Might I suggest that the frequency of intercourse in egalitarian households might have more to do with fatigue than who does what chores. When both partners work outside the home and share core chores, there isn't a lot of time or energy for sex and romance!

Karen,

Agree, doing the dishes and sharing tasks enables partners to share load and help both partners make time for the important "relationship" time which includes sex.

probably single most important step for cementing the relationship is to actually listen to each other and establish a connection (rapport). Without this ability to communicate then it is very difficult to go any further ...

once we learn to talk to each other then learning each other's values followed by a negotiated alignment of values will then further increase understanding of each other.. This then goes and removes the "Mind noise" that often distracts us from being present with each other and fully enjoying the moment.

...Note from Joe's partner here: ahem... Everything above is very true, but there is more. No amount of washing dishes can compensate for making woman felt truly wanted and loved and that comes from the heart of a man. If the 'crap of life' is allowed to muddy this underlying and simple desire for each other than everything else becomes a mechanistic 'band aid' to help relationship go along (limping may I add)... been there done that.

.. back to me .. enough of the listening .. think you just got a glimpse of values at this end..

i find the line "Yes dear that is so interesting, please tell me more" a life saver at time :)

good luck

Wow, that adds up to 120%, or is there overlap?

No one should attempt to follow Dale's comments Rob... look where they lead ...always back to when women were women, wore frocks and knew how to appreciate a bloke. And bring him stuff. Like beers. And dinner.

... and then retire quietly to the lounge to read the CWA cookbook to plan out the next day's domesticity and be available for her husband when he calls for her.

Oh sorry.

600 couples were interviewed in Australia.

30% of households were patriarchal, 30% were matriarchal, and 40% were run democratically.

Obviously that type of data had to be taken from the university site that once displayed it.

My general rule of thumb regards women and sex is that as the woman gets fatter and fatter, she gets less sex. (everyone agrees)

And, as the woman does less activity, she gets fatter and fatter. (everyone agrees)

So, if the husband does her work, she gets less activity and gets fatter and fatter, and then she gets less sex.

That would be the most plausible explanation for the data in your article

I find myself strangely moved by this uncharacteristic display of sensitivity, Dale.

Thanks for sharing.

Stop it Peter.... you're killing me!

Of course one always has to be sensitive regards women’s issues, or they might be mercilessly attacked and flayed, as the hero of evolutionary biology Richard Dawkins found out.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

And of course sensitivity would be required when explaining to Naomi Wolf a certain issue regards body fat.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/10/1347280264234/Naomi-Wolf-at-home-in-New-010.jpg

Through the lips and straight to the hips, and more exercise is now required for you Naomi.

Yes I heard that was the real reason Obama asked Hilary to walk away into suburban anonymity ... too frumpy by half.

Shame isn't it Dale how these women rise to the top of their chosen fields - become household names and challenge the very citadels of male power - only to let themselves just go to the dogs at the end.

I wonder if they'll ever assimilate really.

Of yes, it pays to be circumspect, and to acknowledge the fact that some modern woman may not want sex anyway.

They may simply want men to do more work for women, and want men for other things, and being a feminist activist does not necessarily equate with physical activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dworkin_on_After_Dark.JPG

Naomi Wolf is a tedious semi-educated twit. OTOH, I must say I am impressed with US academic Sociology papers, Rob has linked to. US academic Sociology is still vibrantly empirical, getting its hands dirty in the complexities and nuance of real people, living actual lives making up actual societies. Compared to the overwhelmingly discursive guff produced in Australia, it was refreshing to read some hard-yakka academic sociology research conducted by grown ups.

Yes, I am not that confident about listening to various people in the US tell everyone else how to live their lives, with the US divorce rate as it is.

Although the divorce rate in Australia is one of the highest in the world also, which must be costing the country an arm and a leg.

Where do we turn to, and who do we listen to?

Not Naomi this time around, or Andrea, or the Greer.

Something else is required.

“This suggests that it is the power aspect of household control that reduces women’s interest in power outside of the home,” Chen said.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/01/18/mom-ceo/

Oh, so various women don’t want the husband interfering in her role as boss.

I never would have realised.

Surely women have had the reigns as far as 'scripting' children and therefore society, for many centuries. They have had almost sole influence over young minds during those early years when beliefs and values are formed. Very powerful indeed.

Wait till your father gets home and I instruct him to beat you!

"And, as the woman does less activity, she gets fatter and fatter. (everyone agrees). So, if the husband does her work, she gets less activity and gets fatter and fatter, and then she gets less sex." (says Dale the Analyst).

Except, as the ABS reports "In 2007-08, a higher proportion of males aged 18 years and over were overweight or obese (63%) than were females (48%). "

Next theory, Dale?

To state the matter basically, it is very difficult to get an erection over a fat woman, particularly if she was a feminist fat woman.

weight preferences may be culture-based or personal preference - they can't be generalised to apply to everyone. therefore you can make the above statement only about yourself. I assume you live up to all your own ideals to balance your preconceptions.

I think the vast majority of men in our society would not want to have sex with a fat woman, and only a very very few would want to have sex with a fat feminist, if that can be at all avoided.

It seems Wikipedia has officially announced a new category of feminism, which is “Fat Feminism”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_feminism

It seems Feminism Incorporated wants to expand and increase its spread, and accommodate those feminists who do minimal physical activity, and are now fat.

Sex of course is a physical activity.

Dear drear Dale - have a gawk at the <I>soi disant</I> Venus of Willendorf. PS do you take speshal stupid pills or is your disability due to something nasty in the woodshed?

"...is there a gender divide there?"

Ms Sue - must you ask? It's not a gender divide so much as an entirely different gender dimension. It's been around so long it's hard wired. It lurks in the genome.

Men - myself included - will tolerate deplorably squalid living conditions - provided we know where everything is. Unlike women, men do not see the mess they create just as we really cannot see the butter in the fridge three inches from our noses. Worse - it is not mess - it is "storing stuff out where we can see it".

