I am angry white man, hear me roar

Nathan says:

06:40am | 10/01/12

not saying you don’t have a point or that Kyle Lovett or the others don’t either, but the wording used is terrible. You can high-lite the issues without making others or women the villain.

Male activist groups are in serious need of someone in there who hasn’t been jilted and doesn’t bring anger into the argument. Nothing will change cause simply put you piss to many people off and are easily ignored.

Steve_85 says:

06:41am | 10/01/12

Not all women are gold diggers. The problem is that ALL women have the ability to BECOME gold diggers. The laws are there, they just have to decide to use them.

Erick says:

06:47am | 10/01/12

A Voice For Men just replied to this article.

Y2J says:

07:20am | 10/01/12

You’re sounding pretty shrill yourself there mate as you fail yet again to challenge the main points raised in the article, resorting to your usual misdirection as you scuttle away.

I think it kind of poetic that all you’ve achieved here is to motivate the punch into lifting their game as they shine a light on some of the bullshit you’ve spewed forth.

The best disinfectant is sunlight.

Nathan says:

07:42am | 10/01/12

@Erick
That response proves my point. All you do is get the believers all wound up and piss of the rest. If you guys really want change your not going to get it this way.  Your mob is the same as the feminists you both put bullshit figures up that are there to miss lead.

Matthew says:

07:51am | 10/01/12

Although I often agree with Erick, sometimes he does push it too far.  But I’d clearly like to point out a few things:

1. Erick is always pushing for equal rights.  He’s standing up for the males that are often forgotten (regardless of their skin colour).
2. I’ve never seem him use words like “routinely”, “all” or that women have never been worse off.

The fact is that every point raised above in Tory’s article is true for *some* males, just as they are valid for *some* females.  The fact that at least 1 person (regardless of sex) has been adversely affected then it is a problem for everyone of both sexes.

White Ribbon Day is clearly advertised as Domestic Violence against females.  There’s no need for the “against females” part and would save costs on printing when using 15 less characters!

John says:

07:56am | 10/01/12

It’s the work of Marxists, they want to empower women and depower men. Empower minoritys and depower whites. They want to destroy the family unit so that it can be replaced by the communist party.
Feminism was born from the excrement of a marxist.

Y2J says:

08:14am | 10/01/12

“A Voice For Men just replied to this article. “

Only if you call this soup of ad hominems and strawmen a reply, which of course you would.

An example of this tripe:

Family law courts let women legally steal children from men, and let women get away with false accusations of child abuse.

“Thanks for admitting it. Now go do your homework and come back with the complete laundry list of family court corruptions and we can talk some more.”

Not only childish but typical of the article and of the tactics of Erick and his ilk…“I could really shoot down your argument (I can’t, not honestly) but hey you do my homework for me”.

The only thing that impresses me about this lot of bile is the speed with which it was posted.

I, Claudia says:

08:47am | 10/01/12

The only desperation I see here, Erick, is yours. As the daughter of a sociopath, your need to identify as a victim sickens me. But I take comfort in the knowledge that you’re wasting your life fighting a fruitless - and indeed, fantastical - war. It gives me a smug little feeling of warmth everytime I read your miserable attempts to direct the anger you harbour towards women.

Kaz says:

08:47am | 10/01/12

If these men were better people, they would be happy white men. They would not be divorced, estranged from their children, punished by the courts, incarcerated, addicts, or isolated from society.  I’m tired of men blaming women for their problems, and their outcomes.  Take responsibility for your own poor actions, anger and personality issues - and aim to improve.  You’ll find you immediately have better relationships, work, and societal outcomes.
Anyone who has ever read the comments online by these men, can see immediately how awful these guys are, and rather than feeling sorry for them, we feel sorry for anyone who has ever had to spend time with them in real life.  They make my skin crawl.

Rose says:

08:53am | 10/01/12

“We are here to fuck your shit up in just that precise way.”  That is the gist of the reply in “A Voice for Men”. Thanks Erick, good to know that your linking to such well-balanced, intelligent and well-written sites. NOT!!
The problem here is that these men’s groups refuse to see that overall, the middle-class, white male is still the most privileged group of people on the planet. What they consider as men’s rights being stripped away is in fact the balancing out of rights and finally giving some rights to the groups who have played second fiddle to these white men for pretty much the entirety of history. Of course in this redress there are examples where court judgements may have erred, where some women have taken a step too far, where some men have been ripped off, but overwhelmingly men are still better off.
In the cases of men dying younger, being incarcerated more often, being out performed at school and their higher levels of addiction (a huge cause of their higher suicide rates). This can and should be addressed, but should be done so in a way which acknowledges personal responsibility as well as the development of a culture which actively encourages behaviour which leads to these outcomes. How many boys have been teased and or bullied at school for being nerds? When are men and boys going to start encouraging each other to pick up a book instead of valuing only skills with a football or cricket bat? When are men going to stop seeing alcohol and dope consumption as a right of passage, encouraging each other to get smashed every weekend? When are men going to start being pro-active about their own health, and when are they going to stop carrying on like the men that do go to the docs regularly are somehow weaker than those who tough it out? When are men going to have real discussions amongst themselves and others about their feelings, or what’s troubling them, their fears and their problems? The entire Australian male culture makes these poor outcomes for men more likely and instead of blaming women, men’s groups should advocate for real change that would support men changing behaviours to ones which promote better outcomes. Women are starting to mimic men n some of these behaviours, the drinking and drugs especially, and as such their outcomes will suffer as well.
Erick and co, stop blaming women and lamenting your perceived loss of rights and start actively working to improve male outcomes, You can only improve things by accepting responsibility and moving away from the things that are holding you down, and those things holding you down, are more often than not of your own making,

Paul says:

08:54am | 10/01/12

God, it must hurt that we have a female PM to the likes of Erick. Men like that are really only portraying that they are impotent socially. The truth is men still control the vast majority of wealth, men commit the far greater number of acts of domestic violence, sexual crime is committed in far greater number by men, men still control most companies in this country and on and on and on. Men still make most of the laws, as well. But last time I looked , the world was roughly 50 / 50 in terms of gender balance.

As for feminism, it has delivered some wonderful things, like (mostly) equal pay, maternity leave, health services and so on. No doubt men’s groups would see this as some sort of evil plan against men. What total tosh!

Erick (and you supporters), you really need to get a sense of proportion, sunshine, a sense of perspective. It is a lovely world outside, to be shared equally between men and women, straight and not, religious and atheist, black and white. Get over it, mate and get on with your life.

Loddlaen says:

09:09am | 10/01/12

@Kaz - So you’ve never seen what happens in divorce court? Nice men get screwed over something royally there…

amy says:

09:56am | 10/01/12

so you dont belive that women EVER had it worse off?

Mark says:

09:58am | 10/01/12

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... what ... oh ... Tory has stopped ranting? Tory, you are quoting from anonymous postings? Are you serious? My goodness that is lazy. You didn’t call the spokesperson and ask them directly, with a real name to the quote, while giving them the chance to state their side, you quoted anon postings. That is breathtaking. Was picking up the phone and acting like a real journalist outside of your skill set or do you just not care about your lack of credibility?

Anubis says:

10:01am | 10/01/12

Response to @Kaz - refer to Radfemhub

If these women were better people, they would be happy white women. They would not be divorced, estranged from their children, punished by the courts, incarcerated, addicts, or isolated from society.  I’m tired of women blaming men for their problems, and their outcomes.  Take responsibility for your own poor actions, anger and personality issues - and aim to improve.  You’ll find you immediately have better relationships, work, and societal outcomes.
Anyone who has ever read the radfemhub comments online by these women, can see immediately how awful these gals are, and rather than feeling sorry for them, we feel sorry for anyone who has ever had to spend time with them in real life.  They make my skin crawl.

Mark says:

10:03am | 10/01/12

Where is it proven that all of these men are caucasian? Is there proof or is Tory just casually being racist to up her click rate on this story? When exactly did you sell out your ethics Tory?

Fidelbogen says:

10:43am | 10/01/12

I don’t understand why Michael Flood and his ilk think that the non-feminist population is only a handfull. It is, realistically estimating, more like four-fifths of the people in the world.

And non-feminist men and women all over the world are finding their voice in growing numbers. Why stop at Australia? It’s global, folks!

BTW, I wish that Tory Shephard would explain what she means by men’s right “extremists”. Extreme compared to what? I suspect that Tory means ‘extreme’ compared to those who acquiesce in the feminist narrative. But why does she feel that the feminist narrative deserves a monopoly of discourse?

Hopefully she will clear this up in days ahead.

iMitchy says:

10:44am | 10/01/12

@Tory,
I think I’m being pretty level-headed after reading both articles.

The major problem with both sides of the arguement is that they fail to acknowledge that the situation is many shades of grey. It’s so easy to get caught up in the internet habit of black and white hyperbole and Tory, you’ve done that. Way not to take the higher road….

Imagine an article similar to yours on the topic of Islam. Ignore all of the decent plights of the culture and focus purely on the extremists and their plights and agendas as a representation of the broader Muslim population. It is not a fair representation of the majority of supporters and their beliefs and it would be understandable for non-extremist Muslims to be upset about your claims.
To your credit you did point out that you were talking specifically about the extremists, but as we all know extremists are to be ignored, as they shift focus from the issues truly at hand to the obviously nonsensical, and we could have all benefit from reading about your position on the less extreme viewpoints held by the movement.

Back to the many shades of grey thing - each case is different. Sometimes the courts and society get it right but sometimes they get it wrong and sometimes people play to the numbers and exploit their position for personal gain or straight out lie. But how much weight do we place on each instance so that it may provide a balanced and fair arguement? We simply don’t know.
This is why we end up with hyperbole, anecdotes and skewed statistics, but it doesn’t really get either party anywhere. Sometimes we just have to accept that the court system is flawed and people aren’t always honest. There will always be unfortunate exceptions but this doesn’t necessarily mean we need an overhaul of our system.

The rebuttal which Erick provided the link for, I felt addressed all of your arguements but did so in an obnoxious way and gave undue weight to a minority of cases - the said exceptions. The authors sign off also didn’t do him any favours, it stripped the debate of maturity, which was the last thing it needed.

I believe that today’s events have been a backwards step for both sides of the debate and it is being further fuelled by internet treads everywhere.

Craig says:

10:52am | 10/01/12

Kaz and Rose. You two little gems. Most of the posts I read of yours make me wonder why we ever did let feminism gain ground. Seriously, here you are attacking men who are as vitriolic as you pair, from the other side of course claiming they’re worse than you two. Thanks to Erick for pointing out the site, I went for a read and a look-see. I think they have some very valid points and arguments. And let the women howl. It’s not about them and doesn’t paint them in rosy hues so of course the femo brigade are going to howl louder. It quite accurately negates the myth that all men are violent, beaters and belittlers of women. Excuse me whilst I ignore you as I most often do, after this.

Women ARE gold diggers. Even if it’s merely to go out for the night and flirt and not have to pay for their own drinks, which is an act I have heard so many women giggle about and applaud each other for. Gold digging need not be about the big things. Even the small. Like EXPECTING men to pick up the tab entirely on the first date. Let’s not start THAT argument again. GOLD. DIGGING. It’s well and truly time we got over this notion the vagina is precious and it’s owner should be treated like a most coveted and revered being. Every second person has one so they’re neither rare or valuable as a result.

As for the issues with men and the courts. I know lots of blokes who struggle to see their kids. Who have lost real estate property. Of course the woman is the innocent party in those cases and the man’s lack of responsibility brought it all on.

Rose, a little clue up for you. Men DO talk to each other about stuff other than sports etc. Just because you’re not around when it happens, does not mean it doesn’t. Like women will only talk about things with other women, men too have their sensibilities. So will you desist in attempts to paint men with your neandertholic brush. It’s just another femo bit of BS. We’re not all blockheads, in the same way not all women are whiney, bitchy little Paris Hiltons.

To those who say the raising of these men’s issues won’t achieve anything I say this. It’s about time the feminist dogma was scrutinised and found to be flawed, it’s loud-mouthed, belligerent exponents told to clam up and for both men and women to realise that not everything can be equal. If women can raise their concerns for womankind, why cannot men do the same? Ideas have to be voiced before they can become action.

Oh, and to those who see domestic violence as a one sided issue, who see it’s physical scars only let it be known. I can look around and see plenty of men who are being emotionally and verbally beaten by women. Tell me you haven’t met, (or worse, married), one of these harpies and you wonder why they keep getting away with it. As someone once said, sticks and stones.. I know which one I’d rather have. And having been a recipient of that kind of domestic violence I can now look at a domestic violence story and wonder if she hadn’t pushed him so far, for so long, that she didn’t just get what she had coming. And if you’re wondering.. I reached that point. After two hours of being hit and shoved, I shoved back once and she went running for the police. Men call it nagging where often it’s domestic violence

Barry says:

10:57am | 10/01/12

Haha after Paul Elam complaining about moderation I have just been banned from the site.  What a hypocrite.  Oh well, nothing will ever change, if people like Paul are at the head of the movement.  I can just see him a public debate screaming out “F**K the lot of you all you feminist nazi loving F**Ks”.  He’s just too wrapped up in his anger to see that his kind of behavior will never ever get any public respect.

Mark says:

10:57am | 10/01/12

@Rose-“You can only improve things by accepting responsibility and moving away from the things that are holding you down, and those things holding you down, are more often than not of your own making,”
-the same could be said for every problem that we dircetly act on when a female is in question. Domestic Violence- why was the woman in the relationship in the first place. Rape- Why was she walking alone etc I would be called every name under the sun if I suggested those things were the womans fault.
Your points, while valid when looked at without a counterpoint, break down when you look at it from the male perspective. You are blaming men for problems that aren’t necessarily always caused by them.. The drinking and drugs, for example. Women have driven me to drinking, does that mean i’m weaker than a woman in the same position? No, your argument is hypocritical and that is exactly the reason this whole article was written. The hypocrisy of feminists is pissing off logically thinking men everywhere. We understand we have been privileged in the past but that is not currently the case and feminist activist groups are trying to make it worse. We need to promote equality, not one gender or race’s rights- they are human rights and should not be distinguished from each other- For to notice the difference gives it consent to be acknowledged. We do not want to acknowledge the differences because they are imagined by humans and mean nothing when we are in the ground. Irrational and misguided beliefs that men are evil and females need to somehow be protected is exactly what got us into this place.. Feminists, please, leave the thinking to the logicians. Emotion has no place in this debate and that is about all feminists bring to the table.

Fidelbogen says:

10:59am | 10/01/12

I would not let the racist tone of the title pass unremarked. Why does Tory feel that she must speak of “white” “men”?

Is this racism?

Is this sexism?

Is this a red herring?

OR. . . is it a racist, sexist, red herring?

Tory should explain to us how and when she polled the demographics of the non-feminist population. Last I heard, it was. . eh. . “diverse”.

John Smythe says:

11:10am | 10/01/12

au contraire Mark, I ask, Did she ever have them?

But your earlier post sums it up very well.

Erick says:

11:11am | 10/01/12

@Fidelbogen - “But why does she feel that the feminist narrative deserves a monopoly of discourse?”

Because without a monopoly on discourse, feminism can’t survive in its present form. There are simply too many lies, too many contradictions, and too many double standards.

Once it is open to challenge, the whole edifice will eventually fall.

afriend says:

11:28am | 10/01/12

Did you not just contradict yourself? You are doing to mens rights what you fought againts for womens rights, you are deflating their arguments and saying that they over push things. I’m sure some topics are over argued but isnt that the same proplem with any activist group. It is common that men are ALWAYS seen to be the ones who abuse and neglect, although stats from around the world (not just australia) show that men suffer more domestic abbuse then women…. get your facts right before you get paid to add to the fire.

Seth Brundle says:

11:31am | 10/01/12

“As the daughter of a sociopath” - to whom are you referring, your mother or father?  I didnt want to just assume…

Barry says:

11:38am | 10/01/12

@Fidelbogan
Since Paul is so wrapped up in his hate to realize his own bigotry, and had to ban me since he couldn’t handle the truth I will reply to you here.  Firstly, learn the definition of racism.  Tory may not have done a survey, and that is a good point, but my comment on the Voice for Men site related to comments originating with white profile pictures, and also were very angry and aggressive.  I never stated that the movement is actually made up of such people, but that is what it would look like to the public, and it won’t do you any favors.  As for being a movement, this statement is off the site.

“After considerable review, and given that AVfM does not speak for the entirety of the men’s movement, I have decided to overhaul the content of the “Mission and Values” page to reflect the policies of avoiceformen.com and A Voice for Men Radio, forthwith. This new mission and values statement has just replaced the last one.”

Obviously, the members themselves consider a men’s movement existing.  Regardless, as I’ve already stated until Paul can actually stop telling people to F**K off, and banning people because he doesn’t like their opinion, he will always look like the joke he is.  It’s hypocritical on two levels, one because he complains about moderation of comments, and secondly because he calls other people a bigot, while acting as one himself.  It’s sad that something as serious as male suicide has been hijacked by people such as Paul, and warped into their own personal vendetta.  There you go though consider yourself schooled and enlightened.

john says:

11:40am | 10/01/12

@Erick “There are simply too many lies, too many contradictions, and too many double standards.Once it is open to challenge, the whole edifice will eventually fall.”

Perhaps the fall is well under-way with your beloved PM & her perfumed brigade leading the way?

Ladyday says:

11:45am | 10/01/12

It seems Erick’s mentality hasn’t left primary school and he is still afraid of catching girls germs.

I think Joe Jackson summed it up in his song Real Men.
“And if there’s war between the sexes then there’ll be no people left”

The vitriol these angry men have towards women is disturbing.
The greatest perpetrators of violence towards men is mostly by other men. These extremist women haters are no different to other hate groups. Does it take for them to be wearing white robes and hoods or swastikas to be seen for what they really are?
A brotherhood of scared and needy little boys with mummy issues.

They undermine the serious issues affecting men because these groups are agenda driven and self serving, they are not thinking about the future of their sons, they are thinking about their own selfish needs to avenge the women who have “done them wrong”.

Benjamin says:

11:49am | 10/01/12

You know, I really wish I would quit hearing from feminists what I am.  If I’m an MRA, why is everybody so busy telling me what my position is, instead of asking me?

LeftRightOut® says:

11:59am | 10/01/12

We all see these issues (all issues, actually) through our own lens. Whether our bias is based on gender, upbringing, personal experience, whatever, there is, and always will be a bias. Tory’s is quite evident in her article, as is every single respondent.
Just because some of these (largely anonymous) men’s message boards have some extreme (Tory’s word) views, doesn’t diminish the possibility that some of them may have a point.

The gist of this piece speaks volumes for the close minded approach Tory takes to all manner of topics, go read her dismissive views on people who don’t buy the AGW theory hook line and sinker for example…

A lot of men get screwed over in family law court. Some women falsely accuse men of rape, or domestic violence… women typically are worse off than men in the stereotypical sense… we could generalise all day, but to categorically state that there is no problem, and diminish a group’s argument because gays and refugees get a worse deal (*sometimes*) is just pathetic.

And please, no more personal emails from “acting editors” ,making themselves look silly.

LeftRightOut® says:

12:03pm | 10/01/12

Thanks for the link to A Voice for Men reply… dripping with sarcasm… just the way I like it

Sarahh says:

12:07pm | 10/01/12

Uh Craig, the rest of that saying goes sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I know what I’d prefer too.

Ken says:

12:27pm | 10/01/12

I agree with Erick - That was a good summary of most of the main issues except the all women are gold diggers comment. I wonder if that was an intentional attempt to mix the truth with lies to further discredit the Men’s rights movements…

I’m looking forward to each “debunk” article as it comes, and even more looking forward to them being torn apart by readers, as you can’t debunk the truth. Sure she can probably set up straw men arguments like “Angry white men think all women are gold diggers” and tear them down. But can she accurately refute the fact that men tend to come out worse from divorce than women (with the exception of post-divorce earnings where men tend to outperform since they had a continuous career)? That a significant number of rape complaints are false or malicious? That men are commonly accused of child abuse to aid a custody case, yet few of those accusations are upheld, and no penalty is applied for the false accusation? Can she refute the truth? That remains to be seen.

The problem is, men and women are under-performing each other in different ways. Does the fact that you’re a CEO compensate you for the fact that a junior can accuse you of sexual assault and destroy your career in one complaint, which was refuted by her coworkers and never tested in court? Does the fact that you’re physically stronger compensate you for the fact you only get to see your kids occasionally, should your wife choose to divorce you? No.

Society has a long way to go for both genders. Some of these things are adversarial. You can’t have more women on boards, without having less men on boards. You can’t give more custody to fathers without taking it away from mothers.

But you CAN stop ridiculing men in the media - especially comedies. You CAN initiate programs to help boys perform better at school. You CAN ensure men get a fair trial when they’re falsely accused of a crime, and you CAN apply harsher penalties to false accusers. Men do need to fight for their rights - not at the expense of women, but to the benefit of both.

Doh says:

12:42pm | 10/01/12

@Tory

Here is a challenge for you, your next article will be called:

“I am angry aboriginal women, hear me roar”

Do you think that would fly??

Mattb says:

12:46pm | 10/01/12

“A Voice For Men just replied to this article. “

Really?, is that what’s referred to as a reply?. What I read sounded more like a whinge with no substance whatsoever.

Seriously, checking that website out made me feel slightly embarrassed for the blokes on it, they come across as angry, self important, whining sooks. Life’s tough boys, sometimes things don’t go your way, sometimes it’s not all about you, sometimes the partners you choose in life rort you, that’s life, get used to it. Making up some angry little website to whinge about it just proves how insecure you are and really shines a light on just how difficult it is for you to move on in life. All you’ve become is the male versions of some of the feminist movement groups you despise.

Wynston Cruso says:

12:47pm | 10/01/12

And your article isn’t just hate Tory? Could you not have actually addressed mens issues like an adult instead of highlighting some extreme examples, some of which are just plain false or completely out of context. If you wanted a good laugh at extremism then perhaps we should be looking at some feminist websites instead as the vitriol spewed out from those whack jobs is plain scary and 10 times worse than anything I’ve seen on an MRE website. I thought the response to your article by AVFM was spot on, pretty sure you were debunked on every point.

Barry says:

01:18pm | 10/01/12

I thought I would post this for other’s amusement from the Voice of Men Site:

“And when they find this site, and find out about the feminazis plans to turn Australian men into concentration camp Jews we will gain more friends and supporters”

I made note of this comment suggesting that such extreme talk was moronic.  This is the reply I got in return:

Paul’s already addressed your racism. I’ll answer for the “women locking up men in concentration camps”, since I am the first one I know of on this site to make the analogy.

How do you think the Final Solution of the Nazis for the Jews came about? It started in the first year Hitler was appointed Chancellor: the “old cabhorse” Hindenburg was still President, however, and Hitler had to start slow. He started with Storm Troops standing in front of Jewish shops, “demonstrating” against Jews and urging boycotts. (Well, heck, not so bad so far, right?)

Then came the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, prohibiting, along with much else, marriage between an Aryan and a Jew – but really, a move to eliminate *sex* between a blond Aryan maiden and the Lascivious Jew amongst much else. (Starting to sound familiar yet?)

By 1938, after Krystallnacht, a set of laws were rammed into place, that didn’t exactly say that if you were a Jew, you had to report to a death camp, but none the less making life, in praxis, unlivable for Jews in Germany. (How bout now?)

Winter 1941 saw the Wannsee Conference (think the recent use of Feminist groups, exclusively, as advisors in closed meeting with the FBI). There was solidified the Final Solution of the Jewish Question…Now Jews *really did* have to report to concentration camps. But these had been converted, in preparation for Jews and Gypsies, to death camps.

…Yes I’m sure there *were* Germans who were persecuted in the Sudentenland, just as I’m sure there *are* women who get physically and sexually abused by men. But wymminz solution is to *have men* – the FBI, state & local police, etc – march in with steel helmets (riot gear, which is even better!) and put men who don’t behave according to laws which, in every country have reached Nuremberg level and are poised to jump to Kristalnacht-level in Australia, into concentration camps. Got it? Wymmon maneuver *men* to be their enforcers, their goons, their SS.

If you think I’m going to wait around, not shouting this analogy-soon-to-be-parallel of German Nazis vis a vis Feminazis from the highest hills, man, you’re the fool.”

Who would have thought Erick could look like such a moderate.  It seems though this sort of belief is fairly normal, and noone questions it.  That’s the biggest problem with the Voice.  There is so much group think going on, and everyone is just stroking each other’s manhood, and yelling out F**K YEAH!

Y2J says:

02:49pm | 10/01/12

“Who would have thought Erick could look like such a moderate.”

Good work Barry at not only highlighting the ridiculousness of these MRE but also showing that Erick thinks he wins the argument by providing a reference aaaaaaany reference, even if that includes these sorts of out and out loonies.

The sad thing is that idiots like Erick promoting extremist views mean that important issues such as parental access for fathers are being drowned out whilst sensible people quite rightly dismiss ranting extremists.

Hicks says:

03:04pm | 10/01/12

I found the Voice for Men article much less bias than this one. On almost each point he does highlight valid points.

But I have read Tory’s articles previously, in fact I find quite a lot of the female written articles to hold a feminist tone or bias. It’s just disappointing to me that Tory quite obviously did no research into the VfM site and what it offers, instead taking a front foot on demonising the worst members of the party.

Of course both sides for men and women have extremists. But surely a stand of neutral is best when trying to make a point, or perhaps the facts weigh in better favour of what Tory dislikes? So she resorts to this.

Either way, disappointing.

