Suppose masculinist propagandists were to be appointed to ‘compensate’ for the effects of feminism in schools, who should decide the content? How could it be anything other than politically motivated? How could these be anything other than an arbitrary indoctrination of children with political opinion, such as we object to in the case of feminists?

The mistake is in confusing the case for women’s or men’s liberation, with the idea that we have a right to illegalize anything we don’t like, and subsidise anything we do. There is no need to decide, in general, what male and female should be forced to do.

Rather, people should be free to choose, and relations between male and female should not be politically regulated at all, and should be decided by consent in each individual case. The only regulation justified is to ban the use of coercion. Abolish the rest, and relations between the sexes will find their own level based on *mutual* consent, which is now lacking, because men are unequally being forced to pay for the feminist agenda.

At present, the feminist double standard, shared by most men, is to oppose the use of coercion by men to get what they want from women as being an abuse, and favour the use of coercion by women to get what they want from men as being a 'right'.

The key measure that will swing the balance back in favour of an ethical, harmonious, maximally justifiable liberation equally for both sexes, is to abolish any coerced taking from people in general, and men in particular, to pay women for looking after their own children.

Vanna - sorry this post should precede that last one:

I don't think there's any doubt that contemporary Australia has a public culture of sneering hostility to men and men's interests, of which the 'man-as-buffoon' television ads are just a symptom. We need to wake up to ourselves and make some changes. But the question is what, and how?

I get the impression that suzieonline is one of these people who thinks that anything she doesn't like should be illegal, and anything she likes should be subsidised. Unfortunately this mentality is very common in Australia, and underlies the idea of a 'national men's health policy'.

I have six dogs. If I fed them an equal amount, one would be obese while another would be emaciated. So I feed them unequally, so they are all approximately equal in their relative weight and condition.

This is the kind of thing that egalitarian social policy aims at. But any kind of social policy can only aim at 'equality' among human beings if we regard people as some kind of dog owned by the government. It is this kind of thinking that is causing the problem you are trying to fix. It means that someone in authority will decide what people are to receive so as to comply with the social engineers' ideal of equality.

It is quite misguided to try to remedy the problem on the collectivist rationale that 'we' need 'women' to work, or 'we' need more resources for 'men' because they pay more tax! According to that line of reasoning, if boys were succeeding unequally at school, the state would be justified in deliberately pulling them down a bit, to even things up; and vice versa. This is just more of the same mentality that is causing the problem.

But even grant it, suppose for every policy or bureaucracy favouring women, we had an opposite one equally favouring men. They would often be at cross-purposes, both wasting tax funds, and we no better off than if neither existed.

Peter Hume <"I get the impression that suzieonline is one of these people who thinks that anything she doesn't like should be illegal, and anything she likes should be subsidised. Unfortunately this mentality is very common in Australia, and underlies the idea of a 'national men's health policy'."

I'm glad you think you can read that much about me through my posts. You couldn't be further from the truth Peter. What on earth does any of what has been said got to do with a national men's health policy? As it happens I am heavily involved in men's health issues in my line of work.

What do you do for men's health Peter? All this moaning and groaning about all the poor men in this 'feminazi' world does nothing at all to change anything.

I am full of praise for men who are proactive and seek regular tests for prostate and bowel cancers. Many men are simply 'too manly' to allow doctors to check out their bowels or prostate glands in the surgery.
I also care for those men that didn't have it checked early enough. It's not a good way to die.

I don't have any praise for men who blame women for all their problems, and every problem in our society. You are in good company on this thread, with all the other 'chauvinazi's'(Warwick's groupies).

I think that all this whining from most of the men in this thread is decidedly unmanly.

Antiseptic: <"There is a huge group of men in this country who are feeling very much second-class citizens and as I've said many times, there will be a backlash that will not be pretty if that resentment is not well managed.">

Oh gee )))tremble((( what on earth could you be meaning?

Bit of a bash up? Rape? Murder? - already happening around the clock day after day and long precedes but explains the rise of the modern feminist movement.

A page in praise of men and you use it this way. What a waste.

Pynchme:"what on earth could you be meaning?"

I could be meaning that there is a very strong sense of disenfranchisement among the men of this country and in a social democracy, when a large group feels that way there is inevitable upheaval. If that group reprecents 50% of the community the upheaval is great.

When women began to feel that way the result was feminism and all the misandry that has brought with it. The most agressively angry women guided its course.

Do you really want the most agressively angry men to set the post-feminist agenda?

suzeonline:"I don't have any praise for men who blame women for all their problems,"

It is this conflation of "feminist" with "woman" that you and a few others try constantly that is at the heart of much of the problem we have in discussing this topic here. All women are not feminists and all feminists are not women. To criticise feminism is not to "blame women" any more than criticising socialism or capitalism or any of the other "isms".

To support feminism as it is constituted in the west is very much to criticise all men. That's because it has been set up as a "zero sum game", in which gains made by feminism must come at the expense of men. Initially the vilification was a "shock tactic" designed to make people think, but it has become entrenched as the people who grew used to using it in the 70s have moved up within the bureaucracies and now it is part of the landscape. There is not a single significant aspect of modern life in which it is better to be male than female, yet we still hear the manbashing.

Dr Elizabeth Celi, on Cornflower's link, made the same point. Does she "hate women" as well?