As Quentin Crisp wisely observed - after three years left undisturbed any increase in dust is imperceptible.

In my experience many men do as little as possible for the simple reason that whatever they choose to do first will be the wrong choice, or will be done in a manner unsatisfactory to "she who must be obeyed" so they wait to be told.

Watch a man in his shed and it is clear that he knows what to do, when to do it and how it can be done, or how to find out. The same man is often apparently incapable of properly vacuuming, folding clothes adequately, ironing in the approved manner or anything much else around the home without close supervision.

Just as a rat that gets a random shock whatever it does will eventually become an indecisive mess and will just submit to the pain for lack of an obvious means of avoiding it, a man that "can't do anything right" will either become mutely and miserably compliant (yes dear, sorry") or will eventually lash out. I don't reckon he'd be as interested in sex, either.

On a serious note: These are very sad experiences Craig ... and very far from uncommon. We can make ourselves and everyone near us miserable if we really set our minds to it. Sometimes we don't even need to set our minds to it at all.

Some folks do it to their kids as well - systematically grinding them into a fine paste. Never good enough - always wrong - never knowing ...

Round here they do it to their dogs. The dogs first of all. How mean you snarl at your dogs is the first mark of a man around here. More than cricket or footy. Fathers teach their sons. It's touching. Kinda.

This is where I have some difficulty with the thesis you outline regarding the virtues of broken spoons in child-raising. It puts too much onto the parents alone. Especially fathers. It's time to spread the responsibility for oppression beyond the patriarchy.

This country was founded on the lash and corporal punishment to the point of death. And since we've given it away - look how the place has just gone to the pack.

But your post-war parents just lacked the moral certainty to inflict adequate pain. Floggings let alone hangings are a rarity in the justice system of today - unless you're black of course.

My own character development was firmly guided beyond the home - the Good Sisters of the Vengeful Yahweh were dab hands with the cane or "special stick" reserved for unruly 5 year olds. And the cupboard.

But now the whole field of Punishment Science has been deskilled - stripped of its soul - farmed out to timid teachers or those whose furious fists are tied when it comes to an educational thrashing or landing a short uppercut to the kidney on the stairs.

The use of implements - special tools for the job - objects of terror is just a lost art. The escalation from verbals, through to the solemn and silent retrieval of the sacred stick, to placing the implement on display, to the demonstrative eruption launching into Kelvin O'Neill's legs under the desk. The ritualisation of punishment. All it needed was incense.

Where will these coddled kiddies develop the terrors that marked our progress into adulthood - especially those retching aversions to common household objects like spoons and hairbrushes, belts, straps, sticks and sheds.

It's supposed to be the nanny state Craig but we've got nanny tied up in the corner. And now they're trying to ban bullying. Where will it all end?

Bring back the lash. They'll all be the better for it.

I was talking to a psychologist who's PhD was on punishing behaviour in relationships. She is 50-something and well scripted in feminist memes. So she set out to show that men engaged in punishing behaviours more than women did.

Damn troublesome data! Which ever way she analysed it she got the opposite result to that expected. Women engaged in punishing behaviour more than men did.

Then there was the ANU study that showed that in violent relationships women initiated the violence more than men, something like 2 to 1. The female professors advice to women, based on this study was - "if you don't want to get hit, don't hit"

Indeed the violent patriarchal oppression model is not a widespread as feminists would have us believe.

Peter Ormonde
Men are not necessarily messy, and I think it is feminist to devalue men in that way.

I did part time cleaning once, and basically men made the best cleaners.

They might not have been as particular as the women cleaners, but they were 100% more reliable and 100% more likely to turn up, they were much more capable of doing the heavier work such as floor polishing or carpet cleaning, and were often better at organisation and PR work (and there is a lot of PR in cleaning)

Men generally make the best cooks, and various data is now showing that men make the best single parents also.

I think women are conscious of men being better at just about everything, so they take control of the house and regard it as their domain.

Yeah - that sounds right Dale... who could argue with such obvious evidence and reason.

Really they're useless aren't they these women?... and there are so many of them - cluttering the place up with their glaring inadequacies and funny clothes.

And yet - despite blokes being just so totally the best in everything - these flawed, clumsy, messy women keep leaving and going their own way. Seems they just don't know when they're well-off doesn't it. The fools.

Seems they just don't want to acknowledge their own failings to me - they just can't stand living in the glare of a bloke's perfection.

Peter, Sadly, I'm not sure Mr. Crisp's diaries will reveal anything about the relationship between his housework hours and the frequency of sex between heterosexual married parents. ;)

Kim,

From what I understand of both Mr Crisp's enthusiasms and the amount of sex enjoyed by heterosexual married parents - I'd reckon he'd know as much as they do - perhaps only slightly less.

That's all these scientists care about Ms Art ... another notch in their clipboards!

Quality? What'dya mean quality? Who asks all these wrens and other beasts if the earth moved for them?

Indeed Mr O.

Ironic that the self-same clipboard holders will be the first to claim, "size isn't important!"

:P

Is there any point in individuals spouting on about what turns them on or doesn't? It's almost totally subconscious and physiological isn't it? The thoughts and words are feeble post-rationalisation at best.

I recall some women talking on the radio about one of them having had sex with a stranger in a toilet in Paris. Both agreed how romantic that was. I asked my wife about it, she too thought it was very romantic.

If women need to feel the whole "romance" back story to feel sexy, and, romance involves men they don't know well, in exotic locations and situations, How then is romance and subsequently sex achieved in marriage? The answer seems to be that it isn't. On the whole women lose interest in sex with the same man over and over. There are of course exceptions by particularly emotionally intelligent people who decide they want a marriage and sex and focus their minds on how best to do it, but they appear to be exceptions to the general rule.

Or do what I have done ever since my first proper post-uni job - hire a bloody cleaner!

