It really doesn't take much searching to find articles by Nina Funnel, Monica Dux, Melinda Tankard Reist, Helen Pringle
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/feminism-has-just-begun-20100926-15s9h.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/who-says-feminism-is-dead-20100412-s3ei.html
That portray men as being violent, only interested in their own sexual pleasure, basically as predators.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/men-get-a-taste-of-the-sex-harassment-gauntlet-20100706-zytn.html

Very few commentators are prepared to question or challange the use of inflammatory language of these writers. Those that try are classified as being misogynistic and patriarchial oppressors.

Attempts at trying to develope counter arguements are met with disdain and at times outright personal attacks.

Anger that seems to be way out of proportion with alleged offenses.

Two rather interesting articles have appeared, the first one to do with "Why do we demonize men who are honest about their sexual needs?"

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/

The second has to do with a new book "My lie" by Meredith Maran
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview

<i>"In the years leading up to that mass panic, I was working as a feminist journalist, writing exposés of child sexual abuse, trying to convince the world that incest was more than a one-in-a-million occurrence. In the process, I convinced myself that my father had molested me. After five years of incest nightmares and incest workshops and incest therapy, I accused my father",</i>

Everyone is vulnerable to have their views, beliefs manipulated by the media, books and fictional films and particularly TV shows that follow a feminist script, by that I mean shows that contain feminist messages with in their story line.

But maybe Gretel Killen is right that it is about time to recognise 'Me' in the blame.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/time-to-recognise-the-me-in-blame-20101009-16d5p.html

But then that is the last thing that some people wish to happen."Accepting your contribution to any situation is vital not only to ensure the incident doesn't recur, but hopefully to prevent it in the first place."

James H

"Men" are deomonized for political reasons. The suffragettes had a legitimate cause, though terrorism was not the way to go about it.

But like all revolutions, 'equality' is never the real goal, "Dominance" is. It takes a while for that true objective to come to the light of day, but come it will.

Now that Women have the vote and equal pay, the poor desperate Socialists have to go to 'the next level' and further demonize men or they will cease to be relevant.. no 'cause'.

But ultimately 'men' are demonized because many deserve it, and why do they deserve it ? Because, put simply they have lost their connection to their God, and allowed 'something down lower' on their anatomy to be their 'guiding spirit' so to speak.

The correct relationship between males and females is a complementary, mutually supportive, love based one, where respect and honouring of the other is at the core.
Husbands are to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her"..but when men abandon this, and see women as their toys and slaves and servants.. it should be no surprise that women react rather negatively.

I don't know if men are demonized. People seem to like to read stuff that will outrage them. I know I like to read stuff that will anger me. I am bemused though that some of the 'social commentators' get so much of an opportunity to repeat the same stuff in every article and seem to get paid for repetition of the same theme rather than something new. I'd say it's possible they take the opportunity over someone with something new to say and if so that's a shame.

I wonder if it's that there is so much anti-men commentary James, or whether it's just that you feel the need to read so much anti-men commentary. I've said before a lot of these aggrieved male posters look to me like people desperately looking for approval. Just like a feminist that sees sexism everywhere, maybe you see radial feminism everywhere? Even if it is everywhere, I see many comments on these articles stridently opposing the ideas, which is probably why they are so prevalent. Advertising revenue.

The solution to your woes really is to read other stuff, which I know you do as you seem to regurgitate a lot of anti-feminist stuff. If you don't like the dissection of men in such a negative way, don't read feminist social commentary.

Having said that, it seems in this world, to the victim go the spoils. It's the nature of lobbying; Lobby lobby lobby, gimme gimme gimme, play those violins. Squeaky wheels and all that.

I agree that to question the validity and size of those violins opens up a tidal wave of frothing spittle followed by the words misogynist or cave man. So be it. What a social commentator says has no more weight than what you or I say.

Really, what you should be doing, is trying get in there and shout loud for the mens issues. Admittedly feminists have a very large PR advantage and have brand recognition in the victim stakes.

Men are in the game with child custody now, but there is so many issues they could be interested in. The glass nursery for one. I read so many articles about gender pay gaps, the glass ceiling, women's 'juggling', but why don't you ever see men leading any fight against your oft-stated maternal gatekeepers? Maybe men just lack ambition.

PPS: With the sexual assault thing, it's really a battle between the pragmatists and the idealists. Some people have the idea that there are crazy drivers and that there are plenty of people 6 feet under who had right of way. Others think they should be able to walk out onto the road at a pedestrian crossing without looking out for crazy drivers. I'm a pragmatist myself.

PS: You're blaming the victim!

The Left has been effectively taken over by Feminism, which has become the dominant ideology informing leftist policy. While there are many reasons that could be discussed, I believe that just 3 are critical. The first is that feminism has very solidly embraced the concept of sororal solidarity on "women's issues" and in the process has achieved a very powerful bloc of voters at both elections and in the party room, who can be relied upon to vote predictably - far more so than men, who are more interested in specific policies relating to their activities rather than their gender. Therefore we see men displaying bumper stickers saying "I fish and I vote", rather than "boys can do anything".

The second is that at branch level in the ALP it is traditionally women who have been the movers and shakers, simply because they were the ones with the time to do so while their husbands were out working. It is no coincidence that ALP branches are in serious trouble as women increasingly move into the paid workforce.

Third, women of the left tend to be better educated than men of the left. Many men, having achieved a professional qualification or established their own business, eschew their leftist youth, while women are addicted to the handouts that leftist policies are so often reduced to. The men who remain leftist tend to be blue collar and thus easy prey for the well-drilled products of feminist educations, unable to combat the sophistry offered.

The Right sits uneasily with feminism and its socialist justifications. While some women of the right claim to be feminists, they find it difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of libertarianism that inform much of the policy from that side of politics. They WANT to like it - after all, "we're all girls together", but it's not a good fit, so they offer lip-service and roll their eyes at the excesses.

IOW: men are demonised by feminists because the distorted Marxism they promote demands a class enemy. Men are not women, ergo they must be it.

Who is demonizing men? Many men see demons at the mention of anything to do with rape, sex or equal rights. Men can be honest about their sexual needs - why not - that is not the issue. The issue is one of mutual consent. How is talking about rape, demonizing men? Let's just pretend it doesn't happen - much easier on our sensibilities.

Well I've read everything now - now feminism is about dominance. It is a preposterous idea - for goodness sake feminism was a movement based on respect and equality and in the modern day there is more work to be done to include choice for men within the home or in professions once dominated by women.

This is just another poor me as victim thread - let's everyone just start taking responsibility for their own behaviour and not push guilt onto victims of sexual assault for one.

Most men and women don't blame the victim, especially if they have experienced it themsleves or one of their loved ones. Just because some men rape does not mean all men do or will. Just because some women make false accusations does not mean all women do or will.

Taking care not to put oneself in a dangerous situation is the smart thing, but in real life you are not always safe at home or walking down the street in the daytime. Unless we lock ourselves away there is a small risk but we would be stupid to take this small risk as a measure of how we live our lives. But when tragedy does occur it is not unreasonable to expect some support and compassion rather than the tendency to share guilt. It is like people are unwilling to see that men/women can sometimes behave in abhorrent ways. People deal with that realisation by diluting the behaviour and the best way to do that is by victim blaming.

Take each case on its merits rather than getting on a gender high horse. There is far too much of the 'Me Me' in this debate and not enough 'WE'.

I did really find reading feminist material very depressing, Holly.

But more of that latter. I would have to agree with most of what you wrote. Personally if I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and give myself a big kick up the you know where and tell myself not to go down this path.

Admittedly some people do not want to look to deeply and others look too deeply which in itself causes a distorted view, in a very narrow field of vision.

http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/questions-i-want-to-ask-entitled-cis-het-men-part-3-space-for-men/

<Of course, it’s worth noting that the advantages women experience are almost always the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. For instance, one might say that women get more social space for emotion because we’re stereotyped as irrational and hysterical. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us easily grasp that space, while most men don’t. And if we can reject the Oppression Olympics for just one minute and stop thinking about who’s got it worse, it becomes clear that the advantages and drawbacks associated with being both male and female are intertwined. The two systems reinforce, and cannot function without, each other. The gender binary may not hurt everyone equally, but it hurts everyone.>

It is the other side of this binary I want to explore.

I don't know whether they're Marxists anti.

There is a lot of 'class' politics when you read any feminist 'social commentator' article about rugby league controversies. It's not just the dreaded 'attitude to women', but also a lamenting about a 'culture' that is very close to a 'heaping sh1t on the pikeys' attitude. An aversion to less intelligent or less 'educated' people and almost an aversion to sport per se, certainly an aversion to a 'common man's ' sport of rugby league. Really, apart from the painting of all men as violent predators, there is a sub-text of hatred for the less educated 'low class' man, and a patronising of the low-class women victims.

Maybe they're more Chardonnay socialists.

Which brings me to pelican,

'let's everyone just start taking responsibility for their own behaviour and not push guilt onto victims of sexual assault for one. '

That's a very ironic comment. Push guilt. Hahaha. Nobody can make you feel guilty. Take responsibility for your own feelings.

'Just because some men rape does not mean all men do. '

To be fair, that's exactly what James often bangs on about, the subtle assertion by FSM (feminist social commentators) that all men are guilty somehow for rape due to their 'attitude to women'. This 'attitude to women' basically being any expression of sexual attraction or depiction of male fantasy'.

'There is far too much of the 'Me Me' in this debate and not enough 'WE'.'
I don't know. I think people are wanting a more even-sided debate about consent these days. First we had 'she asked for it', but these days we have a gentleman/rapist dichotomy. I think we should explore the grey areas in negotiation of consent between drunken people rather than silence dissent with cries of 'Blaming the Victim!'.

PS: Thanks for the first 'blame the victim'. Was counting on it. May there be many more!

In summary,

Feminists wont let anyone talk at all about pragmatic precautions without yelling 'blaming the victim!', but some men wont let anyone talk about rape without yelling 'so all men are rapists huh?!'

Pelican:"feminism was a movement based on respect and equality"

In its earliest iterations, certainly, but the modern version is about power and control. Usually, it is about justifying a stance in which women have power and men have to exercise control.