Get on with it says:

03:09pm | 10/01/12

I’m not at all in agreement with his article as a whole but just as there are extremist feminists that raise extremist, but sometimes valid points, why should this man not be allowed to do the same. The fact is if a male attacks a feminist he is called a sexist, yet if a female says “But I take comfort in the knowledge that you’re wasting your life fighting a fruitless - and indeed, fantastical - war. It gives me a smug little feeling of warmth everytime I read your miserable attempts to direct the anger you harbour towards women” thats okay? Everyone just needs to cool down and accept that there are divisions in both aspects of society and become okay with that. Once that occurs then we can move forward positively instead of all the negative junk posted here.

Erick says:

03:36pm | 10/01/12

@Tory - You didn’t provide any actual quotes to substantiate your claims about what men’s rights activists stand for. There’s a good reason for that, of course - because anyone who looked at the original sources would know your claims are false.

The tactics you use might have worked in the bad old days, when the targets of journalistic hatchet jobs couldn’t answer back, and readers couldn’t check the facts for themselves. But these are not the bad old days. Today we have the Internet.

Thank you for the publicity you’ve provided. Thanks to your efforts, and the front-page link on news.com.au, dozens or even hundreds of people have been made aware of our movement. Many of them will do further research of their own.

I’m a little bit sorry about what you have done to your credibility with this article. But that was your choice, and I didn’t ask you to do it, so I don’t feel too guilty. Still a bit sad about that, though otherwise it’s been a great day!

HT says:

03:38pm | 10/01/12

Good article - I get sick of whinging on both sides. Look, I don’t deny there are some genuine inequalities and double standards that still exist for both men AND women. But blaming the other side to the point where you threaten violence is just ridiculous. There are better approaches to these issues.

Gordy says:

04:21pm | 10/01/12

I’m becoming increasingly suspicious that Tory is a regular commenter on RadFem hub.

Y2J says:

05:36pm | 10/01/12

Erick your insipid whining about credibility as you typically ignore or misdirect arguments says so much about you.

I clearly highlighted one of many examples from your guru’s response which was little more than childish nonsense. Indeed other that highlighting nastiness of this particular MRE his comment only serves to suggest that this ratbag does not actually know anything about our legal system.

And as ever your response was typical of you, either ignore or misdirect.

You sir are the one with the credibility problem.

Fiona says:

05:52pm | 10/01/12

Rose, you said it for me….thanks

Vicki PS says:

08:49pm | 10/01/12

Yes Erick.  You are absolutely right, Erick.

<Howls of hysterical mirth>

...But seriously folks, the only shrillness you will hear from me is my laughter.

Yes, they may be real issues inasmuch as there are a lot of men who need to deal with them.  There may even be a few who have been seriously disadvantaged.  But a conspiracy of denial? 

Sorry, but there’s nothing new about a bunch of men stumping through life with gigantic chips on their shoulders.  My best advice is to go and tell Mummy about it.

Phil says:

09:00pm | 10/01/12

As much as I agree with many points raised by Erick, most of us know of someone who has been screwed over by the family courts. Be it male or female. Percentages of which, who knows.

What is true is that many men take advantage of women and shirk their rights as fathers and shirk their responsibilities as fathers. Same can be said about women. Many decide that the current bloke no good and they are going to screw him over.

As I have often said, we need to choose more carefully who we fuck as thart is what most of this boils down too.

Luckily I chose carefully. I have a beautiful wife and I adore my daughters. And even if she decided to bend me over I would want my daughters provided for. I thank god she is an awesome woman every day, cause I see so many cows married to mates.

What I think should be bought in but no one has the guts to do so is a reverse law, one that says if rape is claimed and proven ill bought on then the claimant is punishable by the penalty that the defendant would have been punishable by. Same for abuse of children, so if you bring it on better have proof. It is currently too easy for one partner to cry fowl and let the courts take over, if any false claims were punishable by the courts then we would see a massive decrease in complaints and better shared custody.

I have seen both males and females ruined by the family court. Some judges decisions are as best dodgy. They say the system is corrupt and many freemasons are making these decisions, all I know is the current system does not work, nor is it free of abuse.

Craig says:

09:50pm | 10/01/12

Sarahh .. you’re absolutely right about the traditional saying.

I was thinking more of the “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can hurt forever” version   And, in my opinion, it’s true. Words can be far more powerful than the hardest punch

The Grappler says:

09:54pm | 10/01/12

Hmm - well - I happen to think that the claims are pretty right - and you have yet to offer anything beyond a blog yourself.  Let’s see some pudding here and not just swords.  I’ll give you one start - according to Federal government figures - less than 5% of claims of ‘domestic violence’ made by women involve actual violence.

Add to this one unassailable fact - direct violence of many kinds against MEN in those same situations is 100% - an undeniable fact.

You may respond at your leisure.

I am not a MRE or even a MRA - I am an anti-feminist who has endured AA/EEO, beng bashed and perjured against and so forth over ‘dv’ claims with no basis, had my heart ripped out by having my children taken 600 miles away and so forth.

You may get back to me when you have taken ONE step in those shoes - and then you can add in the prejudice and discrimination in employment and education that has become the norm - in favour of women.

AND the unassaillable fact that while women were being ‘imprisoned’ in the kitchen - men were killing themselves for their families by working in dangerous and unhealthy jobs - to feed their families.  Most of them didn’t get to sit on their arse in an air-conditioned office and claim to have done a hard day’s work AND to have deserved the job over any number of men.

A litle bit of respect for those who have given you the chance to even sit there and write this rubbish would go a long way.

St. Michael says:

12:05am | 11/01/12

Hmmmm, the Hunch eating my posts again even when my others haven’t disappeared? How interesting.

In summary, @ Tory:

“@Erick I didn’t link to Voice for Men – because it’s a hate site, as shown by their response to this article, which finishes: “We are here to fuck your shit up”. The site, if anything, makes my points for me.”

If so, then your own abusive vitriol against game hunters and Bob Katter, amongst other subjects, taken out of context as you did here, makes the point that the Punch is a hate site, too.

I’d link the article, but people can check back through your own article history and find the ones I’m referring to since I suspect copious weblinking skitzes out the Hunch’s software.  I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Erick says:

07:42am | 11/01/12

@St Michael - I have lost much respect for Tory with this article. Not because I disagree with her, which I often do, but because of the way she has posted gross factual errors.

The most egregious one is right towards the beginning. “But these genuine issues are not the ones that concern the new breed of men’s activists.”

As Paul Elam correctly points out, this is simply not true. Not only is it wrong, but it’s extremely obvious that it’s wrong, and easily proven.

When I read that sentence, I felt sad that she had lowered her standards to that level.

Y2J says:

09:05am | 11/01/12

“As Paul Elam correctly points out, this is simply not true. “

Which is why he has to resort almost entirely to ad hominem attacks, strawmen, belligerence and hate.

Erick your credibility matches your standards.

Mark says:

11:06am | 11/01/12

Good morning Tory. I am just following up on your promise to provide links that prove that the men in these groups are all Caucasian, as per the “I am angry white man, hear me roar” headline. I would hate for anyone to get the wrong impression that you have made a blatantly racist assertion to raise your article’s click rate without any proof to back you up.

RyaN says:

12:46pm | 11/01/12

@Tory Shepherd: “Also, in a more general way, I haven’t seen any of the men’s rights extremists who’ve contacted me, written here on The Punch, or on the other blogs, talk about the issues affecting non-white men “

Ah the ole’ racism card, so if people are taking your misandry to task you imply that they are racists who run a “hate” site. What an absolutely pathetic defense Tory, surely you can do better than that.

RyaN says:

12:58pm | 11/01/12

@Tory Shepherd: Perhaps you missed this guys post ?

Zuberi in reply to Bazrah

” Like a bunch of ignorant angry white morons.”

I would’ve never thought that having African and American Indian ancestry would actually make me an ignorant white moron.

Erick says:

02:18pm | 11/01/12

@Tory Shepherd - Men’s issues affect all men, regardless of their race.

I don’t see any reason to make racist remarks.

Y2J says:

02:33pm | 11/01/12

“I would’ve never thought that having African and American Indian ancestry would actually make me an ignorant white moron.”

No it’s the other things.

The Free says:

06:04pm | 12/01/12

Come on Tory, Michael Flood?

That sore excuse for a human being posed as a member of a fathers group and sent derogatory letters impersonating MRA’s in an attempt to discredit them.

He is the worst type of feminist, the male feminist who seeks approval from females so sells out his gender and does a doosey of a job whilst doing it.

Flood is a joke and his actions speak louder than words and his actions are of a crook and a liar.

Steve_85 says:

06:50am | 13/01/12

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?feature=watch#p/u/0/K9G9AAhlMo4

Commentary from a 40 year old, divorced mother of three who enjoys talking about herself in the third person.

Warning, some videos and blog posts may make use of the F word.
You can find her blog at http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/ I suggest reading it.

dancan says:

07:37am | 10/01/12

I’m disappointed that Erick didn’t do much.  After his many lengthy and vocal responses to other articles which only vaguely relate to men’s issues I was expecting a well researched response debunking Tory’s piece.  Instead all we get is “go to Google”, disappointing.

Erick says:

08:36am | 10/01/12

I don’t get paid to write comments. I have to do my actual job at least some of the time.

For those who are interested in a point-by-point rebuttal of Tory’s silly article, one has been posted at A Voice For Men already. The comments there are good too.

Rather than waste my time fighting her strawmen, I’ll direct people to sites where they can educate themselves about the men’s rights movement, such as this one. (Hi guys!)

Bertrand says:

09:08am | 10/01/12

It’s not just Erick.

There are a number of men’s rights activists on this site, and although I can see where they are coming from on a small number of issues they raise, they come across as so aggressive and contemptuous towards women, often directing an incoherent rage at females in general.

I cannot help but feel they would be the type of men who make massive mistakes with their lives and cannot accept any of the blame for what has gone wrong, so they choose to transfer this anger onto women in general.

Y2J says:

10:02am | 10/01/12

I like the way Erick uses the term “strawmen” on the one hand while referencing an article that is predominately made up of strawmen and ad hominems on the other.

It’s a nice touch.

Kheiron says:

11:39am | 10/01/12

I’m not an activist, I’m far too lazy for that, but I’m for equal rights.
Upon this belief, I’ve often engaged in discussion and research on the topic and have noticed a few things.
Firstly, you shouldn’t really trust the outspoken advocates for either sex. Despite the claims, you’ll often find they’re bias. I feel compelled to put Tory in this group too.

81% of children of separated parents lived with their mother in 2009-10.
Only 48% of children living with one parent (Father or Mother) saw their other parent at least once a fortnight. 24% saw their other parent less then once a year or never.
4442.0 - Family Characteristics, Australia - ABS Study

There have been many studies into false rape allegations, with results between 2.1% of rape cases being false, to 45%. Also, beyond the outright admittance of the claimant, it’s hard to differentiate between false claims and unconfirmed claims.
The common mark seems to be about 8%, which is apparently 4 times higher then false/unsubstantiated reports of other crimes.

These seem to be the issue of most contention. Read into them what you will.

ByStealth says:

02:34pm | 10/01/12

‘they come across as so aggressive and contemptuous towards women, often directing an incoherent rage at females in general. ‘

I don’t disagree that this is how some MRAs come across. It doesn’t help garner support with people with neutral views on the issue.

I would suggest however that the continued discounting of their points and the shaming language continually directed at them by feminists and trolls contributes to their anger. If these men were listened to more, there would be less vitriol, but unfortunately the vitriol prevents people from wanting to listen to them.

While Erick in particular is tireless in addressing MR issues I notice that he doesn’t resort to personal attacks like many of his critics. Emasculation of MRAs is the go to response for many critics rather than rational discourse and debate.

So much so that MRAs have comprised a list of common shaming tactics and techniques which may be found here:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

For instance, applied to Ladyday’s comment at 12:45pm where she says ‘A brotherhood of scared and needy little boys with mummy issues. ’  can be classified as Code Blue and Yellow.

Cimbom says:

02:35pm | 10/01/12

Kheiron, you conveniently left out the very many rape cases that go unreported every year. They are far more common that false accusations and are especially common in cases where the perpetrator is known to the victim (the most commont type of rape case).

Chris L says:

02:55pm | 10/01/12

@Cimbom - On the other hand, the statistics for fake rape charges only include those where the accuser admits to falsifying the claim, so it can be reasonably assumed to be a larger figure. Works both ways.

While not conclusive, the below link shows two situations where statistics could be garnered in a reliable fashion and the result was closer to 41-50%.

http://ia600406.us.archive.org/1/items/FalseRapeAllegations/false-rape-allegations-archive.pdf

Jane2 says:

02:56pm | 10/01/12

@ Kheiron Stats are fantastic things arent they. In most cases I know of the non-custodial parent is more than welcome to see the kid whenever they like but they chose not to.

Offer to pick the kids up from school. Attend the school sports/concerts etc. Go see you kid do their after school activities.

It is the minority of custodial parents who would object to the non-custodial from taking an active part in their childs life.

Btw, those stats also include situations where the non-custodial parent lives in different towns/states from the kids. This sitauations are not a case of the court has ordered limited access.

Non-custodial parents also reduce the frequency of their visits as teh years beyond divource go on. The first year they will make every effort to see their kid every other weekend but come year 5 it is rare that it hasnt extended to once a month or one every other month.

As for your quote on the falsified rapes, if 8% are false that means 92% are proven. This also means there is not some large female anti-male rape conspiracy or rampent false reporting to get benefit.

Kheiron says:

04:30pm | 10/01/12

Jane2, that’s why I avoided making a claim. Statistics are unreliable, especially without due context.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed the ABS seems to avoid identifying genders where possible which makes it hard to find worthwhile studies on such topics as these.

I’ll pull you up on a few points, though.
Personal experience is even less valid then statistics, especially in issues which, in some way, encompass everyone nation wide. Also, there are exceptions to everything.
As for the rapes, 8% being false or unsubstantiated does not mean the other 92% are proven or convicted. It just means there may be some evidence, even circumstantial, that hints towards a crime taking place.
A statistic showing reported rapes versus convicted rapes would be more in line with your claim. I’ll try to find one.

As for you Cimbom, of course. Unreported rape cases aren’t included in the statistic because they were, surprise, unreported. We can’t really be expected to give any legitimate number to any unreported incidences because, due to the nature of the thing, anything would be a guess.
If you have any viable stats on this issue, please share.

PsychoHyena says:

04:55pm | 10/01/12

@Jane2 I don’t think Kheiron was actually using that as an argument, but rather presenting some statistics that he had access to. Attempting to subvert the statistics by saying “but but but…” is not the way to go.

@CimBom, the problem with unreported cases is just that, they are unreported, in which case the figures are guesstimates using reported crime figures and then producing a percentage based on that.

Charles says:

09:11am | 10/01/12

Not a chance, Danny. As always, he’s wimped out when challenged to actually back up his BS. Last time he “had to go shopping”. Good riddance, anyway.

I, Claudia says:

10:35am | 10/01/12

He didn’t. He waddled away as soon as the article was posted. It was pathetic, but strangely amusing, also. With his privileged status as a white middleclass man emphasized, he wasn’t able to portray himself as a victim, so he scurried off as fast as he could.

Erick says:

10:46am | 10/01/12

Here’s a lengthy, but excellent, article that sets forth the main issues, and the conditions under which the current anti-male regime is likely to become unsustainable: The Misandry Bubble.

Summary: Only a wealthy society can afford to feed the parasitic feminist industry. Economic hardship will starve the beast.

The Free says:

10:59am | 10/01/12

Well done I Claudia.

If you are white-male-middle class there are no problems.

Don’t forget the privileged remark too, so privileged.

Argument over right?

From conversations with a feminist.

Reminds me of the good ol’ rich white man trope trotted out every time a mra tries to tackle male suicides numbers, of course there are no housewives of these rich white men who may even have more privileges being they have nannies, housekeepers and chefs, and their husbands at least still have to work

I don’t know how she does it?

This is fun, free balloons for all…

Charles says:

11:20am | 10/01/12

And he’s still wimping out, Danny. I’d suggest he grow a pair but we all know that’s never gonna happen. He’ll keep trying to blame all of his inadequacies on women forever more.

Ando says:

11:32am | 10/01/12

I,Claudia,
Eric has posted. All your comments however are directed to Eric and not the issue. Try engaging in the discussion before you accuse Eric of avoiding it.

Charles says:

01:14pm | 10/01/12

@Ando   Erick’s commented, but he hasn’t said anything. At least now we know how to shut him up. Just call his bluff, and he’s got nothing to say. Of course it’s just like killing Kenny, however. He’ll be back again tomorrow banging on with the same old BS as if it never happened.

Kheiron says:

04:45pm | 10/01/12

That’s a bit unfair, isn’t it Charles?
The issue has come up, Erick has posted several times and provided links in support of his views (worth of the links being suspect, sure) and you accuse him of being mute?

Would it make you feel better if he started making snippy, condescending attacks on specific posters?
From my position, it seems like that’s the only thing he hasn’t resorted to that the other side has.

I don’t know the man, but if I were to judge him solely on his actions on this article I’d consider him a decent bloke.
You, not so much…

Chris L says:

06:14pm | 10/01/12

Very astute, Kheiron. People have every right to disagree with Erick but mostly I just see spite and nastiness.

Charles says:

08:54pm | 10/01/12

@Kheiron

No it’s not, because you can’t judge him solely on his actions in this article. He has to be judged against the comments he makes every single day about being oppressed as a white male. And yet when he’s directly challenged on exactly that topic he wimps out and has nothing to say. Last time he “had to go shopping”, and this time he makes the excuse that he doesn’t “get paid to write comments” and that he has to do his “actual job at least some of the time”, and posts a couple of links to hate sites. A total cowardly copout. Funny how he doesn’t need to “go shopping” or “do his job” any other time.

p.s. Thanks for your condescending, snippy comment.

Kheiron says:

11:42pm | 10/01/12

I think the rebuttal he linked is sufficient. If it matches his views on the subject it’d be pointless to just restate them.
Perhaps if Tory posted something worthy of a debate?
I just get the feeling all you’re after is some entertaining shouting match to bridge the boring gap between your Jerry Springer reruns. I’m also quite sure you’d have taken a dig at Erick regardless of his actions.
Also, I judge people from personal experience as a general rule and advise others to do so as well. Leads to less preconceptions and stereotypes and assures, mostly, that you form a correct opinion rather then just the ‘popular’ one.

Charles says:

06:02pm | 11/01/12

@Kheiron

So, you think completely wrong. Just because he carries on about how oppressed he is in every other comment thread is no excuse for wimping out on the two occasions when his comments would actually be on topic. And he didn’t say that the article wasn’t “worthy of a debate”.

Furthermore, although you’re “quite sure”, once again you’re wrong. I’d advise you to judge people from personal experience as a general rule and advise others to do so as well. Leads to less preconceptions and stereotypes and assures, mostly, that you form a correct opinion rather than just the ‘popular’ one. I just get the feeling all you’re after is some entertaining shouting match to bridge the boring gap between your Jerry Springer reruns.

Steve says:

09:01am | 10/01/12

I’d love some links on what is a “defacto” relationship? 

Do you actually have to live together, or is taking holidays together and loaning money to each other signs of being a defacto couple?

Ben C says:

11:13am | 10/01/12

@ Steve

Financial interdependence is a contributory factor, and I believe any children born from the relationship is another one.

I’d also ask which piece of legislation does the definition come from. Is there a universal legislative definition of de-facto, or does each piece of legislation have its own definition, which might vary slightly from other pieces?

K says:

11:16am | 10/01/12

@Steve - defacto does usually require some degree of cohabitation.  Taking holidays together and loaning money would fall under the banner of interdependency, which is subject to different rules depending on what type of property you’re talking about.

Slothy says:

12:12pm | 10/01/12

Steve - when I was trying to figure this out, I was told it is defined as ‘living together in a marriage-like relationship’. So essentially living together and working towards building a life together.

VVS says:

02:02pm | 10/01/12

There is no definition set in stone, but a range of factors that are looked at as a whole. Mainly indicators of a defacto relationship, but not definitive.

Eg: cohabitiation, shared finances, shared assets and liabilities, length of both, children of relationship etc etc

Broadly speaking, being more than a boyfriend/girlfriend or roommate for a significant period of time.

Kika says:

04:39pm | 10/01/12

Or being married without the ceremony having taken place…

I don’t know about elsewhere, but the laws about defacto relationships have been like that for years up here in Queensland.

marley says:

07:45am | 10/01/12

Erick doesn’t seem to agree with you.

Erick says:

08:16am | 10/01/12

@marley - Read my response again. I said it was a fairly good summary of the main issues.

I didn’t mention the description of men’s rights activists specifically, because it was so ridiculous as not to be taken seriously.

OchreBunyip says:

09:16am | 10/01/12

Tory misses the irony of her own article; the cavalier dismissal of any issue men may have as being extreme or irrelevant is why there is a rise in MRA’s. It is considered a given in the media that men do not, can not, have serious problems because, well…they’re men. When legislation is proposed that clearly disadvantages men, we are supposed to simply take it on the chin.

When men do not meekly accept disadvantage in favour of women, you know female humans that are supposed to be equal to men, then they are described as hateful or extremist. Instead of slinging insults, why do feminist journalists not engage with the arguments or present facts to prove their assertions? Surely if the DV stats were wrong the ABS data would show it right? Women rarely making false rape claims would be backed by police and court data right? The number of unproven allegations of abuse used in the family court would be debunked by their own data right? Is it instead that these things do indeed happen, far more frequently than Tory would like to admit and arguing against the data is harder than some simple attempts at shaming language.

If you are genuinely interested, consult the ABS Domestic Violence data. Have a read of Prof Kim Halford’s recent research on DV and its reciprocal nature. The actual situation is usually a lot more complex than an opinion piece on the Punch might lead you to believe.

Erick says:

10:20am | 10/01/12

@OchreBunyip - “the cavalier dismissal of any issue men may have as being extreme or irrelevant is why there is a rise in MRA’s.”

Nail. On. Head. That’s one of the main reasons there are more of us every day.

Articles like this one, and the hatred expressed by the feminist trolls, are one of the main driving forces for growth of the men’s rights movement.

It’s obvious that nobody else gives a toss about our issues, or cares about what happens to men - so we’ll just have to do that for ourselves. And, of course, when the groups that have such contempt for men ask for our sympathy or assistance, we’ll give them just what they gave to us.

Wynston Cruso says:

10:39am | 10/01/12

I found this article condescending to say the least.

Summed up perfectly by OB: “the cavalier dismissal of any issue men may have as being extreme or irrelevant is why there is a rise in MRA’s.”

So instead of actually addressing any of the issues seriously, the punch has just taken another tasteless swipe at men’s issues. I’m honestly not surprised anymore, but it’s still disappointing. Back to work guys, apparently we don’t have any issues and everythig is unicorns shitting rainbows. I bid thee good day.

Tom says:

10:59am | 10/01/12

Thanks OchreBunyip, the research is factual in content and objective in tone. This is a total contrast to the offensive sniggering of Shepherd and her ilk.

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/storage/pdfs/One_in_Three_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf

Well chosen words, “cavalier dismissal “. I honestly don’t understand why these types of people continue their denial and dishonesty. Shepherd seems to be the feminist boof-headed equivalent of David Irving?

St. Michael says:

12:24pm | 10/01/12

Just remember, guys: first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.

Looks like we’re somewhere between steps (2) and (3) right now.

Tigger says:

12:53pm | 10/01/12

@OB

“the cavalier dismissal of any issue men may have as being extreme or irrelevant is why there is a rise in MRA’s.”

Well said.

Yuri says:

03:45pm | 10/01/12

I would say that the dismissal of MRAs causes not only a rise in the number, but an increase in the intensity or “extremism” as well. It’s a perpetual cycle: Their claims are dismissed, so they come up with extreme or ridiculous claims to get attention, which are then easier to dismiss, and so on

Pork says:

08:05am | 10/01/12

Enumerate is a wank word.  How bout you use “list”

Dieter Moeckel says:

09:40am | 10/01/12

masturbators use enumerate - wanders use list!

Pork says:

11:14am | 10/01/12

Do you mean ‘wankers’ @Dieter Moeckel?
If so, I must admit to that action from time to time and also to the frequent use of the word list . Though I’m not sure the two are mutually inclusive…
Will DSArmageddon acknowledge that the use of the word enumerate was unnecessarily pompous?

Mitch says:

11:32am | 10/01/12

So that is why C++ programmers love the word. Hah. Bald nerd wankers.

Grumbleduke says:

11:39am | 10/01/12

Quote from the film (unintentional documentary) Idiocracy - “Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.” Problem cro-magnons?

Pork says:

12:38pm | 10/01/12

Well @Grumbleduke, Using Dieter Moeckel’s definitions, it seems are almost certainly an expert and preeminent masturbator.  I’m guessing that you have an excavatory implementation utensil and refer to it as thus…  Long may you revel in your superior eloquence!  Yours sincerely, Thag

Grumbleduke says:

01:58pm | 10/01/12

Please… Nothing as common as that Sirrah Pork. I partake in pugilistic pursuits with my mighty Cyclops. Seriously though, I just find it sad that it is the correct word, yet use of it brings ridicule. Decades of appealing to the lowest common denominator in schools seems to be turning us into a bunch of dullards.

Kheiron says:

02:02pm | 10/01/12

The overly grandiose synonym employment does insinuate an assumed preponderance. Nonetheless, a certain eloquence of english in the electronic medium is far from unwelcome.

marley says:

08:17am | 10/01/12

Well, but Mahrat, a lot of the comments from men cherry pick the most ridiculous and fanatical of feminists as well.  I guess what goes around, comes around.

bec says:

08:22am | 10/01/12

I don’t see a problem with having a Minister for Men. Go to town.