Eminently practical! But does this merely shift the areas of 'conflict' t something else?

I tried that when my wife had been away for two weeks. She HATED it and I was instructed to never do that again. She wanted to clean the house BEFORE the cleaner came around...

eah, Australian women are much less keen on the 'hired help' than their American sisters. There are very profound differences between the environment in which Australian married/couple parents make work/life/parent balance decisions compared to US couples. But one thing is constant. Men simply are not going to do housework.Men have never done this. Why would anybody think they will simply - even if a little slowly - take up 50%? Women have ALWAYS done the housework. Now, it is fairly reasonable that in 2013, they'd like to do a lot less than their grandmothers. And there are lots of incentives, and an almost Orwellian saturation of propaganda 24/7 aimed at scaring girls away from the Hoover.
OTOH, there is little attempt to convince men of the joys of doing MORE housework. The male stickiness to the "no/low" housework floor is much tougher than the woman's much more flexible and slinky attachment. Basically, as the husband provides more in paid hours and cash, the wife will just as comfortably take up the traditional role. VERY huge variable here. Babies. OTOH, the more equal their contribution to the kitty, the less of the housework she'll do. If that increasing equality is due to the wife's income growing absolutely, she'll feel more comfortable outsourcing the housework. But there is a limit. At some point the married mother will receive declining utility from having less and less power/authority in the domestic sphere. If she allows her home and her children to be outsourced like some factory, the extra cash will not be enough to compensate. The Australian married mother has the choice here, which her American sister does not.
Basically, Australian women are much less enthusiastic about 'getting help' to do the housework than American women. For reasons that really highlight how different we are as societies:
1. US culture has long been saturated with the ready availability of 'racially subordinate' foreigners, millions of whom, are undocumented, or otherwise outside the normal labour market. Americans interact with them all the time - the bus boy, the cab driver, the leaf-blower, and of course 'the maid'. Because even American citizens work in a labour market with lousy minimum wages, few protections for the bottom half, and even jobs, where the employer pays a whole $3 per hour, with the employee having the responsibility to make a living from the 'tips' of the customers. So, all Americans are wired to not even blink when they offer someone a job paying them $10 per hour. If for cash-in-hand, it's not hard to see an American 'career woman' offering the new Guatemalan 'maid' $7 per hour - "take it leave it, ma'm"! What did your say? "medical cover"? You're fired!
2. Because of Australia's geography, we have nothing like the underclass of unskilled, vulnerable illegal aliens; nor we do have a class of 'racially subordinate' exploitable unskilled workers.
3. But my vote for the most important variable affecting the relative reluctance of married/couples to outsource 'housework' than American couples is that Australian society has much more gender confidence than Americans. We just don't have the same levels of 'gender anxiety' as married American couples. One of the most stark indicators of this gender confidence is that among Australian couples with children, only about 25% of the mother's work fulltime; 38% of the mothers do not work at all; while nearly 40% of coupled/married women work only part-time. In the US, the part-time figure is much lower; the don't work is much lower; and the work full-time is much higher. These significantly different work patterns between Australian and US married/couples with children can be largely explained by a substantial difference between the Australian and US economic worlds, especially labour markets.
4. Compared to the US, we have a much more powerful [male] manual/working class; or at least, the gains won in the past, remain today.. Awards and minimum wages would make most American retail and hospitality business owners faint. Just as profound is that Australian mothers are not dependent on the whims of her employer to provide social insurance - medical costs, unemployment, etc, because we all worked out a few decades ago that for a number of risks, we are better off pooling the risks and the costs through the State. The Americans are 100 years behind on that one, which disadvantages American women even more. A married Australian mother who decides to work part-time while the children are young, risks nothing like the potential financial crises, which would face her US sister.
In other words, Australian men and women, as parents and spouses have a lot more choice than their American counterparts. So, the more defined gender roles we see in the Australian married/couples work/home/parenting decisions reveals the gender choices Australian's enjoy. Meanwhile, the higher relative income, more 'maid' reliant American couple reveals the gender anxiety produced by a society with a much more restricted labour market.
5. The Australian busboy, shop girl, and transitioning call-centre operative will expect at least $17, $22 for casual work. Plus, they would never find themselves in a tense negotiation over "medical", coz that's taken care of. No potential employer would dare offering $10 per hour, let alone 3$, because they are now fully conditioned that all potential employees will be 100% legal, have TFN, Medicare card, and the Fairwork's hotline number.
6. But more importantly than the Australian wife's vastly different thinking about the employment relationship, compared to the American wife, the Aussie wife will be even less inclined to 'get someone in' than her US sister. The reason is the differential in hours spent in paid work between an Australian husband and wife is significantly greater than a married American couple. And Australia is not a society so crippled with 'gender anxiety' as the US is.

Pat, you have a very weird view of marriage. It is a partnership in which the couple are bound to each other by law and by deeper imperatives, such as procreation. A man honours a woman by offering his good name and a woman honours him by taking it and doing her best to enhance it. In return they both benefit from opportunities that accrue to those of good repute and she gains a helpmeet, provider and defender whilst she is engaged in nearing their children, while he has increased certainty that it is his genes in those children. Our reputation is our most important social possession and offering to join our reputation to somebody else's is the greatest compliment we can pay them.

It is cynically perverse to suggest that such a personal gift is somehow a transfer of ownership, although it is completely aligned with materialist/Marxist feminism's sterile, antisocial and ultimately wrong dogma. Congratulations, you've been indoctrinated...

Fortunately

Craig, instead of describing a view of marriage as weird, could you not see it as another 'script'. Your 'script' (it somehow reminds me of Kipling) has to be read in a context where half of today's marriages end in divorce. Strange to say, people do marry people who they find later on just don't suit them. Once upon a time, economics, and the scripts of the times (just the word 'divorcee' still has scandalous connotations) meant women couldn't leave. But times have changed and new scripts are still being formed.

