Catalyst ABC Thursday 17 April

Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty,
after making some disparaging remarks about ‘blokey guys’
said to a male interviewer:

“I kind of like women,
I do like women and in every sense I think they’re wonderful
and they are a lot smarter than we are
as we know.”

Hold on, back up, wasn’t ‘men are smarter than women’ sexist?
Why would ‘women are smarter than men’ be any less sexist?

Run this through the sexual-transposition machine
and imagine a Nobel Laureate woman,
after making some disparaging remarks about ‘girlie girls’ saying,
to a female interviewer:

“I kind of like men,
I do like men and in every sense I think they’re wonderful
and they are a lot smarter than we are
as we know.”

And almost everybody accepting that point-of-view as valid.

Imagine how deeply we would have to go back
into the Patriarchy and the anti-women sexism
to get to a time where such a statement
might emanate from a woman of such achievement?
And with no objections being raised by anyone of significance

The Nobel Prize not only indicates good work
but identifies the winner
as one of the most respected thinkers of their time

that one of the most respected thinkers of our time
thinks in this way
tells you an awful lot about deeply
into Matriarchy and anti-men sexism
we are in our time

Dear Rob,

I'm amazed that you think women are 'sexist?'

Historically it's always been a case of,

"Man gets and forgets, Woman gives and forgives."

"Perhaps it's because women have a much better time than men in this world; there are far more things forbidden to them." Oscar Wilde.

Or as Socrates told us, "Once made equal to men, woman becomes his superior." (smile).

Actually, when Doris Lessing won the Nobel Prize for Literature last year she had much that was unflattering to say about women and much that was flattering to say about men.

Doris Lessing: "It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests." (That's from a pre-Nobel interview here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001 but google her and you'll find much of the same.)

I think many feminists welcomed her comments as challenging and thought-provoking. I certainly did. Feminism is a robust and broad church that can take a lot of criticism.

I doubt Peter Doherty meant to make a serious, definitive statement about the relative intelligence of men and women. It sounds to me like he was making a like, self-reflective reference to the fact that he's a bloke who prefers the company of women. Some blokes do. Some women prefer the company of men. Some women find men more intelligent that women. (Camille Paglia comes to mind — she has said so publicly many times.)

If you want to feel victimised because of you gender, whether you're a man or a woman, it isn't hard to find evidence. But why go out of your way to feel offended? There are still real inequities on both side of the gender divide. These should attack bravely, without ideology or rancour, as part of the continual improvement of culture. This kind of "he said, she said" bickering doesn't interest me, nor do I think it helps anyone much.

Dear Rob,

It's always been a tug-of-war in relationships.

That's a human trait.

The best advice that I've read went something like this:

"To keep your relationship brimming,
With love in the loving cup,
Whenever you're wrong, admit it;
Whenever you're right, shut up."

Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 19 April 2008 2:47:52 PM

"I'm amazed that you think women are 'sexist?'"

Did you actually read the post?

It was not an example of sexism by women that I cited
it was an example of sexism by a man
albeit the 'unusual' anti-male type of sexism
however thank you for providing an example of sexism by a woman in:

"Man gets and forgets, Woman gives and forgives."

There is nothing sexist about that statement is there?

While it is a small and non-randomised sample, the most vindictive, vengeful people I have ever known have all been women.

Dear Rob,

Lighten up... I did not mean my comments to be an attack on your
'manhood' (or any other part of you). I personally hate 'labels' of any distinction.

And as Vanilla so aptly put it - "gender' is not one of my hang-ups either. I was trying to introduce a bit of humour with my quotes - but obviously I failed miserably.

I won't make any more 'sexist' remarks like :
"Men only call themselves 'feminists' in the hope of getting a more intelligent root."

Cheers.

What is this an exercise is deflection?

Posted by Vanilla,
"Actually, when Doris Lessing won the Nobel Prize for Literature last year she had much that was unflattering to say about women and much that was flattering to say about men."

Saying 'unflattering things' about one sex is completely different from making a blanket negative assessment of a fundamental quality like intelligence about one sex, particularly with the apparently accepted remark "as we all know" added.

"Doris Lessing: "It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men."

That was about women rubbishing men - my example was about men rubbishing men - why is everyone avoiding the actual issue I raise?

"I doubt Peter Doherty meant to make a serious, definitive statement about the relative intelligence of men and women."

His formulation was serious and definitive and such 'doubts' are extremely rare when men make blanket demeaning statements about women.

"Some women find men more intelligent that women. (Camille Paglia comes to mind — she has said so publicly many times.)"

If that is true than she is also sexist - sexual discrimination is discrimination on the basis of sex - it cant be that hard to understand can it?

"If you want to feel victimised because of you gender, whether you're a man or a woman, it isn't hard to find evidence. But why go out of your way to feel offended?"

I didnt go out of my way - I was just watching Catalyst. Is the whole of feminism then - people going out of their way to feel offended?

"This kind of "he said, she said" bickering doesn't interest me, nor do I think it helps anyone much."

There was no "he said, she said" situation - there was no 'she' in it. This is all misrepresentation and off-topic. I have to wonder if it is deliberate 'smokescreening', or is everyone really just 'too simple' to understand the situation I describe - deeply respected men are producing anti-male sexist comments and virtually no-one sees a problem.

Posted by Foxy,

"Lighten up... I did not mean my comments to be an attack on your
'manhood' "

Personal criticism
still nothing on topic and
'Manhood' was never an issue raised
- more smoke and mirrors

"I won't make any more 'sexist' remarks like :
"Men only call themselves 'feminists' in the hope of getting a more intelligent root.""

You never made a sexist comment like that
that one has humour.

Dear Rob,

I think that you are reading too much into Peter Doherty's remarks.
Perhaps he was simply wanting to pay women a compliment. Why do you have to label his remark as 'sexist?'

I get the feeling that you may be bringing a few of your own personal issues into all of this. As you stated the most vengeful creatures that you've ever known have been women. Do you think that this fact may have somewhat tainted your perception of things?

I think that perhaps you're making this situation more complicated than it needs to be. Intelligence is something that can only be measured on an individual basis anyway - so Doherty's comment is not all that controversial really - it a non-issue.

Surely you can see it?

You're spot on, Rob, but the women will continue to deflect and deny, because it's uncomfortable for them to acknowledge the truth of what you're pointing out.

The fact is that Peter Doherty recognises that it is in his career interest to make the appropriate feminist noises. Any hint of non-conformist views could jeopardise the next round of public funding, not to mention all sorts of vilification from the media hacks who've ridden the wave of academic feminist preferment and call themselves "journalists". Not an especially brave position, but pragmatic, which is precisely why it has become entrenched among men who have to rely on the goodwill of powerful women.