I thought the recent comment from the French Finance Minister was revealing. She claims that women make better politicians because they're less interested in sex. I suspect she's right about the sex, but not about the qualification for politics. Moreover, I suspect that Nina et al understand that many women don't much like sex and that therefore, attacking male sexuality is a no-brainer: the class enemy is assaulted and there's very little chance of anyone important (IOW, other women) feeling aggrieved. In days gone by my mother used to have tea parties and other social getherings with her woman friends. I'm sure the "unreasonable" sexual requirements of their husbands were a common topic of conversation, no doubt with many suggestions bandied about as to how one might avoid them.

I have 6 sisters, so Dad must have been persuasive...

Pelican:"There is far too much of the 'Me Me' in this debate and not enough 'WE'."

If egalitarianism is the goal of feminism as you claim then why is 50% of the population excluded by definition?

Men have been very tolerant of the demands of feminism. It's an extension of the old "happy wife, happy life" maxim, I suspect. Feminists have shown no such concern for the negative outcomes of their policies on men. It's simply not part of the ideology.

Nothing like stepping into the fray.

The difference is Houlley is that I don't see a bevy of women saying "all men are rapists" - this is only in the mind of some men who for some reason I cannot fathom prefer to retain a victim status due their own personal experiences. Men and women need to get over those personal experiences and come into the light of rationality and reason.

But if you read OLO and other media, there is plenty of 'blaming the victim' going around especially where alcohol or footballers are involved.

The positive thing to remember is that most men and women dont' subscribe to the notion that men are demonised just because some men might rape, or because a woman writes an article about sexualisation of children in advertising, or recounts a rape experience and the reaction of police, or about glass ceilings or any number of other issues.

Feminism has never been an issue of the Left or Right even though it has been painted at various times as one or the other. In the early days feminism aligned itself heavily with the Right.

Feminists can be of either sex and many feminists believe that gender stereotypes hinder men and women.

Anti
I suspect the reason why men have sometimes been excluded in legislation is that like any cause where there was a perceived underdog the legislation initially sought to level the playing field.

That has changed as HEROC anti-discrimination legislation is by and large non-gender specific and men have utilised those same protective laws.

Men now benefit from paternity leave provisions and the like.

Most women don't want women to be the dominant gender, they don't think about dominance - that is my point - no-one is talking about female dominance except some men.

It is a distraction and there is nothing like avoiding the real issues by putting forward a preposterous and extreme claim like female domination or even 'terrorism' as proposed by Al.

I'm with Houellebecq on this one.

Demonization is, I suspect, largely in the eye of the beholder. I for one don't feel at all oppressed when I hear wild-eyed femo-nazis raving on about how evil men are. I feel sorry for them, in the same way that I feel sorry for anyone who decides that "it's all the world's fault" when anything happens that they don't like.

But I particularly liked this typo of yours, H.

>>maybe you see radial feminism everywhere?<<

My immediate thought was, does radial feminism have a spokesperson?

Houellebecq:"I don't know whether they're Marxists anti. "

As I said, it's a distortion of Marxism, in which bourgeois women have pretended to the role of oppressed underclass, while blue collar men are portrayed as oppressors. It's grossly intellectually dishonest.

Pelican:"Feminism has never been an issue of the Left or Right even though it has been painted at various times as one or the other. In the early days feminism aligned itself heavily with the Right."

Feminism has always been a movement driven by bourgeois women. Those women have often tried to justify the inherently discriminatory nature of their views by using a perverted Marxist analysis in which any disadvantage suffered by a woman is included as part of the class struggle. Of course, a Marxist approach means that once the class enemy has been identified no further notice need by given to the impact of policies on them. After all, they're "oppressors" and deserve all they get. Nina et all are polemicists for the Revolution, as I'm sure they'd proudly acknowledge.

Pelican:"Most women don't want women to be the dominant gender, they don't think about dominance"

And nor do most men, but the political ones do. In today's world, to be a female politician is to be a feminist - there is no other choice available.

Pericles, wheely!

pelican,

'The difference is Houlley is that I don't see a bevy of women saying "all men are rapists"'
Which is what I said in my first post to James. It's purely the FSCs.

This really is the crux of it. When FSCs dissect rape, it is in the terms of a problem of 'society' or 'culture'. It's never expressed as an individual man's selfish choice or misogyny, it's the culture, ie all men are to blame. One individual hasn't raped, men, as an entity, have raped.

I fear for most FSCs, the discussion of rape is a vehicle for a discussion of how much they hate men. The negative dissection of a singular men is the main game. The talk about 'culture' is a vehicle to express a hatred of what they see as a singular men.

It's like people demonizing religion via paedophile priests. Even if the Vatican was sold and each victim given 20 million bucks and all paedophile priests were publicly disembowelled, some people would never be happy. Why; The hatred of religion precedes the hatred of paedophile priests. One is a vehicle for the other.

Conversely, men who hate feminism somehow seem to read a lot of the work of FSCs and take it all on board, and choose it as their representation of feminism. Just like any religion, my feminism is unique to me. It includes all sorts of things that FSCs would say if they weren't so focussed on women, and were interested in actually achieving something, with men, rather than taking pot shots at men.

'Most women don't want women to be the dominant gender, they don't think about dominance - that is my point - no-one is talking about female dominance except some men. '
Interesting. Most men don't think of dominance, but it features massively in feminist doctrine. Those FSCs would men on board if they started conversations with 'I feel dominated' rather than 'You are domineering'.

PS: Bring out broad church. Come'on! please! You know you want to.

I can't disagree with the essentials of your last post Houlley.

And everything is a broad church Houlley including the Church. And the same applies, a criticism of lack of action on pedophiles is seen as anti-Catholic rather than anti-pedophile and the detriment of lack of accountability vs extraordinary powers to circumvent law.

That is the trouble with these sorts of debates - one's own POV is often enhanced by elaborating on the extreme version of the adversary.

Most women do not believe that 'all men are rapists' but an Ad that targets domestic violence (for example) is not a feminist conspiracy nor does it imply all men are wife beaters.

What I don't understand is why the position of a radical feminist is put up as the paragon of feminism. It is like the red lights come on whenever there is a feminist article posted on OLO - it immediately signals the attack often without really reading what the article was about.

Anti
Feminism did have some detrimental effects unintentionally for some low income workers particularly child care workers who were affected in the drive for 'affordable childcare'. Middle class welfare in the form of affordable childcare comes at a cost to those low income workers - some barely earning a living wage. But that is not just about feminism but about greater economic issues. Unionism probably did more for working class women on the ground in the early days than feminism, but feminism ensured greater opportunities.

pelican,

'an Ad that targets domestic violence (for example) is not a feminist conspiracy nor does it imply all men are wife beaters.'

Well, it's definitely not a conspiracy. I think , like drunken consent, the frustration is the simplification of a more complex social problem. It's part of the patronising of the pikeys. 'Just tell them no means no or Australia says no.'

Personally I regret that such an opportunity of an advertising campaign on domestic violence didn't go anywhere near addressing the problem. There are generally 2 people in a relationship and the majority of violent domestic disputes both partners are violent.

But, women raised the funds and wanted to narrow their appeal to the less frequent (but perhaps more troublesome) cases when a domineering male is terrorising his wife. They come do the lobbying so they can reduce and narrow the message. Pity though. It doesn't imply all men are wife beaters, but it is a very narrow portrayal of violent domestic disputes.

'What I don't understand is why the position of a radical feminist is put up as the paragon of feminism. It is like the red lights come on whenever there is a feminist article posted on OLO - it immediately signals the attack often without really reading what the article was about.'

Oh it's fun! I love a good MTR article! As I said, some authors I have sussed, and the article is invariably about 'I just found some more evidence to support my claim that men are inherently violent predatory abusers'. I can feel the excitement vicariously through them, and can even imagine the excitement they feel when a new advert comes along to reinforce their world view, giving them a segue to continue on about the same theme and disguise it as a new article.

They are the paragon of feminism as they are the public face.

pelican "Most women do not believe that 'all men are rapists' but an Ad that targets domestic violence (for example) is not a feminist conspiracy nor does it imply all men are wife beaters."

What those DV ad's tend to do though is only portray male perpetrator's, female victims. What they imply is that only men are responsible for initiating and perpetuating DV. I've never seen any attempt to clear up that piece of misdirection.

I do thing that there is some traditional gender views mixed up in that approach but feminist voices speaking out against that genderised have been rather sparse.

I spent quite a lot of time a while back reading feminist literature trying to rebut vanna's claims about Australian feminist academics and was very disturbed by the approach which was fairly consistently shown in the material I found.

It was almost entirely negative about men and masculinity other than those who were clearly trying to conform to "feminine" behaviors (acting in what was perceived to be non masculine ways - eg consulting and collaboration and the like). There is a strong pattern of defining certain disliked behaviors and attitudes as masculine and desired ones as feminine, of applying feminist assumptions about power structures to reinterpret data (when a man hit's it's about dominating, when a woman hit's it's fighting back against oppression etc).

Once they have done that they can then claim that almost all DV is committed by men because they defined away instances where the woman might otherwise be seen as the aggressor.

R0bert

People Please.

*

Although I've become more aware of it recently, I think I've always had the sense that men are particularly vulnerable to the judgment of “creep." I wrote a series of blog posts on the problems of masculinity, and in Part 3 I noted that -- unlike men -- "I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep."
http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/

Interestingly in the Fraser Kirk affair, it would appear that from the release of emails, that somewhere along the line there was flirting between them and Mark McInnes begged her for mercy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mark-mcinnes-begged-publicist-kristy-fraser-kirk-for-mercy/story-e6frg6nf-1225932586067

He apologised, and yet she is still going for the jugular.

Human relationships are complicated enough with sometimes very subtle unconscious behaviours and clues.

the idea of No meaning No is good, yet there does not appear to be any support for women taking a much more overt and active role in initiating heterosexual sex.

A big part of the problem I think with things like sexual harrasement, sexual assault and rape, it that the vast majority of the time it has nothing to do with sexism, but to do with the fact that it is left up to men to be the main initiators.

An allegation of sexual harrasement for instance, would depend on the fact as to whether she found the male to be attractive and wanted him to make advances as compared to a male who she wasn't attracted too.

From my reading there are other issues as well, some women both desire and resent male attention, some feel that if a male doesn't approach them for sex, then she feels that he isn't attracted to her.