The "script" for traditional marriage is based on the idea of a committed couple working together to produce a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. The "script" that is being run as a social experiment informed by Marxist/materialist feminism is based on the idea of two individuals inherently at odds, with little mutuality of interests and the woman constantly struggling to overcome the oppression of the man.

The first is a constructive, cooperative arrangement, the second is destructive and conflictual to such an extent that even the commitment of choosing to share a family name is seen as giving too much ground.

That "script" has been deliberately developed as a political tool, originally by dysfunctional women like Friedan, Abzug, Greer, et al with deep insecurities and a lack of ability to form decent relationships with men, along with a background in Marxist politics. It has been promoted by weak-principled politicians (most especially Whitlam and Hawke here in Oz) desperate to try to create a new class of people dependent on the State for their survival and hence easy political targets for soft electoral promises of largesse and to bring the work that women did in the home into the sphere of paid and hence taxable and controllable work. It also gave women money to spend on consumerism without any need to negotiate with a partner over that spending, leading to the need for compulsory saving in the form of superannuation to be introduced to compensate for the lack of saving despite the increase in family incomes. Women control over 80% of household budgets and they love to spend. Just ask Frank Lowy, Solomon Lew, Gerry Harvey, who all became wealthy out of pandering to that desire.

Certainly people choose partners who later prove unsuitable; I'm one of them. However, I don't think she was all that unsuitable and we could have negotiated a reasonable accommodation that lasted, but she had no incentive to try. She had already fulfilled her main objective in marriage - children. Having become a mother she had also become entitled to income support from the Government and from me, which meant that she would not have to work if she was single. As a result, instead of the next 10 years being a series of negotiations between partners sharing the consequences of the mutually arrived at decisions, it became a series of legal matters between people whose interests were diametrically opposed, all initiated by her and funded by the taxpayer on her side. It sent me broke, meaning that money which we would have shared was lost.

Women have bought the snake oil sold by the shonky political spruikers and now we're all stuck with it. At least until the next generation realises they need a different "script".

Ah well I'll be off.... it's all getting a bit "Men's Sheddy" isn't it? All these twitter and bisted old buggers moaning on about how there's no one round like mum anymore, how the whole world's against men and them in particular,. Is the internet some sort of diversion when the Men's Shed is shut or something?

It was the vote Craig, simple as that - drove a wedge right into the heart of family life... the thin end of the wedge. Once they saw what they could do - there was no stopping them. And now we're being run by one apparently.

It's like Holdens Craig - they just stopped making good ones after 1968.

Still - if you're willing to put in the work you could invest your efforts in restoring an older model. With venetians and a nodding dog and white-wall tyres.

Lovely dog-whistle, Peter, but it could do with a clean to get rid of the spittle.

Never mind, I'm sure it's pitched low enough to attract the dogs you're after.

I do not know what you mean by "dog-whistle" Craig.

Or are you a Ford Man? Shoulda guessed!

See Dale and yourself seem to see the entire 20th Century through a lens of personal injust and bitterness. It's like we become so absorbed in our own loss, hurt and anger that it reshapes our whole world view.

You are not the only man to see the world this way Craig. With patience, luck and self-discipline, we get over it.

I and Dale share little in common, Peter. My simple point is that replacing a cooperative, mutually beneficial norm with a conflicted, mutually exclusive one is not a good way to go.

Nothing to do with hating women, old chap, or hankering for times past, or bitterness. Just a recognition that the present times are far from ideal and a hope for the future.

Still, it appears your whistle has attracted one dog, albeit a rather flea-bitten, mangy one.

I am saddened to think of any Conversationalist being so accursedly afflicted Craig. I'm sure Stephen is a picture of health with a lovely glossy coat.

Wasn't a "dog whistle" if by such you mean a call to the lowest common denominator. Wrong place to be trying to whistle up a storm Craig. The decile of the denominator found on the Conversation is far too discrete to go sinking the slipper into someone obvious writhing in personal grief and suffering.

As to the decine of western civilisation, Life As We Knew It -
it's a bit like climate change... all depends where you set the date what trends you pick up.

Back to the days when women stuck around for the kids. And because there was no alternative. So they cop the weekly bashing and all of that and just set their sights and expectations lower and lower.

Now this doesn't happen Craig. We are not imprisoned by kids and there are alternatives. And that's a good thing. It redistriutes suffering more equitably - we all get to wear a bit - 50% of us anyway.

It is one thing to decry a woman's right to choose when it comes to leaving a loveless marriage - I cannot accept that - but it another altogether to look at what the lawyers and the adversarial system. And I know from personal experience that there are women who know how to work that system like a sewing machine... stitched me up totally anyway.

But my experience - even yours - are the exceptions Craig - where someone deliberately manipulates or contrives a case. Most of the cases in Family Courts are just sad Craig - not unjust, unfair or wrong - just sad.

Peter, when have I decried anybody's right to choose to leave a marriage? I have deplored the cultural pull-factors that encourage it and discourage the woman from making a more than token effort to maintain a satisfactory but not perfect relationship. I have explained all of that several times on different occasions, yet you persist in your scurrilous dog-whistling and abusive characterisations.

The Family Court and the vast industry which has grown up around family breakdown is one of those pull-factors, as is the large amount of money available to mothers who separate and the financial support for such women to pursue the father of their children through the Courts to no good end is another. The lawyers only exist because the law does and it only exists because Whitlam and later Hawke were desperate to attract women to vote for the ALP. It takes a strongly determined person to refuse to follow the process laid out by that law to its end. If they choose not to opt out, the wheels of the Family Court grind on, with little need for the active participation of either party.

I can only assume that you have no genuine argument to put, in which case, the old advice about the preference of being silent and thought a fool over speaking and removing all doubt seems apposite.

Yep, she can leave but she'll leave with nothing - that the idea Craig? What sort of penalties need to be put in place to reform the system? How would you do it?