Okay.

I'm sorry that you feel my first post diverted the conversation. I honestly simply meant to point out that another Nobel Prize winner had made not entirely dissimilar comments — I didn't mean to claim it was an exact parallel.

I do believe, as I said in my first post, that gender issues are best discussed without ideology or rancour.

As for being "too simple," I'm pretty sure I'm not, but another poster did suggest I was "ignorant" recently. Either way, you may have to put up with it — OLO hasn't yet found a way to exclude der-brains like me from public conversations.

To be honest, I'm surprised you think the man's comments were "serious and definitive". I just watched the segment — it's here: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2218872.htm and it would be great to get other people's take on it — and it seems to me that he was attempting to describe his own personality rather than make generalisations about the world.

If a woman said what he said (with the genders reversed) I wouldn't be in the least offended. I might think she was a bit of a doormat, but that's her lookout.

By the way, what Camille Paglia said was, "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." She was referring to the fact that some researchers have found that, biologically, men sit more at the extremes of intelligence than women, who are more likely to be clustered around the median. It's a fascinating idea and expanded on in this book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Sexual-Paradox/Susan-Pinker/e/9780743284707#TABS

I'm not saying it's right or wrong — I haven't read it yet — but it intrigues me.

Anyway. Personally, I don't believe it's particularly useful to cry "Sexist!" every time someone expresses a preference for one gender over another, or suggests there are differences between the genders, or says one gender is smarter/stronger/better than the other. If we do, culture just becomes ridiculously politically correct, and everyone is afraid to say what they really mean.

But if you are still outraged, why don't you complain to the ABC?

Australia is decades away from having an adult, sensible debate about gender relations.

At the moment, it's acceptable to humiliate and insult men, portray them as thugs and morons, and never give them the benefit of the doubt - things women don't tolerate in 2008. However, it's not terribly widespread, and nothing like the patriarchal domination which was the model for society until just seventy years ago. Unfortunately, the moment this crops up as a topic, any sensible argument is drowned out by angry misogynists and misandrists who hold the other sex responsible for a personal abuse, abandonment, or the actions of the Family Court.

Still, it's nice to see some people trying.

Sancho:"it's not terribly widespread, and nothing like the patriarchal domination which was the model for society until just seventy years ago."

It is very widespread and becoming more so daily. If left unchecked, it will be significantly greater a problem for men than the patriarchal situatio you describe was for women because of one simple fact: women control the womb. Whatever "domination" was exerted by a "patriarch", at the end of the day he minimally depended on his wife to both bear and raise his children. Any sensible man understood that a happy wife was a good mother, not to mention a congenial partner. That understanding is what created the Western sense of "women and children first", which was a product of the "patriarchy". For the would-be matriarch no such dependency exists, as she is able to choose to do away with a male partner altogether if she wishes by using IVF, or to choose not to have children by the same man she is partnered to and yet she still has the kids. Somehow, I can't see a powerful woman pushing her male partner into the lifeboat crying "men and children first" as the ship sinks under them.

It is that lack of a sense of common interest that makes the present "feminism" and its dominance of public discussion so dangerous to men if left unchecked. As you say, men can be abused at will under the current paradigm, with little hope of redress if they object. I hope you're wrong about the timescale for sensible discussion, because I believe the time is very definitely ripe.

"any sensible argument is drowned out by angry misogynists and misandrists who hold the other sex responsible for a personal abuse, abandonment, or the actions of the Family Court."

Don't throw those labels around lightly...it's not..."sensible"?

Vanilla, I've not followed up either article elsewhere but on the basis of what's bee written here thare is a massive difference between the context for the two sets of comments.

One appears to suggest a significant across the board difference in the genders (woman are smarter than men), the other comments on a specific group of women (those who continually attack men).

I've heard comments from Terri Irwin recently suggesting that Bindi will be the brains and Robert the brawn. Bindi will tell Robert what to jump on. Perhaps they have early proof that Robert has a very low IQ and I suspect that Terri is just trying to be funny but I expect the reaction to the comments whould have been quite different if she had suggested that Robert would be the brains and Bindi could do "I Select" adds because she really was not very smart.

We can go looking for reasons to be bothered but in my view there is more to it than that.

R0bert

R0bert,

I see your point.

I think the whole Irwin thing is appalling parenting — jeez, never too young to be shoved in a little box, it appears. (Mind you, I thought Terri Irwin was the examplar of appalling parenting before this.) I actually have heard a family member of mine say "Sarah's going to be the beauty and Sam here's got the business brain" when they kids were barely toddling. Again, appalling parenting. (It reminds me of new-mother Daisy in The Great Gatsby: "She told me it was a girl, and so I turned my head away and wept. ‘All right,’ I said, ‘I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool — that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.”)

Anyway, yes, I agree that it's wrong to push kids into stupid, limmiting gender boxes. But I just don't see that Peter Doherty was making "a significant across the board difference in the genders". I honestly believe he was saying, "I'm the type of bloke who doesn't really understand other blokes and prefers the company of women."

Have you watched clip R0bert? I'd really value your take on it.

In an earlier post, Rob513264 said, "sexual discrimination is discrimination on the basis of sex - it cant be that hard to understand can it?" Actually, I think it's pretty tricky. As I said, I do not believe that any differences between the sexes are unmentionable, or constitute sexism. When Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard and said men are smarter than women at maths and engineering any objections, I believe, should have been empirical rather than ideological.

Look, if a woman made the opposite complaint, I'd have no compunction saying "this is a non-issue,and there are better fights to pick than this one" (I spent a whole thread saying just that here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7119). But Rob seems genuinely offended, so I reckon complain to the broadcaster and perhaps to the man in question.

"“I kind of like women,
I do like women and in every sense I think they’re wonderful
and they are a lot smarter than we are
as we know.”

Hold on, back up, wasn’t ‘men are smarter than women’ sexist?
Why would ‘women are smarter than men’ be any less sexist?" (Quote: Rob 513264)

Agreed. It IS sexist, and would not go down well if a woman said the reverse. It DOES demonstrate a double standard.

Frankly I wish Doherty had just shut his face. I have little doubt that he had no intent to start a gender (in general) war. But throw away comments like this ( and it WAS!!), will do just that. We've gone three pages already. Last time it went on for light years!

I'm afraid that I still agree with Vanilla on this one.

I googled the ABC site and read the full transcript of what Peter Doherty actually said and I also think that he was simply expressing his feelings about women and the influence they had on him, rather than making a comment about 'gender.'