Psychologist Toby Green and commentator Amy Cooper both wrote about women being "testers" and when I wrote this there were howls of protest. When I read this it was one of those ah Ha moments for me.

So protest to your hearts content, I aint budging on this one. It has nothing to do with hating women, like many would want to believe, it is an aspect of human behaviour.

Pericles, "Demonization is, I suspect, largely in the eye of the beholder."

Sometimes it is, for either gender.

Researchers Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young (link below) have an interesting perspective, going beyond demonisation. Not saying I agree with them, but they pick up the theme of ideological versus egalitarian (feminists) commonly encountered in this debate and they describe the concept of misandry, which is useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanson_and_Young

Pelican:"What I don't understand is why the position of a radical feminist is put up as the paragon of feminism."

It's because those are the people driving the policy formulations and getting Government grants to do advocacy "research" which will be used to justify the policy.

Moderate women go along with it for the freebies it produces.

Pelican:"Unionism probably did more for working class women on the ground in the early days than feminism"

And it probably still does. The goals of feminism have always been the goals of the bourgeoisie - the problems afflicting working class women are simply justifications for greater preferment for the bourgeois ones.

We don't hear much today about women working on picking lines or doing process work, but there's lots of noise about getting more of their bourgeois "sisters" onto boards and into Parliament, whether the boards or the voters want them there or not.

I'm sure working class women everywhere are grateful.

This conversation is worthwhile, given the outpourings of hatred that have accompanied discussion of rape allegations, involving Collingwood footballers.

It seems that defending the 'don't blame the victim' taboo is more important than having a mature discussion about a complex social problem and its solution. I simply don't understand why commenting on the simple concept of personal responsibility for fixing one's own problems needs to be interpreted in such a malicious way. These witch-hunts may give some people someone to look down on, but achieve little else.

There have been a number of discussions on male violence but only one on female violence. I was set to weigh into that debate but I was called away.
I was once told by a bevy of "reclaim the night crucaders" that "Women are never violent. Only men are violent." Since then I have kept a record of every violent act commited by a women over the last 20 or so years. It should make some researchers life, into domestic violence, a joy to behold or not. I asked a Government Social Worker CEO what records did they hold on Violent Women. I was told there were very few official records kept.
Con't

Here is a list as from August:
Dudley confesses tokilling children, ABC News 17/8/10.
Girl 16 charged over violent robbery at Coorparoo, CM(Courier Mail) 18/8/10.
Women charged after punching, burning babysitter, CM 23/8/10. Women throws puppies in river, liveleak 01/09/10.
Gang of 8 females assault group, AAP 28/8/10.
Women stands trial on charge of slicing DiCaprio, AP 13/7/10.
Women jailed for attempted hijack in NZ, AFP 27/8/10.
Baby thrown from apartment block, AAP 27/8/10.
Wack at cat women, The Sun 27/8/10.
Mum leaves 2 year at home , goes drinking & gambling, CM 1/9/10. Kelso charge women, police find man with knife wound, 1/9/10.
UK female double muderer jailed, AAP 8/9/10.
2 shot deat at cookie plant. Women held, Yahoo News 10/9/10. Phillipine baby found in plane bin, AAP 12/9.10.
Florida mum say son is a good boy, calls on Muslims to support al Qaeda. ABC 10/9/10.
Women accused of trying to kill expartner, CM 13/9/10.
Sydney Females charged over taxi assult, AAP 13/9/10.
Teen accused of poisoning parents has case moved, CM 14/9/10.
Womwn hid stillborn fro 20 years, AAP 14/9.10. Women charged over stabbing 2 men, CM 21/9/10.
Dinmore women armed with brick & knife charged with assult, CM 22/9/10.
Interpol ask Aust police to re-open drowing case after arrest of Italian black widow, CM 22/9/10.
Girl 14 killed sex attacker, BBC 28/9/10.
Mother jailed for neglecting children, AAP 1/10/10.
Glassing attacker cries in court, AAP 30/9/10.
Toddler duct-taped to wall by mom, 5/10/10.
Ohio mum kills 2 kids then self, Yahoo 07/10/10.
Woman jailed over killing pregnant woman, AAP 7/10/10.
Mom abducted daughter 25 years ago, Yahoo 7/10/10.
Wife sets fire to husbands penis to purify it, AAP 7/10/10.
Woman had 77 cats in 2 cars, Yahoo 10/10/10.
Mum tries to sell toddlers organs, CM 13/10/10.
Report: 5 children die each day from abuce or neglect, ABC news 6/10/10.
Of course one has to remember, as I was so vermently told, "Women are never violent, only men are violent."
So why do men cop all the blame? It's because women have "bad hair days" & men don't.

jayb you sound insane. What prompted you to dedicate so much time to prove the obvious? Why did you care so much about the opinions of this woman? Did you ever track her down and confront her with your research? And what does it all have to do with hair?

Jayb that is an impressive list.

what you say about data and offical records is correct. If the data is not collected, then offically the problem does not exist.

<Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade.

Out of hundreds of articles, book reviews and published ads, only "a fraction - about 25" were about men, Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work." >

http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=91

Sexism is alive and well and feminist or those who claim to be feminist are as, if not more sexist than the rest of society.

Bettina Arndt once wrote that women do like being shown their true colours.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/01/1048962754904.html

<Contrary to all the sneering about the show unfairly presenting women as money-grubbing gold-diggers, part of the female reaction to the series is an - ouch! - squirm of embarrassment. We're not comfortable being shown in our true colours>

One of the major complaints that are expressed by women, is mens relutance to open up and talk. But usually the lid gets shut very quickly if a bloke does talk, and the woman does not like what she is hearing.

Houellebecq, And what does it all have to do with hair?

When women have "bad hair days" they are proported to go crazy or insane. Oh, Duh! Where have you been all of your life?

As JamesH quoted, "Bettina Arndt once wrote that women do like being shown their true colours." Or, as James says, "the woman does not like what she is hearing."

Houellebecq, "jayb you sound insane. What prompted you to dedicate so much time to prove the obvious?"

About the same time I was quoted that "only men are violent," I read an article on a study done at Monash into men subjected to violence" The study was never completed. It was shut down by womens lobby groups. Their reasoning was that if it was shown that men also were subjected to violence then funding for feminists would be diverted towards research in to violence towards men. They couldn't let that happen now. Could they? Anyway, it a hobby... Some people collect stamps.

I think you have just proved the point that women don't want to hear the truth or fix the problem they just want to talk about it.

jayb "I think you have just proved the point that women don't want to hear the truth or fix the problem they just want to talk about it."

Are you thinking that Holly is female?

R0bert

Women are also capable of committing horrible crimes like the mother who aided in the prostitution of her child. No-one is arguing men=bad women=good. Women and young girls are more likely to commit violent crime than the previous generation but I suspect it has nothing to do with feminism and more to do with other social changes that also see younger men committing violent crime.

Perhaps what is needed is more issue specific policy. Personally I don't go for government advertising for most issues unless to provide practical information like phone numbers ie. who to ring for DV or health assistance etc.

Anti-violence campaigns whether targeting DV or general violence don't stop violence IMO. Instead of putting money into Ads we should be looking at why violence has increased in our communities and what can be done at a grass roots level to reduce the statistics.

It not being honest or helpful to deny domestic violence is mainly perpetrated by men. I do believe that - and I can believe that and not be a man-hater. The statistics show that it is mainly women who are abused or raped but that does not by contrast imply that women cannot also be abusers.

I don't believe the hype that is fostered by some Men's Rights groups that women are 'overtaking men' in violence behind closed doors or that the control/power is shifting towards women in the home as I read on one site.

This is just anti-feminist anti-women nonsense. JamesH I wouldn't presume to know whether or not you hate women and I truly believe you believe the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but that does not make it so.

Many men I think are still uncomfortable with some of the changing roles in society and that is also an aspect that is never fully discussed in these debates. Some men see it as a loss of power (ie. head of the household stuff) when it is not about power but about mutually loving and respectful relationships.

Who, exactly, are the 'we' that demonize men JamesH?
We could start another thread asking why do men demonize women, and have just as much, if not more, to discuss!

It is a well known fact that there are far more women around the world who are financially, emotionally and physically dominated by the men in their lives than the other way around. Think of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon... and the list goes on.

Until those statistics change, we have no real need to be worried about some mad feminists supposedly'demonizing' men.
The average woman has partners, brothers, fathers and sons in their lives that they love just as much as the women in their lives.

The women who do demonize men may well have good reason to, just like many men demonize women for their own personal reasons!

Gee Jayb, I think you need another hobby other than writing down all violent crimes committed by women! Sounds a bit strange to me.

I don't think anyone has ever said women can't be or haven't been violent have they?
The fact remains that men commit the most numbers of violent crimes against both women and other men in our society and in every other society in our world.

That doesn't mean the crimes committed by women are not a problem, just that there are less of them.

As these conversations progress, I suspect there is not much point in repeating the same old arguments but I only ask that while you keep seeing feminazis at every turn, while ignoring the masculinazis, you only see half the problem.

Women have never claimed men to be inferior or to possess a lesser intellect. The same cannot be said of men and even some religious texts refer to women in derogatory or discriminatory terms. Many fundies still believe (to suit their own selfish purposes) that God put women on earth for men and that 'she' should serve her man as he serves God. Women have been painted as unclean, as evil temptresses, as witches and all manner of insults. Adultery in many cultures is still considered a crime with a death penalty or stoning but only for women.

While these great divides exist I cannot buy into the demonisation of men argument to any great extent, other than to say there have been prejudices on both sides of the gender but by a long stretch it is dishonest to present the view that women are the dominant gender or aspire to be, without taking some time to really examine where the very real and potent discrimination exists.

Until we face some home truths and take a reality check we will all still be sitting here in years to come looking at gender from a self-fulfilling standpoint. Not much to be gained in that - rather we all take a good hard look and adopt a humanist approach.

If you look for feminazis you will find them but mostly they will be in your own mind.

Pelican succeeds in summing up the main problem about this article, the author, and his groupies, in one short sentence:

<" If you look for feminazis you will find them but mostly they will be in your own mind."

Indeed.

Suzieonline, I used the first part of

"Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?"