RED says:

09:21am | 10/01/12

@Mahhrat
When Tory first flagged that she was going to take on these topics I asked whether or not she was going to do it properly or simply look for cheap clicks, I guess we have the answer.
@Marley
But, but, but he called me names so I’m allowed to call him names back! Grow up.

Peter says:

09:30am | 10/01/12

People like Germaine Greer emerged after several centuries of flagrant and well-documented oppression of women.  She is a radical, and i’m no fan, to be honest, but I can understand why her voice became important to women, for awhile.  And she is largely irrelevant now.  Men, on the other hand, have no call or need for an equally radical response from the likes of Erick and his band of fanatics.  History does not justify that.

Ando says:

09:38am | 10/01/12

Bec,
I would hope not. The point is there isn’t one.

John Smythe says:

09:39am | 10/01/12

Easy Mahrat, it’s her typical way of providing a “men’s topic” while at the same time displaying her sheer contempt for it.

Why else would the article be littered with :
>>They aggressively lobby for better rights for men - usually at the expense of women.
Interesting that men, at the cost of women, and aggressive are tied in here. /waitsfor..ohbutIdidntmeanitthatway,youreadmewrong.

>>>But these genuine issues are not the ones that concern the new breed of men’s activists
Hmmmm so they are misguided in trying to rebalance the pendulum from militant feminists to a more equal society then?

no need to continue really. It’s clear a serious topic has been purposely taken from an extreme perspective in an attempt to gloss over the real issues.

As usual, we are dealt with a potentially good topic, but a poor article.

Mahhrat says:

09:43am | 10/01/12

@marley:  Agreed, but moderate MRAs don’t dismiss the legitimate concerns of women and children in society either.  They are quite happy to provide equality of opportunity, but based on the premise that the same risks, dangers and accountability are applied equally as well.

The argument for me seems to come down to one of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

I think that men deem equality based on opportunity. That may well be because they have traditionally enjoyed expanded opportunity to succeed.  1st gen feminism has a point, after all.  Most men are happy to provide equality of opportunity to women.

The new feminist movement - at least as far as I’ve been able to tell - want to balance that equality of opportunity, but seem to be achieving it through equality of outcome.  40 % representation on boards, for example.  Many men see that as “unfair”, because that is unearned opportunity in their eyes, yet the outcome - bums on seats - is “fair”.

What seems to be occuring though is that men are simply not playing the game.  We are seeing a different response to what mdoern feminism expected, I think.

Young men (18-25 or so) are looking at modern family arrangements and simply choosing not to take that risk.  Having never had kids, young men literally don’t know how rewarding they can be.  Not able to make an informed decision, given the very real risks they perceive, they aren’t participating.  After removing that, what’s left in the sexual trade table?  Sex?  Not that hard to come by, and you don’t need to commit to anything either.

IMHO, feminism has empowered women who want to be more traditionally masculine, but has actually disempowered women who were quite happy to remain traditionally feminine.  They’ve increase the ability for women to use force (outcome) - be it legal rather than physical - but the methods they’re using are patently discriminatory, exactly because the reverse doesn’t apply (opportunity)

John Smythe says:

09:54am | 10/01/12

@Peter, have a look at Matthew’s comment above. I don’t believe Erick is a fanatic at all. Consistent in his message, yes, but a fanatic or MRE, no. I support his comments based on that he isn’t advocating a priority for ONE side of the gender war, but for advocating fairness to all, irrespective of gender.

To try and state that the balance has NOT been tipped too far to one extreme is an oversight. Women getting off scott free for child molestation, family law courts preferential treatment etc. As long as this “mentality” exists in CURRENT times, then there are issues that need to be addressed. We need to address these as a society whole, not allow it to degenerate into divisional arguments.

bec says:

10:14am | 10/01/12

Mahrat, what you’re saying about younger men eschewing marriage isn’t matching my own experience.

There’s certainly plenty of engagement and marriage occurring in my own social circles. Unlike what it was like in my parent’s generation, where most of the men went into high-paying professions and our mums went into clerical and nursing work, educational attainment and income potential is equal across the board. My male relatives and friends aren’t necessarily going for the pretty girl who lives at home with her parents until marriage and has no ambition to work - they’re going for women who are employed in jobs with equal or higher prestige than their own. The women I saw at my own highschool reunion who weren’t married or in a long-term relationship were the ones who wanted a traditional relationship.

I dare say many of them - like many of us ladies in my generation - saw the deal our parents got, went “fuck that”, and decided to go for something a little fairer. There’s certainly one or two who followed the traditional mould, but equalising out across the board, there are plenty of men who will eagerly leap into marriage, especially when their potential wife is highly educated and is equally able to contribute to household income - factors that enable us to be financially independent enough to not require filing for alimony payments.

Steve_85 says:

10:22am | 10/01/12

Mahhrat (and anyone else), you should have a read of some of Girlwriteswhat’s blog. Some very interesting opinions.

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/patriarchy-shmatriarchy.html

She has (a few) Youtube videos as well.

Tim says:

10:23am | 10/01/12

Bec,
if that’s the case I hope you (and your friends) won’t be back here in a few years expecting the government to give you more money to take care of your children for you.

bec says:

10:35am | 10/01/12

Why would we, Tim? We have our own assets, rightfully pay for and own equal shares in our property, and have built careers that will comfortably afford anything we want. I’m not rich but I earn enough money to do things like take my fiance out to dinner, treat him to fancy clothes, and pay some of his bills.

It’s equality, and damned if that power and ability to show generosity and provide for others doesn’t make me feel good.

Mahhrat says:

11:00am | 10/01/12

@bec, alimony? 

What’s the age group of your social circle?  My grandfather married at 28, but only because of WW2.  My dad married at 19.

63 and 39 years married respectively.

I married at 23, lasted 12 months.  Unlucky perhaps, but then I wasn’t having the affair.

Point is, My 36 year old mate is getting married in June.  My 32 yr old mate in September.  My 32 yr old brother last year.  See the pattern?

Couples around me, if they marry, are marrying older.  Some aren’t marrying at all. 

Add to that MGTOW (google it) and you see the start - only the start, mind you - of what might end up happening.

Here’s the theory as I understand it: Men stay largely single until their mid-30s, having casual sex and building their financial base.  Add to that extended health and life expectancy, men aren’t interested in having kids until they’re nearing 40.

Having achieved such things attractive to particularly younger women, they seek younger women, because youthful beauty is man’s kryptonite.  They happily date women in their early - mid 20s.  Men reason that even if she leaves him for the pool cleaner, he’s in a strong enough financial position to provide “alimony” without it crippling his life like it did to me with my daughter at 23 (and I was a lucky one!!)

Women at 30+, having spent their 20s also having casual sex and building financial independance, go looking for a mate to have kids with, only to find the men in their age group dating the 20-somethings.  Older single men already have children, and are uninterested in more.

Now you have a paradigm shift back to how things were in the dark ages - successful old men preying on young, nubile women. 

I know that’s speculative, but it’s also happening.  I know, because I’m 36 and my girl turned 25 this week.  I love her to bits, and she me, and I intend on spending the rest of my life with her, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened this way only because I was finally in a financial position to date properly again.

bec says:

11:18am | 10/01/12

As I said Mahrat, young - I’m 27, with most of my friends between 21-29. Admittedly, my particular circle aren’t really the party-hard crowd - they’re the nerdy overachievers of both genders who sacrificed a lot of drinking time for scholastic achievement. The biggest age gap in the couples is three years.

Not a lot of us really slept around - my fiance and I have only been with each other and we’ve been together for ten years now. If marriage was delayed, it was so both of us could finish education, develop careers and amass enough wealth to put us on equal footing. Given what we’ve gone through over that time, neither of us is in any position to leave each other, and our relationship is much better now than it was at the start.

I don’t really think that what you’re describing about much older men with younger women really describes the family background for many of us in generations before. For nearly all of my friends and extended family, there’s almost no age difference between husbands and wives in their parents generations. We might not like the relationship dynamic our parents had in terms of wealth or labour, but there are plenty of smarter younger woman who look with a very critical eye at dudes who only date women who are significantly younger than them, just as we might at women who only date significantly younger men.

Tim says:

11:24am | 10/01/12

Bec,
I know many people who said the same and felt the same way.
Then they had children and realised that they couldn’t survive living the same lifestyle on one income.

Then it somehow became the government’s responsibility to keep them in the lifestyle they’d become accustomed too.

It’s OK to try and have it all, just don’t expect me to pay for you to have it.

bec says:

11:41am | 10/01/12

I don’t necessarily want it all, Tim. I want exactly what I want, which is not everything. What I do want is to not be living in poverty after retirement (as many women of my mother’s generation are), to be able to independently provide for my own children in the event of my husband’s death or permanent incapacitation, and for a few luxurious cartons of beer and camping trips every couple of weeks. If that’s “wanting it all”, I’m guilty as charged.

The particular career I am working towards (I’m only on the stepping stones at present) is one that, if I choose, will allow work from home and more flexible work conditions if I want to be the one to stay home. But to be honest, I’m on week five of leave from work and I’m bored as fuck enough to be posting on The Punch all day, so that’s unlikely. Rather, I’d prefer my fiance - who has slightly lower earning potential and much better skills with very young children - to be that one. Unfortunately, social and workplace structures say otherwise. I hope it changes in the next few years.

bec says:

11:41am | 10/01/12

I don’t necessarily want it all, Tim. I want exactly what I want, which is not everything. What I do want is to not be living in poverty after retirement (as many women of my mother’s generation are), to be able to independently provide for my own children in the event of my husband’s death or permanent incapacitation, and for a few luxurious cartons of beer and camping trips every couple of weeks. If that’s “wanting it all”, I’m guilty as charged.

The particular career I am working towards (I’m only on the stepping stones at present) is one that, if I choose, will allow work from home and more flexible work conditions if I want to be the one to stay home. But to be honest, I’m on week five of leave from work and I’m bored as fuck enough to be posting on The Punch all day, so that’s unlikely. Rather, I’d prefer my fiance - who has slightly lower earning potential and much better skills with very young children - to be that one. Unfortunately, social and workplace structures say otherwise. I hope it changes in the next few years.

Tim says:

11:52am | 10/01/12

Bec,
If only more people thought like you did then.

bec says:

12:16pm | 10/01/12

You are right Tim, the world would be better if there were more feminists who appreciate both the privileges and responsibilities we can enjoy.

Tim says:

12:30pm | 10/01/12

Actually Bec,
it’s funny that you mention rights and responsibilities.

When I was at school we had it constantly drummed into us that there are no rights without responsibilities. Whenever we were given the right to do something, we were always given a list of the responsibilities that went with it.

Far too many people these days seem to focus on the rights part whilst completely neglecting or ignoring the responsibilities that go with it.

LeftRightOut® says:

12:43pm | 10/01/12

Yep, Bec sounds alright in my books.

Her situation reflects my own somewhat. My wife has traditionally earned significantly more than I, we both have careers (she just happens to be farging brilliant) we “want it all”, but don’t think we can have it “all at once”.

Two kids, a part time nanny, child care, private schools, nice house, nice cars, nice holidays… the odd mysogny vs misandtry discussion over dinner (preferably at Vue De Monde - no, we don’t eat there regularly).

We discuss these issues passionately, but respectfully - we agree on some, disagree on others… but we are open minded - unlike the author of this article.

Good luck Bec… be wary of letting Dad look after the kids, though… I did that for two months and was ready for the asylum! Use your cash and get a great nanny, if you can afford it, it’s money extremely well spent!

ByStealth says:

02:57pm | 10/01/12

‘Well, but Mahrat, a lot of the comments from men cherry pick the most ridiculous and fanatical of feminists as well.  I guess what goes around, comes around.’

This does happen. Its impossible to have a movement of any reasonable size without having some members do this. It doesn’t mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater though. Eg, We can’t say that because Germaine Greer spews hate speech at men we should deny all women equal rights.

Just because there are extreme feminists doesn’t mean that all women consciously and ruthlessly want to give themselves privilege at the expense of men. I don’t think the vast majority of women or even feminists think that way. I believe they just don’t understand how men are affected by:
1) The ancient social contract and how men have been traditionally disadvantaged in SOME ways for much of history (eg the expectation to go off to war and sacrifice to provide for our families, the expectation that we suppress our emotions). Men are still largely held to this social contract, while feminism has freed women from much of their traditional obligations.
2) How some changes wrought by the feminist movement have been directly (and sometimes greatly unfairly) to mens’ disadvantage.

I enjoy trying to educate women on these points. Then you can get empathy and possibly some support for fair changes to address some of the disadvantages that men face.

Unfortunately even if you raise these points in a calm rational way, you will still be attacked with shaming language, hate speech and ‘cavalier dismissal’. It’s complicated by the paradigm that men should ‘man up’ and tolerate the status quo regardless of how you’re affected.

ByStealth says:

03:10pm | 10/01/12

‘Men, on the other hand, have no call or need for an equally radical response from the likes of Erick and his band of fanatics.  History does not justify that. ‘

Erick is not ‘radical’. He doesn’t even come close to Germaine Greer and her hate speech. What he does do is raise MR issues as they apply to the majority of blog posts. The quantity of his posts /= vitriol.

As for history justifying promotion of men’s rights; Do men have to suffer in a matriarchal society for several generations before we’re allowed to address inequality? I’ve actually seen this paradigm stated by extremist feminists. ‘We had it bad for so long, so its fair for men to suffer for a while’.

I didn’t suppress women, but I certainly was made to carry the collective guilt of my gender for ‘crimes’ carried out in the past many generations before I was born. It’s the same vibe that I felt with the White Ribbon movement. I’m guilty through association for carrying a ‘Y’ chromosome.

This is part of the ‘history’ that causes the extreme feeling in the MRA movement. Being blamed by feminism for crimes that we didn’t personly commit and being gaslighted into thinking that we don’t have any reason to complain. It builds a lot of resentment.

Sam says:

03:35pm | 10/01/12

Yes Tim, lets talk about responsibilities… the responsibilities of the fathers to contribute to the upbringing of their offspring. The Government wouldn’t have to pay if we didn’t have dead beat dads who avoid contributing to their childrens upbringing.

Pickles... The Drummer says:

03:39pm | 10/01/12

@Mahhrat - What you describe about the older man and younger woman is already well embedded in Italy, as explained by an Italian mate and personally witnessed there. The young girls want the house, furniture, car etc all set up and ready to go, and the only guys with that are in their 30’s, so they get the young girls.

Anyway, I agree, at least for myself, as a white, young, thin, working, male, its about equality. I have no focus or lobby groups representing me. Louis CK said its awesome to be a white male, you wouldn’t trade it for the world, and he is somewhat right, but as he even noted, in 50 or 100 years that will not be so.

Early feminism had a point and almost all men agree with it, because equality is right. Modern feminism is about superiority and punishing men for the sins of their fathers, which is wrong. So the inevitable backlash is what we see in these militant men.

Men are willing to admit they ruled the world and screwed everyone else over, but they want equality, not 1000 years of subjugation as a reparition payment, that isn’t right.

Minister for men sounds about right.

Kika says:

04:58pm | 10/01/12

It was quite common in my grandparents era to marry a man a bit older than you. My Nanny was 8 years younger than my Grandfather and my Dad’s mum was a few years younger than my Grandad. My husband is 10 years older than me. I gave up and was not interested in men my age because they weren’t ready to settle down as I was. I was not the girl in her 20’s wanting to be with as many boys as possible. And I don’t think a lot of us are like that at all. In fact, in my peer group I am the resident S.L.U.T because I’ve been with one other person before my current husband. They all married their first boyfriends. No joke. And I got married the oldest. At 25!

In the olden days men expected and were ready to settle. To be honest, they didn’t really have a choice because there was no contraceptive pill to delay the onset of children.  But they’ve been taught by their bitter twisted forebears that they should live as Bachelors for as long as they can before they finally decide to settle.

So whilst we’ve had girls growing up in the 70’s and 80’s being told ‘go, get it all you can have kids and a career. You don’t even need to get married’  the boys are being told ‘go out and test drive as many girls as you like. Don’t do what we did and marry the first girl you have relations with. It’s ok, she’s on the pill so she’s not going to fall pregnant like your Nana did’.

The girls at 40 then turn around and worry they don’t have kids and a family and will never will because they are now barren. The men who are now ready for kids either have women who don’t fall pregnant easily or are having families with younger women for their looks and fertility. And there you have the core of all social ills we have in our privileged white bred world.

Cashed up middle class unhappy people.

Big A says:

06:57pm | 10/01/12

Sure thing Sam, here’s a thought. I pay hundreds of dollars in child support every month yet I can’t see my child because my EX won’t let me. I have tried the courts etc and she drags it out until I have no money left to fight her. I wasn’t the one sleeping around, doing drugs (I had photographic proof of the drugs), etc etc etc but when it all ended she got everything including my son and I got the bum ride… So now because I have rebuilt my life and I am successful and she isn’t I should pay for her choices ?
In November I had a very quiet month in my business and couldn’t afford to pay that months child support (I had to credit card the food !!). I get a phone call 2 days later from CSA accusing me of being a deadbeat dad because I hadn’t paid !! I haven’t seen my boy in over 4 years. She has remarried and when I try and contact him I get a please don’t ring back… Brainwashing at its best !
I don’t agree with the lunatics on EITHER side of this argument , I believe in TRUE equality. Earn it !! My ex chose her path, why should I have to pay for it ? And yet I dutifully transfer the money on the 21st of each month as long as I have it, because the courts/government say I have to. And believe me when I say not one cent goes to the upbringing of my child.

fox says:

10:04am | 10/01/12

Selective use of facts and statistics?

You must have read another article, this one was completely devoid of any facts or statistics whatsoever.

A very poorly written article that basically says men have enough rights and they should stop whining.

Mattb says:

10:14am | 10/01/12

“Disregard anything which doesn’t suit your agenda, manipulate and twist facts, figures and statisitcs to suit your agenda, and deride, belittle and label anyone who doesn’t share your opinion.”

That’s not from the global warming alarmists handbook, its straight from Tony Abbott’s far right conservative handbook and by the sounds of it you’ve fallen for it hook, line an sinker. I feel sorry for suckers like you max, who are you going to vote for next election?, every major political party in this country believes in climate change, has committed to reducing emissions by 2020 and has a climate change policy. Your just a little pipsqueak voice on an internet forum crying ‘science is wrong’ and you’ve been, and rightly so, left behind you dill…..

Mark says:

11:26am | 10/01/12

@Mattb- you’re the only one on this thread that bought politics into the argument- you wanker. It’s dick heads like you that tie an environmental issue to an individual politician who is in opposition. No wonder we can’t trust anyone in the debate, everyone has a political agenda. Science is not politics and this knee- jerk, reactionary way of doing politics flies in the face of every scientific method I’ve seen. So Matt, before denouncing other’s beliefs as “Your just a little pipsqueak voice on an internet forum crying ‘science is wrong’ and you’ve been, and rightly so, left behind you dill…..”
have a think about what you’re saying. TA is a conservative, since when do conservatives make reactionary decisions based on little evidence? Never, that’s why they are conservative you twat. If anyone has completely politicised this debate and the outcomes for society (i mean, come on, it;s now purely an economic issue) it is the Greens/ALP coalition. Possibly only because the ALP sold their soul but they are still the only reason why this environmental issue has become a political debate. It’s idiots like you who vote ALP that create this massive, massive inefficient way of doing things. Hope you’re happy and I hope you show your face after the next election.. Funny, last year I can’t remember any ALP supporters having boo to say.. Must be coming out of the woodwork now that Gillard is probably going to stay in the job until the next election.

Mattb says:

01:46pm | 10/01/12

Oooww, mark, so much anger, hit a nerve did I mark?. Please do tell me how you know which way I vote, were you standing there looking over my shoulder at the booth?.  And yes mark, I’m extremely happy regarding the outcome of the recent policy decision regarding tackling climate change in this country, it’s been talked about for far too long, even good ol Johnny Howard had a plan. If the fact it’s happening this year pisses you off, well, that makes me smile even more buddy….

Oh, and mark, open your eyes, TA isn’t a conservative, he’s a far right wing nut job who’s policy platform is pathetic and who’s ideals are closer to pauline Hanson’s one nation than a liberal conservative.

Mark says:

03:47pm | 10/01/12

Yes, Matt, you did.. Ignorance and arrogance are my two pet peeves.. You, my friend are dripping in both and the problem with having both combined, is that you are always too arrogant to see your own ignorance. Alas, we get what we are given and people like you have delivered this society devoid of intelligent reasoning, compassion and perspective..
My point about Climate Change, if you read my previous comment, was not about whether Climate Change is actually happening or whether it is man kinds fault- But in fact was about the shit fight that happens when you try to use a completely non political topic to gain favours for your own political agenda. A rational person can discern the fact from the fiction from the misinformation but most people cannot. In the absence of logic and reason there is fear and benevolence. These are two things that should never be taken into account when governing, but are used as tools of Democracy and Capitalism like they are life lines. What this means is that I, a rational and logical person, can not see fit to subscribe to either side of the political debate on the issue as they are both poisoned by a political agenda. There is too much bullshit flying around for a smart person to go outside..

fox says:

10:07am | 10/01/12

The world over, suicide rates are higher for men.

If it was the other way around, there would be no end of enquiries, govt departments, funding, self flagellation until the stats were balanced.

Paul J says:

10:35am | 10/01/12

Fox - rates of completed suicide are higher for men, but rates of suicide attempts are much higher for women. The difference lies in the fact that men use more effective means to get the job done. But it would seem that the burden of mental anguish that leads one to attempt suicide is much higher for women than for men.

Erick says:

11:17am | 10/01/12

@Paul J - I disagree. You’re just playing the women-always-have-it-worse card.

Women have a greater tendency to stage suicide as a call for attention, hence the lower fatality rate. Men have a greater level of mental anguish, and actually want to die - hence the more lethal means and the higher death rate.

Or do you think women just aren’t smart enough to kill themselves properly? I don’t think so. If they really wanted to be dead, they’d do as thorough a job of it as men do.

Markus says:

11:26am | 10/01/12

@Paul J, is that based on the number of women attempting suicide to men, or the number of suicide attempts by gender?
If the latter, of course that would be the case, as the men committing suicide don’t tend to get the chance for multiple attempts.

Paul J says:

01:11pm | 10/01/12

Erick-feel free to disagree with the facts - I’m sure the AIHW website will have a review article of suicide in Australia. Men tend to use more lethal means, for example firearms or hanging. Women tend to use less effective means such as medications or wrist cutting. An overgeneralisation of course. Less men try to kill themselves than women. This is a fact. It is quite offensive that you seem to have no problem downplaying womens suicide attempts as “calls for attention”. I certainly never implied anywhere in my previous comment that “women always have it worse”! If you use the simple logic that a significant but individually variable level of mental distress is required to drive someone to attempt suicide, then the stats will suggest a greater level of distress among women. Dont see how this is a problem for you? Women have higher rates of many mental illnesses than men do, and this is a contributor. Like I said, feel free to ignore the data.

Hamish says:

01:22pm | 10/01/12

Paul J, everyone knows swallowing pills is a cry for help, not a serious attempt at suicide. If you try and commit suicide by using pills, you don’t want to die, you want attention.

Paul J says:

01:47pm | 10/01/12

Hamish “everyone knows” - really? This is your argument? Why should anyone take you seriously? Yes, MANY more men die from suicide than women, and this is a huge problem that needs more resources. But to write off a failed attempt as mere attention seeking is outrageous! It takes a lot more to kill yourself than many people realise - hence many failed attempts involving meds- MANY of these ” attention seeking” females will try again and again until they succeed. Shit, maybe they bloody well NEED someone to pay attention!!

Jane2 says:

03:12pm | 10/01/12

Women want to leave pretty corpses, Men dont. Pretty corpses and gun wounds do not go hand in hand, neither do hangings which elongate the neck.

Gomez12 says:

03:50pm | 10/01/12

@Paul J

It may take me a while to find the study - but when I was studying psychology, numerous studies had been done into the motivation for and likely outcome of suicide attempts between men and women.

And Sadly the results of all of them were that (in general) females make multiple “signal” suicide attempts prior to actually completing the act. Males usually do not and have a vastly higher rate of first time completion. Men also typically exhibit less observable signs prior to suicide than women. We were taught to be more cautious with males at risk for this reason.

While the problems experienced by men and women may well be equivalent, all current research shows that Females will “give you a chance” to help them. Males rarely will once that point is reached.

While you may disagree with the terminology, failed suicides on behalf of females are often referred to as a “Cry for Help” attempt in psychological and medical services as the means are often patently inadequate for completion, or the location chosen is too likely that they will be discovered and saved.  This is not dismissing the obvious trauma that these women are going through but more a reflection of the subconscious motivations of the attemptee.

ANYONE who attempts suicide is crying out for help. And they should get it too before they succeed. Men are more difficult to prevent for the primary reason that those around them usually don’t get much in the way of warning, or a second chance to see it before it’s too late.

Erick says:

04:02pm | 10/01/12

@Paul J - Okay, so you’re pushing the idea that “women are just too stupid to find a way to kill themselves” barrow.

It’s sad that you have such a low opinion of women. I think they are more intelligent than that.

Gman says:

04:02pm | 10/01/12

@PaulJ

(from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981112075159.htm)

“An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It’s most often an effort to bring someone’s attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself,”

Ohcomeon says:

07:43am | 10/01/12

Dale, get a grip.

as a white male in Australia, you have won Earths global lottery. The world is made for you, and you have very little restrictions. I dont think you have the slightest slightest inkling of what some minorities and women have to go through on a daily basis in some places.

Yes women are revelling in their new cultural voice that has been getting louder for the last century, but its a drop in the bucket historically speaking. Of course there will be over-reactions and mis steps, and some women who want to punish men for history are taking it too far in their rhetoric. And I think there is a growing sympathy for men getting the short end of the stick in Family court matters.