The so called 'disparaging' remarks that Rob says Doherty made about
men - are questionable as Rob did not give the full quote.
All Doherty said was, and I quote:

"I'm not a blokey guy...I never had the desire to be in a hot pub with a lot of rugby players or any of that stuff I find it kind of distasteful..."

In other words he preferred the company of women.

And when he adds that, "I kind of like women, I do like women and in every sense I think they're wonderful and they are a lot smarter than we are as we know..."

He is describing his feelings because he goes on to explain that,
"I got married to Penny... Penny taught me how to be a virologist.
I'd never really had a mentor in the sense of someone who taught me what to do."

Liking women does not make a person 'sexist.' And if the perception is that it does, well my goodness: -

As Vanilla said - we'll all become so 'politicall correct' that none of us will be game to open our mouths for fear of offending.

yet he used the words, "we" rather than "I" and the group descriptor, "women", not "my wife"

honestly i would have no problem with it under normal circumstances, but with the current climate of feminism and their constant bitching and unwarranted activism, i would like some consistency until it is agreed that feminism is unnecessary and harmful to democracy. i personally favour no political correctness, but you'll have to ask the female and male feminists to shut up before anything improves.

In the red corner, we have the women, and in the blue corner, we have the? well, I guess us men have come a long way since the old days.

The man of today must be many things and the woman of the day must carry the same weight. The new sexism is only in the minds of the beholder and the playing 50/50 is the only way to win the round.

The is an argument that goes nowhere. You have to look at the world like the millimetres on a ruler, we are all on there somewhere.

Oh God Almighty!!..here we go again...........

I stand by what I said before.

For crying out loud!...'harmful to democracy'..! What bloody next is going to be "harmful to democracy"!.!.!.!

I acknowledge and respect the struggle women have had over the years to gain their rightful place in society (Yeah! I said RIGHTFUL. YOU trying popping a kid from between your legs, and YOU might deserve some equal measure of respect)! Women have well and truly earned the rights to equality with men.

But, but, BUT;-I have NEVER lost sight of the put downs that are inflicted on men, from whatever source; but certainly from marketing companies. To me, liberation is being able to recognize any diminishment of stature no matter WHO it is inflicted upon.

It does little to establish understanding and equality between the sexes, when men;-or women;-feel they have to make a remark against their own gender-like Doherty's to establish some sort of cred with the opposite sex.

Dear Steel,

He's a scientist for goodness sake. Not a language expert.

He did use the word "I" most of the time, then switched to "we." Maybe he was nervous on camera.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt - shall we?

Or as Vanilla said, if you truly object - contact the ABC or the man himself.

But before I go, I've got a joke for you. One that is definitely
'Politically incorrect,' but I can't resist. Here goes:

Question: If you have an intelligent man, a woman and Santa Claus in a lift and there is a two-dollar gold coin on the floor, who picks it up?"

Answer: The woman - the other two don't exist.

Yes, I know, I know...I'm not denying that women are foolish:
God Almighty made 'em to match the men! (smile).

So the Question is. Am I being Sexism?

Sexist! I ment too say. Foxy! you are right, he's just a scientist.

All the best.

Here is a joke for you all. If you take three men and three women and tell them to urinate in a round room, what happens?

Answer! Nothing. Cause the room is filled with people and there's now-where to hide.

Yes! Iam not to good at humor.lol

Dear evolution,

I liked the joke.

We need to laugh more.

Take care.

Ginx > "For crying out loud!...'harmful to democracy'..! What bloody next is going to be "harmful to democracy"!.!.!.!"

You have to quiet down for a second. You are obviously not reading my comment (or any other articles and discussions) or thinking about it. Women do not need feminism (the federal office for women, the federal minister for women's interests, the endless organisations and academia). Discrimination, harrasment, and so on are all issues that affect both genders and can be dealt with on that generic basis. But this is not the whole problem. The way it harms democracy, is when laws start being changed to suit one gender (women) over another (men). And that is what has happened, to the point in which lies propogate in the media, fuelling even more distortion.

"YOU trying popping a kid from between your legs, and YOU might deserve some equal measure of respect)! Women have well and truly earned the rights to equality with men."

That's moronic. Your basis for women's 'equality' is that they give birth? Did you know that they are biologically designed to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female#Mammalian_female

Antiseptic:"If left unchecked, it will be significantly greater a problem for men than the patriarchal situatio you describe was for women because of one simple fact: women control the womb."

Ginx:"I acknowledge and respect the struggle women have had over the years to gain their rightful place in society (Yeah! I said RIGHTFUL. YOU trying popping a kid from between your legs, and YOU might deserve some equal measure of respect)! Women have well and truly earned the rights to equality with men."

Thank you for confirming my point.

Anti/Steel: has it ever occurred to either of you that you are both classic instigators of rampant feminism?

I have truly done my damnedest to see things from both perspectives, but trying to make you two see what I'm getting at, is like trying to push a boulder up a hill with my nose!!

You-have-both-missed-the-point-because-you-chose-to...

I have got to be somewhere else pronto;-so I will explain more fully to you in s-i-m-p-l-e language when I get back, so that you can grasp things. That is,-if you require me to do so..?

Oh;..and one more thing. I don't feel the need to turn all girly girly, sugar and spice to communicate with prats like you two.

I will leave that to others...

The point is the existence of the double-standard
in the society as a whole.
All the 'excuses' which have been cited
are excuses which would not be acceptable
if the sex roles were reversed, etc.

Individuals involved in this conversation
may well have balanced views themselves
that was not my complaint
it was not even a complaint about Prof Doherty
it was the different way society as a whole
treats those types of comments
when they are made about the male sex
and those types of comments
when they are made about the female sex

Camille Paglia remember received death threats
and letter bombs
I dont think Prof Doherty is in any danger

I enjoyed that little tiff between Rob and Foxy! Rob, I may be wrong but you take things too seriously.Profesor Doherty was showing that he was a human being in joining the male-female tug-of-war.I,like he does,lets the rope go their way occassionally,as I know they love winning and isn't the reason men are on earth, is to make women happy?
Love your quotes Foxy!

Ginx> "has it ever occurred to either of you that you are both classic instigators of rampant feminism?"

...i think you have this backwards. Feminists themselves are the instigators. They are the ones publishing articles here and in media and seeking to use their special office in federal government to push their agendas. Male interests simply do not count and are ignored in this process, because of it's inherent sexism. People who argue against feminism are immediately attacked and used as political tools to assert that "female persecution and misogyny is still rampant", because people have been trained (or educated) and sensitised on the issue. Now that they have federal power and no opposition in this way, they have a direct, disproportionate influence in policy making.