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/

An article that appears in todays Herald sun, is rather interesting

Sex politics go too far
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sex-politics-goes-too-far/story-e6frfhqf-1225938378997

The final comment in that story sums it up for me:

"Essentially, we have criminalised boyhood."

I'm not prepared to stand for that and I've no respect whatever for those who seek to justify it.

pelican "If you look for feminazis you will find them but mostly they will be in your own mind." the same deal cut's for a lot of feminist work on identifying oppression.

You and Suzie are both pointing to other countries to seemingly justify ignoring vilification of men in our country. You have both made claims along the lines that "no women " are saying certain things or wanting certain outcomes when clearly some do.

Is it really necessary to say that discrimination against women must be mostly stopped across the world before we can look at some of what's happening in our own society and say that's not a good direction?

The DV ad's being a case in point where there was a clear and deliberate attempt to misrepresent DV. Unless you subscribe to the DV is something women can't do to a man theory the portrayal of DV in those ad's did not match any credible view of the real world gender breakup especially when emotional abuse and controlling behaviors are included. I have mixed views about the value of such ad's, I hope that they make it clear to some that certain behaviors are not Ok who may not have got the message elsewhere but I really don't like it when they are presented in a dishonest manner.

Having had a partner who believed it was Ok to hit when she was upset and seen how little support I got from idiot's keen to point out that I was bigger so what harm can it do I do think that some do need to be told by the broader society that their actions are not Ok.

I do think some get a bit precious about the portrayal of men in the media just as some feminists get a bit precious about the portrayal of women in the media but that does not mean that it's not legitimate to point out concerns nor should we need to wait until gender discrimination in every village in Afghanistan is stopped before we can talk about an unhealthy trend here.

R0bert

Feminism is the problem.. Women these days are too smart for their own good. They were better off serving their male counterparts being sex objects and looking after kids. I believe women were much happier then.
Nowadays they can't properly cater for their male friends. Marriage has gone out the window. Young males would rather buy a new car than save money for a house deposit.
Every body wants to live seperate lives. Single lives.
Young females get around with skirts two inches below the snom, there's no need for imagination any more.
I don't know how you could respect the modern woman. There's nothing left to make you want to own them any more.
I will stick to my life time wife and best friend.

pelican,

I think JamesH's gripes can coexist with your downtrodden martyrs of society. You seem to want a monopoly for women to be the only victims. I get so tired of feminists in our society appropriating the hardships of women in other countries and cultures, and using the phrase 'not so long ago'. It has no relevance to what James is discussing. Which is here, now, in our society.

'Women have never claimed men to be inferior or to possess a lesser intellect.'
Ever read 'mere male' in 'The Weekly' :-)? I think you'd have to accept there is an undercurrent of women as inherently better or more virtuous beings in the FSC material. When women are violent we must look to help them and see what's wrong, maybe they're depressed or were abused as a child. Men are just acting their gender.

'I suspect it has nothing to do with feminism and more to do with other social changes that also see younger men committing violent crime.'

I would disagree. I think it's the inevitable consequence of equality. The more equality women have the more we will have equality in violence, drugs, promiscuity. Unless you believe men are inherently more violent and women are better people.

'It not being honest or helpful to deny domestic violence is mainly perpetrated by men.'

In the lower scale it isn't. It's actually pretty even. It depends on your definition of domestic violence. There are behaviours that if a man does it it's DV, but if a woman does it it's being 'spirited'. It's all to do with the relative strengths of men and women. If you define DV narrowly as ongoing intimidation and domination by one partner only, I'd guess it's about 80-20. But most couples when one is violent so is the other.

I don't know any men who see themselves as head of the household. Most of my mates are hen-pecked.

James,

'The mother says a girl texted a picture of her breasts to a boy's mobile phone and the boy was suspended.'

Sounds fair.

Not 'no' women, RObert but most women. Feminists who write books do not represent all women and many of those feminist books do not degrade men. The same goes for men in regard to discussions about rape with all manner of arguments to 'criminalise' victims.

This topics assumes that there are "no men" demonising women at all when clearly there are men who still believe that women should stay in 'their place' whatever that means. Single mothers are demonised more than any group I can think of while single fathers are congratulated for the great job they are doing on their own. It works both ways.

My point does not mean to diminish your experience RObert and I have never argued that men are not being abused just that it does not represent the majority of DV cases but that does not mean violence towards men is being condoned and I agree more should be done to highlight the problem.

Reading some of the Men's Rights groups sites (not all) one finds they are heavily demonising women often quite vitriolic, more than any piece of feminist literature I have read.

My point is that if you find a real anomaly in our society then stand up and fight for it but only if it is real and not imagined or exagerated because of some other agenda.

We have talked often on OLO about the unfairness in the Family Law in relation to men but this is changing and that is the sort of issue that needs to be talked about and that has resulted in the changes we see today.

What is happening to women overseas is important and makes all our bourgeoise worries here quite insignificant by comparison but NO I am not arguing that we cannot improve our own gender worries and that they are unimportant. My own hope is that we start taking a humanist approach to these problems rather than a purely gender defensive one and I am just as guilty of that as well.

James' story about the schoolboys was horrifying. The boys were expelled when they did absolutely nothing wrong. The girls were handed too much power to use allegations to hurt others.

In schools and starting very young, any girl who acts upset instantly gets the support squad. Girls who don't join in are ostracised. The message that gives the girls is that the way to be center of attention is to become the victim. While that hurts the 'villan' who gets his (or her) actions blown out of context, we should be more concerned about the message that this behaviour gives to girls. Some spend their whole life seeking to be the victim.

The second link in JamesH last post demonstrates how situations such as the touching of the girls breasts can be mishandled. Boys have to be taught that such behaviour is not acceptable but it should be handled in such a way as to 'teach' rather than ostracise.

It seems in this case the girls were ostracised as well for speaking out about the events. A too common occurrence as well.

'Boys being boys' is not an excuse to behave badly, children need to learn what is wrong and what is right in a healthy environment including girls. Teaching kids about mutual consent and personal space can be done without criminalising or demonising everyone.

Let's not start getting too politically correct about damaging kid's egos just because we tell them they got a sum wrong or touched a girl on the breast. Kids are smarter than that and they inherently know what is wrong and what is right.

This case may have been mishandled but it does not 'criminalise' boyhood. That is a big stretch.

'There's nothing left to make you want to own them any more.'

Hahahahaa!

Cant say I've ever had a desire to own a woman. Now that whole post and the expressed 'attitude to women' is exactly what the FSC are always on about. I don't know whether it's a wind-up, but even if it isn't, I don't think just by that 'attitude' some girl somewhere else will be raped by another individual. I'm also pretty sure an expressed attitude is not always the real person, and quite likely his wife owns him. And he loves it.

I think the female posters might have it all wrong. Maybe we object to the portrayal of men so much because we cant relate and cant fathom the actions of other men. But once you say the problem with the world is men's 'attitude to women', then you are claiming all men are responsible for every thing any other man does.

It has to be a wind up. Surely.

579, are you serious?

Is it all a parody of an elderly extremist religious type or do you really believe what you say?

R0bert

I just reread that link about the school situation. In teaching kids about appropriate behaviour we also need to teach girls about responsibility and safe behaviours ie. what the consequences might be if you send pictures of your breasts to a boy. It sounds like the school gave a knee-jerk reaction without just handling it in-house with all the kids and parents involved.

Houlley
Men are more violent than women. Even men keep telling us it is their biology but that does not mean there are no violent women nor does it mean that all men are violent. Violent crimes are committed by men but women have been guilty of child abuse whether physically violent or neglectful.

We could go on all day listing the crimes of men and women but what is the point.

I grew up in a working class city and when on the booze the men often became violent and street and pub brawls were common. They were nearly always men but that was the 70s - and it does appear more young women are acting out violently but they are also a minority.

Maybe that is conditioning more than nature - the jury is still out on that one. And no, I don't think only women can be victims, if that is what you read then you have misread my posts. The term victim has become a dirty word it shouldn't be. A relative of mine worked voluntarily for the Victims of Crime group and the pain and grief of victims and their loved ones is very real. I have also worked in a field where I came into contact with people who were in the process of putting their lives back together due to violent crime. Being confronted with those experiences was a bit of a reality check.

Victimhood is not the same thing as being a victim (men and women can be victims).

I think women are inherently better people.

Just look at all the men in gaol. There's no denying it really. Of course when aboriginals end up in gaol it's because they're disadvantaged. When women turn to prostitution or drugs it's because they were abused as children, and that men have corrupted them. They're victims been tricked and bullied into it.

But those men, they're a violent abusive lot. The abusive gender. It's innate. There is no extenuating circumstance, and we should never forget that all the non-minority, powerful white men in gaol are getting exactly what they deserve. There should be more of them in gaol really.

'women have been guilty of child abuse whether physically violent or neglectful. '

Yes but those women were in need of more support. Maybe they were having to bring the kids up alone because of a deadbeat dad. It's just not like women to be abusive. Probably they were abused by their fathers or some other man.

579,

Yes, you have us all intrigued - are you serious?

If you are, you're doing your male brethren a huge disservice.
I will add that somehow I don't believe that many women regret being "too smart for their own good" in not considering themselves to be sex objects. Shame about not wanting to own us anymore...I suppose you'll just have to pick yourself up and soldier on, Lol

In any case, I certainly wouldn't consider your views as representative of the majority of males in our society.

'Maybe that is conditioning more than nature - the jury is still out on that one. '
No the jury isn't out.

When discussing something negative for men, it's nature. When discussing something negative for women, it's conditioning. When discussing something positive for women, it's nature, unless in the context of women being treated differently, then it's conditioning. When discussing something positive for men, it's conditioning.

So, if a man commits a violent crime, it's the violent nature of men. Ditto wars. The expectation is that with women holding all the positions of power there would be no war.

If a man achieves in a leadership role, invents cures for cancer, does anything else good, it's conditioning. Women could achieve the same given the same conditioning and opportunities.

If a woman is looking to get custody, children are better off with the nature of the nurturing mother. But this nurturing is conditioning in the context of any gender pay gap, and women who choose not to work are only more interested in mothering due to conditioning.

'I don't think only women can be victims'
No, but you find it distasteful that men can ever discuss being a victim, while it exists that overall, world wide and historically women are worse off. That's what I mean by a monopoly.