But seriously, I cant tell who is more shrill, Greer or some of the very bitter men that post here and on their ‘mens rights’ blogs.

For the record, Im a white, male Australian.

Men Are Not Abusers says:

07:54am | 10/01/12

Michael Flood is not an expert on anything but sock puppetry - from the puppets point of view. He has made a name for himself by bridging gaps in the feminist literature where authorship is not by a woman, and this has given the more ethically malleable of the feminist credentialists in academia the heart flutter they’ve missed for so long.

Matthew says:

07:56am | 10/01/12

There is no such thing as “reverse racism”, using the term is racist itself.  It’s just racism, regardless of what side your gun is pointed at.

A Australian Aborigine making a racist comment at a Native North American is still racism.

AJ says:

11:48am | 10/01/12

@Ohcomeon, fair enough, if were using history as an excuse for inequality, I think that the italians & catholic church should compensate me for the romans slaughtering my ancestors.

I dont see why modern men who treat women equally should be punished for previous societal norms

ByStealth says:

04:13pm | 10/01/12

I don’t doubt that being a white male in this country puts me in a very privileged position compared to men around the world.

I didn’t have to worry about the local warlord rounding me and my mates up at the age of 8, giving us some marching powder and making us kill our own parents as a sign of loyalty before embarking on a career as a child soldier for instance.

So women born into this country are in a similarly privileged position. No genital mutilation for them. So what do they have to complain about then?

Sarcasm aside, if women are complaining about inequality in the sandbox of Australian society, aren’t men allowed to do the same?

‘Of course there will be over-reactions and mis steps, and some women who want to punish men for history are taking it too far in their rhetoric.’

If men don’t complain when women take things too far, we can’t expect them to stop. Granted, we shouldn’t overreact and devolve into fanaticism, but we do need to speak up when things are unfairly stacked against men. We can’t expect the women to do it for us through empathy and a sense of fairness and benevolence. Not because they don’t care about men; many women just don’t understand how these things affect us.

I think that things will balance out in the next couple of generations. I think then we will have true equality and equal responsibility with the sexes. This won’t happen if no-one raises the issue of men’s rights as a check against an unrestrained drive for benefits of women at the expense of men.

The majority of MRA’s don’t want the pendelum to swing back in our favour, we just want it to stop dead center.

K. Grant says:

08:44am | 10/01/12

Tedd, I think that you should comment under the nom de plume   ‘the voice of reason’ from now on!

Nathan Explosion says:

07:08am | 10/01/12

And how many women don’t report their assualts because of victim blaming, shame and having to go through it all again with people discrediting her at every turn? I’d say it’s way more than false allegations.

Ms D says:

08:01am | 10/01/12

“I bet if it was said that if you remove the clitoral hood it would look much nicer you’d be all in a rage.”

Firstly, I’ve only ever heard of removing the foreskin as a hygene thing, not an asthetic thing.

Did you know that vaginal cosmetic surgery makes up a large percentage of all cosmentic surgeries? It’s been attributed to porn, namely magazines like Playboy and Hustler that have airbrushed the women to make them all look ‘neat’. So both men and women have an unrealistic view of what things are ‘meant’ to look like.

Phil S says:

08:06am | 10/01/12

@Nathan

Well if you feel it is, then it must be true. I mean your coming across like a “quality” journalist there, making gut claims with no actual evidence one way or the other.

Erick says:

08:14am | 10/01/12

@Nathan Explosion - I’d say you just made that up.

Pork says:

08:15am | 10/01/12

@Manly.  Coffs Harbour. No charges laid.  Was that a false allegation?

Kooks says:

08:32am | 10/01/12

Pretty sure it was men that decided to exempt women from conscription as they were the ones in power.

Also bringing up circumcision? seriously? You know there are health benefits to having it done right.

Nathan Explosion says:

08:37am | 10/01/12

@Erick

Why don’t you go google it?

@Phil S

Who said I was journalist?

Jane2 says:

08:51am | 10/01/12

So femanism is to blame for the removal of the foreskin, a tradition that dates back thousands of years and has a religious background, in fact a religion that is male dominated.

Good to know.

Ish says:

09:01am | 10/01/12

@ Manly, female circumcision is rife in some cultures. It is not the removal of a piece of skin which is usually done by doctors or surgeons (not that I condone the circumcision of male babies either). It is the removal of the clitoral hood, sometimes the clitoris and labias and sometimes having the wound sown up to maintain chastity. These are very rarely done by qualified surgeons and in a lot of circumstances without even using sterile equipment or anesthetic. It inflicts lifelong pain on the women who undergo it.
As for your conscription quip, women haven’t had to experience conscription because they were deemed inferior to men and thought ill equiped to handle frontline battle. So I don’t understand how that would further your issues, and unless you’re over 60 I doubt you would have had to experience conscription anyway.

Erick says:

09:13am | 10/01/12

@Nathan Explosion - I don’t need to google anything. All the information about false rape accusations is right here.

Osiris Fox says:

09:16am | 10/01/12

Ms D - Well there you go, the hygiene argument is pathetic and the reverse could be applied to lady bits then too (all those folds of skins must also agitate certain hygiene issues - thrush springs to mind). What you’re saying is this: Let’s cut off our arms to prevent our pits from from creating an environment where bacteria can thrive and thus prevent the hygience issues associated with BO and so on. Exactly.

I trust nature before I trust man, removal of the foreskin is a relatively new in terms of our time on this earth. The foreskin would’ve been purged LONG ago by evolution if it was a detrimental hygiene issue. Finally, hygiene issues are easily overcome… it’s called bathing/showering etc.

I’m sorry, but removal of the foreskin should be a choice for a man when he is older. It is plain old mutilation if it is not the choice of the individual.

Nathan Explosion says:

09:50am | 10/01/12

@Erick

I’m not talking about false rape accusations. I’m asking about the women who don’t report it at all. Since you love telling people to go google, why don’t you look that up?

Ando says:

10:15am | 10/01/12

Jane 2,
Why put words in Nathans mouth? How his he blaming foreskin removal on feminism?
Ms D,
“Firstly, I’ve only ever heard of removing the foreskin as a hygene thing, not an asthetic thing. ” Aesthetics is definitely the reason its done now.
No one is blaming women and I have no real problem with the procedure. The point is, if the same procedure was being performed on baby girls it would have been outlawed.

By the way There are not many uncircumcised men in porn either

amy says:

10:18am | 10/01/12

we havnt had conscription for a long while (somthing decided upon by men)

male circumism is an old practice dating back a long time…and its benefits/disadvatages are hotly debated

female circumcision on the other hand has no benefits (its painful) and still goes on in some contried under horrible conditions

MarkS says:

10:38am | 10/01/12

@Nathan
Not reported means UNKNOWN. You say lots of rapes occur that are unreported, I say, damn all. Evidence for either position, damn all.

I can prove false allegations happen, there are court cases that prove it. You cannot prove that rapes are often not reported in Australia. The few studies that have been done have had apalling methodology so that one cannot trust the results. 

But in the end our positions come from our differing default positions. In the absence of evidence of an unusual event people not unnaturally assume that just standard normal events happened.

You assume men raping women is normal occurrence, so without evidence it occurred you assume it did anyway. I assume rape is an unusual occurrence & so in the absence of evidence assume it did not.

Basically I do not accept that all or even most men are rapists as a default position.

Nathan Explosion says:

10:56am | 10/01/12

@MarkS

I don’t believe that all men are rapists, or even the majority. There’s a small minority of sick puppies out there, men and women both.

I know anecdata is not data, but it saddens me that out of all the women I know who have been assaulted, none of them reported it for the reasons given above. Women from all walks of life. It’s saddening, and makes me angry, because I known damn well *why* they don’t report it.

Paul says:

12:12pm | 10/01/12

“Manly says:07:07am | 10/01/12

Tory,  routine false rape allegations are in fact the norm.  Perhaps before you take the piss you should research a little?”
Comments like this make me into an angry white male.  As the father of a teenaged girl who was raped by a serial rapist who has never been charged with rape due to his successful intimidation of his victims, I find the comment extremely offensive.  He, his family and friends claim the allegations against him to be false based on the fact the young girls (15 and under) he has assaulted have not pressed charges.  They have not pressed charges because he, his (male) family and friends have not hessitated to threaten and carry out acts of violence against his school girl victims.  The only gaol time he has served time was for the vicious assault of a young girl who dared to fight back, he bashed her unconcious inflicting multiple fractures leaving sufficient evidence and witnesses to ensure his conviction without her statement.  He wears this conviction as a badge of honour and uses it as an example of what will happen to any girl who dares report him to the police.  This is what comes to mind every time I see or hear the rantings of angry men who claim false rape allegations are the norm or similar rubbish.

That said I honestly believe the majority of men are decent human beings and that the issue is with an extremely vocal, extremely prolific minority, a minority with multiple victims.  The fact one in five women have suffered sexual violence does not mean that one in five men are perpetrators, what it means is society has failed to stop or remove the violent minority following their first offence and therefore failed to prevent them going on to hurt more people.

Anon says:

12:27pm | 10/01/12

@Mark S.  Many assults or rapes happen that are not reported.  I was raped about 7 years ago and one of my girl friends has also been raped.  Neither reported it, aside from going to the doctor to get checked out.  Both of us have only ever told a couple of people about it as well, so its not like lots of our friends know.  So if there are two of us in my group of friends, how many more are out there. 

Oh, and I have also been felt up by dodgy old men on the train about 5 or so times.  I don’t even count that, although its by no means pleasant!

Craig minns says:

12:28pm | 10/01/12

@Nathan explosion: how does one “look up” something that hasn’t happened?

GE says:

01:07pm | 10/01/12

On the circumcising discussion.

The foreskin of the penis and the hood of the clitoris are anatomically equivalent body parts that exist in most primates,  and hence humans.

Although anatomically equivalent,  there is a marked difference regarding their removal.

The WHO have following definitions for Female Genital Mutilation
  The World Health Organization (WHO) groups
  FGM/C into four types:
1. Excision of the prepuce [the fold of skin surrounding
the clitoris], with or without excision
of part or the entire clitoris.

2. Excision of the clitoris with partial or total
excision of the labia minora [the smaller inner
folds of the vulva].

3. Excision of part or all of the external genitalia
and stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening
(infi bulation).

4. Unclassifi ed, which includes pricking, piercing
or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching
of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by
burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
scraping of tissue surrounding the opening
of the vagina (angurya cuts) or cutting of the
vagina (gishiri cuts); introduction of corrosive
substances or herbs into the vagina to cause
bleeding or to tighten or narrow the vagina;
and any other procedure that can be included
in the defi nition

So the WHO do not differentiate, for classification purposes, the removal of the clitoral hood ( being the equivalent of male foreskin circumcision) with the more barbaric form of FGM being, removal of the clitoris itself.

The following UNICEF report uses these WHO definitions http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf

Comments on FGM being a breach of human rights:

FGM/C is a fundamental violation of human rights.
In the absence of any perceived medical necessity,
it subjects girls and women to health risks and
has life-threatening consequences.

FGM/C is, further, an extreme example of discrimination
based on sex.

Comments on what is in Type 1 FGM (the most prevalent form)

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common.

In other pages of UNICEF site they advocate Male Circumcision as a form of AIDS controlling Africa, without considering it a breach of any human rights.

Some advocate Male Circumcision for hygiene purposes , however they tend to be absolute arguments rather than relative arguments which compare the relative hygiene of a circumcised/uncircumcised clitoris hood to that of a penis foreskin.

The foreskin and clitoris hood have some of the highest concentrations of nerve ending of the genital region which contribute greatly to sexual stimulation, so neither body part is redundant.
As a person who is all for Gender Equality, I find the different treatment of this procedure to not be in the spirit of Gender Equality and ask the question why is there such a difference?

This is where the tie-in to Feminism occurs -  The manipulation of information to present a view that women are oppressed and men are not. In this case, for the equivalent procedure,  we have women with human rights violations whilst men get their foreskins removed. Truly a (radical) Feminists wet dream.

Anon says:

04:03pm | 10/01/12

60% of rapes are not reported. If the rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest. If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution. If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction. If there is a conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So even in the 39% of attacks that ARE reported to the police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison. Only 6% of rapists will see the inside of a jail cell. 15 out of 16 rapist walk free.
I found that through Google.

Do you see why we don’t tell people? Do you see why it’s pointless to live through the humiliation and the shame again and again just so we can be doubted and discredited? Just so we can stand up in court, hanging our heads in shame, reliving the terror, the feeling of inadequacy and the fact we feel we are now too damaged to ever be loved? Do you really wonder why people dont report rape? The absolute disregard for the emotional, mental and physical damage this has on woman and men is disgusting. I pray those people with that blatant disrespect for rape victims never have to experience it for themselves.  I wish nothing but happiness for you, you heartless bastards.

Erick says:

04:18pm | 10/01/12

@Tory - For your information, the statistics that you claim don’t exist, can be found here.

PsychoHyena says:

06:16pm | 10/01/12

@Anon, I’m sorry but the 60% of unreported cases could be anything: Person A had sex with Person B, regretted it and justified it in their head as rape is one possibility; Attention-seeking is another; This isn’t to say that there are none that are legitimate cases that haven’t been reported, however it doesn’t take into account the cases where it isn’t true.

The most difficult part in everything is this: “What constitutes consent?”

A personal example: Things were getting heavy between me and my girlfriend at the time, I said “If you want to go further we should head into the bedroom” she led the way. At no point did she say no, she instigated everything once we were in the bedroom (I was being careful to avoid being falsely accused of rape due to a family member who worked with sexual abuse and rape victims giving me great advice on this). The result? Said girlfriend then went around telling everyone that I raped her.

I have refused to work in Children’s Services or Education, despite people telling me how great I’d do, because of that instance and the number of underage girls that seemed to think I would be interested in them. Why should I put myself at risk?

I have seen male and female teachers lose their jobs because they give a student (male/female) a poor grade and then said student claims rape/sexual assault.

The biggest issue is that a female will receive a temporary suspension and a wholly suspended jail term, while a male receives permanent suspension and partially suspended or unsuspended jail time.

We need to find a balance, and that balance will never be found while women are unable to be charged with rape, the legal definition is “the forceful penetration of another against their will/consent”. The legal definition actually goes further to identify that the perpetrator has to have the means to penetrate, so unless you get women inserting items into a male/female’s orifices…

I can assure you that once women can be charged with rape we will see a whole new set of laws introduced that will be “slightly” more balanced.

Kooks says:

08:40am | 10/01/12

Thing is buddy, just because those things do happen, it doesn’t make it right to discredit and attack other causes, which is I think the real point of the article.

You can highlight your own cause, without the need to dismiss and belittle another one.

Peter says:

10:05am | 10/01/12

Yes, we men all live in fear of some drunken, enraged housewife bashing us to an inch of our lives.

Get real.

Men Are Not Abusers says:

01:42pm | 10/01/12

Kooks is so kooky. Feminism is fair game as it has aspirations to governance but exists solely to advance the needs and wants of one class of people. It is bigotry, and bigotry ought to be discredited at every opportunity.

Kooks, ‘buddy’, a man ought not be a passenger all his life.

wakeuppls says:

07:26am | 10/01/12

Why don’t you do it? Too lazy? No evidence?

Tell It Like It Is says:

07:11am | 10/01/12

I totally agree. I think the time for ‘affirmative action’ whereby someone is given an advantage on account of sex, race or anything else is redundant. And yes that includes Aboriginals. It may be different for those in the bush but certainly not for urban Aboriginals. They are no more disadvantaged than anyone else; have the same access to schools etc. But if they choose not to go -  their problem. And when you consider the billions and billions of $$ wasted over the years - often by Aboriginal leaders and caretakers of such programmes themselves…..  The most current example is our PM.  The Labor party thought it was time for a woman. Our experience with her should say it all.

Nathan says:

07:17am | 10/01/12

I would have to disagree with the Aboriginal remark. Reason being there is a real issue with being born into poverty and on that reason alone we should look to rectify the problem. I wouldn’t say that the programs have been effective but if we can lift people out of poverty it saves money in the long term by not having to make welfare payments and instead contributing by paying tax’s and having a positive impact on communities.

If we don’t anything we just see a welfare cycle which in my mind is not acceptable

dale says:

08:02am | 10/01/12

Nice story Nathan,
“I wouldn’t say that the programs have been effective but if we can lift people out of poverty it saves money in the long term”

You cannot force people out of poverty. if you give them everything so they are no longer in poverty then why would they choose to work?

Matthew says:

08:07am | 10/01/12

” Reason being there is a real issue with being born into poverty”

Well, shouldn’t it be a Minister for children in poverty stricken households or something similar?

Not all Aborigines are poor and not all poor are Aborigines.

Nathan says:

08:20am | 10/01/12

DALE
If that is what you took out of my comment then sorry i must not of been clear but i suspect that you knew what i meant. You can’t force people out of poverty but you can put incentives in place to make it easier for them. You might think giving them money for programs is wrong based on principal but it is far better option than continual welfare payments for the rest of their life

I am talking about education programs where by children are feed and clothed in schools to encourage attendance as one example.

bec says:

06:39am | 10/01/12

166mb for those files! Fuck that! I could download every episode made of “Heil Honey, I’m Home” for that amount of data.

Steve_85 says:

06:40am | 10/01/12

For those that are interested in the ‘other’ side of the gender war, some reading/viewing for your entertainment.

http://www.the-spearhead.com - Another men’s rights site. This one includes commentary on other things as well.
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth - A video series on the farse that is feminism.

Damian Parkhill says:

08:06am | 10/01/12

Just downloaded it & started reading - Oh ..........My…........ God….....

Steve_85 says:

09:17am | 10/01/12

166mb isn’t that much, assuming you have a half decent connection.

However, here’s some quotes (all from one thread of about 30-40 included in the files):
“Personally, I think we should just do away with circumcision and replace it with castration”
“Why not just cull boy babies for a while? ... Then we can start selective breeding programs for donor males”
“But here in “civilization” we can find out the sex before birth and thus abort, not kill infants”
“I see the simplest solution to get around trying to convince other women, or any form of democratic process ... is to just work on developing something to put in the drinking water to just sterilise everybody. Just don’t tell anybody, just do it - problem solved”

bec says:

10:04am | 10/01/12

Thank you for retyping that. It is gross. Not one of those quotes reflect sentiments that I, as a feminist and a teacher at a boys’ school, have ever held myself.

They are absolutely feminist extremists, just as men like Marc Lepine, who murdered 14 women in Canada in the 1980s, are MRA extremists.

Steve_85 says:

10:39am | 10/01/12

They are extremists, but they are also writing laws in our country. Go check out ‘The Plan” (You can find a discussion on AVfM).

The Free says:

10:51am | 10/01/12

@Bec

The problem is these quotes are from people in Government and power positions.

When these dangerous people have the power to influence policy then men really have a problem, of course the problem also is people dismiss what these psychopaths say on the grounds it is extreme and forget the part where - “hold on these beasts are actively pushing agendas in government”.

It’s not something that can be dismissed away with disdain.

bec says:

10:55am | 10/01/12

I’ve had a look but can’t find it. What is the legislation allegedly being written that puts men in jeopardy on the basis of gender?

Steve_85 says:

11:21am | 10/01/12

http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Documents/The_Plan.pdf

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/australia-launches-the-plan-and-the-end-to-civil-rights/

Wynston Cruso says:

11:22am | 10/01/12

So we’ll be expecting an article from the punch addressing the flipside of this right? A series of articles debunking all the feminist crap out there and highlighting how extreme some of their views are. Should be a good read.

bec says:

11:35am | 10/01/12

Without having the bandwidth to download the doc myself (hey, it was that or “The Mr Show” and I know which one is far more fun), were these people identified positively by official email, IP address or through name? I’m not dubious that nutbars can work in government or even high up, but no matter how private an internet forum or community can be, it still doesn’t sound very believable to me that one can prove that. If the evidence can be produced in a smaller file, I am happy to look at it.

mel says:

12:50pm | 10/01/12

Steve_85, did you actually read “the Plan” as you call it, or did you just rely on the AVFM website to do your thinking for you? Can you show where the points listed on that website actually get mentioned in the government document. Indeed, just the one about disciplining your dog (for some reason, that tickles my fancy)!

I don’t know if this is typical of the AVFM website, but looking at the 174 comments, only one of them commented directly on the document itself. And all he said was that it was repetitive (which it is).

Damian Parkhill says:

01:45pm | 10/01/12

@bec

Haven’t had time to finish and check everything (sleep apnea strikes again!) but from looking at the profiles cross referenced folder in there, it all seems to be convincing.

Checks included posting their FB, emails and links to their “official” web sites

Tom says:

02:33pm | 10/01/12

bec, your excuse for not downloading is the “let them eat cake” moment of this blog. You are comfortable with your bigotry and privilege and don’t really want to hear anything that might upset that privilege.

bec says:

04:20pm | 10/01/12

Oh girl, please. Not wanting to spend hours upon hours reading bilge from a community I am not a member of which represents a tiny minority of people who do identify as feminist isn’t wallowing in privilege; it’s called being a sane member of society. I’m sure if a feminist presented you with 166mb of drivvel from an extremist MRA blog that advocated the same things that you wouldn’t be interested in reading all of it.

Fiona says:

06:41pm | 10/01/12

Obviously those are offensive and written by nutters, just like some on the opposite side of the fence. they both need to be deprived of attention for as long as possible.

Steve_85 says:

09:04am | 11/01/12

@mel
Yes I read it. you can find the pet reference on page 187, under Psychological Abuse, inside the definition of Domestic Violence.

mel says:

12:38pm | 11/01/12

Steve_85, thanks for the reference. But do you think there is a difference between “disciplining your dog” as the AVFM website states and “abuse of pets in front of family members” as the document states? Do you really think that “the Plan” refers to someone saying “Rover, put that down!” or someone kicking, hurting, distressing a pet to provide an example of what might happen to their spouse. Did you read the heading of the paragraph: “Psychological Torture”?

It seems to me that the AVFM website was not quite accurate (in fact rather hysterically over-reacting, but you’d expect that). But what do you think: do you believe the AVFM website was scare-mongering? Or do you believe kicking, hurting or torturing a dog is the way to discipline it?

mel says:

12:40pm | 11/01/12

Oops: the paragraph heading is “Psychological Abuse”, not Torture. Sorry!

Steve_85 says:

03:23am | 12/01/12

@mel
You seem to me like what I would call a ‘normal’ person. i.e you aren’t trying to destroy someone’s life and career. The problem is that those kinds of women are out there. Even my so-called ‘normal’ person would probably like to have their children with them, and not living with their ex. This plan provides a fool-proof way to do that.

4.2.3 Give primacy to the safety and wellbeing of children, including protection from unsupervised exposure to perpetrators (men) of domestic and family violence, when considering ‘the best interests of the child’.

So, domestic violence record = no contact with children. Or atleast no unsupervised contact. So you can’t have them stay with you over the weekend. At which point you are no longer their father. You’re a wallet that occasionally gets to see the kids, but only when there is someone there to watch you.

And the best part? Alot of the types of domestic violence included in the definition are things that cannot be proven. Or more accurately, they cannot be DIS-proven. How can you prove tat you didn’t hit your dog? The dog isn’t going to testify in court. How can you prove that you didn’t ‘drive dangerously’? What even constitutes dangerous driving?

The entire document is sexist. Check out their definition of ‘Perpetrator’ (pg190)
“A perpetrator is the individual who inflicts violence against a woman or child.

What about the individual who inflicts violence against a man? Why is there no mention of men as victims in this entire 200-something page document? Especially when we have studies that show men are more often the victims of violence (all types) than women are? Those same studies show that men and women are violent about 50-50. Why are we focusing on protecting children from men, when studies show women are more likely to inflict harm on children than men are?

mel says:

06:54am | 12/01/12

Steve_85, nice re-direct. You didn’t answer my question however: do you think the AVFM website was deliberately scaremongering, confusing ‘discipline’ with ‘abuse’ of pets, or that they (and I guess you, since you linked to the website without comment and seemingly with approval) don’t know the difference?

Steve_85 says:

08:09am | 12/01/12

@mel
Oxford Dictionary: Scaremonger
a person who spreads frightening or ominous reports or rumours

Yes, they did spread a report that was ominous and frightening, so yes it fits the definition of scaremongering. That does not however make it untrue. Just like our assault laws, it comes down to what the person FEELS. You don’t actually have to touch someone for it to be assault, you just have to make them FEEL threatened. It is a similar thing here. Disciplining your dog may include a ‘smack’ somewhere on the animal. Abuse could simply be the same action with a bit more force. Who decides which is which? At what point does disciplining become abuse? How much force can be applied? Who decides? How do you measure it after the fact?

It all comes down to whether the woman decides that she FELT threatened. This is not a charge that can be defended. All it takes is the accusation and the man has domestic violence on his record and is no longer allowed to see his children.

Dean says:

08:50am | 12/01/12

@bec
I think that there is a difference between scaremongering, and the propensity amongst MRA’s to focus on the worst possible case.

This is because, unfortunately, more and more men, and almost all MRA’s, have personal experience with the worst case of existing laws being applied to them, or men they know.

For much the same reason Tory is incorrect, and perhaps being intentionally misleading, in labelling avoiceformen a hate site.

While I’m sure that there is the occasional example of hate on the site, the predominate tone is that of anger and not hate, and there is a difference.

mel says:

10:39am | 12/01/12

Steve_85, well, at least you agree it was scaremongering . But in your paranoia, you still seem unable to see the difference between discipline and abuse in the context of domestic violence.