I see the word feminism used globally, without stating which brand of feminism, and if you don't understand read Helen Garner "The First Stone" - and it's got far worse since then in our current murky soup of Political Correctness based upon the very thing [Power Feminism] that Helen was discussing [as a True/Equality Feminist]

Dear Rob,

I hear what you're saying. Certainly we all see things from our own perspective - depending on our culture, education, upbringing, and so on. But as long as we retain the ability to laugh at ourselves - I think we'll be ok.

Which reminds me, have you heard these two jokes? 1) - "Do you know feminists don't have a sense of humour?"

"No, but if you hum a few lines..."

Or

2) My husband said that for his physical, the doctor needed a urine specimen, a stool sample, and a semen specimen.

I told him, "Just give them your underwear!"

Smile and the world smiles with you. Cry, and they pay to watch.

...........as I said;-trying to push a boulder...

I recall you and DD and whoever, had taken a fair hammering in the marriage stakes. I should really try to be more gentle with you.....; how about this,-(being as we're into jokes an'all):

"Whats that useless piece of skin on the end of a penis?"

"A man."

"Camille Paglia remember received death threats
and letter bombs"

exactly my friend, same as did Garner for First Stone

the bottom line is corrupt governments eg Hitler, Howard thrive on the PC generated by a Gender War, as does the Family Law Industry

what they fear, on the other hand, is someone who detaches from the BS [or like Garner WAS a genuine feminist instigator] and threatens to enlighten the mushrooms to the KISS truth of the matter.

and remember that I TOO had an attempt on my life [by a hit man sent by lawyers] for telling blokes the truth re Fam Law, which STARTS as forget everything to DO with gender war, as it is simply a very clever marketing tool [red herring] to get bloke to take eye off the ball, albeit so entrenced is this PC that very few blokes ever had their eye ON the ball for starters

Dear Divorce Doctor,

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're on about - with all this
Family Law Business - but what the heck - you understand it - I guess that's all that matters.

As for men keeping their eyes on 'the ball.'

Well, that reminds me ...

Man says to God, "Why did you make woman so beautiful?"
God says, "So you would love her."
"But God," the man says, "Why did you make her so dumb?"
God replies, "So she would love you!"

How many men does it take to clean a toilet?

None, that's women's work.

How do you bring a woman to orgasm?

Who cares?

Isn't it interesting that the grrrls have resorted to misandric "jokes" to avoid responding to a serious discussion and attempt to derail it? Straight out of the manual. Well done, grrrls.

yes Savlon, I agree, the jokes are all PART of the red herring plan BY the Power Feminists to keep bloke's eye off the ball [not hard]

howard was the master of this where he threw heaps of money at gals to get vote by giving them MORE power eg Aunty Pru AIFS, CSA, ONE-WAY Sex Descrim Laws etc but for bloke vote he simply went to every sporting game and bellowed out Advance Aust Fair.

and Foxy one, Fam Law is the best example as it is the biggest industry of all in Oz [as the ladies/lawyers KNOW] at some 20 billion pa, because it includes EVERYTHING incl shirt off bloke's back.

Indeed it SHOULD therefore be a subject of serious discussion/consideration for every bloke and not just Secret Wimmins Business

and there we have the interface to life in general ie in playing out gender domination in the only important matter [ie "life skills"] these smart wimmen even tell Blonde Jokes themselves

they care not about bloke is more smart as a Rocker Scientist, as that is simply a bigger slice of the pie for Buttercup when she goes for her DIP [or simply "hangs her flag on the Marble Arch" as Leonard Cohen puts it in Hallelujah]

Foxy: << "Men only call themselves 'feminists' in the hope of getting a more intelligent root." >>

Busted. And I thought it was my own little secret.

Just as well I'm past all that now, having found one eventually :D

Hot off the Press at Howard's [surviving] Cash for Comment "men's site" [to promote a new book re Liam Magill pathos]

"Two mothers are suing an Illinois hospital because their newborn babies were switched at birth. Although the mistake was rectified within hours, Mary Jo Bathon and Kassie Hopkins are each demanding $50,000 for the mistake.

It is interesting to note the **different levels of importance society attaches** to mother-child mix-ups versus father-child mix-ups. Hospitals take elaborate precautions to match the right mother to the right newborn - wristbands immediately after birth, footprints, and more.

No steps whatsoever are taken to insure that babies are matched to the right fathers, even though a simple DNA test, now available for under $30 from RiteAid pharmacies, will do the trick."

My comment - for "society" use "Political Correctness", as the Legislation [if not the Law] is perfectly equal

We live in a time where gender-based roles are changing and few pathways are marked as we try to figure out the right way to make our lives work in relationships. What complicates gender relations is that the world we inhabit today would have been almost impossible to envision even as recently as a few decades ago.

Gender relations in contemporary society present a seemingly paradoxical picture. On one hand, we are told that women are rapidly becoming equal partners at home and in the workplace. With women and men moving into each other's traditional spheres, it would seem logical that we would finally be able to understand each other's experiences.

Women have now had to compete day in and day out to financially support their family. They have set their sights on many of the same goals as their male counterparts; today there are, for example, more women than men in many university professional schools. Surely women can now understand the societal pressures to succeed that have always
burdened their partners.

As wives have moved in even greater numbers into the workforce, husbands have had to take on more women's traditional responsibilities for child care and homemaking. It would seem they can now understand the magnitude of these responsibilites the never-ending routine of care and crisis.

On the other hand, we are told that our social experiences are separated by light years and it seems that we need a manual to decode what we say to one another.

At the same time, the media delivers body counts in the gender wars in stories of spouse abuse, divorce, child custody battles, and disputes over affirmative action.

What has not changed, apparently over all this time, is the desire of men and women to figure out what is appropriate for their own and the other gender and to find ways to live together.

What has changed is that we are now less sure about what is the right way to be a man or a woman.

Take care.

CONT'D...

An English professor wrote the words:

"woman without her man is nothing."

on the blackboard and directed the students to punctuate it correctly.

The men wrote:

"Woman, without her man, is nothing."

The women wrote:

"Woman! without her, man is nothing."

Foxy,the different punctuation of that sentence is appropriated the wrong way.As a lover - not a fighter [unless it's to protect my wife and children] I admit, without women, we men ARE nothing! And as the song goes-"A man without a woman.....is like a wreck upon the sand! There's only one thing worse in the Universe, and that's a women without a man!Play it again Sam!

Dear Diploman,

Ah, at last a man... a real man...

More please.

Foxy: “What has not changed, apparently over all this time, is the desire of men and women to figure out what is appropriate for their own and the other gender and to find ways to live together.”

