it does not reward countries for having exceeded the
parity benchmark.We find the one-sided scale more
appropriate for our purposes."

IOW, we not only won't use the data, we won't even collect it.

And some people wonder why I despise feminism?

all Australian men are required to govern and control all Australian women under the terms
of the nation's Constitution yet some men take it upon themselves to feign serious
discussion about gender equality, in between lambasting other men for allowing women
access to education en masse. privilege just doesn't rest easy on some.

E Sykes! We! The real men! The back bone! of societies all over good old planet Earth, don’t hate women. Just dislike what feminism is turning women into! End of story! You see! If you feel compelled to persistently fight the laws of nature (heterosexuality) which underpins all mammals, you will be preserved as contracted Mad-Cow or Foot in Mouth
Disease. (feminist traits) By the community at large.

Now! It’s clear that you can not! Digest the English language in a sane context! As you miss-cons crewed just about everyone’s posts with your own interpretation and then comment on that itself! Another typical feminist trait! (deception) Do you think that we are all stupid? Or are you drowning in that sea of arrogance with an over perspective of a woman’s worth!

As fare as “Social Experts” go! We, the community have never! had so many fly out of
Our learning institutes! And yet that utopia of “and they lived happily ever after” seams
even further out of reach, then ever before! Right across the boarder community in all aspects of one’s life. Let’s face it! The over whelming majority of men do not!! Condon
rape of ether gender! At least a women’s vagina is made to take a penes! Unlike a young man’s anis! That is a real painful tragedy, and one that is under reported if! reported at all! As it would be the most humiliating of all! To a Man! And now that it’s not a criminal offence to play in the gutter! It’s never been so prevalent as it is today in our
community.

These posts on this article are going no ware, except in the circle of the gender wars!
Don’t fight the laws of nature! You will not win! End of story.

Peterson - vicious 19th century attitudes displayed with pride in the 21st century – general guilt and hatred of self with added homophobia and sexism all rolled into three paragraphs – you definitely get the award for the most ignorant person/post I’ve yet encountered on OLO...that’s really something.

<all Australian men are required to govern and control all Australian women under the terms of the nation's Constitution>
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 November 2009

Gee, I must have slept through that one at school.

I don't think my parents ever read the constitution, they generally made decisions jointly, or dad deferred to mum.

<"And some people wonder why I despise feminism?">
Posted by Antiseptic.

Well it's certainly not rational. My guess is that you can't confront the reality that your ex needed to escape you, thereby creating a need to blame something for your loss other than your own behaviour.

Feminism - or more precisely, the lies and myths attributed to feminism by people like yourself who don't have the least knowledge of it - provided a convenient scape goat for your narcissistic rage.

I honestly believe that you need to sit down regularly with someone and work through some of these issues until you find some peace and acceptance within yourself.

Now! Now! E.Sykes. Sticks and stones …………………..! I rest my case!
What planet did you say you come from? And do the fish bite as well as you?
I’m rapped! And you have a chip on your chest! Where your breast should be!
Please let me help you!

men control women in Australia, it's the law.
feminism is women's say on how women should be controlled.
there is no work in the modern world for a boss who vilifies an employee
for having a say in the conditions of employment.
similarly, there is no room amongst men for a male who vilifies women.

Boys i discovered the problem some time ago. All young female students of "women's studies" at universities across the western world were injected with a new experimental vaccine to turn them into lesbians, so that the mostly lesbian leadership of the femanazi movement could improve their chances of getting some T&A.

But there was a side effect causing a serious mental illness, which is known as "Reverse Psychology Psychosis" in which the victims must compulsively state the exact opposite of the truth at all times, constantly. Of course all married men have often misdiagnosed this, as, nag, whinge, nag, bitch, nag, nag, nag, hag syndrome which has been around for millennia. The new disease is infinitely worse as these new crazed, automatons call their crap statistics and waste vast amounts of taxpayer funds producing this bilge at uni's and pass it on to their sistas in the mass media.

They will not stop until every child has been abused, they are there, they are queer, they want your wives & daughters.

of course, some blokes simply can't handle the skills of management
blokes who lambast feminism, for instance
blokes who can't control women the blokes who wrote Australia's Constitution demand.