Sad isn't it ... all those hopes and dreams smouldering in a heap in the ashtray and it's all about money?

No one seems to know what's important anymore.

Peter, why the need to erect straw men? Is it really beyond you to respond to what is written rather than inventing something?

Craig,

Far from being a straw man I actually think my comments are directed to the heart of the matter.

You seem to have developed a sort of asylum seeker analysis based on pull factors - that we make it "too easy" for women to walk away.

But Craig there are push factors - and these you ignore.

No amount of pull factor will lure away a woman who wants to stay Craig. That's the heart of the matter - and it's invariably broken.

Peter, "push" factors are discussed ad nauseum, but there is little discussion of the "pull" factors. I note that you have not done so here, but have tried another dog-whistle and distraction.

Would you expect someone speaking about the role of humans in modifying climate to first mention all the other factors that might be influential? What about someone discussing the impact of fruit fly on fruit production: must they first give a comprehensive review of the effect of soil-borne nutrients, water availability, total insolation, etc or you'll dismiss their work as "biased"?

Frankly Peter, you're a disappointment old chap. Do try to lift your game, you're embarrassing yourself.

Nah Craig ... try as you might - the glaring awful truth is that women are not "lured" out of marriage by the Supporting Parent Benefit, the comforts afforded by crisis accommodation and the promise of spondoolicks after the Family Courts sliced your giblets.

They are not pulled Craig - wives are, in the first instance, pushed. And to be honest after reading this stuff and copping the way you discuss things - who could blame them for walking away from that.

I guess what I'm saying is that all we're seeing here is push factors. Craig.

OOOh you don't have to go back that far Stephen. Cardinal Pell is torn straight from the loins of Mannix and the ignorant authority of the 1950s. A character from Father Ted.

I reckon Pell might be some sort of post modern performance artist myself - an anachronism in a cassock.

One of his best:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-women-priests-in-any-lifetime-says-Pell-after-protest-at-Mass/2005/03/20/1111253885032.html

Must admit I've had increasing concerns with the "Personal is political" mantra of recent years. I think itmight be arse-about actually ... bad attack of the Hegels.

Increasingly I think the mantra is used to escalate personal problems into a historical/political plane. It skulldrags personal conduct and behaviour - daily life - into a clash between the forces of good and evil.

It deifies the subjective and provides an ideological framework for judging the behaviour of others. Always of others.

Indeed I think if you want to the mantra at work look no further than Dale or Craig here. The total and utter lack of self-awareness other than of self as victim is the tell-tale characteristic.

Now the other way about - the political is personal - makes more sense to me ... that we should seek to integrate our social views into our daily life... try to live the Good Life ... but that is not to say that all the blokes you're going to meet are agents of patriarchy, that all arguments over the washing up are in fact historical patriarchal challenges to the emancipist agenda.

Still not sure about it all yet - the antechinus still gasps perhaps.

Well Mr O, the political most certainly has a personal effect on our lives.

For example, if I was born in Afghanistan, I certainly wouldn't be here posting my two-cents. Wonder if I'd even be alive. That's very personal. Et tu, Peter your views would be rawther heretical in deepest darkest fundy-land.

Further to personal are the attacks and bully boy insults espoused by a tiny percentage of posters. Why would any self respecting woman bother with responding to the type of comments being made about them? These men are not here to exchange, share or even have a friendly debate, these men are affronted by the very idea women believe they have equal rights, these men know some are more equal than others and that is the way it has always been - just that evil, evil feminists refuse to accept the god-given natural order of things - if women weren't meant to be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen, women wouldn't have feet - or something like that.

Be interesting to find out from our gay brothers and sisters how the boring but necessary work of the domestic sphere is shared, or not.
Does the alpha (does there always have to be an 'alpha'?) get home, head straight to the fridge for a tinny and put their feet up in front of the teev or to start trolling the net, till they are called in for dinner?

It's possible.

Just a quick response to some of the nonsense - I have never hit anyone in my life. The only time I could've in self-defence, I was already lying on the floor - peaceful as a church mouse yet I still managed to be beaten up. I loathe writing about it, feeling I am just feeding the reprehensible.

I am a feminist because I believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Nor am I or ever have been fat - I kind of wish I was just to stick it to these whingers;

'Fat the new bra-burning' wear it with pride!

Will I post again on this thread? Hope not, feeling just a bit used by posting this much.

Morning Ms A.

I think it would be a mistake to confuse our general silence with consent - bare tolerance at best, Dianna. I think the vast majority of men reading some comments here feel a strange mix of pity, sympathy and disgust.

Substitute any other "them" group for feminists or women and re-read some of them - seething with anger and deep loathing actually. Too much so to be considered a valid or useful political discussion really.

Now to more serious matters.

What is this domestic purgatory of which you write here where the bloke - hauling himself in from a hard day's slog - must get his own beers and is hauled away from the interweb to watch the family eat. No no no Ms A - this is not bliss - not for your true alpha-male.

This might be considered OK in your trendy inner-city latte guzzling homes - but out here where blokes are BLOKES and Traditional Family Values run the show every whim must not simply be pandered to but anticipated. She should know how long it takes him to finish the first beer and be hovering about with the second before he hurls the empty at one of the kids. When he brings the blokes back on a Friday she should keep up a constant supply of cans and nibbly things. Packet stuff's OK.

Dinner is brought to the master wherever he is - unless he's in the shed, where he'll be too busy - and give her a clip. She should know to keep it warm till he's finished with the ute.

See Dianna this is approaching bliss. Total dominance of the home even when alone. Just by some sort of musky grunting scent.

As to the rest she has to look more like that cute weather girl on TV or the polythene detective on CSI - or be more adventurous but vulnerable, take the initiative but be less demanding, or thinner, or younger, or someone else ... It's a sordid business.

This is why - though I have only watched alpha males from afar Ms A - they are, in general, caricatures. And a rather miserable lot.