If it were true, increasing numbers of men and women living without partners would indeed be paradoxical. As it is, the paradox is mostly found within double standards of situational feminism, and the still significant numbers of men willing to fall for those terms.

And no, I don’t much care for your definition of a “a man... a real man...”. No need for some gender language dictionary to help me decipher that the first is just a willing doormat, and the more tightly qualified, depicts an agreeable male.

There seems to be much personal sadness and anger underlying the contributions of some of the men in this discussion.

OK here is the good oil from Cohen on all this

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rf36v0epfmI

please note that the contributor Duncster is over 70 and IMHO it is only those [like me, Cohen] who lived IN a period of sexual equality in 1960s, pre Greer, that can actually SEE the PC of today and the harm is is doing

Cohen was a genius IMHO in this video

Dear Seeker,

My earlier post was written to Diploman in response to his comments.
I'm sure that Diploman understood my intended meaning.

The comments were not meant to put down any body.

As for agreeable males. Well it may surprise you to learn that I find
most men 'agreeable.'

You've obviously chosen the name "Seeker" for a reason. I wish you well in finding whatever it is that you're seeking.

Getting rid of the chip on your shoulder though, might help.

Foxy:
"With women and men moving into each other's traditional spheres,
it would seem logical that we would finally be able
to understand each other's experiences."

Trouble with this is 'spin'.
If a man spends a lot of time at work
and little time with his family
it is usually interpreted as 'neglect'.
If a woman spends a lot of time at work
and little time with her family
it is usually interpreted as 'sacrifice'.

As long as this type of negative spin on things male
and positive spin on things female prevails (and it does)
there is no chance of gender equality.

"They have set their sights
on many of the same goals as their male counterparts;
today there are, for example,
more women than men
in many university professional schools."

Glad you brought that up.
Women have been very selective in their quest for 'equality'.
While they demand equal numbers
of doctors, lawyers and managers
they happily accept men still doing
all the really dirty, hard and dangerous work in the culture.

I once did some research that showed
that in Australia
a man is 356 times more likely to die at work than a woman.
I took that to the Sex Discrimination Commission
who said it wasn't a gender issue.

"It would seem they can now understand
the magnitude of these responsibilities
the never-ending routine of care and crisis."

I prime cared for my kids for 3 1/2 years
while my wife studied at a distant university.
They were 4 and 5 at the time
and both still in cloth nappies at night.
It was the easiest, most pleasurable job I have ever had.

well said Rob

could not express that [all matters] any better, so I won't

but I wonder what age you are as it seems to me only those of 60 plus [male AND female] can actually see the wood from the trees in our present PC Swamp of Power Feminism

Dear Rob,

Thank you for all your comments.

My husband was in a similar situation to yours.

He looked after our children (a 3 year old and a 4 year old) at night, while I finished my post graduate studies.

During the day, I had a full-time job. As did my husband. We shared our responsibilities. We always have. Our parents also helped us.

All this banter about gender is interesting - but I've really had enough of it. I don't classify things according to "gender."
Neither does my husband.

Achieving gender equality requires men and women to work together in search of solutions, in ways that encourage mutual respect and trust.

I think it is important in any relationship to have a mutual sense of values and common objectives. It is cultivating flexibility, patience, understanding and a sense of humour. It's having the capacity to forgive and forget. It's giving each other an atmosphere in which each can grow. It's establishing a relationship in which the independence is equal, dependence is mutual and the obligation is reciprocal. It's not about finding the right partner, it's being the right partner.

That's all I have to say.

Dear Divorce Doctor,

You wrote:

"...It seems to me only those over 60 plus (male AND female) can actually see the wood from the trees in our present PC Swamp of Power Feminism."

I thought that eyesight is generally thought to decline with age, along with intelligence.

But, perhaps those are flawed beliefs, like so many others...

eg

"I think it is important in any relationship to have a mutual sense of values and common objectives."

I was not going to comment but [to use the Garner expression] you got my boyish hackles going with your childish Greer reply

to use Don Watson test your posts SCREAM Death Sentence [Wealsel Words], "going forward, at the end of the day, towards closure, with a results based philosophy"

obviously Howard has ensured you will get a job once you complete your Hairy Legged Studies at any of CSA, SSAT, COAT, RICAT, CTP, CTE, OPC, OPP, LA, LS, FCA, FMS, FLC, OLSC, RDC etc etc

it is my hope that Kevin '07 will axe most of these Secret Wimmins Business Quangos, so better get in quick my friend as the Captain Smirk Super is fast becoming just an Abbott & Costello comedy

I take you ARE doing HLL studies? at ANU?

Foxy, whilst I couldn't agree more with your comments regarding mutual respect in relationships, the fact is that men are NOT accorded equal respect by our societal institutions. The thread was about that, not about familial relationships.

My feeling and my fear is that my son is going to find his row considerably harder to hoe than my daughter will find hers, because the institutions of our society have a determined set of aggressively "feminist" women and self-serving men in control of them. Those people see it as their "duty" to ensure preferment for women over men and to use whatever means they can to create an environment in which women thrive and men wither unless they conform to a "feminist ideal". There is no room for non-conformists and little scope for questioning their decisions. As an example, what do you think would happen if I was to make a complaint against an employer for gender-based discrimination? What if my female co-worker made the same complaint?

They have taken a noble goal - equality of opportunity for all - and turned it into a nasty, hateful "us against them" power struggle, with nasty men cast as "original sinners" and poor old women the perpetual victims. I despise them for their hypocrisy.

**They** have taken a noble goal - equality of opportunity for all - and turned it into a nasty, hateful "us against them" power struggle, with nasty men cast as "original sinners" and poor old women the perpetual victims. I despise **them** for **their** hypocrisy.

exactly true, but who ARE they. Well that is the way Political Correctness works, and we are now in the worst bout of all via power feminism, and as I tried to say, it seems those under 60 have no benchmarks to compare to the reallity of 1960s [not the hype] of equality in relationships

Males like me can talk all we want [or in my case write a book] about how the true feminists [looking for equality in wages etc] got railroaded by the power feminists, the Greer based Lady Love Your Cu**, but a true feminist like Helen Garner is immune to all that anti male sledging

that is why she caused such a stir with First Stone and Joe Cinquie books

oh yeah, the THEY is us, or rather softcock [SNAG] males who just go along with it, thus making job easy for the Howards etc

as Hitler found

"It is a great advantage to governments that the people do not think"

Dear Divorce Doctor,

You're making assumptions about people you know nothing about. You'are generalizing and grouping everyone in the one category - "Feminist," (and "hairy" ones at that). My goodness - head for the hills people! Perhaps that is an 'age' thing after all? Or would a 'generational' quirk be more polite?