Your main concern seems to be that some people may overstate their case for psycholgical abuse, but surely you understand that there will be many more victims of abuse with terrible, true tales of abusers hurting, maiming or killing an animal as a way of exerting psychological control over them and other members of the family. The link between pet abuse and spousal abuse is pretty well documented. That is what “the Plan” is on about, not just giving Rover a slightly more forceful smack, as you seem to imply.

And I forgot to thank you for your condescension when you said that I seem to be what you would call a ‘normal’ person’. Are you patronising to everyone or only a select few?

Steve_85 says:

11:04am | 12/01/12

@mel
If you want to take it as condescension, that’s on you. You wont be hearing me apologizing for people projecting their thoughts onto my words.

I’m done arguing the pets. The fact that you can’t seem to see the way these laws could be used tells me there is no further point discussing it with you. Dean seems to get it, maybe he’ll argue with you.

mel says:

12:40pm | 12/01/12

Steve_85, that’s the trouble with paranoid, conspiracy types like you: all you worry about is whether a law can somehow, somewhere be misused against you, while completely ignoring the bigger picture, that of trying to fix a terrible situation which many people find themselves in. And like most tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, your perception of the situation has very little to do with reality.

All I hope is that you can work out the difference between discipline and abuse, for your pet’s sake. And your response re the condescension explains an awful lot about you.

Steve_85 says:

01:41pm | 12/01/12

mel,
It’s easy not to care when these discriminatory laws aren’t aimed at you. So you just keep your pretty little head buried in the sand and don’t you worry about a thing.OK sweet cheeks? I’m sure Prince Charming will be along any minute now.

It is interesting that you chose to ignore the comments about ‘The Plan’ in favour of attacking me and implying that I beat my pets (I don’t have one FYI). That says an awful lot about you.

Nice deflection though.

mel says:

02:52pm | 12/01/12

Steve_85, if it was “discriminatory” legislation, it would be aimed at me too since I’m a man. What made you think I was female? Do you not realise that men can disagree with your stupid, unfounded assertions? (Actually, I guess it’s pretty it obvious that you don’t realise it, but I had to ask.) Or are you just a sexist idiot who attempts to use condescension to put women in their place (given your comments to the “female” me, that last description seems about right. No wonder real women treat you badly.)

Your problem is that you haven’t shown any legislation is discriminatory: discussing the seemingly minor point about the abuse of pets was to show that the AVFM website made all sorts of wild, hysterical, scaremongering accusations unbacked by evidence. Paranoid conspiracy theorists like you swallow that stuff hook line and sinker because it suits your biases, and it allows you to whinge and whine about how hard done by you are. Who’s the one acting like a princess?

What you should do is just loosen your tinfoil hat sometimes and let your brain get some oxygen and blood into it. It helps you think.

And I’m pleased to learn that you don’t own a pet, since you have not shown any ability to distinguish between discipline and abuse.

Steve_85 says:

05:53am | 13/01/12

LOL, a white-knighting mangina. How cute. I assumed you were female because your name is ‘mel’ which is much more often a shortened term of Mellissa, rather than a male name (which it is).

Tell you what, you go back to polishing your armour and pretend that the big mean MRAs didn’t say any of those nasty things about your precious wimminz. Just remember, you’re only on their good list until they’ve gotten rid of their opposition. Then you’re back to being the owner of a penis and you’ll have to go too.

I’d like to leave you with one last quote. Something I’d like you to think about.

“First they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Blacks and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t black. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and again I didn’t speak out, because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one to speak for me.”

They’ve been coming for you for almost 60 years. If you wont speak up, then get out of the way and let the MRA’s do it. Feminism is not sustainable, when it goes it’s not going to be pretty, and the more people like you there are trying to prop it up, the nastier its going to be.

mel says:

09:45am | 13/01/12

Steve_85, the more you write the stupider you seem (but that’s to be expected, I guess). Throughout this discussion, your ‘argument’ for want of a better word consisted of assumptions, misinterpretations, conspiracy theories and hyperbole, topped off with childish insults, all driven by an all-pervading paranoia and eternal victimhood (nice Godwin too!).

I can see why though; the world must be a frightening place for someone like you that doesn’t have the ability to treat people as equals and are bewildered by the modern world. And the idea of letting idiotic MRAs like you speak up for men is laughable. Surely we want people who can think rationally and form cogent arguments?

And I’m still glad you don’t have a pet. Dogs are great creatures and deserve owners who are better people than you.

Steve_85 says:

11:09am | 13/01/12

Still with the ignore the argument and attack the person line? you feminists are so predictable. We even have a page that describes the typical shaming language you use. Yes, its that common.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

This conversation ended half way up the page when you started insulting me rather than discussing the points of the arguement. I’ve been making fun of you ever since. Have a nice day

mel says:

12:21pm | 13/01/12

Steve_85, it sure doesn’t look like you’ve been making fun of me, rather it seems that you got a little hot under the collar, given you ended up resorting to sexist taunts, condescension and then losing the argunment with the Godwin comment. You need to improve your writing skills if it’s been your intention to make fun of me.  I will say, however, that I found it hard to address any of your arguments when you offered nothing other than anecdote, exaggeration, misinformation and hyperbole. It’s hard to argue against make believe, made up stories.

Your poor reading comprehension, your inattention to detail, your inability to follow an argument, avoiding it with clumsy redirection and childish insults shows why you seek solace in a movement full of similar whiny, whinging individuals. And everything you have written here provides ample evidence why relationships between you and women would end badly.

And to make it clear, I did not imply that you abused pets, that’s something you inferred. What I did say was that you don’t seem to know the difference between discipline and abuse. (You really do need to improve those reading comprehension skills!)

mel says:

12:50pm | 13/01/12

Hmmm, my attention to detail could be better too: that should be ‘argument’ in Line 4, not “argunment’! Profuse apologies to all spelling and typo pedants.

Steve_85 says:

12:51pm | 13/01/12

Blah blah blah and your dad is an alcoholic. There is nothing more to be gained from this conversation. You’re too busy taking shots at me to bother to respond to my arguments, so I’m not trying anymore.

Don’t you have some armor to shine in between your attempts at shaming language?

mel says:

01:26pm | 13/01/12

Steve_85, as I said, you never had an argument to answer. All you’ve written is exaggeration and hyperbole, and just plain nonsense. As I’m typing this I’m looking at the first post in this thread, where you say: “I haven’t seen anything from Melinda Tankard-Reist here lately. Could it be that someone at the Punch took offense to her plans to exterminate the male half of our species?” and also “How about you women do some house cleaning before you go pointing fingers”. In a later post, you say about the women writing idiotic comments on the RadFem website: “They are extremists, but they are also writing laws in our country. Go check out ‘The Plan”.”

Yes, what you have written is chock full of argument: you provide masses of evidence, no exaggeration, no hyperbole, no insults there! As I said, you really should loosen the tinfoil hat, it will help you think.

And have you been able to work out the difference between discipline and abuse of a pet?

Ben C says:

09:09am | 10/01/12

@ Loddlaen

Second that.

The Punch has promoted the guts out of female issues such as breast cancer awareness and White Ribbon Day (which really should be about all domestic violence, not just against women - are women really that much more important than men or children?), while at the same time duckshoving men’s issues such as Movember (with an extrememly average attempt by Sharwood, the day AFTER the month ended - poor form). And now you want to debunk these “myths”? How about we debunk some feminist “myths” at the same time?

Also, the number of feminist commentators that get a run here far outweigh the men’s activists. Suggestion Punch team: How about you run an opinion piece from the heads of any men’s rights activist group? They’ll be subject to the same scrutiny that the likes of Tankard-Reist and Shepherd cop when they post something ridiculous (such as this effort).

Lift your game Punch. You say that your articles are chosen for the number of potential hits they get. Keep putting articles like this one up and you’ll be receiving half the number of hits.

Hamish says:

11:18am | 10/01/12

I’m sure Tory’s going to follow up with an article about womens’ rights extremists in the interest of balance. They’re far more off the chain so should provide a more entertaining article.

Slothy says:

12:48pm | 10/01/12

Pretty sure we already had a women’s rights extremist post last year? With the self-loathing male spokesman?

wakeuppls says:

07:47am | 10/01/12

Nic, I was in a similar position in my education. The women in my exact course couldn’t understand for the life of them why I was annoyed they got large scholarships and I got nothing.

Entitlement complexes are a difficult hurdle for those that have been told they are the superior yet oppressed gender since birth.

Jimmy D says:

08:23am | 10/01/12

Nic - I went through the exact same thing as you at university and I can tell you from experience you have a lot more discrimination ahead of you. I am a lawyer and when applying for graduate jobs at the large law firms (which I was lucky enough to be successful) it was far harder to get in as a male than as a female due to what is generally referred to as ‘positive discrimination’. In my intack roughly 80% of those successful were females due to the pressure placed on the those firms to employ more female lawyers. Never mind the poor guys who were more qualified and missed out on the opportunity due to this unfair quota.

bella starkey says:

08:37am | 10/01/12

Out of the 12 Engineering Faculty scholarships offered at sydney uni, 2 are targetted at women. They are also two of the smaller one on offer.

I dare say that being in the 10% isn’t really good enough to qualify you, I don’t think you have really looked into this enough.

http://www.eng.usyd.edu.au/scholarships/undergraduate/future.shtml

AdamC says:

09:03am | 10/01/12

Nic, that is an interesting observation.

More generally, I can’t help but notice how, in her writings on this topic, Tory focuses exclusively on ridiculing the more extreme elements of the ‘men’s rights’ movement. She never concerns herself with any assessment of feminist doctrine and whether the assumptions underpinning feminist theory are any more valid than those supporting the claims of men’s rights activists. (Or, indeed, less valid.)

To me, the main problem with contemporary feminism is that it is based on a world-view that is simply fantastical. Take for example, the belief - swallowed as gospel by the likes of our Tory - that white males enjoy social advantages that other people do not. I have never seen any evidence to support this position and, as you highlight in your comment - the lived experiences of people who actually *are* white males tends to contradict the thesis.

In response to the lack of an evidentiary basis for the ‘masculine privilege’ argument, feminists simply make up quasi-religious doctrines like the ‘patriarchy’ to justify women’s continuing perceived victim status. The fact nobody has ever seen or touched a ‘patriarchy’ - or any white men one meets ever benefited from it - just supports the feminist contention that it is all-pervasive and insidious.

I prefer the alternative explanation that it simply does not exist.

Jane2 says:

09:11am | 10/01/12

Nic, as a white female I had to pay for myself too. There may be scholarships but when you are talking about 20 scholarships in a population of 1000 it is only those with the highest marks that get the guensey.

A female with average marks raised by a parent on only the single parents pension didnt cut the mustard. Marks werent high enough and I wasnt poor enough. I had to work to pay for myself as well.

You arent as hard done by as you seem to believe.

Brian says:

09:15am | 10/01/12

Ah, but Bella, how many are explicitly aimed at men?

In my first year, a particular sponsor had supplied four scholarships, of which two HAD to be women, while two could me. (if it had been two of each, I wouldn’t have minded). There was a woman, who I greatly respect and has turned into an excellent engineer, who for the principle of the thing went for the open scholarship, and got it. Only one other woman applied for the female scholarships. The result? I was lucky enough to get the other ‘open’ scholarship, and the other fifty or so blokes in my class got nothing. The second specifically female scholarship was not filled, simply because no one of the right genitalia wanted to be an engineer.

Gymmer says:

09:40am | 10/01/12

Where were all these female only scholarships when I was at uni! I missed out…the only ones I knew about boys were eligible for too (and I won a few of them, boo yeah!)

I think the problem for women in recruitment comes more when they reach child bearing age, get pregnant or have young kids. Then employers do become much more reluctant to hire them. I worked in discrimination law for a while and the stories I would hear sounded like we were back in the 1950s.

Markus says:

09:44am | 10/01/12

@bella, you talk as if the other 10 spots are already reserved for men, when the reality is there is nothing actually preventing female applicants from taking all 10 other spots on the basis of their true ability.

Rose says:

09:50am | 10/01/12

Well said Bella, as a FEMALE uni student I find that I am unlikely to be successful in the hunt for scholarships because a) I am not experiencing enough hardship b) I am not from a remote area, c) my grades, while consistently in the top range, are not the best of the bunch. Scholarships aimed solely at women or the indigenous, while they do exist, also have other criteria and are not as numerous as some would have you believe. Is it possible that Nic applied for open scholarships and can’t believe he was beaten, fair and square, by a GIRL!!! Too Funny!

AdamC says:

10:30am | 10/01/12

Rose et al, what your comments highlight is that the feminist patronage machine only benefits some women. Women who are not well-connected, can’t or won’t ‘play the game’ or simply don’t fit the profile seem to be in the same boat as the chaps. Sounds like a bit of a crummy deal for all the hype.

Tim says:

10:35am | 10/01/12

I’ll try again because the Punch likes eating my comments.

100% correct Nic.

When I was at Uni completing my Engineering degree there were:
Female Only Scholarships
Female Only Support Groups
Female Only Tutoring Groups
and plenty more.

What was there for me as a privileged white male? Nothing

This meant that as I came from a lower middle class family I had to work 30hrs+ a week whilst completing full time study with no help while most of the females receiving the extra support were already far better off financially than me.

But that’s OK because apparently they’re disadvantaged and I’m privileged.

Ain’t Equality grand.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

10:41am | 10/01/12

It is easier for male nurses than females to get accepted into midwifery programs. There is a desire to get more men into a traditionally female-dominated field. Sound familiar?

Rose says:

11:01am | 10/01/12

Tim, maybe the blokes in our course should have organized their own study groups. In my course there are several groups of students who have created study groups, often with a lecturer/tutor on board. These groups organized themselves and they often had to talk the faculty member into joining in (in our faculty, staff not only teach, they are generally part of research projects and they all, as a requirement of employment at the uni, are also still practising professionals.
Some groups are all female, one is all male and some are co-ed. All were self organized so if the blokes were unhappy, they should have got to it and organized more of their own groups.

Tim says:

11:27am | 10/01/12

Rose,
the difference is the female groups and support services were all sponsored and paid for by the university. ie The Government.

Try to get money out of them for male support services and they laugh.

kitteh says:

11:30am | 10/01/12

When I was at university, both as a student and staff member, there were no female-only scholarships in my field (the traditionally male-dominated sciences). My partner studied engineering at a different university, and there were no female-only scholarships offered in that field either. Nor, in my opinion, should there have been - scholarships should be based on ability, and judging by the number of women in my field that landed merit-based scholarships, they can certainly compete on an even playing field.

There are, however, many grants and assistance programs available for women who have had children. These packages are supposedly available to fathers and people with other ‘life interruptions’ - such as a severe illness - but the criteria are almost impossible to meet. As Adam has pointed out, it seems that the ‘positive discrimination’ only applies to women that follow a certain lifescript - it isn’t a simple factor of gender. It also, perhaps, speaks of underlying prejudices - the idea that women (and only women) must be parents in order to have value in the community.

I think this is why the article raises such an important point. The extremist views and claims of a small sector of the men’s movement misrepresent the reality and distract from other issues (the lack of mental health facilities in regional and rural Auatralia, for instance). The same, absolutely, applies to the women’s movement - I’d rather we focused on female oppression in the developing world than balancing the numbers on corporate boards. There are real men’s issues that need to be addressed (I’d like to start with the lack of attention to aging men’s health, personally), and they can easily be drowned in a sea of aggressive diatribes.

Ben C says:

11:32am | 10/01/12

@ Tim

Just to clarify, were these female-only tutoring groups organised by the students themselves, or by the university teaching staff?

Monica's wicked stepmother says:

11:55am | 10/01/12

Nic, I completed an engineering degree in the 1980s.  I applied for a Government engineering cadetship, and during the interview, one of the board said “why should we give you a cadetship, you’re only going to get married and have children.” (this was before the passing of legislation outlawing discrimination in 1985).  Fortunately I successfully applied for a cadetship with a private company (and I was the only women EVER given a cadetship with that company, so it wasn’t a “female” position).
I was the only women in my year of engineering, and only the second to graduate in my branch of engineering.  There were no “female study groups” or mentoring.  I was treated the same as everybody else and expected nothing else.
The only difference in my treatment was that before I started my first post-degree job the company informed all the workers that a female engineer would be starting.  I’m not sure that was for my benefit.  At my second job the only change was to build a female shower room, because before that all the showers were for men.
Scholarships are provided from private funds.  The donor usually can place restrictions on who is selected.  So a few scholarships are restricted for women.  Big deal.  Scholarships are restricted in all sorts of ways - for country students, for disadvantaged students etc.

Tim says:

12:38pm | 10/01/12

BenC,
they were tutoring groups organised and paid for by the university for female students that wanted them.
Everyone else had to look after themselves.

DJ says:

01:17pm | 10/01/12

Nic you have so many gifts. you can do maths and get into uni and will never be poor again. you have been given purpose and passion - these are gifts that many do not have. If you need work for an engineer come to mining in qld and earn 2 times the national average salary in your first year like my oldest son and youngest daughter (and me). Male or female we take them all! engineers rule! (ps I had a son named nic who died at a young age after my wife also an engineer was sacked for being pregnant in 1990)

be strong lad.

Kate says:

02:08pm | 10/01/12

Personally, I think both genders get screwed in terms of financial support during tertiary study. If you’re not from a ‘disadvantaged’ area or racial group, you can forget about it, even if you’re not well off and forced to work more hours than you can realistically manage.
Good luck with your studies, and when you graduate, hopefully you will never have to scrape by or rely on Centrelink again. I know I’m looking forward to that.

Tom says:

02:58pm | 10/01/12

Isn’t it funny, when nic puts up his facts, gets challenged and answers all the challenges, his opponents start to patronise him as a diversion.

Rose, Kate, DJ are you all to weak to admit to nic that he has made a good point, or do you regard dishonesty in the matter as a strength?

Ando says:

03:51pm | 10/01/12

Tom,
Lets wait and see.
Rose,
Explain why Nic would want a mens only study group. To even make such a suggestion shows you have no idea what point he is making.

Kate says:

05:48pm | 10/01/12

@Tom, I wasn’t being patronising. Perhaps it’s a case of tone not being accurately conveyed via the internet. I genuinely do think it’s shit that nic is in a bad financial situation because he can’t get financial assistance. As I said, I’m in the same boat.
The funny thing is, I agree with him even though it is the exact opposite in my field of study. I’m studying to be a primary school teacher, a field which is female dominated. As a result, male teachers and teaching students are often privileged above females in the hiring process.
I believe in equal rights - meaning no female-only incentives for engineering students, and no male-only incentives for teaching students.

bec says:

07:57am | 10/01/12

Yes, Marc Lepine and Gary Sodini were quite loving people.

Warren says:

08:07am | 10/01/12

I just spent 10 minutes on the A Voice For Men website. Talk about hate.

Fezzbo says:

12:01pm | 10/01/12

@Bec: Have a read of FEMALE SERIAL KILLERS: HOW AND WHY WOMEN BECOME MONSTERS by Peter Vronsky. Repeating name of the one MRA who also happened to be a killer gets long in the tooth after a while. Expand you’re knowledge, Educator.

@Warren: It’s not a hatred of women though, it’s a hatred of women now being more equal than men in the eye’s of the law. What most non-extreme MRA’s are looking for is equality.

bec says:

12:31pm | 10/01/12

Jesus, Fezzbo, did the ex get all the correct punctuation in your divorce ruling?

I am sure there are plenty of female serial killers, both now and historically (although statistics on the conduct disorders and sociopathy that enable serial killing will say otherwise). Benevolent sexism and outdated traditional ideals about femininity that were limiting and misogynistic probably provided a great smokescreen for female killers who wanted to avoid detection. But apart from Aileen Wuornos, I struggle to think of any who murdered men specifically because they hated men; most female serial killers were motivated by financial gains.

I could have also mentioned Gary Heidnik, Andreas Breivik and others, but chose not to.

bec says:

01:21pm | 10/01/12

Boo. I hate it when my replies are eaten by the internet.

Fezzbo - I can only think of one female serial killer who specifically chose male targets due to hating men (Aileen Wuornos). I wouldn’t be surprised that there are more female serial killers out there - traditional gender traits and benevolent feminism mean that someone with traditional values about gender won’t believe a female is capable of violence. I assert, however, that their main aim will be financial gain. There are far more male serial and spree killers who have gone on the record as saying that hatred of women or feminism was their motive than the other way around. (I also could have mentioned Andreas Breivik or Gary Heidnik, but I ran out of time.)

Fezzbo says:

01:45pm | 10/01/12

My apologies Bec. I was too busy with my real job to bother overediting, rereading, thesaurusing my reply. How are your holidays going by the way? Looking forward to indoctinating those schoolboys with more feminist rhetoric when you return to work?

And no divorce yet; I believe you have to be married before that can happen…

bec says:

04:16pm | 10/01/12

Yes, I do indoctrinate them into feminism - if by that, you mean telling them to get a haircut and to tuck their dang shirts in. I’m really doing Germaine’s work there.

Matthew says:

08:13am | 10/01/12

The article shows no consideration of male problems at all before dismissing them.  That is the reason there’s MREs.  If they were looked at carefully than dismissed with actual reasoning then males would be happier.

Instead, according to Tory, there is no suicide rates amongst males, no domestic violence against them, they are never falsely accused of rape (or raped for that matter) and they always get more custody of their children than they deserve (even though it’s rare for them to get even 50% custody).

Erick says:

08:21am | 10/01/12

First they ignore us
Then they laugh at us

Then they fight us

Then we win.

We’re between stages 1 and 3.

bec says:

08:31am | 10/01/12

Matthew, it’s rare for men to get 50% custody because it is rare for them to perform 50% of primary caregiving. A judge is not going to award the lion’s share of custody to the partner in the family who has not demonstrated the experience or competence in child rearing.

I don’t think the “tender years” doctrine of assuming the mother is the most appropriate primary caregiver is particularly equitable; benevolent sexism is still sexism. However, the primary caregiver is still the most appropriate person for custody in the majority of cases, regardless of gender. Men will have a better chance of gaining custody if there is more opportunity given to them to be primary caregiver, both by law and by social trends, and they deserve a better opportunity.

Babe in the Woods says:

08:40am | 10/01/12

@Rossco, nicely put.  I was wondering about this piece.  I could quote so many radical feminists, and if I had the care-factor probably find a few hate filled anti-male blogs.  so what?  Why this need to attack and discredit men who feel they are being victimised ?  I can absolutely see dicrimination against men every single day.  I understand why the genuine feminists of years ago were so vocal and radical - they needed to be to be heard and to change society awareness and understanding.  Surely that is all that some men are choosing to do now.  They see injustice and are looking to bring awareness to it.  Why mock them?  But then again, it seems to me that more and more we as a society attack the person and not the message.  By smearing someone the object is to detract from what they say and to clothe ones self in smug superiority.  Let people like Erick etc say what they like.  If people don’t agree, they don’t have to read.  But cherry picking a few sites or radicals does not a full and balance argument make.  And what on earth is this about The Punch going on some sort of mini-crusade debunking claims?  How about you balance that with the same zealousness debunking the lies of radical feminists?

Ba'al says:

09:17am | 10/01/12

@Erick, I can see you are a fan of the ghandi quote, however the thing to remember is that the ‘win’ part of the quote is not even remotely a sure thing.
The only reason ghandi one was that in the end the british were not prepared to sustain a massive military campaign due to economic pressures on thier empire at the time, not to mention the fact the conflict was unpopular at home.
Also the british were not prepared to go all the way.
No in the end most of the time what happens is you lose and end up with less than what you had.
All I am saying is that quote is used out of context alot.

Mark says:

11:07am | 10/01/12

@Bec- “Matthew, it’s rare for men to get 50% custody because it is rare for them to perform 50% of primary caregiving. A judge is not going to award the lion’s share of custody to the partner in the family who has not demonstrated the experience or competence in child rearing.”
It is also statistically unlikely for a female to share 50% of the employment employment or household income but judges have no problem in ordering 50% assets and lifetime alimony do they?

bec says:

11:24am | 10/01/12

Of course. If a person in a relationship sacrifices the wages from the years they don’t work and thus future potential earnings, they deserve compensation for it - especially if the unpaid labor they perform benefits the other party and facilitates them earning more money or advancing in their own career. It’s not gender-specific - if the male of the partnership sacrifices his career to be primary caregiver, he deserves that pay as well.

Gomez12 says:

12:28pm | 10/01/12

@Bec,

So the Father sacrificing time with his children to provide the food/shelter/utilities and enable the Mother to be the primary caregiver is just A-OK with you? And reason for him to lose out in both custody and asset settlements?

It may shock you a bit, but Dad’s love their kids too. Kids need to be both cared for and provided for, yet you seem to deem only the care half of that equation as important - if providing for those children is so irrelevant, why does the government mandate it continue post seperation?

I’d trade primary caregiver to my children over primary breadwinner any day of the week. Spending time with your kids is by FAR more satisfying than working all day (Yes, caring for children is work, but it’s a labour of love, if it isn’t you shouldn’t have kids - bricklaying for example rarely is). However for a raft of reasons as a male this isn’t really an option for many - and by your logic this means that having been deprived of this option for the most part to “enjoy” heading off to work to pay the costs of others they should then be penalised for having basically paid someone to be where they themselves in many cases would prefer to be?

Mark says:

12:45pm | 10/01/12

@Bec- So, lets reverse the situation.. Woman is breadwinner, dad is primary caregiver. Couple splits, does the man get the kids plus half the assets?? Not a chance. I really really find it harder to understand how women cannot use logic to reach a conclusion. This blatant hypocrisy is not that hard to see at all. Which makes me wonder whether the powers that be actually want it to stop. I think they like having trivial things divide us and occupy our potentially infinite minds. Sad really, we could be so much better off if we weren’t so selfishly narrow minded.