I agree, Sue. Why would one continue to expose oneself to such negativity as a woman by entering into a discussion. It's not really a discussion anyway if there is no one actually 'hearing' someone else's point of view.
Some sweeping generalisations and remarks speak for themselves - there's really nothing I can (want to?) do about such entrenched attitudes and avoiding those who hold them is an act of self-preservation.
I did enjoy some of the male banter this article has excited though - some entertaining, some cringeworthy ;)

Suzy, please point out what I have said that is negative toward women? Actual quotes, thanks, in context, with reasons. Stephen had a go and failed, perhaps you can do better.Seems unlikely, since they don't exist, but go your hardest.

Hello Craig, do you feel addressed by my comment? Why so? I didn't mention anyone specifically, I made a general comment about all contributors and how I personally deal with negativity when I encounter it. It is, after all, an internal process how one is affected by another's words/actions/deeds and can be countered with an internal response.
I do note your reference to 'hysteria' to Dianna. It reminds me of my earlier 18th century reference. Personally I don't see any difference between Dianna's way of putting things and your own - maybe it is in the eye of the beholder :)

I asked the question specifically because you weren't specific and as I have been abused by a couple of posters for holding views that they somehow manage to convince themselves that I hold, despite the fact that I don't, I wanted to make sure.

Thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps Dianna and I are both passionate about the subject and that is reflected in our writing? The thing is that her passion is deemed virtuous because she is following a fundamentalist-style orthodoxy which happens to be strongly dominant at present, while mine is deemed to be wicked because I question that dominant orthodoxy.

It's fascinating to watch.

From the outside your orthodoxy can seem fundamentalist in its own way - it really does lie in the eye of the beholder - and I see in your responses and wording only your own connotations and beliefs reflected.
Abused, passionate, virtuous, fundamentalist, dominant, wicked,... all of these are personally attributed - it is how other people, events or actions affect oneself and are perceived - not how they actually are. I myself perceive Australia (and much of the world) still far from reflecting equality - in opportunity, treatment, respect, expectation, etc - and this is in no way limited to gender issues.

There's nothing fundamentalist about it except a strong sense that the currently fashionable model is fundamentally flawed.

I've explained several times my basis for that view, using some illustrative anecdotes, including some from my own personal experience.

I'm not quite sure what you object to in the use of the words "abused","passionate", "fundamentalist" or "dominant". Would you care to elaborate?

The use of "virtuous" and "wicked" was in a metaphor comparing the current dominant feminist model to a religious belief structure. Perhaps you missed that.

Are there any other words I shouldn't use? Is context important, or is this a blanket rule? is this rule purely for me, or should these words be expunged from the dictionary?

Of course my comments reflect my views, who else? I usually presume that the views expressed by others are their own as well, including yours. Some think about their views more than others, of course.

Craig, you read an awful lot into other people's comments (something you've accused others of too) - where did I state an objection? I merely explained that all of these descriptions are personal - in this case to you. They are based on your individual perceptions and as such not universal. As is your view, which you agree above, and it is reflected in your choices.

Suzy, what you're arguing is that anything said by anyone which draws on their personal experience is invalid. That's silly.

All I have done here is express those personal experiences, which some seem to find an incredibly threatening thing to do, judging from the stream of abuse from a couple of people, at least one of whom has since apologised, to his credit.

I don't claim those experiences are a universal truth, just that they represent a part of the spectrum of human experience that is rarely discussed and is treated as a heresy that must be suppressed when it is discussed. The fashionable model is that women are always helpless, hapless victims of men. that is not my experience, nor the experience of most men, it is simply a convenient political tool.

I have a strongly empirical bent: I rely on observation, hypothesis and test. If I make an observation that doesn't fit the hypothesis in use, I have to consider that hypothesis flawed and come up with a new one that can be tested in its turn. The ones who are most vocal in objecting to my view prefer to rely on dogma and ignore observations that don't fit in, vilifying and attempting to diminish the source in a desperate attempt to wish it away.

Sadly for them, it's not going away. As time goes on, more and more people of both sexes are observing the same things as I am. Mothers are seeing it happen to their sons, children to their father. Single women are finding that men don't want to commit to a relationship, because they've seen what has happened to their friends. All the dogmatic denialism in the world doesn't change that. Nor does my choice of words.

I am employed in a field in which I talk to many, many men. As might be expected, women are a major topic of conversation. Every such group has men in it who have been done over in some way by a system which deliberately favours women in almost every aspect of life and they are not shy about expressing their disgust. It is now very common for men who should be married and serving a family's needs to be single and looking only for the next casual encounter. "Find 'em, fuck 'em, forget 'em" has become a mantra even among men who should be looking for life partners, but have given the idea up.

Women will never hear this - it's "secret men's business". Men like Peter, who move in particular circles, won't either and if they do, their own smug self-satisfaction will lead them to ignore it.

NO ONE SAID THEY ARE INVALID! Except you.... just now, "That's silly"...
Maybe you just have to find fault in anything at all cost?
I don't think you get anything I've said. Personal doesn't mean invalid - it just means personal, and it applies to everyone and to come to an understanding one has to adjust personal opinions by understanding another's - which is the aim of deliberation.
I'm getting out of this pointless discussion. Bye!

Suzy,

am certainly glad all these people are not in a kitchen together having this discussion! pretty sure nobody would be have any sex at all.

If couples venture down the lines presented here, it is amazing anyone is having any sex at all..

I sense that sex is treated as a commodity rather a shared mutual experience of two people happy to pleasure each other.

As a commodity may be able to trade one days dishes for ___ of sex..

As a mutual experience.. Hey lets eat out and have sex before and after the meal. :)

Yes it's a rather sad empty notion isn't it - that these sciencey types see such subtle complex business as a trade of things ... easy to measure things... clipboardy stuff. Reductio ad absurdum really when one thinks about what's going on with this whole romance business.