As for my studies. Well, actually they were completed a long time ago.
In Sydney,Los Angeles and Melbourne.

You keep referring to Greer - I actually don't like the woman, never did.

I don't know what your problem is - but you sound like a very embittered man. There's probably a good reason for your behaviour.
However, seeking counseling may help - before you become even more bitter.

Cheers.

CONT'D

I fully agree with you... today to be subversive -
is to think!

Try it some time before you open your mouth!

I heard on the radio today that men account for 67% of all road fatalities (not sure what area is covered but the item was a Qld one).
Our premier and others were making a big deal about women telling their males to drive more sensibly etc. The impression from the reporting was that men are clearly more reckless drivers (possibly true). I got to thinking though. Most professional drivers especially long distance drivers are male. Men are more likely to be doing more Km's of actual distance traveled than women.

Is the fact that men account for 67% of road fatalities and indication of more reckless driving or of the proportion of road distance travelled by men.

Has anybody ever seen stats about the road distances covered by men and women (and children)? Not something I've seen but my gut feel is that men probably do 67% or better of overall road distance travelled.

If so is the genderisation of the campaign new sexism or genuine concern for mens sefety?

R0bert

"I heard on the radio today that men account for 67% of all road fatalities"

yes Rob, Oz is now the world leader in the production of Reports, not greenhouse or a new solar panel design, but on useless AND unsubstantiated "men bashing" matters, BECAUSE that is where Howard threw the funds, ie $2.3 billion pa and zip to men or R&D

the AIFS is the worst

but yes, firstly I am sure it would be men do more than 67% of kms, but secondly "account for"?

As for the drug crazed woman that killed that triathalon bloke on his pushbike, was that a male account for [as he was the one killed] or a female account for as she CAUSED the killing

No need to answer as we all know which way that situation is spun

the essential element of producing dogma reports [as I am sure Foxy would confirm, but is not "allowed" to admit] is being obfuscational about every aspect of the methodology, and using Weasel Words [per Don Watson] is the key

it's the old lies et statistics quote rehashed

R0bert:"Is the fact that men account for 67% of road fatalities and indication of more reckless driving or of the proportion of road distance travelled by men."

Not seen the stats, but I'm sure you're right about the relative travel distances and if the time on the road were taken into account, I suspect the difference would be even more stark. There is a long history of dodgy statistics being used to justify ever-more draconian laws. I'm sure there is also a sexist component to it. Those producing the figures are well aware that such a statistic would be jumped on and beaten up wildly by an avowedly feminist and activist Premier.

I seem to recall some statistics that show the proportion of accidents involving people under the influence of illicit drugs is far lower than the proportion of people found to have drugs in their system whilst driving, which suggests that illicit drugs are not a high risk factor for accidents. I haven't heard any suggestion that drug testing should therefore be curtailed. I suspect it won't be long before there is a directive issued to target "high risk groups", which will no doubt include all males under 60...

"I suspect it won't be long before there is a directive issued to target "high risk groups", which will no doubt include all males under 60..."

gosh, these Droogs targeting males UNDER 60 while Foxy is targeting males OVER 60 with her purile comments

so a coincidence as I was just about to address Foxy's continued attack on me by saying that it would be Intellectually Irresponsible [that Walters CFM term] not to challenge Foxy's feminist bile based upon the fact that the Constitution [devised on the Good Ship Lucinda over 100 ago] retires judges at 70 [apparently based on senility concerns, same as der Fox] but just about all retired High Court judges have been "called back" to do "service to the community" in various tribunals etc.

To retire the brilliant Kirby J next year when [like me] he is "just warming up" is anathama [or is that an anathama?]

and the word "retire"?

IF I was female like Foxy or Germaine I could get the Age Pension next month at 63.5, but as a male, I must wait until 65

like is that descrimination or what?

Dear Divorce Doctor,

I'm really concerned about you.

You seem to have so much negativity coming from within.

I think that it is very valuable to make the effort to become aware of this part of your psyche so you can deal with it consciously and are no longer the victim to its judgements about others.

For as long as you remain unaware of any part of your personality, it continues to affect your feelings and perceptions.

Take care.

yes indeed it was the same for Helen Garner, in both cases, both girls declined her many invitations for an interview to PUT their side of the story

so she just had to go from her "life experience" and "girlie hackles" eg Anu Singh's double handed handshake with counsel that got her off the murder charge.

and the father, Dr Singh also referred back to First Stone and tried to "warn her off" writing the second book about his daughter/murderer, suggesting Garner might also need "counselling". Then of course the girls' teams accused Garner of bias.

It is the standby OF the "feminist" bile trade [now morphed, as you say, with Greer almost unknown to those who follow her methods] that rather than debate any matter they suggest counselling, or in fact it is trauma counselling or as Minister Kay Patterson called it before I had her removed, Toxic Masculinity.

And perhaps a billion pa of the 20 billion of the FLIndustry is in the first step ie whack a DVO on bloke [no evidence required for this] and then order bloke does a 10 week Anger Management Course.

Are you an anger management practitioner? you certainly make the right noises for one.

Dear Divorce Doctor,

OK. I'll make it simple for you.

It's time you let up.

No one is attacking you on this forum. You're the one that started in with the insulting language and personal attacks. Re-read your posts and then re-read mine.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions and stop whinging about "discrimination."

I don't need anger management classes. Only people who I consider my equals in intellect, good manners, and good breeding, would annoy me. You Sir, are obviously not one of those.

By the way if you want to use words like "purile" at least learn to spell them correctly!

no foxy one, YOU started it, per:

Dear Divorce Doctor,

You wrote:

"...It seems to me only those over 60 plus (male AND female) can actually see the wood from the trees in our present PC Swamp of Power Feminism."

I thought that eyesight is generally thought to decline with age, along with intelligence.

But, perhaps those are flawed beliefs, like so many others...

My comment was in reply to the excellent post by Rob...
but you could not resist getting the old claws in

and if I keep talking to red herrings I will be breaking my own KISS rules in my Book, so I will unsubscribe to this thread and return to the helping

Dear Divorce Doctor,

You've just proven my point.

Thank You.

You simply refuse to take responsibility for your actions.

You allow yourself to make whatever insulting comments you like but you don't return the right of reply to others. They immediately become -
a 'PC Swamp of Power Feminists.' or in your latest comment, 'the claws are out.' Did you actually read your tirade that followed my relatively harmless remarks?

Not knowing anything about me you made all these ugly statements about
me personally. Don't you have a daughter? Would you speak to her like that? Shame on you.

And being an older man - what kind of role model are you?