Tigger says:

12:49pm | 10/01/12

@Bec

How biased! If a woman sacrificing wages from the years that she could have worked entitles her to more money in the split, then a man sacrificing time with his child / children from the years that he could have been primary caregiver should therefore entitle him to more custody time. But, oh, I see from your previous reply that the woman is also entitled to more custody too. By your earlier logic the man should be entitled to more money in the split because he is more experienced at that role.

Typical feminist logic - twist everything to suit your own advantage.

bec says:

12:51pm | 10/01/12

Gomez, it doesn’t shock me at all. I had a totally superlative dad who I will one day buy a boat for, thanks to my feminism and being able to earn money.

A divorce for a breadwinner does not necessarily entail a loss in earning capacity; it most certainly does for the person who stays at home. However, it does mean that time invested in work does negatively correlate to time spent mastering domestic and childrearing duties. Children form a bond with the parent who spends the largest amount of time with them in their formative years and it can be very disruptive when a routine is changed significantly, particularly when they now have to spend time with a parent who may be more anxious or inexperienced in childrearing. It might suck for the parent, but that’s why judges DGAF about a parent’s feelings - they act in the best interest of the child.

I support workplace provisions for proper paternity leave and better relationship and parenting education for dads, and will vote for a party that makes that a priority. I likewise have no problem with a social shift that sees more dads working as primary care-givers, or receiving financial support from a breadwinning female ex.

bec says:

12:51pm | 10/01/12

Gomez, it doesn’t shock me at all. I had a totally superlative dad who I will one day buy a boat for, thanks to my feminism and being able to earn money.

A divorce for a breadwinner does not necessarily entail a loss in earning capacity; it most certainly does for the person who stays at home. However, it does mean that time invested in work does negatively correlate to time spent mastering domestic and childrearing duties. Children form a bond with the parent who spends the largest amount of time with them in their formative years and it can be very disruptive when a routine is changed significantly, particularly when they now have to spend time with a parent who may be more anxious or inexperienced in childrearing. It might suck for the parent, but that’s why judges DGAF about a parent’s feelings - they act in the best interest of the child.

I support workplace provisions for proper paternity leave and better relationship and parenting education for dads, and will vote for a party that makes that a priority. I likewise have no problem with a social shift that sees more dads working as primary care-givers, or receiving financial support from a breadwinning female ex.

holden says:

01:12pm | 10/01/12

Erich, you are cutting and pasting again. Just to clear one point that has me puzzled. You, and some very few others, keep referring to bias at the Family Court toward women. Could you give an example please. Perhaps in your case, so that we can all be witnesses to this “gross” abuse of justice?
Or perhaps a Judge’s comments in which he may give reasons for disallowing a father near the child, or perhaps only rarely? I’m sure you would not find any of the above requests difficult to fulfill.
Do you and your ilk have access to a refuge for when your spouses bash you, and if not, why haven’t you all arranged same? You know, a place where those who would destroy you can’t get near you?
A Minister for Men? No thanks, I think that I’m able to look after myself without Government protection. I am the protector, not the protectee. I’m an average white Australian male, and you do me no good with your bleating for sympathy and coddling.
Don’t forget to reply to my requests, (unless you have no reply), and please, I beg of you, don’t send me to your mate’s website. Be a man. Explain with facts, not fancies.

Tom says:

03:35pm | 10/01/12

holden, go and find them yourself. It is not up to Erick to keep lazy manginas like you entertained.

holden says:

04:24pm | 10/01/12

@Tom. Your suggestion that Erich “entertains” anyone is very hard to understand. I simply asked him, or you, or any whining whinging “man”, to back up their silly repetitive claims with a little evidence. You would have been more honest to have simply said, “You ask for the Judge’s comments? Sorry, but that would perhaps leave me and Erich, and the others open to ridicule and criticism. We’d rather not”.
Too much for you? Don’t want the truth published? We understand. In your place, probably neither would I.

PsychoHyena says:

05:45pm | 10/01/12

@holden, okay let’s look at this anecdote: A friend of mine lost all visitation rights to his children because of unsubstantiated and untrue claims of domestic violence and because of how much he was earning. This was despite the number of claims by his partner’s family, who knew his partner to be deceptive and dishonest, that the claims were untrue. In fact, it was the mother that was being abusive towards the children.

The judge decided that based on his income the children would be better with the mother and that because of the claims of abuse he would have no access, but he would need to pay child-support so that his partner and children could continue to live in a style they had become accustomed to.

When the mother was found to be a drug-abuser and spending the child-support on drugs, my friend tried again for custody and was refused as the mother claimed he was trying to dodge paying child-support, and the claims were false.

So tell me that the Family Court isn’t biased…

Rossco says:

12:19pm | 16/01/12

Tory, when is the Punch going to start addressing the ‘real’ ones then? I’d love to see an article here once a fortnight/month on men’s issues.

PsychoHyena says:

08:20am | 10/01/12

And Carz that would be perfectly fine if she then hadn’t attacked every single legitimate concern of Male Rights and made them to be nothing and even claimed that the Male Rights Movement is about protecting criminals.

The issue with false rape allegations is not that there are so many, but rather there is not even an apology for the accused when it is discovered they are innocent, and the accuser does not receive penalty for making a false allegation. I am mostly talking about those cases where the woman/girl involved turns around and says “Oh I made the whole thing up”.

The unfortunate thing is making light of Male Rights, is just going to make the more extreme angrier and more volatile.

bec says:

08:21am | 10/01/12

But the difference is that the feminist movement now reflexively criticises many second wave feminists *for* not being aware of this privilege. If you look at mainstream feminist blogs like Jezebel, Feministe and Shakesville, they have frequently written very critical articles about people like Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem. Recently, when Amanda Marcotte published “It’s A Jungle Out There”, other feminists were the one to get her to change a racist book cover.

It is a movement that has had to police its own - not necessarily because of difference in theory or principle, but because it can’t be said to speak for all people - particularly women - if it only privileges a handful of them.

bec says:

08:35am | 10/01/12

But what about rapists who lie and accuse their victim of making a false allegation, PsychoHyena? People who lack the empathy and care for the law enough to rape are also presumably people who have little trouble with lying.

I agree that people legitimately accused of false rape allegations deserve redress in the law. But at the same time, I wish MRAs would shine as strong a light on those claiming that they’ve been falsely accused as they would on people alleging they have been raped. You will also note that the same criticism and stringency is not applied to the statistics of men who claim they have been sexually assaulted. The same rigour needs to be applied.

Ben C says:

10:06am | 10/01/12

@ bec

“But what about rapists who lie and accuse their victim of making a false allegation”

They’re not the ones making the report to the police in the first place, they’re not the ones who have requested police instigate an investigation, using up police resources to do so.

These rapists are only making the claim in response to an accusation levelled against them. And when they’re found to have been lying, they get convicted for their crime. (Should also get obstruction of justice, in my opinion.) The victim of rape gets a sense of justice in this case, because their perpetrator is punished. The victim of a false rape accusation gets nothing.

bec says:

10:26am | 10/01/12

Ben, people who are victims of crime are entitled to file a police report and for this to be investigated using police resources devoted to such an activity. I would just like for people who believe in the myth of a high degree of false rape reporting to apply the same critical eye to people saying they’ve been framed.

I do not know if you have ever had to attempt to file a sexual assault incident report. I have. A tiny number of cases actually make it to court from those that actually occur. Just because a case does not make it to court does not mean a rape did not occur, or that the person alleged to have done it didn’t do it - very frequently, prosecutors will not take a case to trial if the evidence is insufficient. This was the case in my instance, where they could not positively identify my attacker as it was dark when I was hurt, and on account of lack of other conclusive physical evidence the case could not be tried.

There is far less incentive to falsely report a rape than there is to allege that your victim is lying. I - like the huge majority of sexual assault victims, both male and female - didn’t get to enjoy the fruits of the justice you are claiming - unless you consider PTSD, depression and agoraphobia justice.

PsychoHyena says:

10:26am | 10/01/12

@bec, and I feel for those, however the current system is: “the accused must provide evidence that consent was given”. The problem with rape laws is that you can’t keep either side completely happy. Make it easier for the accused and you put victims at risk, you make it easier for victims and you put innocents at risk.

Unlike a lot of these people I spend a lot of time actually trying to come up with proposals that would solve the many issues without providing loopholes.

Personally I think if you want turmoil in the world, just have all the males go on strike.

Ben C says:

11:07am | 10/01/12

@ bec

Let me clarify.

I have never - in any way, shape or form - agreed or given the opinion that there is a hgh number of false rape accusations. It does happen, that is all I’m saying, but I don’t know the number. I’ve never lodged a sexual assault incident report, my only experiences of crime relate to the numerous times our old family business was broken into. I would presume that the process is all the same - report is lodged, statements are taken, evidence collected from the scene of the crime (and DNA evidence in assault cases), the police then use the evidence and statements to build a case for trial.

Like I said, if a perpetrator is found to have been lying about their accuser lying, they should be convicted for the crime and also obstruction of justice. In no way do I condone using deceit to get out of fair punishment, it should in fact be punished doubly. Yes, it’s unfortunate that a large number of cases (such as yours) don’t get the justice it deserves. Yes, victims of crime have every entitlement to report their crimes - in fact, we should be encouraging all crimes to be reported. We should also be encouraging people to not withdraw their complaints because of some underlying emotion for the perpetrator, or some reason that allows the perpetrator to get away with the crime.

However, where supposed victims have lodged a report with police, the police have investigated and charged a supposed perpetrator, only for the victim to turn around and withdraw the complaint because the incident didn’t occur, or the incident did happen but the compalinant falsified the facts - the perpetrator and victim role are turned around. In this case, the victim doesn’t get in the way of an apology or some sort of compensation for the pain and anguish heaped upon them.

Hopefully this clarifies my earlier comment, and hopefully you can see that we are indeed on the same page.

bec says:

11:32am | 10/01/12

I believe we are, and reasonably so. “You” is not so much specific as it is generic in this case.

There are numerous reasons why plenty of sexual assault victims withdraw complaints. For some of them, their assailant is the breadwinner for their family and by making a report it will condemn their family into poverty. For others, they have legitimate concerns for their own safety, and that of their family. Emotional, yes, but also very valid. The problem is that it is easier for law enforcement to accept a withdrawn complaint than it is to offer protection or compensation to victims of crime.

Likewise, it is up to police and prosecutors - and victims of false accusations - to press charges for filing false complaints. I’m not a legislator and I certainly have no problem if the law were to change to make the penalties for this more severe, but I also have a problem with many MRAs assuming that any withdrawn complaint, failure to prosecute or acquittal definitively means that the victim was lying - and I worry that making laws specific to alleged rape victims will just provide another avenue for their abusers and perpetrators to continue the harm.

St. Michael says:

12:53pm | 10/01/12

@ bec: ” I worry that making laws specific to alleged rape victims will just provide another avenue for their abusers and perpetrators to continue the harm.”

Tangentially: there are already some laws in place specific to alleged rape victims.

Google the “doctrine of recent complaint” with reference to the Australian law of evidence: normally you can’t put hearsay or self-serving evidence in as part of your case, for example if I get robbed it doesn’t make the charge of robbery any stronger just that I ran round to a neighbour’s house and said I was robbed.  So the court doesn’t allow me to put that evideence in and say “I was robbed because I said so quickly after the event.”

But in the case of sexual assault, it does.  Recent complaint is an exception: if you are a rape victim, and you say so to someone very shortly after the event, a judge will direct a jury that the evidence of your complaint can be used as proof supporting that you were raped.

Otherwise you’re quite right.  Attempt to pervert the course of justice or perjury are the charges used when someone has made a false rape claim and pushed it as far as court.  The problem with both being proving that the person lied - because they’re entitled to proof beyond reasonable doubt of the charge as well.

C1 says:

08:47am | 10/01/12

Well said Ian1!

wakeuppls says:

07:52am | 10/01/12

“Eyes wide open now, gents. A lot of this rage comes from a sense of entitlement imbued in most white, straight males. Marriage, kids, house and car. Like they are all things to be “got.””

And then 99.999% of us wake up at the age of 16 and realise that is mostly fantasy. I don’t know which white men you know but none I know, including myself, think they are entitled to anything. The long hard road of reality has a tendency to set people straight.

I like how you still manage to blame men for their annihilation in divorce and child custody. Real mature. You’re a fantastic femofascist.

Tony Smith says:

08:17am | 10/01/12

“Put it back in your pants”

So we are told that women are entitled to have sex however men must abstain at all times unless they want to have children. Wow you are a m0r0n.

PsychoHyena says:

08:30am | 10/01/12

@Thinking now, thankyou for your post, it is obviously the woman’s fault when men do the same thing huh?

Hear that women? Thinking now is telling you to shut your legs and get to know the men, that way you might not end up in an abusive relationship, or dumped with 20 kids.

bec says:

08:38am | 10/01/12

No, Tony. Men are allowed to have sex with who they are legally allowed to have sex with, just as women are.  Just as I am not allowed to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with me, either in any circumstance or in one particular instance, so too are men.

They are entitled to as much random, casual sex as they want. Just like women, they don’t deserve opprobrium if their behaviour is lawful and does not cause undue physical harm to their partner. It is really very simple.

I hate pies says:

08:55am | 10/01/12

White men aren’t entitled to anything, except handing their hard earned to others. White men have to work for everything they get.

MarkS says:

10:13am | 10/01/12

@Bec
“They are entitled to as much random, casual sex as they want. Just like women, they don’t deserve opprobrium if their behaviour is lawful and does not cause undue physical harm to their partner. It is really very simple.”

If only that where true. What about the NRL player Johns. Had random, casual sex with a young woman. She later feels bad about it. The media makes him out be be some sort of monster. He loses his job.

The double standard is alive but changed. Once the man was a cad & the woman a slut. Now the man is still a cad & the woman a victim or liberated depending on her post sex feelings.

bec says:

10:32am | 10/01/12

No; Johns was criticised because he was a married man who built a successful media career on the back of the “family man” image who exemplified the worst stereotypes of the professional athlete - hedonistic, disrespectful of boundaries, and hypocritical. There is also the matter that consent in this issue was questionable - not necessarily in the fact that he personally violated the consent of the woman involved, but in that he failed to act when he saw that the addition of the other players in the room without the express and explicit permission of the woman involved could be legally and socially dangerous.

Ben C says:

11:26am | 10/01/12

@ bec

It’s been reported in Matthew Johns’ case that the woman was boasting to a work colleague about having had so many players “entertaining” her, but decided to lodge a police complaint about a week after it happened. Only the woman involved knows the full story, so we can really only make assumptions. I think you’ll agree that we best not go down that path.

But definitely Matthew Johns did stuff up monumentally - I remember listening to the Grill Team on Triple M a bit after Matthew first started on the show, he made a comment about being the model husband, which led to an uncomfortable silence from Gus Worland and Mark Geyer.

MarkS says:

12:54pm | 10/01/12

@Bec
Don’t follow NRL or watch the TV shows he was on so I cannot comment on if he falsely portrayed himself as a good family man & husband.

But consent was not “questionable”, by making this accusation you are in fact saying that he kind of sort of raped her. Which is what I objected too in the entire story. There is no doubt whatsoever that his sexual relations with her where consensual, to say otherwise is to falsely accuse. 

It was this false sort of accusation which cost him his job. The appalling way that the female media anchor for the current affair show said that given his age & position & her age (19) consent had to be “questionable”.

Either 19 is above the age of consent or it is not, either females are competent to choose their sexual partners or they are not. You cannot have your cake & eat it too. Just because she later regretted her actions does not make it rape.

Direct says:

01:26pm | 10/01/12

As long as regret equals rape and consent will always be questionable.

bec says:

01:27pm | 10/01/12

MarkS, my comment was very specific in pointing out that he didn’t personally violate consent, but that his actions were dubious in that as a bystander, he did not show due concern for a situation that could have gotten wildly out of hand. The physical reality is that this was one young woman in a room with numerous men of extreme physical ability. I would make the same arguments if the alleged victim in this case were a non-athletic or small-statured man. The point remains that the imbalance of power, both physically and numerically between the waitress and the football players made the matter very morally grey, especially given that alcohol was present.

MarkS says:

02:46pm | 10/01/12

@Bec
“Men are allowed to have sex with who they are legally allowed to have sex with, just as women are”

“consent in this issue was questionable”

“The point remains that the imbalance of power, both physically and numerically between the waitress and the football players made the matter very morally grey”

Can you really not see the conflict in your quotes? First you say all men & women are entitled to have sex with whomever they are legally entitled to have sex with. A comment I totally agree with.

Then because you find the situation “morally grey”, the “consent was questionable”. No consent means RAPE, when you say “consent was questionable” you are saying she may have been RAPED!

The simple fact of the matter is that YOU, yes YOU have falsely accused the men in that room of raping that girl. Another false accusation of rape & it is ok because you find their actions “morally grey”.

Every relationship that has ever existed involves some imbalance of power. Who had the power in that room is very debatable. The story as I heard it was that she was pointing out which men she wanted, seems like she had the all power. There was no mention that any man she did not point out forced himself on her.

But because you find it “morally grey” all of a sudden “consent is questionable”. It was LEGAL, being IMMORAL does not make it RAPE.

Furthermore why try to suggest that Johns had a duty to stop the other men having sex with her, but I was ok for him to have sex with her. I just cannot get your logic, if it was wrong because of some “power imbalance” for the other men then it was wrong for him.

In the 19th century those men would have been regarded as cads who took advantage of a young woman. It is sad that more than 100 years later, a woman still assumes that if another woman does something she considers immoral it must have been a man’s fault.

Why is it that a middle aged man has to point out that that a 19 year old young woman is considered an adult, capable of making up her own mind about her sexual activity? If she makes a mistake, it was her choice; she is not simply putty in their hands, unable to be trusted to make her own decisions.

Trevor says:

03:15pm | 10/01/12

someone tell me what opprobrium means please… lmao… no really…

not sure if i should be afraid of bec, or propose….

either way im a fan

bec says:

04:32pm | 10/01/12

Mark, you are being disingenuous. I am not making a false allegation at all - for that to be the case, I have to absolutely 100% believe that no assault occurred at all, and still make the statement. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what happened. All I know is that I likely have the same amount of bias on the matter that you have.

You can make all of these high-falutin’ claims about competency to consent but there is a difference between two people in a private residence, without the influence of alcohol, and a situation where a person of small stature is surrounded by numerous people of far greater physical strength. People who are in a situation who feel that they may not have a lot of control will do a lot of things to avoid harm or negative social outcomes; there may not have been much of an opportunity for an explicit “no” to be observed or respected in this case.

I would feel exactly the same about this situation if the genders were switched and it was a young man of small stature up against a dozen athletic, strong women.

KH says:

08:47am | 10/01/12

Until the 20th century, women largely could not attend most universities, and were not conferred with degrees if they attended the classes.
Until the 20th century, women were considered, by law, to be the property of their husband when they married, and had virtually no rights.  Rape within marriage, according to the law, didn’t exist.  Ending the marriage was a difficult process, that often left the woman far worse off than before.
Unitl the 20th century, women largely had no career prospects apart from teaching, nursing or housekeeping.  When they married, they were no longer employable and were effectively doomed to a life of domestic drudgery, whether they liked it or not.
Until the 20th century, women couldn’t vote, despite the fact that the government had jurisdiction over them, they had no say in who the government was.  They certainly couldn’t be in it.

Oh yeah, women have never been worse off than men…......................

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

10:51am | 10/01/12

Since the men start the wars it is only fair that they fight them.

JT says:

11:09am | 10/01/12

@KH - lets not forget the oldest profession in the world that was the only course for some women as they had NO other choices

Wynston Cruso says:

12:39pm | 10/01/12

I would have to say that not being able to vote, not being able to go to uni etc. would be further down in the ‘worse off’ department than things like dying earlier and conscription. A bit of perspective please.

Mark says:

03:59pm | 10/01/12

“Since the men start the wars it is only fair that they fight them.”
Are you referring to the individuals that start them or are you generalising?? Either way, the men that start them don’t fight them and the men that die don’t start them. Either way, you’re wrong.

And KH, how is a lack of opportunity at success worse than a lack of life past 20?? Please, explain that to me? Having a shorter life and having to do all the work is, in my opinion, much harder then doing well, nothing.

Chris L says:

08:04pm | 10/01/12

“Benevolent Rapscallion” - In that case the armies of Catherine the Great and Queen Victoria should have consisted entirely of women.

It might have worked too. I’m sure the men of the opposing army would have balked at slaughtering women, and the commanders of the women soldiers would simply have to announce “Those men said those pants make your bum look big!”.

wakeuppls says:

08:02am | 10/01/12

Actually there are many specific instances where they admit issues are across all races of men. I have never once heard an MRA say specifically there are issues pertaining to “white” men.

Even still, there are black MRA’s that also exist fairly prolifically on youtube.

“As in, born as a woman, now identifies physically…”

In regards to the trans men, how exactly do you build testicles and connect them up? How do you remove ovaries, a uterus, and disconnect all that? That isn’t even touching the differences in brain physiology. There is a point where you people have to accept reality.

Nathan Explosion says:

08:42am | 10/01/12

@wakeuppls

It’s called gender reassignment.

wakeuppls says:

09:15am | 10/01/12

As I said, how are the physiological differences accounted for? They aren’t.

Nathan Explosion says:

10:03am | 10/01/12

@wakeuppls

Hormone replacement, testerone… heaps of ways.

Trans men are still men. Just because they were born a woman doesn’t make them any less of a man.

Just as a man who transitions to a woman is still a woman, even though she doesn’t have a uterus.

wakeuppls says:

11:41am | 10/01/12

Injecting yourself with a hormone is not the same as being an entirely different gender.

There are many things that go into making a man a man and a woman a woman, like brain physiology. You can’t just put a dress on a guy and call him a girl.

When you can get a girl to produce normal healthy testosterone and sperm from testicles and transplant a man-brain into a woman, then you’ll convince me.

Nathan Explosion says:

01:59pm | 10/01/12

@wakeuppls

Oh, I see. A trans woman is a ‘man in a dress’ to you?

No need to say anything further.

Fezzbo says:

04:47pm | 10/01/12

Actually Nathan, I think the man in a dress comment was tongue in cheek.

And wakeuppls has a point. If you can tell me what defines a trans woman and what defines a trans man, I will accept your argument and be impressed.

You want to nit-pick comments, so will I.

Keen Observer says:

08:54am | 10/01/12

Hi Z, you should use your favourites bar, a lot easier than typing in the address every time. Maybe they mean the carrot bit of the carrot (orange) and the top bit of the person (also orange). Just pondering.

John Smythe says:

12:13pm | 10/01/12

Glad to see it isn’t just me that sees through it all. Cheers!

Ian1 says:

07:55am | 10/01/12

Scary to read what you have relayed.  Seems to me there are some points above which are in conflict with the international declaration on Human rights through the UN which the Commonwealth of Australia is signatories to.

Who is on the legislative drafting committee for the National Council?

Rooster says:

07:56am | 10/01/12

Spot on my friend…and if you even mention these things you get shouted down and called names, apparently it doesn’t really happen!!

MarkS says:

08:02am | 10/01/12

“mistaken consent” is not a defence in many Australian states already.

starting to get Angry says:

08:21am | 10/01/12

I wasn’t angry, then I read about the Plan and followed the link to “A Voice for Men”. Thanks Tory.

John Hoskings says:

08:21am | 10/01/12

I would really like to see Tory’s response to this…..OMG. What has this come to…..?

mel says:

08:28am | 10/01/12

Umm, Men Are Not Abusers, I didn’t have the time to check all your statements, but I was intrigued by point 2. While checking the document (the March 2009 version) as you suggested, I did not find any mention of redefining domestic violence to include making purchases without consultation, disciplining dogs, or not listening to your wife. Can you tell me which pages those things are on?

Nor could I find anything on “Gendered policy of arrest”.  Given you put quote marks around it, I assumed it was a direct quote. Again can you indicate which page this is on?

Many thanks.

James Shaw says:

08:30am | 10/01/12

That is very scary to read. What are the legislatures thinking by removing men’s basic human rights for equality.

Tory should lose her job for writing this ignorant hate speeech.

Colin of Sydney says:

09:02am | 10/01/12

If you are some low-life bogan who gets into domestic violence or even the mildest bit of oppression on a woman, you deserve everything you get, buddy.

Do you really think that men who treat their partners as equals (and have reciprocal treatment from their partners) could care less about stronger laws to protect down-trodden wives from violent bogans and drunkards…? Not likely.

Kooks says:

09:13am | 10/01/12

Please explain where point 2 is in detail.

Thanks champ

Mark says:

09:49am | 10/01/12

If true, 12 and 16 scare me the most- Some women are just spiteful headcases that cannot be trusted in a relationship, let alone when something actually matters.

mel says:

11:22am | 10/01/12

Has someone been able to confirm whether any of the points listed by Men Are Not Abusers actually gets mentioned in the document?

Or was he just making stuff up?

PsychoHyena says:

11:49am | 10/01/12

The bonus in all this is that women will find out that their sexual empowerment was pointless because they will have to fill out a mass of paperwork just to get 5 minutes of sex. To be honest I’m already tempted to bloody have an audio/video recording of preceding conversation, signed paperwork AND video recording of the actual act. How else could you prove consent occurred?

St. Michael says:

12:13pm | 10/01/12

Seeing as nobody’s bothered to Google the plan, that is to say, the Federal government’s own plan which seems to have been endorsed in all the States: here’s the link to it: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/default_new.aspx

Read and see for yourself.  I don’t think it goes quite as far as the 1 - 18 points suggest it does.

bec says:

12:40pm | 10/01/12

Steve_85 linked it upthread, St Michael, and I’ve been reading it. I feel that they should have employed a better ghost writer to jazz it up. I am on page 80 and I cannot remember having ever been as bored as I am now.