Seems to be almost a crude kind of shopkeeper economics underneath it all. Commodification of human relations - a wonderfully prophetic bit of Marx... one of many.

I want to see an affection index ... a correlation of caress and cuddling. Kissing and its role in achieving a happy life. Satisfaction scales. Graphs of knee trembling glances.

Just cause something can be easily counted doesn't make it in any way significant in the grand scheme of things.

Science doesn't do people well at all does it?

I'm not suggesting you yourself would run your life on such negotiable tenderness Dr Rob. As an alpha male I'd be seeing you being danced attendance upon by some Mrs Doyle character - at least in the office.

But it is true I think that the complexities of human interaction and affection are well beyond our sciencey abilities yet. But I find a lot of sciencey stuff a bit Aspergerish myself.... especially economics.

Abstraction and speculation is all very well but down deep - where it counts - we all now it's a bit trickier than just grabbing a mop every now and again. And often the superficial - the apparent - the countable - bears little relation to the actual "transactions" being conducted.

Who did the washing up on your honeymoon Rob? No one.

Suzy, you devalued everybody's view by diminshing my own as merely subjective and hence unrepresentative. If mine is, then everybody's is. I did it quite funny that you're lecturing me about compromise and mutuality, when I've lamented the loss of that throughout this thread.

I completely understood your argument, but I don't think it has much to do with anything I've said.

Yes Peter,the currently dominant Marxist/materialist feminist analysis is deeply flawed. I'm glad we agree on something.

Yes Craig,

ALL analyses and understandings of the human condition are deeply flawed - otherwise there'd be much more whistling about and we wouldn't be thinking about wearing the red and white checked tea towels cravat down to the Bowlo.

But I'm unconvinced that this self-polished lens you're analysing the issue through is adequate to the task.

Start with history. Our history - not yours.

Craig, you devalue everybody's opinion by seeing it diminished because it is subjective and applying this to yourself to make yours therefore unrepresentative.
I myself feel my personal view perfectly represents me at any given time, yet it does not remain the same over time or has remained static since an event in the past impacted it.
Mutuality is not build on denigrating another's views or opinions as you do when you label marxists, feminists, virtue and wickedness from your perspective without acknowledging that these are not universally held beliefs (they are certainly not realities) but just your own personal perceptions. You don't seem interested in other views but your own or other ideas than your own. How can this approach ever lead to mutuality? There is no point in discussing views (on anything, including sex and domesticity) with someone who cannot perceive another's as equally valid or respect it even if it differs from one's own.

The whole issue is rather irrelevant, because there is very little housework now required with all the automatic dishwashers, automatic clothes washers, and automatic defrosting fridges etc men have provided for women.

But here are “10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex”.

And guess what, losing weight is one of them, which must be of interest to many people.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex

So having more sex is significantly better than not, and it may make men feel more appreciated.

Something I think missing in the lives of many men in our feminist society.

Suzy, with the greatest possible respect that's gobbledegook. Do some reading, because until you do, you're quite right that there is nothing to discuss.

You see, m views are founded on wide reading, on wide discussion with lots of people. They're my views, but they're quite representative, no matter how you and Peter try to paint them as a product of personal dysfunction.

Characterisation of Marxist/materialist feminism is not my invention, it has been a long-standing feminist model since Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug first formulated it and then formed the National Organisation of Women in the US based on it.

You seem very defensive about all this, which is a common response from women. Try to understand that attacking the simplistic and divisive (and oh so politically convenient) Marxist feminist model is not an attack on you. I'd gladly support a feminist model based on genuine mutualism, but feminists don't seem interested.

I wonder why?

Yes, you would wonder why...
Why do you label yourself as dysfunctional and then blame this on me? This is the kind of illogic that makes your comments adversarial rather than based on mutuality.

"The whole issue is rather irrelevant, because there is very little housework now required with all the automatic dishwashers, automatic clothes washers, and automatic defrosting fridges etc men have provided for women."

The dishwasher was invented by a woman - Josephine Cochrane.

Obviously invented by a woman - if a bloke did it you'd never have to empty the things.

Seriously though - you realise that this Ms Cochrane - by tinkering with the post dinner, pre-bedroom domestic routine has probably demolished conjugal relations as we know them - and could indeed be the single cause of the West's declining birthrates!

Where is the obvious study showing the link between dishwashers and divorce? The world wants to know!

Chortle, snigger...

Watch out for the awful truth - it can appear anywhere at any time.

I am attempting to design home appliances that pets can operate, thus opening up a new area of exploitation; our furred & feathered friends can finally earn their keep.

Suzy, I'll be kind and assume that you struggle with English as it's your second language.

The alternative is that you're deliberately trying to distort my perfectly clear meaning to create something easier to attack. That's called creating a straw man and while I recognise that some here are incapable of doing otherwise I wasn't aware you were suffering from that particular mental deficiency.

Do ask a more competent English-speaker to explain if you're having difficulty. At present it's like trying to hold a conversation with a 5 year old schoolgirl.

Which is it?

Another great example of a condescending and patronising response.
You seem to be the one attributing negative meaning to my words and rewording them to suit your belief system. I'm not surprised you find it difficult to hold any common ground with persons of the other gender if this is how you normally converse.

Suzy, if you don't want to be patronised, try to write things that are even slightly related to the post you're responding to. At present your input is on the level of "I know you are but what am I", so beloved of early primary children everywhere.

I put it down to your possible Asperger tendencies that shows issues as only black or white that you do not get the absurdity of your own comments and interpretations when they are mirrored back at you. Have a nice life :) I got work to do.

Oh, well done Suzy, now I don't merely hate women, I'm autistic.

At least it saves you having to actually think about anything uncomfortable, eh?

It doesn't say very nice things about your character though.

Craig I rarely bother responding directly to you as I am all too aware of what a fruitless task that is, however I couldn't let your latest piece of hypocrisy go uncommented.

"It doesn't say very nice things about your character though."