I've told you - but you won't listen - judge people individually, not on a gender basis.

Re-read my post which you quote, "I thought that eyesight is generally thought to decline with age, along with intelligence.

But, perhaps those are FLAWED beliefs, like so many others."

I was making a general comment. You took it personally.

There are no 'claws.'

Except in your mind.

It's all very, very sad really.

Sorry to Lazarus-ise a thread that should probably have been left to quietly die, but I found an appropriate quote — applicable, I would have thought, to both sexes.

Eleanor Roosevelt: "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."

Vanilla:"a thread that should probably have been left to quietly die"

Why should it have been left to die (Divorce Doctor notwithstanding)? Are you uncomfortable with the reiteration of the various ways in which our societal institutions denigrate and discriminate against men? If this thread were about institutional sexism directed against women, you'd no doubt be a prolific contributor, yet you want it "to quietly die" when it's about the converse situation. Sadly, that is precisely the problem that has lead to the current climate in which the denigration of men is seen as suitable for advertising all sorts of things, from the RSPCA to foodstuffs, not to even mention the many other ways in which men are treated as second-rate citizens.

Vanilla: "Eleanor Roosevelt: "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."

I don't feel inferior, I am discriminated against and it's very definitely without my consent.

What should "quietly die" is the toxic "feminism" that has lead to all this. Sure, women in some third-world countries are not treated well, but those countries aren't Australia and their predicament does not justify anti-male sexism here. Nor does it justify inaction there,yet few "feminists" are willing to leave their comfortable male-supported existence here to go and do something there.

Antisceptic: "Are you uncomfortable with the reiteration of the various ways in which our societal institutions denigrate and discriminate against men?"

No. In fact, I would contribute more to this thread if there were more dispassionate and concrete examples of discrimination rather than just generic invective.

I joined the thread in good faith, but the aggression here doesn't do it for me. I've left feministy threads for similar reasons.

But you're right, it was wrong of me to say "I should have left this thread to die" if others were still getting something out of it, so I apologise for that.

Vanilla: "I would contribute more to this thread if there were more dispassionate and concrete examples of discrimination rather than just generic invective."

There have been several examples given that you chose to including R0bert's interesting question regarding road accidents, which you ignored. The thread was successfully derailed by Foxy making misandric "jokes" and then choosing to respond only to DD, which is like joining a thread about religion and responding only to Gibo, then complaining that there was nothing "concrete".

I doubt anyone was getting much out of the thread lately, which is a shame because it has the potential for an interesting discussion if the ideologues could only be stopped from derailing it.

Dear Antiseptic,

"How many men does it take to clean a toilet?"

"None, that's woman's work."

"How do you bring a woman to orgasm. Who cares?"

Those two jokes I believe were your contribution to this thread, apart
from referring to us as "grrrls." So you have to accept some responsibility for the way this discussion turned out as well.

Then with DD it got really personally and nasty. And I felt obliged to defend myself. I apologise if I derailed this thread. It was not intentional on my part. Things just kept rolling along.

I too entered this thread with good intentions, until the agression started. I thought -I'd introduce some humour - to make people lighten up - and not turn all of this into a "gender war."

I kept saying - let's judge people individually - not on a gender basis. Let's not lump everybody into the one group.

As Vanilla said, "The aggression here doesn't do it for me." Well it certainly did not do it for me either.

CONT'D

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm

Vanilla>"No. In fact, I would contribute more to this thread if there were more dispassionate and concrete examples of discrimination rather than just generic invective."

Examples? There is more to this subject and discussion than examples (though i posted a blog that is dedicated to the issue in one or two threads...I know for a fact you read my posts there, since you quoted my posts. Hence you should know of examples. Don't act like they do not exist.)

Dismissing the discussion so far as "general invective" pretty much destroys your credibility here and ability to read.

>"I joined the thread in good faith, but the aggression here doesn't do it for me. I've left feministy threads for similar reasons."

Perhaps you should check your descriptions of people's thoughtful posts before you 'wonder' why aggression is present. Dismissing posts like that is insulting and offensive.

>"But you're right, it was wrong of me to say "I should have left this thread to die" if others were still getting something out of it, so I apologise for that."

And you complained about aggression? Perhaps you should again take a look in the mirror.

Jeez.

Firstly, R0bert, I didn't ignore your post. I read it and thought about it — it's an interesting point. By that stage, this thread had got a bit aggro for me, and I didn't say that. I'm saying it now.

Secondly, Antisceptic, I also like "Why do women wear make-up and perfume? Because they're ugly and they smell". I like cartoons making fun on Mohammad. I like Jesus jokes. I like Dawkins jokes. Jokes should be funny. I believe (but accept you differ) that discrimination is a different battle.

Thirdly, Steel: My point was not that there aren't genuine examples of discrimination against men. There are. They concern me, like all issues of discrimination. I've written about it elsewhere on and outside of OLO. My point was that, for me, the thread felt nasty. So I stopped posting. Then came across what I thought was a pertinent quote, and posted again. Obviously I regret that now.

Fourthly:
Me: "it was wrong of me to say "I should have left this thread to die" if others were still getting something out of it, so I apologise for that."

Steel: "Perhaps you should again take a look in the mirror."

I don't even get this. Antiseptic pulled me up for saying the thread should die, when it might still have been a going concern for others. It was a fair point, I apologised. If you don't accept it or don't believe I was being sincere, whatever.

I know men suffer discrimination, but I watched the interview carefully and disagree that Prof Doherty's remarks were an instance of it. I believe both men and women should be careful not to derail free speech simply because they are offended. I don't believe feeling offended necessarily constitutes sexual discrimination. For men or women.

But that's me. You disagree. I get it. I don't wish to start a fight with anyone. Antisceptic and Steel, you've said you don't think I have any credibility, and you've both made it clear you dislike my posts. Fine. Let's just steer clear of each other, eh?

Foxy:"Those two jokes I believe were your contribution to this thread, apart
from referring to us as "grrrls." So you have to accept some responsibility for the way this discussion turned out as well."

Those comments were in response to your own efforts and were intended to be sarcastic. They were in the context of your efforts to derail the thread from the start. My apologies if that was a bit subtle.

Foxy: "I kept saying - let's judge people individually - not on a gender basis"

That's a noble goal, but the point of the thread was that our society has institutionalised a pro-"feminist", anti-male attitude, which was reflected in Doherty's comments. We see the evidence supporting that premise everywhere, from advertisers to Federal and State bureaucrats to the RSPCA for Bob's sake! It seems anything at all can be sold to the community using a "men are dumb/violent/oppressive" theme and there is little recourse for those who are offended by such sexism.