Much of the points raised are either conjecture or over-exaggeration.

Some of the provisions have been specifically and notably worded as being gender non-specific (and in a document that is very obviously gender specific, you know it’s a deliberate thing) and many of those provisions have the potential to be shitty or good to both genders. Getting rid of split trials for offenders of multiple assaults is a reasonably poor tack to make for anyone accused; likewise, I think that the “mistaken belief” rule on consent means that everyone needs to be clearer, and that will especially benefit males, being the gender for whom traditional values declare will consent by default.

St. Michael says:

12:43pm | 10/01/12

@ PsychoHyena: “To be honest I’m already tempted to bloody have an audio/video recording of preceding conversation, signed paperwork AND video recording of the actual act. How else could you prove consent occurred?”

Actually, that wouldn’t help if the woman declared halfway through that she was withdrawing consent (so to speak).  If you continued for one second after that you would be guilty of sexual assault.

No, really.

Google “Kevin Ibbs”, also known as the case of the “Thirty Second Rapist”, also known as one of the few cases of false rape accusations that were uncovered and the subject of charge and conviction by the judicial system.  Too bad Ibbs’ life had already been destroyed by the conviction and the prison term he served and he suicided a few years later.

In brief, Ibbs pleaded not guilty to rape but was convicted on the basis that he had continued to have sex with his partner for roughly 30 seconds after she asserted she had told him to stop.  (i.e. she had consented before, but decided she didn’t want to halfway through.  On her story.)  On a flat reading of the WA Criminal Code, that was correct: rape is sexual penetration without consent, and he did not have her consent.

He had prior form for indecent assault.  The judge gave him 6 months imprisonment for this crime.  He appealed the conviction; was turned down.  Always asserted his innocence.

It was a few years later that the best friend of the alleged ‘victim’ finally gave in to her conscience and came forward to tell the police that the ‘victim’ and she had concocted the story.  On this one at least the system promptly charged the ‘victim’ with attempting (successfully, I’d say) to pervert the course of justice and jailed the victim for longer than he got as a prison sentence.

St. Michael says:

01:03pm | 10/01/12

@ bec: “I feel that they should have employed a better ghost writer to jazz it up. I am on page 80 and I cannot remember having ever been as bored as I am now.”

Welcome to the wonderful world of government writing.

Matthew says:

01:15pm | 10/01/12

Colin of Sydney, any man is at risk.  Your wife may not be so kind in the situation when she falls out of love for you and wants 100% access to the kids and all your money.

A divorce changes people into greedy selfish people.

bec says:

01:34pm | 10/01/12

Believe it or not, St Michael, my uni job was to manage policy documents for a state government department. I have encountered writing more boring than you could ever dream of. But this succeeds in being both abhorrently vague AND needlessly specific, all at once. Very little actual legislative change is proposed, but my god, if they don’t fall all over themselves listing the parliamentary enquiries and studies perused.

I, for one, would read “The Plan” in far more detail if it were written in the style of a Nigerian scam email. If someone were to translate all that stuff into that format, I would hand them a shiny new internet.

LittleLisa says:

01:47pm | 10/01/12

See, this is the blessed Interwebz version of chinese whispers purple monkey dishwasher. I bet that ‘Men Are Not Abusers’ hasn’t even read the Plan itself, and has just copied and pasted those strange (and completely fabricated) points from some blog or another.

I’ve just read the whole 204 pages, and while the wording irked me to no end - I give absolutely no credence to the idea that DV is something experienced only by women - I could not find one, not ONE, of the points listed. Please click on the link provided by St Michael and give me page numbers as reference, if you find otherwise.

It boggles the mind that either ‘side’ has to resort to lies to support their cause, and boggles me even more that people out there are willing to blindly believe anything written online, no matter how inconceivable or ridiculous.

PsychoHyena says:

02:30pm | 10/01/12

@St Michael hence the videoing of the activity, in order to prove that either a) consent was maintained throughout or b) when consent has revoked the activity stopped.

I’ve also considered having a team of lawyers follow me around as witnesses, maybe even a couple of people off the street.

St. Michael says:

03:52pm | 10/01/12

@ PsychoHyena: you could possibly make a buck out of it if you choose to leave the camera running in the ACT and then pick your website well.

Nathan Explosion says:

07:46am | 10/01/12

Mrs Explosion earns way, way, way more than me. She always will. She also supported me financially for two years when I was unemployed - she paid for everything - rent, our food and bills, even my phone and still would go out of her way to buy me a video game or a movie that she knew I’d enjoy.

Yeah. What a gold digger, huh? I know she’s just using me for my piles of Monopoly money.

Ohcomeon says:

08:02am | 10/01/12

I knew a guy like you. All he did was chase gold digging floozies, and so he thought that all women were gold digging floozies. Funny that.

And from the tone of your post, Im pretty sure theres at least one man who sees himself as a ‘beautiful unique special princess’.

bec says:

08:15am | 10/01/12

Newsflash buddy: most of us don’t want to be on pedestals, or to be princesses. I don’t deserve the world because of my gender. I deserve all the rights that any law-abiding tax-paying citizen deserves. Plenty of us are happy with earning our own money, or want to find a stay at home husband.

And when we offer to pay to take someone out to dinner or express an interest in anything girly, we’re called man-haters and dykes. We can’t fucking win.

marley says:

08:25am | 10/01/12

I’d have thought you’d be all in favour of feminism, given your attitude.  After all, feminism was always primarily about women having equal opportunities for education and employment, so that they wouldn’t have to be dependent upon men to support them. 

I’ve got a lot of female friends, some in relationships, some not.  Not a one of them relies financially on a man, present or ex, for financial support.  The singles do just fine on their own; the marrieds contribute pretty much 50/50, either through working in the family business or working in a profession that brings in a good income. 

That you can’t find a woman who isn’t a gold digger says more about where and what you’re hunting, than it does about what’s available.

Tubesteak says:

10:17am | 10/01/12

Nathan Explosion
What’s your point? I bet she’s ugly. You also don’t understand stats or how to make a point. One example doesn’t prove much.

Ohcomeon
I don’t think I’m special and unique. I’ve said that often enough.

bec
Need a bex and a lie down, methinks.

marley
I bet all your friends would end up proving my point, especially the singles. None of them would date a guy who didn’t earn what they considered a good wage. They just phrase it as “he’s not motivated enough”. Far from being what I hunt (nothing less than an 8, btw), it’s just all that’s out there. It’s how women are conditioned to think and behave.

bec says:

10:40am | 10/01/12

Shaming tactic: accuse your criticisers of being crazy. I was merely pointing out how you employ goalpost shifting - a dishonest rhetorical technique - in order for your worldview to be seen as correct.

You’re just proving Karl Popper’s black swan fallacy - you claim that there are no black swans, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you lie and say that they are not black or are not a swan. You are twisting the world to justify your piss-poor attitude. No wonder no woman keeps you around long enough.

amy says:

10:44am | 10/01/12

you dont know me…dont tell me what kind of person I am

and you wonder why people dont want to listen? you dont get my sympathy by saying Im worth nothing because Im a woman

amy says:

10:54am | 10/01/12

and I forget to mention

WHY would I care what a guy makes? I dont like having to rely on other people…and I dont plan to rely financially on a man

then I get to do what I want with my own money…as would any sane reasonable person think

Nathan Explosion says:

11:06am | 10/01/12

@Tubesteak:

While Mrs Explosion has put on a few kilos, she’s beautiful inside and out.

She’s put on a few kilos, and I keep losing my hair, so if she can put up with being with a baldy in five years time, I can be happy with the fact that her boobs get bigger when she put on a few (I’m pretty sure I’m getting the better deal.)

Ohcomeon says:

11:48am | 10/01/12

Tubesteak says: 11:17am | 10/01/12

Ohcomeon
I don’t think I’m special and unique. I’ve said that often enough.

Except its patently obvious you do. You clearly feel that you dont get what you deserve and that the women you date only want you for your money. Then you mention never dating less than an 8, which puts you firmly in the tool category.

Youre shallow and you attract shallow women who focus on their appearance to the detriment of their personality, which is what you want.

Whats the problem again?

Ohcomeon says:

08:16am | 10/01/12

Commonly held myth. Theres no accepted scientific evidence that women sync their periods.

Theres a lot of evidence that you are a full blown goose though.

Tired says:

08:31am | 10/01/12

And its such a shame that one gave birth to you.

bec says:

08:32am | 10/01/12

Something tells me that out of women and rats, you’re only having sex with the latter…

Mark says:

08:27am | 11/01/12

It actually does make sense, Do you know anything about affirmative action or are you just another of those people that gloss over other people’s opinions until it’s time for you to give yours again?
I will clarify my points for you then
1) You only used the opinion of a person who works for a feminist organisation when writing about male activism.. Can you not see the conflict of interest in that one? No? Maybe you shouldn’t be writing for a media outlet if so.
2)You say that any Minister for Males would not be focused on White Male problems, but on other issues like Aboriginal Men and Gay’s.
-As I said, doing this is what creates the issue of discrimination in the first place. Acknowledging the difference’s between people and selectively fixing them, is discrimination.
Still, the thing the peeves me the most is that females want equality of outcome, not opportunity. Male Activists only want to be able to prove themselves from a level playing field. Femanists want the game fixed before half time. Good analogy, no?
Your link doesn’t work, as well. FYI

Matthew says:

08:34am | 10/01/12

“An equivalent would be a ethnicity based government sponsored organisation that portrayed one ethnic group as the perpetrators of violence and another ethnic group as always the victim.”

I’m pretty sure you just described the minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Babe in the Woods says:

12:39pm | 10/01/12

On that, if my partner had taken that stupid oath that was something like ‘to never hurt a woman’ or whatever drivel it was, I would have hit the roof.  That - to me - implies he would even think of doing it and needs to take some silly and meaningless oath to do so.  In the same way I would never hit him, he would not hit me.  It has nothing to do with not wanting to hurt each other physically, it is all about respect.  That really was the stand out White Ribbon Garbage for me.

Nathan Explosion says:

08:50am | 10/01/12

Then why don’t they highlight that they do these things?

As I said, *I* have never seen them. *I*. Me.

wakeuppls says:

09:20am | 10/01/12

*You* only choose to see what *you * want. That probably sums it up.

Jane2 says:

09:37am | 10/01/12

There is lots of medical evidence that in hetrosexual men circumcision does reduce AIDS transfer. It reduces transfer rates by 55-60%.

You would hope if WHO are managing the program they would provide the medication etc necessary to minimise surgical site infection. You can not compare a WHO run facility with a shed that doesnt practise asceptic technique but is the only medical facility in the area. They are very different.

Nathan Explosion says:

10:05am | 10/01/12

@wakeuppls

You want to be taken seriously? Then *make* me see. You men’s right activists jump up and down about breast cancer awareness, then do the same thing those chicks did! CREATE AWARENESS FOR YOUR CAUSE.

Hamish says:

11:07am | 10/01/12

Nathan, are you for real? You make an argument which is comprehensively debunked and then whinge that you should be informed by others rather than find anything out yourself. Ignorance is no excuse for making fallacious arguments. Seriously…

P John Irons says:

04:28pm | 10/01/12

Jane2: Lets swap the genders here. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that labioplastic surgery reduced the rates of HIV transfer from women to men. Not 100%, though, so men would still need to use condoms.

Now imagine that the WHO is backing a large-scale campaign of labioplastic surgery on 28 million women in Africa, touting it as a way to prevent them from passing HIV to men. Lets suppose that campaign included efforts to “educate” boys, brothers, fathers, uncles etc. on how unclean women with untrimmed labia are, so that they could place pressure on women to have themselves cut.

How would you feel about it then?

Pork says:

08:40am | 10/01/12

What’s Homeopathy? Is that like a Gay Male activists group?

Al says:

09:07am | 10/01/12

Sorry, I fail to see your point Vivian.
I am not a ‘typical lefty do gooder. Big on government, big on safe causes’ but definately am against Homeopathy as it has NEVER been proven to be more effective than a placebo.
I was taught this as part of a government registered and approved homeopathic remedies course at a ‘natural therapies’ college and have never seen anything valid (i.e. not a subjective opinion but actual evidence) to contradict this statement.
Biggest waste of time I ever did.

AdamC says:

10:15am | 10/01/12

I think I once described Tory’s writings as aggressively unoriginal and passionately conventional. This description came to mind as I read her latest effort today.

Tory would write an article opposing cancer of the oesophagus if there was a small group of people in favour of it that she could misrepresent and ridicule. She certainly doesn’t seem to have ever found any piece of conventional wisdom (meant in the original, perjorative sense) she didn’t like.

Having said that, you are aware that homeopathy is a crock, right?

Ohcomeon says:

11:54am | 10/01/12

Why is it that the MRA’s seem to also be convinced of any other number of conspiracies and woo? Seems to go with the territory of being the ‘poor white male under siege’ in our society.

St. Michael says:

12:21pm | 10/01/12

“What’s Homeopathy? Is that like a Gay Male activists group?”

Nah.  It’s psychopathy, only practiced in the home.

bec says:

12:43pm | 10/01/12

Careful, StM: if you water down your vitriol, it only makes it more potent.

St. Michael says:

01:00pm | 10/01/12

@ bec: Ah, I knew there was something wrong with that last barrel.  Now I have to go back and check if all the others had the same ratio.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:27pm | 10/01/12

“aggressively unoriginal and passionately conventional” loved this AdamC. Some balance would be nice, I for one am tired of the endless and often pointless attacks on whomsoever Tory see’s fit to ridicule on a given day.

I agree with Viv, but also not sure about the point in regards to homeopathy.

Nathan Explosion says:

09:04am | 10/01/12

Heh, I was just thinking about this song.

Fred says:

10:42am | 10/01/12

That was a song about how crap music was back then. With all those manufactured grunge bands. They sucked and paved the way for the techno/dance/rap saturation we have now.

Ohcomeon says:

12:01pm | 10/01/12

Its also very much a pisstake on white middle class boys with privileged upbringings moaning about how hard life is for them, when they have never experienced a day of hardship in their lives.

Fred, grunge had nothing to do with dance music. Its so hilariously wrong I dont even know where to start. Protip: grunge was an organic movement, like most underground styles. Just because you only heard of it when it had later become commercialised just shows your cluelessness.

Fred says:

01:12pm | 10/01/12

@Ohcomeon

What I meant was because these manufactured grunge bands sucked so bad (stuff like matchbox 20 and nickelback) and were so depressing it basically killed rock music and so people started to listen to dance/rap/techno and so on instead.

I, along with 99% of people under 50, know what grunge is moron. It started with bands like Dinosaur Jr and MudHoney and became mainstream with bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

Ohcomeon says:

02:19pm | 10/01/12

Fred youve just reinforced your cluelessness. This is getting so OT, but I cannot resist.

Matchbox 20, Nickelback are grunge? Good lord my aged father has a better grip of musical styles than you. And FYI Dinosaur Jr were an indie/alternative band from an entirely different scene (from the other side of the country) with an entirely different sound, and were never part of grunge.

You got Mudhoney but if you throw enough names around youre bound to get one right.

None of this has anything to do with dance/rap which evolved completely separately since the mid 70s, apart from a few terrible commercial crossovers. Just because it only appeared on your radar in the late 90s again shows your ignorance.

Back on Topic, Folds was referring specifically to nu-metal and proto-emo bands like Korn, who moan endlessly about the first world problems of white males. Kinda like this blog.

Fred says:

03:14pm | 10/01/12

@Ohcomeon

You’ve just reinforced that you’re a tosser.

Hermano says:

10:22am | 11/01/12

Fred, Ohcomeon may be a tosser, but he’s also totally correct in his statements.
Dinosaur Jr grunge?  Geez…

John says:

09:33am | 10/01/12

What about the guys paying child support? 33% of their gross income so that the ex wife can going shopping high hills? There are men who earn 25k to 30k and still have to pay such a huge amount with high rents, and his mortgages they get financial killed, while the ex wife lives a comfortable life off socialism and the ex husband’s pay check.

Pork says:

11:55am | 10/01/12

@John, sure I pay her money each fortnight - because I earn more.  If she earnt more she’d be giving me cash.
But my experience is that the child support money that I have to pay her is worked out in line with what we both earn, what our seperate responsibilities and how much we have the kids.  As I said, I got them 50% of the time so the money I give her isn’t much.
I’m annoyed that my new partners income is considered when deciding not to give me Family Tax Benefit B ($000’s a year) but neither of our new partners incomes are considered when figuring out child support.
Rather hypocritical. 
The guys I know taking a bath are the ones without much care responsibility for the kids.  That is the key. 
I pity those who have little care of their kids, unfairly and not through choice, and are getting smashed money wise as a result. 
I’m glad it isn’t me.

John says:

01:29pm | 10/01/12

Pork

It’s a risky business, I’ll make sure i keep my member in my pants or my life will financially ruined.

“I pity those who have little care of their kids,”

I don’t think that’s the majority of the case, i worked with guy once in the same situation. His wage was the same as mine, he told me what he had to pay i couldn’t believe it. financially he was ruined and destined for renting for the rest of his life. He clearly loved his daughter. I think most men if they complain about it, the kids get brought into it and guilt trips get thrown in.

I’ve lived on $15 dollars a week for food and i think child support is insane. The reality is the mother needs a place to live and food doesn’t really cost that much. The entire child support is really a kick in the nuts for the man. Child support payments need to be justified.  There seems be absolutely no consideration for the man in court systems or by the ex wife her self. It’s just really male financial rape and man bashing by the system.

The majority of women are driven by revenge, plus the courts are driven by feminists, what you have at the end of the day is a crucifixion. An injustice! a crime.

Pork says:

08:21am | 11/01/12

I know what you describe can and does happen John, it just isn’t my experience.

John says:

09:40am | 10/01/12

Men do not called themselves heterosexuals they call themselves men. The Heterosexual term was just created by homosexuals to justify their existence. I’m no believer in homosexuality, therefor don’t recognize the term “heterosexual”

mel says:

11:12am | 10/01/12

John, you are always full of ‘interesting’ comments! You say you are “no believer in homosexuality. Are you saying that you don’t believe that two men or two women can get together in a sexual way, or that no-one could love a member of the same sex? I think if you looked, you’d find a lot of that kind of thing happening out in the real world.

John says:

11:46am | 10/01/12

Mel

I think it’s just a cultural fade. Men don’t want be men and woman don’t want to be women. There seems to be an imbalance out there.

mel says:

12:22pm | 10/01/12

But that doesn’t explain your statement of “I’m no believer in homosexuality”. What are you not believing in? Or are you just trying to say “I don’t like homosexuality” without being blatant about it?

And you do realise that no matter who their partners may be, heterosexual and homosexual men are still men, heterosexual and homosexual women are still women?

Mark says:

09:36am | 10/01/12

I would like to see the media actually focus on our rights as human beings and as citizens of a supposedly free country, rather than reinforcing the status quo by dividing the opinions (really very lazily) along the gender line. Discrimination is only an issue when it is a conscious decision to exclude someone based on a personal characteristic that is not of their choosing. Bringing up the issue’s associated with discrimination only brings emotion into the matter, and we will never stop discrimination while we are controlled by emotion, people are too brainwashed and numb to suffering.

I hate pies says:

10:26am | 10/01/12

I’d like to see the replacement of the word “rights” with the word “responsibilities”. We’d have a far different country then.

Mark says:

11:30am | 10/01/12

I like that alot IHP

Big Ben says:

10:10am | 12/01/12

How can you hate pie’s, something wrong with you !!

Jem says:

11:36am | 10/01/12

Exactly.  The extremists on both sides aren’t actually trying to achieve their stated goals of equality, they are divisive and destructive.

As a woman I find some of the ‘feminist’ outrage over some things completely lacking in perspective.  The mens’ extremist groups do themselves no favours at winning support because of their nasty blanket generalisations and denial of history.

The focus needs to be shifted to things that affect people, not gender.  Violence affects people - it may affect different sections of society in different ways but that doesn’t render one less important than the other.  Mental health issues affect people, they are expressed in different ways.  Stating that no woman who attempts suicide really means it (which one commentator on the Punch has previously said) is not the appropriate approach.  You cannot dismiss an entire section of the population in such a callous manner.

Mens health issues should be given the same prominence as womens health issues.  Cancer research should be more balanced, and so forth.

However, either side beating a drum and claiming that they are the only ones suffering ever is wasting every sensible person’s time.  To deny the issues of the other gender to promote your own issues is reprehensible.  Denying the suffering of people because they aren’t your gender is inhumane.

Richard A says:

05:21pm | 10/01/12

Goodness!  Almost the first sensible comment so far!  Congratulations.

subotic says:

09:34am | 10/01/12

And the waves echoed the laughter in her words “Yo, later dude”.

~Scatterbrain

St. Michael says:

12:07pm | 10/01/12

Don’t.  Call.  Me.  Dude. *guitar riff*

subotic says:

01:33pm | 11/01/12

Don’t do it, don’t call me dude, dude….

wakeuppls says:

09:17am | 10/01/12

Except contested custody is hugely in favour of the mother.

There’s your view and then there is reality.

AdamC says:

10:26am | 10/01/12

Andrew,in my limited experience, men rights types seem to have a word for just about everything. As such, I wonder if they have a term for the “only stupid/unsiccessful/weak/insert derogatory, prejudicial assumption men can be victimised by the prevailing social order” which you are displaying here?

And, if they do, I wonder what it is?

Markus says:

10:29am | 10/01/12

On the contrary, no-fault divorce ensures that it only takes one person to make a marriage fail.

amy says:

10:12am | 10/01/12

what?

........do you think all women think that?

ByStealth says:

06:14pm | 10/01/12

He’s referring to paradigms and people’s perspectives. Calling for empathy first rather than sympathy. There’s nothing wrong with trying to understand why the other side feels the way they do. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. He’s got a good perspective on this.

If I’m upset about something and people go ‘I’m not upset about that so you have no reason to be upset.’ I will become resentful and be disincined to try to empathise myself.

For me personally I did empathise with many women’s issues in my youth, but not seeing any empathy in reverse really put me off.

Many of these issues boil down to the fact that there are limited resources in our society to redress inequalities. If the govt funds more research into prostate cancer there will be less money to fund research into breast cancer.

With legislation, making it easier for women to claim abuse with no supporting evidence without consequences for false accusations in child custody cases benefits women at the direct expense of men. Some women WILL take advantage of the laws to gain more custody, child support and inflict emotional harm on their ex partners.

Conversely, there is the fear that penalising women for false claims will make women with legitimate claims afraid to come forward. In this area its a zero-sum game. Change it one way or another and someone will lose out.

Dieter Moeckel says:

09:43am | 10/01/12

Good question!
Does equality mean congruence? Of course not men and women can be equal but thank God they are not congruent. I relish and delight in the incongruence.

stevem says:

11:01am | 10/01/12

The other question is whether anybody really wants equality. Should the goal be equivalency?

Sarahh says:

11:36am | 10/01/12

Look I do feel for you, but you and countless mates and acquaintances have been to family court?  Do you not see anything wrong here?

Far out, what have you and all these mates just found a nest of horrible women?  Did none of you talk about your relationship or know your partner at all?  This doesn’t come out of the blue.

Arthur says:

12:30pm | 10/01/12

Ah yeah it does. I was with my ex for 26 years. She had an affair and took off. I knew nothing was wrong until about a week before the truth came out. She then came back got me on an AVO for doing literally nothing. In fact she punched me because I resisted her attempts to take the kids away with her new man. There are horrible woman out there. Yes I know there are horrible men too, but I can assure you knowing the intimate details of these mates relationship break downs, the men were not in the wrong. ALL ended with less assets and limited access to the kids. The family law system is an abhorrent disgrace. You can pretend it’s otherwise if that helps you sleep at night.

Arthur says:

12:35pm | 10/01/12

“countless mates and acquaintances have been to family court?  Do you not see anything wrong here?”

You seem to imply Sarahh that this situation is unusual. In family separation, the female almost always gets the most assets and the most care of the kids. Are you telling me this is news to you?

I’m from middle to upper class Australia, and in my world this is my absolute overwhelming experience. If it’s not yours I suggest reading a bit more broadly and asking the odd guy you probably don’t know and ask what happened in the separation process.

Sarahh says:

01:04pm | 10/01/12

I’m not pretending anything and I haven’t said anything about it being a fair system.  Sounds like you got a raw deal, but one would think that being with someone for 26 years would mean you knew them quite well.  No excuse for what this woman did to you, but the signs were there.  A relationship doesn’t break down for no reason.

Perhaps you are mixing in the wrong circles if you know so many people in the same situation.  Clearly i’m lucky, because I don’t.

Sarahh says:

02:26pm | 10/01/12

In terms of this comment “countless mates and acquaintances have been to family court?  Do you not see anything wrong here?” I wasn’t referring to who gets what, I was simply making a point about what kind of society is it where “countless” people you know have had to go to family court?

Arthur says:

03:21pm | 10/01/12

Hang on Sarahh. You tricked me there. I’m saying men are disadvantaged in court. That has nothing to do with how the relationship broke down.

Stick to the issue.

Sarahh says:

04:14pm | 10/01/12

I didn’t trick you, you just didn’t read what I wrote the first time.  No one party is without blame and if you already knew about the great injustice towards men in the court system (I’m not being sarcastic, I know this is the case) then why couldn’t you use it to your advantage?  It’s all fine to be angry about it, but being angry doesn’t change anything.  You need to be smart about it.  Get the right lawyer, work the system.  Your friend had money?  Money can get you pretty far in this country if you know how to use it.

Arthur says:

04:31pm | 10/01/12

Great points Sarahh. It’s unbelievably unfair though that money talks. My court case cost me over 100k so I could see my kids. Is that right?