Like this?

"Do ask a more competent English-speaker to explain if you're having difficulty. At present it's like trying to hold a conversation with a 5 year old schoolgirl."

No, it doesn't say very nice things about your character.

PS

Asberger's is significantly different to Autism - don't take my word for it, look it up.

Please keep us posted re the pet appliances... knee deep in useless pets myself. All they do is make me laugh. I'd laugh even more if Buster was cleaning the bbq.

Remember too Ms A, that these perverse Victorians devoted a considerable effort to harnessing the new industrial era to automating foreplay one way or another.

I didn't think this perverse passion for industrialised intercourse ran to dishwashers but. I'm so naive.

Thanks for your contribution, Di, I'll give it the attention it deserves, as soon as I can find some nice soft (preferably quilted) paper to print it out on.

Oh and BTW, Asperger's syndrome is an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Ask someone to explain what that means, since I'm sure that looking it up will just confuse you.

Sorry to let facts intrude on your fantasy, that's just the way I roll...

Sigh.

Asperger's Syndrome is applied to identify the mildest and highest functioning end of Autism spectrum.

Suzy was being kind, Craig. More than can be said for you.

"Asberger's is significantly different to Autism - don't take my word for it, look it up."

"Asperger's Syndrome is applied to identify the mildest and highest functioning end of Autism spectrum."

Whatever you say Di. What next, claiming somebody has Asperger's in a bid to discredit their POV is actually complimentary?

I know, you can make up something, claim I said it and accuse me of having Asperger's.. oh, hang on, that's Suzy's schtick. I guess you'll have to stick with the mindless me-tooism you specialise in.

Yes, I agree.

I have been called Aspi by a number of feminists. It must be a new trend in feminist abuse.

I was once a cleaner, and many women now hire cleaners to clean their house.

A commercial or professional cleaner can walk into a house, and within a few minutes they know how efficient the woman was in thir housework.

They can see this by how the furniture is arranged, how much clutter there is in the house, how many clothes the person has, what type of cleaning chemicals they use etc.

An average woman is highly to super inefficient in their housework, and housework could be reduced by 75% to 90% if the woman was more efficient and better organised, and this would also significantly reduce costs.

Please Dale tell me you didn't pass on the wisdom of your expertise in industrial cleaning to the missus to help her lift her game.

Of course you did.

I was being kind, Craig, just like you pretended to be when insulting me. I just like to see you take your own medicine since you like to dish it out.
I know some amazingly brilliant Aspies you couldn't hold a candle to, others have trouble detecting subtleties of expression and prefer to deal in absolutes - the Sith way, if you like - either/or to be clear, which seems to be the way you categorise everything anyone says - making every woman who doesn't agree with you a feminist and worse. What does that make you? You see, I was being rather kind, there are worse things one could be called if I look at your vocabulary.

I would look forward to a more nuanced discussion regarding domestic chores. The binary of male/female is clearly in a rut - with everyone feeling like they are stereotyped.

Surely division of labour according to preference and ability while the mutually despised chores divided evenly - with entertaining repartee rather than WW3. This "because I am a woman I do not carry out the garbage" or "because I am a man I cannot do laundry" is total B/S.

Seems straight forward to me.

"I find that after the initial "honeymoon" period, one of the greatest attributes a partner can have is the ability to compromise and be willing to adapt as the relationship develops. Not in a bitter and frustrating way, but in a desire to enhance the relationship for both parties."

Me too. I can understand Kim's POV given that some people believe in nature over nurture, however I've always thought that one is shaped by both genetics and environment. Basically, there is no hard and fast rule apart from learning to compromise and adapt if one is really sincere about their relationship. Keeping in mind that if one has to imitate a doormat to retain a relationship, it is time to leave.

At least SSC don't have to play the "me Tarzan, you Jane" game unless it is for fun.

:)

Dianna, I don't see the issue as "genetics" versus "environment". After all, "genetics" is largely influenced by the "environment" and vice-versa. What I am arguing is that you cannot detach "gender" from "biology". I took a couple of classes in the Sociology/Culture/Gender/Media Studies space at uni. I was stumped at the reified stupidity of the cultish almost-bragging of science illiteracy. The other huge problem with these disciplines - related to the first - is that they are far too influenced by radical/far-left misandrist heterophobic lesbians, who are not only clueless about science, but are also clueless about men, and finally clueless about heterosexual sex and love.
If you really want to be rendered speechless for a week, read some of the work by radical lesbian academics from the 1990s onwards trying to use Foucault to understand historical sex practices. Radical left-wing heterophobic, misandrist academia-cloistered lesbians, trying to understand a raving misogynist French gay man trying to understand ancient sexuality. Abortions in print.

That's great to know, Kim you do understand that we are a result of a combination of nature & nurture.

Frankly I am not at all interested in what some extreme lesbians might be on about. Prefer moderate lesbians myself.

As for being rendered speechless, Craig 'n Dale manage that every day. In fact I kinda of think them as my moment of Zen.

How about focusing on the topic, which brought to its most basic is about sharing? As humans we eat, drink, excrete and generally make a bit of a mess everyday and this mess needs to be kept under some form of control else we are issued with fire and health notices by the council, for letting our mess become as hazard to others.

Simply sharing the housework has nothing to do with whatever sex you think you are and everything about intelligently managing day to day living.

Ordering people about according to whatever gender they happen to have been born with is just the same as ordering people about for the colour of their skin.

Sharing - a lovely word, kind of eases our little world into running a little smoother.

Vying for power, wanting to win at all costs, controlling others tend to seize-up the smooth running of people's lives, is the reason people divorce, hate their neighbours and or go to war.

Until all people, irrespective of gender, race, age or social standing are treated with respect (not much respect on this thread, you may have noticed) and given the same opportunities to live, love and contribute in what is a meaningful way to each, until then we will continue to be uppity primates who have no claim to calling themselves civilised.