What are we to do about that as a community? Is this the sort of society we want our children to inherit?

Vanilla:"Antisceptic and Steel, you've said you don't think I have any credibility, and you've both made it clear you dislike my posts. Fine. Let's just steer clear of each other, eh?"

the name is ANTISEPTIC, not Antisceptic. I make an effort to call you by your chosen handle and I'd appreciate you doing the same.

As for your comment, I'm not sure what you mean. When have I claimed to dislike your posts? I'm disappointed that you seem unable to engage the topic, because on the whole I think your opinion is worth hearing. I'm sorry you don't feel appreciated.

On the subject of jokes: I enjoy a good joke, but I don't see how Foxy's efforts did anything other than derail the discussion, which was their intended purpose. If you want to start a "good jokes" thread I'll be happy to see it, regardless of the topic of the jokes.

Foxy that link is quite interesting. Such infomation for some reason just doesn't get the 'publicity' that discrimination against women receives. I don't think it ever will either.

You are a usually a very reasonable poster Vanilla and your response there proves that. My comments were only directed at your dismissal of the discussion. What you perceive as nastiness, I see as 'passionate' in the sense that people feel strongly about these issues. I did not take offence at Foxy's jokes, though i thought they were a little one-sided ;)

Dear Antiseptic,

Whether you believe me or not, my jokes were not intentionally meant to derail this discussion.

All I can do is apologise. Which I have done.

I accept in good faith your explanations, perhaps you'd kindly extend the same courtesy to me and let's simply move on.

You may be interested in the website I gave in my previous post - It deals with the topic of discrimination against men.

Vanilla, "Jeez. Firstly, R0bert, I didn't ignore your post." - you've lost me, did I say something rude to you? I've been back over previous posts and found that I'd not seen one of yours early on but not spotted anything which made me think I'd suggested that you ignored me. If I've said something that sounds like I've attacked you I'll happily try and rephrase or retract but I can't think what. You are one of my favourite posters (even when I disagree with something you have said).

Cheers
R0bert

Foxy:"my jokes were not intentionally meant to derail this discussion."

Fair enough, I accept that wasn't your intent.

Foxy:"You may be interested in the website I gave in my previous post - It deals with the topic of discrimination against men."

Yes, it's a pretty exhaustive list. Do you have any comments on it?

The common thread, ISTM in all the examples given is that the discrimination has grown out of an exaggerated determination to protect women, while men are expected to look out for themselves, albeit in a legislative environment which often removes the possibility of doing so. That determination has always been there. I can remember my Dad sitting me down and telling me "decent men don't swear in front of the ladies". Of course, the "ladies" were quite happy to swear, but "decent men" had to restrain themselves.

What is most disturbing of all is that the most extreme examples of male misbehaviour are used to justify sweepingly restrictive laws that target all males, while female misbehaviour is minimised and rarely accorded any special legislative or bureaucratic recognition. At the same time, activities and services for women are specifically promoted, while those for men are rarely to be seen and when they do appear, are frequently targetted by "feminists" as discriminatory.

Where does it end?

Antiseptic I somewhere got the opinion you were pretty hard core chip on your shoulder anti-feminist, but that last post was a very well expressed and quite convincing analysis.

Dear Antiseptic,

I was brought up to be docile, to have pleasing behaviour. I was told not to be competitive. I was told that charm and attractiveness would receive more approval than intelligence. I was allowed some "tomboyish" behaviour, but on the whole - it was discouraged.

You, on the other hand, as you indicated were taught to "act like a man" in other words, to suppress your emotions and particularly your tears.

Well, as we're learning the statistics tell the story. Compared to women, men have a higher suicide rate, a higher rate for severe mental disorders and alcoholism rate. Men commit over 80 percent of all serious crimes and constitute over 90 percent of prison inmates. They are far more likely than women to suffer stress-related diseases such as ulcers, hypertension, and asthma. The bleakest statistic is life expectancy: the average male dies seven years sooner than the average female.

Where will it end? I can't pretend to have all the answers. All I can hope for is that men and women will explore a wide variety of possible roles. True liberation from the restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex, would be the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.

CONT'D

I forgot to add - the list on the website that I gave you I thought was horrific.

What has to happen in today's society is, the masculine role has to become more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and culture change. Under the 'old' system, everyone knew what their roles were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices.

There should be fewer constraints today, allowing the individual to have the liberty (or the burden) to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Foxy: "True liberation from the restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes."

There was a story yesterday in the Age about Australian workplaces being a so-called "boys club". Here's a quote:"A QUARTER of Australia's working women say females are not treated equally in the workplace - and one in five of their male colleagues agree." That means that THREE QUARTERS of women and 80% of men say women are treated equally. Is that not enough? Must we be homogenous?

Foxy:"What has to happen in today's society is, the masculine role has to become more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual."

From where I sit, the men have done an enormous amount of accommodating to women's demands and we still have to change? As it happens, I agree with you that flexibility is the key for both genders, yet the topic has become so skewed that even a reasonable person such as you makes the tacit assumption that men are flawed and women are not.

You may recall that I mentioned I fear for my son's future in the "Brave New feminist-dominated World". I attended an information session last night for a "gifted and talented" program at my daughter's intended high school. The head teacher was proud enough to mention the fact that over the past 17 years, the participants, all hand-picked from a large pool of applicants, had been more than 2/3 girls. They had also asked some past students of the program to attend - they were all women and had wondrous tales to tell of how well they were doing as a result of the program. What had happened to the boys?

Dear Antiseptic,

I should have explained further. I did not mean to suggest for one minute that men are flawed and women are not. I'm the most flawed woman I know, whereas my husband - I think is a saint!
That's the problem - in debating, we sometimes make a statement and not explain fully what we mean - presuming that the other party will understand, forgetting that you don't really know me or what I think.

What I was referring to was that under the 'old' system, everyone knew what their roles were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices. There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now has the liberty (or the burden) to choose his or her, own path to self-fulfillment.

What will be the final shape of gender roles? Sexual equality does not mean necessarily gender similarity or a 'unisex' society. It does not necessarily mean that women will gradually adopt characteristics of men or that the two existing genders will converge on some happy medium. The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative lifestyles and roles will be acceptable to both men and women.

Our society I hope will become individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and it is likely that men and women will explore a wide variety of possible roles.

I'm so sorry that you feel scared for your son's future. Hopefully things will turn out differently for him. For the better.

Take care.

This seems to illustrate my point about the most extreme examples being used to create generally-applicable responses, leading to consequences affecting many men and children in perfectly normal, loving relationships.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23644674-2,00.html