'Boys have to be taught that such behaviour is not acceptable'
It looks to me from all reports it was invited. I think we need to get away from this patronising protection of women. While ever we patronise women for not being able to make their own decisions and be active rather than passive, especially with sex, we are teaching girls they are 'special', needing protection and validation from men.

This article had some interesting assumptions...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-chilling-realisation-of-how-close-i-might-have-come-to-rape-20101012-16hxg.html

This bloke was pursued by a woman, both were very drunk, yet he assumes that if they were to have sex she was not responsible for her actions while he was responsible for HER actions. The law backs this up.

He beats himself up as a potential rapist. Their first encounter she kissed him out of the blue. Had he done the same, it would be sexual assault had it not been welcome.

Lots of comments said because she was drunk, if he penetrated her, he was doing something while drunk so was responsible, but she was having something done to her for which she bares no responsibility. Women are aggressive and should be allowed to be sexually aggressive and not assumed to be passive little victims in every scenario even when it is plain they are are not.

'Teaching kids about mutual consent and personal space can be done without criminalising or demonising everyone.'

So what are we teaching about mutual consent when a girl sends a topless picture to a boy and the boy is punished?

'. In teaching kids about appropriate behaviour we also need to teach girls about responsibility and safe behaviours ie. what the consequences might be if you send pictures of your breasts to a boy.'

I notice pelican you talk about 'safe' and 'responsible' behaviour for the girl, but it didn't even occur too you that the boy didn't consent. What if the boy had sent a picture of his penis to the girl?

It seems the attitude out there is that sex is something men do to women, not with them. Men penetrate women, women don't envelop men. Men are always the predator, even when women kiss them out of the blue in a bar. A boy is in trouble because a girl sent him a picture of her topless. Boys are in trouble because they consensually touched a girls breast.

Women are like water, precious to life and we only miss it when it has gone. This view of women in the periphery and man being the apex human in nearly all our societies has led to a logical summation that if it got done it was done by man, equally if it was wronged then it was wronged by man.

Two early incidents taught me that social gender expectations should be thrown out the window.
When I was perhaps ten or eleven some friends visited with their daughter of my age, I had known her all my life. We went to the local park to "hang" and she asked me if I had experienced sex, had I kissed a girl, and other stuff that I was uncomfortable with because a girl had never raised it (no pun) with me before. The conversation ended because I had nothing to say, and I forgot about it.

Next week end her mum and mine called me into the bedroom and asked why I had discussed filthy things with the daughter. I said I didn't and that nothing was discussed like that, leaving out the part that she instigated and carried the conversation, they made me swear on the bible that I was innocent, I thought it bazaar. Why she lied, who knows.

When I was a teen and working in a supermarket after school the head girl was a sweet, extremely pretty, openly caring and very sexy milf. The staff despised, not disliked despised her to a man or woman. She was the most manipulative and corrupt soul I have ever met. No scruples other than those exhibited for the gallery. One on one she was a poison that left a bad taste in your mouth, her whole persona was deception and usury.

Men are not all that bad, we have given women a go at freedom of choice through emancipation and if they were physically stronger we would have a real challenge on our hands fighting these innocents off because they can “out sly us” every day of the week.

Holly: I think the female posters might have it all wrong. Maybe we object to the portrayal of men so much because we cant relate and cant fathom the actions of other men. But once you say the problem with the world is men's 'attitude to women', then you are claiming all men are responsible for every thing any other man does.

Western men are being blamed for the customs in Afganistan & other 3 world type countries. Those countries customs & attitude towards women have no relation to us in the west. Men in the west are appalled at their behaviour too. Yet when women want to make a point about mens behaviour thats what they bring up. They lump us all in with those countries. I'm sure there are men in those countries that respect womens rights, although in the minority. As there are in the west where mens bad behaviour is in the minority.

R0bert: Having had a partner who believed it was Ok to hit when she was upset and seen how little support I got from idiot's keen to point out that I was bigger so what harm can it do I do think that some do need to be told by the broader society that their actions are not Ok.

I was told by the same a feminists I spoke about before that, " If a man is convicted of rape & he didn't do it, then it too bad. He should serve the time to make up for the men who did do it & got away with it."

579: There's nothing left to make you want to own them any more.
I will stick to my life time wife and best friend.

I do believe tha 579 hasn't expressed himself properly here. I take it he ment that he would not wish to have one of these girls, as he sees it, as a wife.

One of the problems the feminazie have it they can't stand it that women have become sexually agressive. They think that if that is the case they will not be able to claim "victim status." & that would be a problem on their war against men. I have seen girls create a situation where it was OK to take advantage of a man but they were found out & the man pulled the plug, so to speak, & it all went wrong, suddenly they were a "victim" & the man was the demon. A fluttery eyelid & a sooky look works wonders.

The article about the boys being suspended and the girls ostracised, is interesting from a number of perspectives.

Firstly the adult reaction level.

Secondly how do young men and women learn to negotiate sexual behaviour.

Even susposedly full grown adults still play adolescent games with sex.

It appears that society is hell bent on preventing teenagers exploring sex and sexuality. It usually does this by punishing the male and victimising the female, even in cases where the girl is the instigator. Like they say "sexism still exists"

Is our society dispite all the liberalism still afraid of sex.

MTR recently wrote "For mens sexual pleasure" leaving out the fact that women if they are having sex with the right bloke, can get a lot of pleasure.

A piece in "Lipstick Feminism" made me smile in that it said that woman's girlfriends will no more about her partners sex life, habits, performance than he does.

I meant every word of what i said thanks. My wife is mine and i do not share. Todays women have no values in life, every thing is disposable, including kids. I blame it on feminism and debt.
Todays women will never be ladies of honour.
I believe the male is the breadwinner and head of household. Material things have hazed the playing field to an extent of unrealism.
I am sorry if my values don't jell with your ideas of life.
Todays standard of life is fissile and is unsustainable.
My wife[ notice i said my ] enjoys the best of life there is without debt.
I am not a greeny to the extent of stupedism.
I do not believe in religion, i am guided by science.

It should be "will know more"

"A piece in "Lipstick Feminism" made me smile in that it said that woman's girlfriends will know more about her partners sex life, habits, performance than he does."

I guess I hear know too often.

We dont demonise all men, just the heterosexual white ones. Think about it, what other group can you have a free kick at without looking like you have some kind of prejudice?

579

You aren't making it easy for the rest of us to argue that we are criticised unfairly.

579, I do believe that you would be far happier in a place like Afghanistan, where men are masters of all they see.

Here's a little secret for all you so-called 'demonized' men out there.

We women only really dislike all those men who dislike women.

We have no problems with, and in fact quite like, the far greater numbers of real men who get on well with women in our society.

We demonise men because the VAST majority of violent crime is committed by - - - - you guessed it, MEN.

End of story.

"Secrets of a single sex workplace" is an interesting read
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20041023-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/06_jun03mag/warrior_07.htm

<I also found them incredibly sexist. In the office there were several soft-porn postcards and a calendar of naked and near-naked men. And often there would be a sign up with some man-bashing comment or joke. The women would also make anti-male jokes and pepper their conversations with pronouncements on the inadequacies of their menfolk.>

<To witness a woman flirting with a male delivery man to get what she wants, then making bitchy comments about him just after he’s gone is to understand how much crueler and duplicitous women can be than men.>

Suzie, demonizing men who are judged to dislike women. Is that objective or subjective?

When was the trial and was the evidence "tested" or was it a a show trial.

Secondly could it not be a form of sexual harrasement.

Suze

"We women only really dislike all those men who dislike women."

That sounds quite reasonable, but I just wonder exactly how you define the "dislike women" bit.

What I am about to write applies to everyone, even me.

Transference.
"It is common for people to transfer feelings from their parents to their partners or children (i.e., cross-generational entanglements). For instance, one could mistrust somebody who resembles an ex-spouse in manners, voice, or external appearance; or be overly compliant to someone who resembles a childhood friend."

"When we encounter a person who reminds us of someone whom we do or did like and who is or was important to us, we infer, unconsciously, that this person is indeed like our significant other (whether a lover, friend, relative, or other person)."

Projection and transference often occur together and I usually get them mixed up.

Projection

"According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "spit out" and then felt as being outside the ego...perceived in another person'[5]. It is a common process that every person uses to some degree"

A good example is where a person wants to have an affair, but accuses their partner of being unfaithful. Another example I read about was that men are often accused of fantasing about other women, during sex, yet it is the woman who is doing the fantasizing during sex.

Now begins the endless circle of arguement about who uses projection and transference more.

I am sure that Suzie or someone will troll through all my posts and confront me with the evidence of my own projections and transference.

And like what Holly said "Demonization" can be in the eye of the beholder and a matter of opinion, if demonization is what you are looking for, then that is what you find.

Similarly when feminists, look for sexism and oppression that is all they will see. (note that feminists are blind to their own sexism)

Sexually harrasement is also a matter of a point of view.

That is true JamesH which is why when these issues come up we should try and look at the incident on its own merits and judge it on the facts of what happened rather than take a gender-defensive perspective. While what you say about transference and projection is apt it is difficult to look from another's perspective but we should at least try. Only men know what it is like to be a man, women only what it is like to be a woman.

Houlley likes to pretend that women only see female victims - that is not true. On OLO I have rarely seen any acknowledgment of the difficulties faced by woman especially in regard to rape or single parenthood, by some of the more vitriolic posters. I find that difficult to understand. But that is only on OLO thankfully it is not something that one encounters often in RL.

When someone brings up an issue like sexuality and asks why men should feel guilty about their sexual needs, my first reaction was I didn't know men felt guilty about their sexual needs. It is women who by and large, have lived with social pressure in regard to sexual needs ie. frigid or sl*t. A woman who expresses her sexual needs has always been seen as a tart whereas a man's sexual prowress gets a hearty good on you mate and a slap on the back. Do men want women to be just as sexually aggressive? I wouldn't know, but if the answer is no then lets not be hypocritical.

Same with single parenthood - no-one addressed my point earlier about the kudos given to men who raise children on their own contrasted with the demonisation of single mothers many who have had no choice in their singledom.