There should and must be a more equitable system. It’s killing men; literally.

P John Irons says:

04:40pm | 10/01/12

Um, Sarahh? So you deflect a complaint about an unfair system by saying that the victims should have spent more money to get better lawyers to game that system to their advantage?

With genders reversed, plenty of people would call that victim blaming.

Sarahh says:

05:03pm | 10/01/12

No, P John Irons, I’m not blaming the victim here.  The system clearly needs an overhaul, but before that happens you may as well do what you can to try and help yourself since you already know what it can be like.  You already know the outcomes can be cruel for men in family court, why take any risks?

Doh says:

10:23am | 10/01/12

I also noticed you have a tag for men’s rights extremists.

Does the punch have a women’s rights extremists tag?

John Smythe says:

11:32am | 10/01/12

@Shane
Ms Shepherds willingness to take the bait here and respond as if these MRE’s have legitimate arguments to make just shows that she is no better than them.

Most of her stories could be described as extremist viewpoints as well and out of all the writers that The Punch publishes, hers are usually the most useless, lacking in wit, and most of the time, even lack a valid point.
_______________________

Agree totally.

amy says:

10:21am | 10/01/12

and all men are just perverts who secretly hate women..duh

see what you did there? yeah I can do it too

Loxy says:

12:10pm | 10/01/12

Since we are making blanket statements based on nothing more than opinions and not facts, then I’ll jump on the bandwagon and say that men can’t spell.

PS – horrible is NOT spelt hourable!

Ohcomeon says:

12:14pm | 10/01/12

John, you are the best. Please never stop posting!

Yep, all Marxists. They did some nasty work subjugating women in the middle ages. And how did Marxists find time to do all that foot binding in China centuries ago?

You realise Jesus was pretty close to being a full blown Marxist right?

John says:

12:51pm | 10/01/12

Ohcomeon

The marxist scum prosecuted Christians in Russia, the communism excrement in Spain took their rifles and shot at Jesus’s statues. Plus the marxists slaughtered 42 million people, Jesus slaughtered zero people. Did you know in French Revolution some very similar to communist revolution, they had 6000 priests killed?

JT says:

01:29pm | 10/01/12

I have absolute respect for men, some get a bad deal as do some women. I am nice to everyone but then I don’t work in a high powered environment, I am happy being in a job that pays me enough to live and to travel places, I don’t have ambition to be a corporate high flyer or whatever, I don’t cheat, I don’t use emotional blackmail, I don’t with hold (should that be one word?) sex as punishment and yet I am single because I don’t look like Megan Gale, go figure, not bug ugly, I am not the kind of girl that guys see across a crowded room that inspires poems and I am ok with that, I don’t try to be someone I am not. Maybe I am just looking in the wrong places but all I want is a man that I find attractive (coz really without the attraction what do you have?) to spend my time with and have a few kids yet all I seem to get are guys that just want to sleep with me but not date me, maybe I am going about it wrong

Trevor says:

03:57pm | 10/01/12

I can spell, I just cant type..PMSL

PsychoHyena says:

10:46am | 10/01/12

You know I’ve never understood all this… Find me the actual laws that permitted all this. Not instances of corruption, but the actual laws that support your claims.

I think you will find that there were no laws that supported any of this, I also find it interesting that you overlook the trading of males as property between men and women. You also overlook the laws regarding property ownership where a woman could and very often did own property (these were back in at least Victorian times).

The problem that we have now Steph is that when men say “Hey we want some funding for our health issues, and to address domestic violence against men” there are a growing number of women who say “Suck it up, we had to deal with it for thousands of years, so stop your whining”.

Honestly throughout my family’s history I have seen nothing but respect for women, my Pop (who apparently is from the “worst” period) actually has three simple rules:

Never raise a hand to a woman, no matter the cause.
Always offer your assistance to a woman.
If you don’t do either of the above you’ll be eating tripe for a week.

Out of common courtesy I open/hold open doors for men AND women, and yet it is the women that accuse me of being sexist for assuming they can’t open/hold a door.

I’ll offer my seat to the elderly or to pregnant women, it is always the pregnant women who give me the filthy looks.

But of course obviously I’m just one of those men who think ALL women hate men, when really women just analyse everything to much. Chivalry is dead because the feminist movement killed it.

Markus says:

11:12am | 10/01/12

Why do some women think that when a man accuses modern feminists of doing every single thing that Tory has just listed in this article against MREs, or even just requests that they be able to have some legal recourse against false allegations of DV or sexual assault, that they must hate women?

amy says:

11:44am | 10/01/12

@PsychoHyena

unfortunatly I doesnt come out sounding like

““Hey we want some funding for our health issues,”

more like “the EVIL feminazis have been opressing us! all women are potentail gold diggers out to steal a mans soul! I HATE WOMEN”

not that there ant mens issues..I just wish people could take the middle veiw on things

St. Michael says:

11:59am | 10/01/12

“I’ll offer my seat to the elderly or to pregnant women, it is always the pregnant women who give me the filthy looks.”

Did you find out whether they were pregnant first?
That might well explain it.

ABC says:

12:06pm | 10/01/12

See Steph.  I think that is one of the key things….Just because someone else suffered in the past you cannot use that past to justify the present. It is a completely self defeating argument.  You are actually admitting that there is a problem regarding discrimination against men, but you say, “Well women suffered in the past so now it’s your turn”. You do not create equality by evening up the scales by perpetuating discrimination.  Yes there was suffering in the past.  But I am a 38 year old woman, and I can say unequivocably that I have not suffered at all - and yes that may be due to hard fought battles for equality in the past - however, I don’t use this past to justify the wilful disregard of issues that are leading to the increasing disenfranchisement of men - nor do I think it helpful to tell modern first world men - who were in no way responsible for the injustices of the past that it is now their turn.  How is that helping?  However, you should be able to admit, that the fact that a lot of men feel very disenfranchised (and I am not talking about the extremist here - but the normal well adjusted Joe Blows) is indicative of the existence of a problem regarding the relevancy of dealing with male issues..  However, the fact that there is little research or promotion of why this disenfranchisment is occuring can perpetuate this disenfranchisment further.

There are signficant portions of women suffering at the moment (Afghanistan, Africa etc), This is where the true violence against women - econimic, religious etc actually now sits.  However, women in first world countries have it astronomically better than did those that suffered in first world countries in the past.  Turn your thoughts to those women who even today are suffering badly.  Western women have it good.

Al says:

10:23am | 10/01/12

So you are saying you support sexual discrimination and restricting fathers acess to their children on the basis of their sex only?
There are many fathers who do bother spending time with their kids other than taking them to the movies and calling it ‘bonding time’, but who still don’t meet your other criteria for the fact they are male.
You are either rather anti-equality or are a troll.

wakeuppls says:

10:34am | 10/01/12

Because all men only take kids to the movies to bond with them.

Do you know how to change car oil? Or an air filter? If so which gender taught you?

That is the kind of bonding a father has with his child. Real world skills past emotionalism.

I hate pies says:

10:38am | 10/01/12

Only when women have to hear whinging by women about how hard it is to be a woman will we have true equality.

James Shaw says:

10:43am | 10/01/12

Please explain what role having a uterus and lactating plays in being a good parent? By your logic a mother who is completely neglectful of her child is still apparently a good parent simply because she has a uterus. Right?

It is sad that someone like you has a vote in society. Very sad.

PsychoHyena says:

10:51am | 10/01/12

Seriously I was going to bite back just as viciously as yourself, and then I thought “This person just blew Tory’s whole argument out of the water”.

<sarcasm>You’re right though, I mean all those working mothers who leave their husbands at home to look after the kids, should stop working if the family unit breaks down, because they will need to look after the kids. </sarcasm>

Shane says:

11:09am | 10/01/12

“Only when there is ‘equality’ in parenting and men have uteruses, can lactate and can bother spending time with their kids other than taking them to the movies and calling it ‘bonding time’ then men should have equal rights to their children.”

Oh my, you went from outright crazy to absolutely creepy in one long, disjointed poorly formed sentence. Nice work troll.

Whatareyougoingtosaytothat says:

11:48am | 10/01/12

@wakeuppls - My father taught me none of those because they are not for girls to know and I am not interested in learning

Do you really think the Courts are that stupid and will give custody to a father who works more hours than the mother, has greater priorities than the children such as his new trophy 20 year old bimbo girlfriend and took their dogs to the Vet to be euthanised just because he couldn’t be bothered caring for them anymore?

RyaN says:

11:49am | 10/01/12

@Whatareyougoingtosaytothat: Go out and mow the lawn, weed the garden, change the oil in the car, come back inside and help with the chores while being berated for not doing anything around the house (even though she has been sitting on facebook the whole time you have been outside working). Then we can talk about equal rights!

Lola says:

11:53am | 10/01/12

@Wakeupppls… LOL! Real world skills! OMG the only skills I was taught by my father was a) how to be a drunk and avoid all family responsibilities by never coming home and drinking every night of the week and b) making sure I turned out knowing how to cook and clean so someone will marry me one day

Yeah, real world skills and not emotionalism. Funny that. My mum did all the men’s jobs around the house even changing the light bulbs because Dad is ridiculously so hopeless at things he even tried to duct tape a heavy concrete water feature to a brick wall and set his manual arts teacher on fire at school he was so bad he was sent to do home economics with the girls instead.

If you think we are bad at gender stereotyping how about yourselves! Not all men have ‘real world’ skills!

St. Michael says:

12:30pm | 10/01/12

“Do you really think the Courts are that stupid and will give custody to a father who works more hours than the mother, has greater priorities than the children such as his new trophy 20 year old bimbo girlfriend and took their dogs to the Vet to be euthanised just because he couldn’t be bothered caring for them anymore?”

Funny, because if you reverse the genders in your example that’s exactly what Family Courts often do.

wakeuppls says:

01:00pm | 10/01/12

“If you think we are bad at gender stereotyping how about yourselves! Not all men have ‘real world’ skills! “

That is probably because half of boys are now raised in single mother households. Personal experiences aside, if anyone is going to teach you basic mechanical skills, it will be a man.

Go down to the local mechanic, look at all the women there, and report your findings.

bec says:

01:36pm | 10/01/12

**Do you know how to change car oil? Or an air filter? If so which gender taught you?**

Does Youtube have a gender? Because I did all that, plus fixing my mower, thanks to the wonder of random repair vids.

Voiding warranties, like a boss.

Kika says:

02:34pm | 10/01/12

@Wakeupppls - Funny that. My dad is useless at doing anything around the home and he was raised by a mum and a dad back in the 50’s.

@RyaN - My mum does all of that.  I do all of them too. Do you want to keep gender stereotyping. Who taught me my mechanical skills? My mum actually. Plus I can learn things as I go along like what Bec said. It’s not hard.

Yeah like all the men down at the nail salon…. funny isn’t it.

Wynston Cruso says:

03:32pm | 10/01/12

Because nail salons offer so much to society compared to mechanics workshops.

Just face it girls, our dads would beat your dads.

Markus says:

01:39pm | 10/01/12

The guys don’t assume any of those things. What they do claim is that the vast majority of men who have and never will abuse their partners in any way should not have the onus of proof placed on them to prove they have not/will not.
It’s called ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and it is the fundamental basis of all law in our society.

Except family law.

Seth Brundle says:

10:58am | 10/01/12

Well there you go.  All you fathers who have lost access to your children, take solace in the knowledge that your loss is helping to balance the scales.

AdamC says:

11:01am | 10/01/12

“To achieve equality, affirmative action has to be employed in order to force a change in the underlying paradigm ... “

Tell that to Malaysia. The reality of affirmative action is that it creates an alternative path to success for talented members of the privileged group. In Malaysia, thanks to affirmative action, Malays dominate the civil service and universities and a well connected clique of Malays share around cushy directorships, because there are ‘quotas’ for Malay directors.

Hey, does any of this sound familiar? It should, because it appears to be the preferred social model of Australian feminists.

If you are interested, no, the decades of affirmative action and Malay privilege hasn’t addressed the situation that was used to justify the pro-Malay policies in the first place: the under-representation of Malays in business and the professions. Of course, by creating alternative paths to success, affirmative action policies, if anything, encourage their beneficiaries not to succeed in the more competitive level playing field. Perversely, this state of affairs continues to provide justification for the ‘need’ for affirmative action.

Al says:

11:19am | 10/01/12

Having read all this i come to one conclusion:
You believe that to remove discrimination it is required to discriminate and you fail to realise the hypocricy in such a stance.
Your ‘scales’ analogy is rather poor as well, you don’t have to remove from one side to even it out, just bring the other side up to equal.
I personaly like the idea of equal treatment of men a women, but this is not what is proposed by ANY side. Feminists want equal treatment and then some more because they are women. Masculinists (is that right? possibly Chovinists is better?) what more at the cost to women. Most just want equal treatment and are neither Feminists or Maculinists (i.e. don’t want either sex treated better or worse on the sole basis of their sex).

Tim says:

11:30am | 10/01/12

So KH,
you support current discrimination against males because females used to be discriminated against?
Fantastic logic.

MarkS says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

I am single white & male. Somehow this makes me powerful & privileged, I guess that compared to most people in the world, I am, because I am Australian. But to say I was privileged because I was male & white given my family history is a sick joke. had a bad childhood did you, bet you mine was worse.

But for you it is ok if I am pushed to the ground & kicked, because somebody else wants my place. A place I earned though hard work despite my underprivileged background & childhood history of domestic abuse & poverty. Unlike my drug addict alcoholic criminal siblings I pay my way & theirs as well. Yes I am proud of it , I have an entitlement to my pride, I earned it.

This is somehow ok because somebody else treated them badly. And it will all work out once all the class of people (not the actual people per say, most of whom are long gone) who were once treated badly get to have their chance to kick other people.

Two wrongs do not make a right; you cannot undo discrimination with discrimination. To attempt to justify injustice with saying that the world is unfair is to make a mock of the very concept of justice. Injustice will only beget more injustice.

25 years ago when I was young & silly, I once stood up for the people at my workplace that were being abused by an appalling manager, was demoted for my efforts. The federal human rights people told me in no uncertain terms that because I was white, male & hetro, he could do what he liked to me. If I had been female, or non-white or gay I could have alleged discrimination, but as it was not only did I have no leg to stand on but because the manager was gay I had better back off or else. Learnt my lesson, I am not anybody else’s keeper because they are not mine.

“For every man who feels ‘screwed’ by the family court, there is another who has shirked their responsibilities, and have had little or nothing to do with their children”

Assuming that you are correct, the fact that some men shirk their responsibilities is no excuse to “screw” the ones that do not.

Kind of reminds me of being caned by the school principal for something I did not do, to my protests of innocence he replied “Well somebody did & I must have done something wrong sometime”.

In any event all your injustice does is harm the other victims of the powerful & privileged who still rule the roost & always have. They are immune to what you do because you still give them power. The Apex fallacy at work again.

MarkS says:

11:38am | 10/01/12

Don’t YOU tell ME that what I should tell YOU.

When the mainstream media, the courts & the laws all assume these things about YOU. Then maybe I will listen to YOUR whinge.

Then again maybe I will not, maybe I will just make the most of it….

St. Michael says:

11:29am | 10/01/12

Margaret Thatcher?

Albeit she lied about other matters, not a carbon tax.

Farken says:

11:33am | 10/01/12

just have to ask how dumb are you 1 is this the first time some one has lied to you ? 2 you should know that male/female politicians lie 3 how is your short team memoir .

MarkS says:

01:02pm | 10/01/12

Margaret Thatcher = Poll Tax

St. Michael says:

01:12pm | 10/01/12

I’d let ‘er tax my pole *slurp*

PsychoHyena says:

12:00pm | 10/01/12

So Mikey what are you actually saying? That men haven’t been abused? That men aren’t biased against in family court? False rape claims don’t happen?

What does dating have to do with anything here? Are you therefore saying that all the claims made by the first Feminist movement were all women that couldn’t see men as normal people? That they saw them as something that needed to be conquered?

St. Michael says:

12:01pm | 10/01/12

Oh, far from it, Mikey.  I’ve seen women at their absolute worst, and from tht body of behaviour I conclude they really are just as normal and just as fallible as men.

Mikey says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

PsychoHyena, from the looks of your post, I’m saying whatever you think I’m saying.

I hate pies...and home made words says:

05:56pm | 10/01/12

feminazi is the greatest hybrid word ever to be made up….far better than chillax

John Findlay says:

12:56pm | 10/01/12

Proof that steroids are bad !

MarkS says:

01:00pm | 10/01/12

@Zeta
Love it. All too true, but naughty & not at all PC

Lola says:

02:42pm | 10/01/12

Hang on, what’s wrong with wearing dress trousers to work? It’s practical, they look smart, keep you warm in blaring A/C and keep you looking demure and modest.

Seth Brundle says:

11:57am | 11/01/12

I hate to say it, but I think Zeta is right.  I also hate to say that reading all of that makes me want to commit suicide.

RyaN says:

12:03pm | 10/01/12

@Mitch: Add one kid in that mix and your prenup isn’t worth the paper its written on. You have been warned!

Mitch says:

12:30pm | 10/01/12

Wrong.

Kids the result of a knock-up outside of a relationship (i.e. at least 6 weeks living under one roof) are just a matter settled by child support (assuming you are a heartless bastard with no interest in them).

So strictly speaking, you are only up for a % of income. Won’t touch your assets if you don’t live with knocked-up girl or have an agreement. Not a bad price for procreation when you think about it. Plus the chick does all the work.

Suck it gold diggers. Oh… so this is why I get no action <facepalm>.

SO IF THERE IS A WARNING TO BE HAD… 6 WEEKS LIVING WITH THEM GUYS. AFTER THAT HAND OVER YOUR WEALTH AND KEYS, LEST YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL AGREEMENT.

RyaN says:

03:29pm | 10/01/12

@Mitch: Well if you are living together at the time and you have a child, then the family court may uphold your prenup as far as assets and your ex are concerned but there is no prenup as far as the child is concerned.
So they start..
- The child needs a house to live in. The mother obviously has custody due to the misandry of the family court system so the mother can stay there to look after the child.
- The child needs a car for transport
- The child needs a TV
- The child needs a couch
- The child needs a bed
- The child needs money
- etc.. etc.. etc..

You are lucky if you will walk away with your shirt on your back as the child might need it.

Mitch says:

09:47pm | 10/01/12

No Ryan doesn’t make sense. Lets say a bloke has a one night stand and knocks up some bird. She was never living with him. Just cause she has a kid doesn’t make it a relationship. Child support and thats it. I mean surely…

If you are indeed right my friend, well that’s the end of relationships as far as wealthy guys are concerned in this country. So much for Mr. Perfect… hookers anyone? Far FAR less risky. I hear Stilettos is pretty good. Might check em out (seriously its coming to that - good on you law makers for destroying aussie families).

RyaN says:

12:05pm | 10/01/12

@Hamish: Almost all?

AdamC says:

12:51pm | 10/01/12

RyaN, indeed. I seem to recall she wrote an article about what kind of pubs she liked or something once?

Hamish says:

02:01pm | 10/01/12

Yeah I think she likes pubs which don’t have many white males in them…would be a bit hard to find I imagine.

RyaN says:

04:13pm | 10/01/12

Hahaha @ AdamC, sorry I must’ve missed that one!

RyaN says:

12:08pm | 10/01/12

The article is appalling. The mere fact that she blasts on about people not giving her a seat on the train yet fails to mention that the people are both men and women, instead lays the blame squarely at the feet of men. There is misandry in action right there. Why didn’t any of the women stand up and give her a seat?

Martin says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

Gotta love that “She chose to be pregnant” comment. Nice one. Plainly a knuckle-dragging moron.

amy says:

11:57am | 10/01/12

exactally
its not like I APORVE of lower standard or “posative discrimination”

bec says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

I blame the patriarchy for you using more than your gender’s quota of capital letters.

Al says:

12:14pm | 10/01/12

Ah, yet another ‘it’s OK to discriminate against white hetro males as historicaly they discrimnated against us (the group not the individual).
That is called revenge, not equal rights.

St. Micael says:

12:16pm | 10/01/12

“When they have no property rights , are treated as property themselves and reviled because of their sexual preferences for the same length of time”

Thank you for demonstrating that some in the feminist movement are more interested in revenge than equality.

Richard says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

Mel says “.A lot more work is needed…. if We are to redress thousands of years of oppression, slavery and intolerance at the hands of said Hetero White Males”.

But Mel, thousands of years ago it was the Black/Asian/Arab Males of the Egyptian/Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian Empires who were doing most of the oppressing and enslaving. Even when Alexander the Great came along and swept these great Empires aside and enslaved them, he may well have been white, but he was probably homosexual, so again, your bigotry racism and prejudice is misplaced. And lets not forget Queen Cleopatra of Egypt, she had slaves and eunuch’s herself.

Slavery and oppression are not problems in today’s world, and modern men should IN NO WAY be required to suffer injustice so that your own affected sense of historical aggrievement may be assuaged.

RyaN says:

12:17pm | 10/01/12

Cool story bro!

I used to be a homophobic racist sexist pig like you, then I took an arrow to the knee!

Bubs says:

12:33pm | 10/01/12

Well, maybe when the Chinese decide to stop paying for coal and park their carriers off each of our capital cities, we’ll leave it up to women and gays to get some while white males move to Antarctica.

Ohcomeon says:

12:49pm | 10/01/12

Richard says:
Slavery and oppression are not problems in today’s world.

You forgot to add “for the or so of global citizens in the white middle class”

When MRAs are this ignorant about the world in general, no wonder they can conceive a dialogue in which they become the victim.

Hamish says:

12:50pm | 10/01/12

Mel obviously paid more attention in her gender studies subjects than her history ones.

Richard says:

01:26pm | 10/01/12

Ohcomeon says: “You forgot to add “for the or so of global citizens in the white middle class”

When MRAs are this ignorant about the world in general, no wonder they can conceive a dialogue in which they become the victim.”

I am not ignorant about the world in general at all, in fact quite the opposite. What an uncalled-for ad hominem! Where is your evidence that slavery is a major problem in the modern world? I reassert my contention that slaver is not a major problem in the modern world.

As for oppression, yes, there is still political oppression in the world, which is why I oppose socialism and despotism, there is still oppression of women in Islamic countries, which is why I oppose Islam. But how is any of this the fault of “White Hetero Men”?

wearestardust says:

03:03pm | 10/01/12

I broadly agree with the thrust of your comment, Mel, but I think the point of Tory’s article is that, reasonable or not, people are caring what whiny hetero white males feel.  And the problem: how to counter the obsfucations, misdirections, and sometimes flat-out lies.

St. Michael says:

12:05pm | 10/01/12

I agree with most of this.  On the other hand, were my own marriage to break down I’d happily go out and try again, mostly because most things in life require practice.  But most men give more time to thinking rationally and unemotionally about the purchase of their next car than they do selecting a partner to go through life with, and it needs to change.  Not that society would happily countenance a book like “How to choose a wife” in this day and age, though it does countenance books like “How to choose a husband”.

Gomez12 says:

03:17pm | 12/01/12

@Happy Cynic

Correction: A successful Marriage requires 2 responsible parties. A Marriage breakdown requires only one.

And how is your advice any help, really?

I loved my partner when we started dating, and she loved me.
I loved my partner when we moved in together, and she loved me.
I loved my partner while I supported her through her University degree, and she loved me.
I loved my partner when we bought a house, and she loved me.
I loved my partner the day after I got out of hospital (2 days - not like I was bedridden for months or anything), but she didn’t love me anymore. In fact, she was quite in love with the guy from work she’d been banging on the side while “working late”.

She happily conceded that I’d done nothing “wrong”, that I’d been a great guy and always treated her as best I was able and that I was a very loving and supportive partner - she just didn’t love me anymore.

And although we were of a similar age (I was 2 years older) I didn’t go to Uni for various reasons and had worked since I left school. I’d saved the deposit for the house, I’d supported her through the last few years of Uni and was the higher earner by a large margin - she still walked away with half the assets - $50k in cash and a current model WRX. I managed to keep the house (and mortgage) after paying her out - but it crippled me for the next 4 years financially and probably more emotionally. I don’t date anymore.

This was the best result I could achieve according to my lawyer - who also mentioned I was lucky that there were no children as the house would have become hers too, but instead of being paid out for my share of it - I’d instead have to pay her.

So enjoy your smug sense of security while you can - all it takes is for her to turn to you one morning out of the blue and say “I don’t know why, but I just don’t love you anymore” and it’s gone. Done. Over.

Right about that point I (somewhat vindictively) hope you remember your post and never utter a word of complaint after you get screwed out of everything you’ve worked towards for years through no fault of your own. I’m sure if she walked away with your kids, your assets and a crippling share of your future income you’ll revel in the “personal responsibility” you hold for another persons decision.

Sorry to have a crack at you - but I think you were WAY off on how this goes down and would be stunned if it happened to you how little it matters how much you love/loved her, how great a husband/father you were or how much you’d relatively put into the relationship at the end of the day.

RyaN says:

12:28pm | 10/01/12

Way to advertise your site, I can’t imagine that anyone other than yourself actually visits it.

RyaN says:

12:23pm | 10/01/12

Right I am off to Maccas to get me a set of boobies.

Thats why this dude is so happy right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs1DsNBvEoc

Wynston Cruso says:

02:30pm | 10/01/12

For men to be happy they need breast implants!? Challenge accepted, I cannot see a downside to this.

RyaN says:

12:36pm | 10/01/12

Not sure I agree with this, most are just not that smart, vagazzled even!

bec says:

12:57pm | 10/01/12

Agreed. Something something, “finding one’s own level”.

Kika says:

04:37pm | 10/01/12

Oh absolutely! If you can find so much in common with each other in the first place to even think about getting married… like attracts like.