The only people who should be 'demonised' are the ones committing crimes such as rape or child abuse. There is too much wasted time and energy in demonising victims or the opposite sex.

A bit of honesty would not go astray on both sides.

Pelican,

<Same with single parenthood - no-one addressed my point earlier about the kudos given to men who raise children on their own contrasted with the demonisation of single mothers many who have had no choice in their singledom.>

There are a number of issues here, firstly it is still not (statistically) common for men to be single fathers and I have seen single fathers who do not cope very well at all.

Secondly there is demonization and more than a little bit of martydom for single mother, and you put in the 'not by choice' that is true in some instance, but perhaps for many others, it is by choice.

Someone posted before that some men prefer to stay at work, rather than go home to a hostile house and partner.

What better way to end a relationship, then to create the enviroment for that to happen, that way it is to blame the other person and not accept responsibility for your own behaviour.

Demonizing perpetrators does nothing to preventing rape or child sexual abuse. It can however lead to witch hunts. Over the last decade or more the definition of rape has been changed to the point that almost all heterosexual sexual encounters could be classified as rape or sexual assault.

It does appear that there is a group who want to increase the percentage of the number of men who are found guilty as charged. Rules of evidence have been changed, the mere definition of rape has been changed. The law on consent has been changed. Consent can be implied or nonverbal but not in sexual assault cases.(why is the onus being only put on males?)

The change in definition in itself increased the numbers of alleged offenses, thus increasing the percentages.

The jury is still out on the issue of how many women actually lie about rape, and yet at this point in time, no one is prepared to use the best research method available at this time and that is the lie detector. Sure there are problems with this, as is with all research.

Pelican

While you might still choose to believe that men get "a hearty good on you mate and a slap on the back" after every fling, please remember that it is not our perspective. We have all seen these blokes copping both barrels for their sleazyness. Sexual harassment rules and sexual assault laws are also applied mainly to men.

For every dinosaur who think he is a stud, she is a slut, I could find ten hypocrytes who think that she is liberated, he is a deadbeat.

I think i will agree with that last comment.
I have no plans to live in Afganistan at all.
I blame men for letting women get out of hand, i don't think it was supposed to last.
Femenism was an absolute disaster for Au, all it achieved was to push the costs of every commodity through the roof.
All the banks could see was 2 incomes, beauty you can pay twice as much on your mortgage, and in return we will give you twice as much money to pay back. The locals took the bait. Now you can bye today and pay in 4 years time.
Women didn't know when they were well off, that is what caused the destruction of the family unit.
With no end in sight of the demorilization of women, the only winners are the creditors.

Men and Women are just as bad as each other.

Women whore around just as much as men do, women hit on men in the workplace (wanted or not) just as much as men do and they go out on the weekend for a hook up just as much as men do.

Women who use the 'man brain' excuse (as in men think about sex more and can't control themselves) need to take caution around these PEOPLE who can't control themselves.
Men who use the same excuse need to grow up and take personal responsibility.

Sure men are responsible for the repression of women but thats history.
There are equal rights now and that is the way it should be, no sex should be dependent on another, this in my point of view is evolution but unfortunately there have been some minds who were left behind.

Men can control themselves and so can women, no excuses or 'greater needs' or physical superiority should warrant anything else by either sex.

Male prisoners in EVERY country in the world DRAMATICALLY outnumber female prisoners. Yes, we demonise men, and for very good reasons. Male propensity for physical violence is the reason why they are demonised. It's a major reason for their imprisonment. If men were "only" as violent as women, there would be no need to demonise men any more than we demonise women.

It's all the result of male physical violence towards both men and women.

Male violence is a serious biological problem that's been with us since the beginning of human life on the planet. It still remains a serious problem to this very day.

Yes, there's very good reasons why men are demonised.

Tboy, to be honest I am not really that interested in the rest of the world. When compared to many countries Australia is a very very safe country.

Whilst what you say about male prisoners is true. Go back to the start of this forum. It was not about male violence.

Secondly making judgements and applying todays standards and values to the past leads to some very distorted views and perceptions. Back in the hunter gatherer days, the ability to survive was paramount and certain skills were need to be able to do this. The majority of us modern humans would not survive very long in a hunter gatherer situation.(the above is an example of what is known as values conflict)

It is about why do we demonize men who are honest about their sexual needs.
http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/

TBOY... oops..I suddenly see it.

"Male propensity for physical violence is the reason why they are demonised."

This might come as a shock.. but 'male-ness' involves the warrior spirit and "newsflash" the violence that most men are capable of is to PROTECT both themselves and the weaker sex (females) from OTHER males who would do them harm.

Isn't reality a bummer ? :)

Tboy, the subject of male violence has been done to death.

However I suspect that a number of factors are at play in the MODERN WORLD, lack of education, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and acquired brain injury not to mention mental illness, diagnosed and undiagnosed. Oh and I forgot psychopaths.

In Australia our prisons have become defacto mental institutions.

Anyway it is a bit of a red herring discussing male violence, when the majority males are not violent or currently not in prison and are never likely to be.

So too extraplote that the actions of a few apply to a whole gender is sexism to the extreme.

JamesH, he didn't extrapolate that the actions of a few are the actions of a whole gender. Maybe you should have tried to 'accurately' present what he said, in the interests of fairness and good debate. And then you compound your error by a false sexism accusation based on your error. James it's not a very productive way to debate, using misinterpretation and personal attack.

It seems that in his opinion one reason why men are demonized overall is because the gender has bad PR caused by the bad actions of the ones who are violent. That's certainly a very valid view and needs to be 'intelligently' addressed I feel. It's a fact of life that the actions of minorities within majorities often tarnish the reputation of the group as a whole, and the actions of the minority of violent and aggressive men definitely tarnish the reputation of the gender in many peoples' view. Now before you start calling me sexist as well ( I'm male by the way) this does NOT mean that I'm saying ALL men are violent. It means that I'm offering one reason as to why men are demonized; actually I'm just agreeing with the other guy

James in your second sentence in your first post you yourself bring up the subject of violence. Sex and violence often go hand in hand in sexual crimes.

Using name calling "sexism in the extreme" won't work for you buddy.

All my comments in my previous post, and this post, relate to sexual violence and why men as a whole are demonised because of it.

You also said I made "judgements". No I didn't. I did not "apply" today's standards to the past. I said male violence (meaning sexual violence) was a problem in the past, and that it's a problem now. Surely you can't deny that. Everything I wrote was fact and not opinion, you seem to ignore that I never said, or implied, that all men were, or are, violent. Male violence is not a red herring in this discussion as you claim. I offered it as a reason why men are demonised. I think it's the main reason why men are demonised, be they actively violent men or passively innocent men or anything in between. I liked the example of "minorities and majorities" given by rudy, I think that explains it reasonably well. I invite you to comment on rudy's minorities and majorities statement.

<Male propensity for physical violence is the reason why they are demonised.> Tboy

Maybe I misinterpretated that phrase, but it does say 'male propensity for physical violence'.

But demonizing a whole gender on the actions of a few, is that not extrapolation? It is taking the bad behaviour of some and applying it to a whole male gender.

Propensity 'an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a certain way'.

Please refer again to the first part of this forum, it is about why do we demonize men who are honest about their sexual needs!

If you want to discuss violence, then make your own forum!

James, please actually read what I wrote, instead of 'interpreting' what I wrote. You're attempting to present a skewered version of what I wrote, for reasons known only to yourself.

The topic is about "why do we demonise men who are honest about their sexual needs?". I replied that because there's such a marked propensity towards physical violence amongst many males, this means that they often ALL, which includes the innocent ones, get tarnished with a similar brush. In other words, it's one of the reasons why "men who are honest about their sexual needs are demonised". Do you understand it now? Hopefully, yes. It may not be the answer you want or like, but it's 100% on topic, relevant and worthy.

It is interesting to read Clarisse Thorns ideas on the issue of male sexuality,

<The stud vs. slut dichotomy is worth discussing, but it has one flaw: it entirely ignores the word “creep,” whose function appears to be restricting male sexuality to a limited, contradictory set of behaviors.>

<As one masculinity thread commenter named Tim observes: “The only way for a guy to guarantee that he won’t be called ‘creepy’ is to suppress entirely his sexuality,>

<You’ve caught on that it’s tricky for men to figure out how to deliver both of these things you need, that you don’t have a lot of good direction to give to fellas about it, and that neither does anyone else.”>

It is noticable that she has difficulty in finding men who are willing to discuss this issue.

<very little mainstream acknowledgement of the problems of masculinity. The primary factor in that silence is that normative cis men themselves tend to be flatly unwilling to discuss gender/sex issues>

<But this shift in awareness about gender issues faced by women has not been accompanied by a widespread understanding of gender issues faced by men.>

In the third part of Clarrise's musings, she wrote;

<And if we can reject the Oppression Olympics for just one minute and stop thinking about who’s got it worse, it becomes clear that the advantages and drawbacks associated with being both male and female are intertwined. The two systems reinforce, and cannot function without, each other. The gender binary may not hurt everyone equally, but it hurts everyone.>

<I’ve had an enormous number of experiences trying to discuss feminism/sex/gender with men in which the men tensed, bristled, and closed me out. I don’t think it was always because those guys couldn’t stand the thought of losing their privilege, either. I think a lot of dudes have been led to feel that they have no place in gender discussions — that those discussions will always be about what men are doing wrong>

Still appears to be a bit lopsided, only talking about what men are doing right. Where is it possible for men to reflect on what women are doing?

JamesH
There is a difference between 'creepiness' and being honest about sexual needs. Maybe there are a few men who do lack skills of respectful negotiation, but women know the difference.

It is all about approach. I appreciate the difficulty men face in the pressure to make the first move and many men may not possess the skills, but I am not sure why even in this, women are to blame if that is your suggestion.

It is about mutual consent. Men can be honest about their needs and why shouldn't they be. What women are asking is they don't force those needs.

"... but 'male-ness' involves the warrior spirit and "newsflash" the violence that most men are capable of is to PROTECT both themselves and the weaker sex (females) from OTHER males who would do them harm."

I agree Al, often it is another male who comes to protect a women in difficult cirumstances if she is lucky, and it is grealty appreciated. What women ask is this warrior spirit not be turned on them, that we all treat each other with respect.

Look at marriage - men go into marriage with the traditional buck's night to bemoan the end of an era of freedom, which if that is what men really believe, why get married. Marriage is perceived by some as a trap by women to snare men into their nest. Most women don't want to be with a man who has to be trapped but desire only mutual love and mutual desire to be together. Anything else is false and doomed to fail.

Women are demonised when they leave their husbands as being overly-feminised or selfish and heartless. By contrast, according to some on OLO, men who leave their wives do it because their wives are selfish or heartless and don't understand their sexual needs so off they go with a usually younger model.

Women can't win a trick. They are demonised if they leave and demonised if he leaves.

There are inequities for both but to say only men are demonised reamins unconvincing.

Clarrise, uses two abbrevitations that I am not familar with.

Cis means on the same side.

Het, in russian means No or in swedish Hot, but I suspect it is short for heterosexual.

WTF?
James – certainly a controversial topic.

I would like to add this.
I think one of the reasons why men are demonised is because some women, particularly in the teen years and early twenties, seem to make such bad choices when it comes to men.
If I think back to my university days and early working life many of my female friends would often reach the completely opposite point of view about a bloke to the one I formed.
Decent and/or shy blokes I suggested they may find interesting where “creeps” and “losers” and the obvious tools were “exciting”,” different” and “out there”.

This lead to tears and hurt and sometimes to unwanted life-altering experiences.

Maybe some women still feel the pain of following some evolutionary instinct that only served a temporary need but caused longer term regret and hurt.

I wonder if others have noticed anything similar?

Good point Tboy at the top of this page. You reduced the main reason why we demonize men to a few easily understood words. Good effort.

<You’ve caught on that it’s tricky for men to figure out how to deliver both of these things you need, that you don’t have a lot of good direction to give to fellas about it, and that neither does anyone else.”>

<How can men be supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine?>

<“Lots of heteronormative men know something is wrong with the way we think about sex and gender. I can see them struggling with it when we talk. They can’t put their finger on it; they have a hard time engaging it.>

I must say I rather like the material that Hugh wrote.

In Manliness and Feminism 2 Judgment day some of the comments make for an interesting read, particularly HughRistik who wrote a response to her creep article.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/10/15/creep-noh/
1. <Lesbian journalist Norah Vincent dressed up and lived as a man for 6 months for her book Self-Made Man. She tried dating, and got a horrible shock. She discovered that the heterosexual male initiator role is much harder than she ever imagined as a woman:
We don’t have to do the part where you cross the room and you go up to a stranger that you’ve never met in the middle of a room full of people and say the first words. And those first words are so hard to say without sounding like a cheeseball or sounding like a jerk<
Cheeseball, jerk, or perhaps… creep?>

Clarrisse wrote and I tend to agree with her.

<Sometimes there is an objective truth, and sometimes if someone gets uncomfortable due to something I’ve done, it’s not actually my fault. (And sometimes it is my fault, too, of course).

And I get the strong impression that this is something that mainstream feminism doesn’t want to touch even with a ten-foot pole. And I really wonder if that’s most of why no acceptable behavior is defined: mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience, even if that experience might be problematic, so any behavior by a man is reserved as potentially inappropriate.>

You must be joking JamesH surely?

You believe that a lesbian dressing up as a heterosexual male going out and trying to chat up heterosexual females is a true demonstration of how men are 'demonised' if they try to chat up a woman?

Lol!
No wonder the poor women she/he spoke to ran a mile!

For goodness sake, the dating world is a nasty place at times and we will all have experienced rejection at least once in our adult lives.

Women can and do show men they are interested in them, only to be shot down and devastated by their rejection, just as badly as happens to men when they are rejected.

Rejection is not the exclusive domain of men JamesH, so by your reckoning both men and women in our society are 'demonised' by each other?

JamesH, some very interesting links. I think the reason that Pelican has trouble grasping the problem is that she actually LIKES men, but she also has had 40 years of "all men are bastards" through official channels and via her experience in the public service. She has trouble reconciling what she knows viscerally - that men are no more or less decent people than women - with the propaganda that tugs at her female instinct to support other women.

Suzeonline, of course, dpoesn't like men at all. She's thoroughly convimcved that all the ills of the world would disappear if men were simply magicked away. She's a bit squeamish about actually doing anything to bring this about, but she'd be standing safely in the second row, watching with avaricious glee, all the while bemoaning the fate of owmen in Afghanistan or Whocareswhereistan while making sure she keeps her own hand out.

The feminist movement, which contains a large number of Suzeonlines, albeit usually better educated thanks to male-generated tax dollars, has very cleverly manipulated the positive emotional drive of women like Pelicab over a very long time. Hardly surprising - who better to understand how to manipulate women than women? It's clear that men don't.

In the meantime, the women of Afghanistan are being "rescued" by a large group of men, quite a lot of whom have died in the process. 'twere ever thus...

Anti
I do like men, most women do including Suzeonline who is married to a man if I remember correctly.

And while you may see me as one of the great manipulated, you devalue my personal experiences and general character by casting me as just another of the great manipulated. That is fine we are all shaped by conditioning to some extent, some more able to look outside those constraints than others. I probably fail on being able to do this on some fronts as I suspect we all do.

It is pertinent to look critically at what is presented enmasse and separate truth from fiction or facts from spin.

One comment you make I freely acknowledge that 'tug' at the female instinct to support other women. It is not propoganda that tugs that instinct it is because I am a woman and have empathy and for the growing tendency for men to see themselves as the great oppressed without opening their eyes and minds to a more even-handed reality.

Some of the pro-men movements go too far and if you can't see that then you also need to examine your ability to see through some pretty vitriolic propaganda where women are painted quite severely as the oppressors in black and white terms. I am also not going to bow to anti-women propogranda that diminishes the impact of violence by victim blaming. This in no way diminishes male sexuality only a plea for gentlemanly behaviour.

There is no recognition of the fact that women when abused, are largely abused by men and need support. This does not mean that men who are abused should be forgotten where have I ever argued that. I can't make a valid comment on the prevalence of DV on men and I can see it is a sensitive area as men have the pressure of 'manning up' and being disbelieved in cases of female violence. I don't know the statistics but men have been able to access DV services for a long time, and they do.

Cont/...

My instincts as a mother is also about supporting the rights of children and men who face persecution or violence. I don't distinguish victims based on gender and I have no hesitation in using the word victim no matter the current trends to denigrate victims as a response to trends of victimhood. I get the idea of victimhood but when looking at individual cases there are 'real' victims out there who are not imagined.

If a man commits a violent crime it seems there are strong manipulative forces to see the victim as responsible and even if you mention a man in the context of a crime one is tarnished with the "all men are bastards" label.

To solve problems we have to deal with realities and this goes for aspects of feminism as well as dealing with sexuality and other issues like education being tailored for boys and girls in consideration of their different requirements.

What concerns me is the anger towards women just because they have achieved economic independence and are able to now leave their husbands. Women leave for all sorts of reasons, as do men, it could be due to infidelity, violence, general unhappiness, needs not being met, boredom, illness but there is a trend to label women who leave marriages as selfish while men are not tarred with the same brush.

How is the form of Kristy Fraser-Kirk? She wanted to make a statement regarding sexual harassment (FAIR ENOUGH). She claimed the money if awarded would be given to charity!

Oh Dear.....today she has said the $850,000 awarded out of court will NOT go to charity but WILL stay with her..... Does 'GOLD DIGGER' ring a bell?

Disgraceful.................

Melinda wrote that sexism is alive and well in Australia.

After a little bit of contemplation I don't think there is any answer to sexism, mainly because of the fluid and changable state of societies attitude.

Take for example men opening doors for women, once it was seen as a gentlemanly thing to do and highly impolite for man not to do this, then all that changed in blink of an eye, and certain groups of women became hostile to that act.

Clarrise Thorn wrote in part three <For instance, one might say that women get more social space for emotion because we’re stereotyped as irrational and hysterical. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us easily grasp that space, while most men don’t.>

Sexism is one of those rubbery concepts, in that there is not concrete definition and the definition will change as societies attitudes, behaviours changed.

Typically women labelling men as creeps, perverts, sleazebags is not seen as being sexist or derogatory.

But what if a man that a woman is talking about IS a creep, pervert or sleazebag? Is she just supposed to shut up and take it, like in the good old days?

Sexism is "one of those rubbery concepts"? It's only rubbery and a concept to those who think they are disadvantaged by the recognition of sexism.

Women think that opening doors for them is great, as long as the men also open doors for men. In other words, if it's done as an act of courtesy. A man opening a door for someone just because she's a "woman" is a TOTALLY different thing. James, if you don't understand why, then let me know and I'll explain it for you.

Clarisse wrote; <"As someone who’s spent her share of time feeling feminist rage, I’d say that being filled with feminist rage is totally understandable.">

So on one hand it is totally acceptable for feminist to be angry at men, but unacceptable of men to feel angry towards feminists.

Typically if research supports our own biases and prejudices, it is much more digestable and believable even when it is not factual, but appears to be factual, than research which conflicts with our biases.

In the body and soul section of the herald sun, there was an article titled "Maybe you are to blame" for the break up.

On ABC news "women are to blame for bad husbands"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/01/3026980.htm

<Dr Rebecca Huntley, who is speaking at Sydney's Dangerous Ideas Festival this weekend, says women tend to be martyrs and control freaks when it comes to household duties, thus embracing their own domestic slavery.>

however socalled research, what is the saying? "dam lies and statistics"

<But last week I discovered that the questions they asked respondents included many categories of housework usually done by women, but excluded many categories done by men such as home repair and maintenance, appliance repair and home remodelling. When I asked the researchers about that, they candidly admitted that the survey contained errors.>
Glennsacks.

So in reality perhaps all if not most research should be taken with a grain of salt and treated to be of as much value as a "Pulp Fiction" novel.

Antiseptic is having loads of sarcastic fun speculating who 'likes' or doesn't like men.

As Pelican rightly pointed out, I am happily married to a wonderful man and have good relationships with my brothers, father and nephew, as well as with many male friends.

How many women do you 'like' Antiseptic, or do they all 'demonize' you?

Pelican:"I do like men, most women do including Suzeonline who is married to a man if I remember correctly. "

Ah Pelican, the fact that a woman is married doesn't mean she likes the bloke necessarily (or vice versa). Increasingly, as women leave it longer and longer to have kids, it may just mean he was the one "lucky" enough to knock her up as her biological clock started ticking loudly in her ears. You actually LIKE men, Suze sees us as a problem to be controlled.

Pelican:"you devalue my personal experiences and general character by casting me as just another of the great manipulated. "

And you fool yourself if you think you're not.

Pelican:"It is not propoganda that tugs that instinct it is because I am a woman"

And the propaganda is cleverly designed by women to pander to that. It's very good propaganda, no doubt. Every woman likes to think of herself as the golden princess, incapable of ever thinking a bad thought, inspiring a handsome prince to rescue her from the dragon that is trying to keep her captive.

Feminism has created the State in the form of that handsome prince and men in the image of the dragon. There is no room for man as handsome prince in this narrative, which has become the story of our times.

Pelican:"Some of the pro-men movements go too far "

I've not seen any "pro-men" movement. Perhaps you could give us some links?
Feminism is an out-of-control train, with the throttle tied dpown and the brake removed. Any process that has a strong positive feedback and no negative feedback is going to eventually fail catastophically. The feminist movement train is heading for a massive derailment, when all that is needed is to untie the throttle and find the brake lever.

If you were honest, as I once thought you were, you'd acknowledge that there needs to be balance and that such a thing is simply not possible in a feminist paradigm, since it is inherently one-sided and misandric.

James,

Stop blaming the victim:

'Sometimes there is an objective truth, and sometimes if someone gets uncomfortable due to something I’ve done, it’s not actually my fault.'

If a woman feels creeped out by you, then you are a creep. Stop blaming the victim. If a woman feels threatened by you, you are threatening. Full Stop.

'mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience'
I agree.

So, James, I validate your experience.

Good post that one.

It's time for men to start the love in, no matter how offensive it is to the feminists that hold the stage, and own the mic. We might be considered rude hecklers now, but maybe one day it will be acceptable to challenge the broad uncritical acceptance of everything feminists perceive men to be.

It occurred to me the other day that feminists and feminism is obsessed with men. Never do I see any feminist discussion about women and their motives, their failures, their frailties and the effect of their behaviour on others and in their relationships, and what makes women tick. Its all about men, why they're so evil and how that's so unfair to women. Feminism hasn't even started examining women as it's so wrapped up in men. There is very little in feminism that examines women, and certainly nothing about women independent to men.

Look at your average FSC article, they're all about men really, not women. They're akin to David Attenborough discussing lions and assigning motives to their behaviour. Blind stab in the dark stuff. It would be much more interesting and worthy if they went into detail about a woman's world and how she experiences it rather than make fallacious judgements about men from afar.

PS: I just love Mrs Houellebecq. Watched that footy chicks doco the other night and she agreed with the discussed double standards over 'sluts'. So I brought up 'what about creeps' and she said 'I suppose you're right, never thought of that'. Then she added 'only ugly men are considered creeps though'.

Well there are double standards all around us and if we are honest they exist for both men and women. Many ugly men know how to talk to a woman without being a creep - there really is a difference. Yes, there will be (usually younger) silly women who will titter at some poor guy's expense who may not actually be a 'creep' but will hold no interest for them.

No doubt, some people can be cruel but I have heard men titter over an ugly woman with the old bag over the head jokes and the "how many beers is that one" with the usual guffawing etc. It really does work both ways.

Why not ignore the nongs/creeps/silly girls/the gender haters - whatever - what they do does not have an impact unless you allow it. If you seek demonisation (women and men alike) you will probably find it, some of it will be real some imagined or exaggerated in a type of self-fulfilling phrophecy, but while you seek the demons you will miss the angels.

Pelican, what of the runaway train, whilst we're all watching for angels? Ah, now I see, the angels will save us all from a horrible wreck. Yet another fairy story...

Holly, that quote was from Clarrise Thorns website.

Interestingly she wrote; "And if we’re invested in honestly trying to get men’s viewpoints on what manliness means and how to be a man, then we have to prepare ourselves to get some answers that will unsettle us or even come off as unfeminist."
http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/manliness-and-feminism-the-followup/

Under risk analysis associated with OH&S, all steps involved in a process are examined. Typically workplace accidents are not the fault of one individual, but are part of a process. A systems failure.

Why then can we not apply the same analytical process of examination to the dynamics of human relationships?

Sure training and educating one part of the human dyad may in some instances reduce some of the incidencs for some of the issues, however it totally ignores the process of interaction and dynamics within the dyad.

Both overt and covert behaviours. Conscious and subconscious motivations.

Something like 70% of human communication is non-verbal, yet the majority of the focus is on the spoken or written word. Ignoring the non-verbal aspects of human communication, which also can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Human communication is imperfect, in that it is open to misinterpretation, miscomprehension. This has been more than aptly been demonstrated in the past.

By using a systems approach analysis, would it then not be possible to look at all the process involved and then see at what stages of the human dyad interaction could intervention measures be applied more effectively.

A workplace example is the if I see water on the floor and ignore it and then later a person slips over. I have contributed to that workplace accident, similarly when admin cuts back and reduce staffing levels they also help contribute.

Workplace safety is the responsiblity of everyone, similar human safety is the responsibility of everyone, not just one part of the human dyad.

"...similar human safety is the responsibility of everyone, not just one part of the human dyad.Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 20 October"

It is a mutual responsibility but that does not absolve a criminal in the event of committing assault for example. A puddle of water that someone slips in is not guilty, only the person who spilled it and failed to clean up. I don't think you can reasonably compare apples and oranges with serious crime where there is intent.

That would be like saying lets let all the rapists go as the women have to share responsibility for just being there.

Anti
If you perceive women as freight trains how are you any different from the minority of feminists whom you perceive as demonising men?

Pelican:"If you perceive women as freight trains"

Huh? Have you been smoking something you shouldn't?

Anti
"Pelican, what of the runaway train, whilst we're all watching for angels? Ah, now I see, the angels will save us all from a horrible wreck. Yet another fairy story..."

That was your quote not mine but yes I meant runaway train not 'freight' train

Pelican:"That was your quote not mine"

You really have become quite dishonest, Pelican. I'm disappointed in you.

Me[from the post before the one you quoted]:"Feminism is an out-of-control train, with the throttle tied dpown and the brake removed. Any process that has a strong positive feedback and no negative feedback is going to eventually fail catastophically. The feminist movement train is heading for a massive derailment, when all that is needed is to untie the throttle and find the brake lever.

If you were honest, as I once thought you were, you'd acknowledge that there needs to be balance and that such a thing is simply not possible in a feminist paradigm, since it is inherently one-sided and misandric."

You seem to have missed that one.

Anti
Well if I disappoint you I disappoint you - not much I can do about that, I only ask you look at your own posts sometimes with an equally critical and honest eye. Your attitudes disappoint me at times too even though we agree on other issues, but I don't know you personally so will refrain from any assessments of your integrity.

Within the human dyad, there are certain catalysts that trigger a range of reactions. Certain catalysts cause can cause caustic erosion at various speeds. Other catalyst cause reactions ranging from mild to volcanic eruption proportions.

As with any binary system, remove one part of the binary, and the catalyst has no effect.

Some catalysts used in small or minute quanties may add a bit of excitment, where to much is a bit like the richter scale, increasing out of proportion by a factor of 10 or more.

So would it be possible to use a systems approach analysis to the human dyad, admittedly there a many variables.

Pelican:"I only ask you look at your own posts sometimes with an equally critical and honest eye"

I try to do that. I also try to respond meaningfully to what people write, especially when I disagree. That means that I quote the part of their post I'm responding to and I try to address the specific quote, while retaining their context and (hopefully) intent. I don't always succeed...

The reason I got irked by your post was that it was so egregiously misconstruing what I said.

You still haven't had a go at the comment about feminism as an uncontrolled process with no negative feedback mechanism.

James, you're correct that a systems analytical approach is useful. Part of that is Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points or HACCP. A HACCP analysis looks at processes and determines the critical "decision points" they contain and how to apply controls at those points to achieve the best outcome.

For example, when going out at night, the first critical control point might be the decision to drink alcohol or consume drugs. The next might be when the decision is made to start flirting with someone. The next might be the decision to start a bit of pashing in the back of the club and so on. At each point the process can be controlled, unless the parties choose not to exert such control. If so, then like any uncontrolled process, the outcome is unpredictable, but unlikely to be a desired one.

So by all means advocate a systems based approach, James, I think it's a great idea, but you're fighting the great "golden princess/nasty dragon/white knight" meme, which seems to inform so much of feminist "thinking" on the subject. She doesn't have to make such control decisions, because the story assumes she's a helpless victim of circumstance, free will removed by her captivity until the prince rescues her, at which point free will is again no longer required because they, of course, love each other - until she wakes up the next day and discovers her handsome prince is actually a rather repellent frog...

You're a romantic pair.

I can see why you have problems with women. Use a different part of your brain. Some things require intuition rather than analysis. I sympathise though.

Emotional intelligence wasn't something made up to make women seem smarter.

Yes, emotional intelligence seems to be seriously lacking in several people here, like JamesH and antiseptic. Asking them to use a different part of the brain is akin to asking a dog to talk or expecting a flea to have complex personal insight; in other words it ain't gonna happen.

Houellebecq:"I can see why you have problems with women. Use a different part of your brain. "

Huh? All I've said is that there needs to be some analysis of our acrions if we want to avoid problems through doing dumb things. HACCP is simply a way of making that point. Every reasonably predictble step of the way, right up to "I'm too pissed to know what I'm doing" is amenable to control. Pretending otherwise is stupid.

As a man, it is expected of me that control will be exercised so that I don't ever get to "too pissed". Why do you think it should not also be expected of women?

As for emotional intelligence, pfft. If you can't explain what you mean you don't understand it. Being a slave to your emotions doesn't change that, whether women think it makes them "seem smarter" or not.

I see one of the sock-puppets is back.

James wrote of feminists "any behaviour by a man is reserved as potentially inappropriate". Now I'm as blokey as anyone and often stand up for my male gender, but statements like your one James makes it hard, no impossible, to take you seriously. It's just as ludicrous as blokes who think all women are only good for sex or women who think all men are bastards. Come on James, you can do better than that.