That Gok guy really annoys me.

[mutant]

I don't know why people see any of my comments in this thread as inflamitory.

I dont, I think they stupid, ignorant and crypho-homophobic.

People dont choose to be gay..

[mutant]

I personally don't know which, out of male and female, are more frequently the victims, but I don't think it matters most of the time.

now this might be ignorance , lack of intelligence, lack of political education or plain old sexism. Or all of them.

women are the victims but also I blame them for being coward and not trying to use their authority on a man world.

this is another subject, but since some of you like to use misogynism so much...

[Halcyon Daze]

LOL, R U drunk posting Mutant? That's OK, Sorry for the silly things I said. Now hand me the peace-pipe already.

Anyway, Take care everyone I'm hitting the beach for a couple days

Oh and great debate guys! It's actually been an interesting and informative discussion (before it degenerated). Many thoughts and opinions candidly expressed. very nice...

[GoOnThen]

I was thinking why is there a thread about me in the bitches and gripes.

Then after reading the thread I realized is wasn't about me as I couldn't be gay even if I wanted to be.

Hey Fritz the cat. You are dead right about the carry on films. They were never the best tits but they were tits on the telly and for a teenage boy that's all that mattered.

Cheers

Gok

[mutant]

LOL, R U drunk posting Mutant?

me?? never!!! a good 2% of my posts are written sober

[~shameless~]

Mutants one of the most entertaining posters/postees o n the whole www.com, I wish he was never sober, lol

[IndianDreaming]

Why not just turn off the telly - You do realise it's an addictive drug don't you?

[DiscoStu]

there's an off button?

[etherealdrifter]

where is this "magical' off button at?

[IndianDreaming]

On mine, the off button turned out to be at the op-shop 6.5 years ago. I had to get the telly, and take it down the road to the lovely old ladies who were quite happy to take it and re-deal the addictive machine out to the public for a small fee, with which they probably bought some tea and cakes and had a jolly afternoon thinking - that crazy young man just gave us a perfectly functioning telly, what a duffa he is...

[Bigred]

The guy that wears his glasses on his head really annoys me . Like its going to take away the fact that he is bald .

and how it is fashionable to wear them on his head .

[mutant]

^^ well bigred, you dont mean sun glasses huh? well I admit doing this.... sorry... but I dont do it because its fashionable, but because its practical.. Actually since I start putting my glasses in the forehead I haven't lost a pair (used to lose them a lot)

but the most annoying of all, are those that eat speggetti all the time.. I mean , what lowlifes!

and the second most annoying category after spaggetti eaters are people who play the banjo. Come'on who wants to play the banjo and isnt a degenerate?

~shameless~

Well, sorry, I guess that I cannot annoy everyone!! Invitably someone will like me! now what does it say about you?

whatever the case, I would be seriously concerned if those that liked me and dared to praise me in public were more than a handful !

an inner voice has convinced me that if you annoy lots of people then you're doing something right...

remember its too easy to praise someone for a stupid cactus he's attaining, but its a different case to support someone because he is being a smartass and ... well not too polite at that....

for all those reasons,

all hail ~SHAMELESS~

[J Smith]

Lol mutant

Gok

http://youtu.be/IL5v3j0d67Q

Sunglasses on head man aka Alex Perry (the subtle head wobble at the end is particularly intriguing. Why does he do that?)

 

Spaghetti eater

 

Banjo player

 

[incognito]

Mutant is the best at prancing he's a committed prAncer

[Bigred]

Dont EVER knock the Banjo

its super cool and its our Brisbane meet/camp mascot

 

[mutant]

Okey I hear ya

no more banjo jokes

 

[goneski]

you don't need to write a thesis, i see what you're saying, i just think referring to a man that hates a man for being feminine as a misogynist is a misuse of the term. but i also won't write a thesis as in regards to societry i see what you mean & i'd be nit picking..

How is misogyny a misuse of the term? What exactly is it then? If you begin to decouple sexuality and gender, yet still see how they are (somewhat) intertwined, interrelated and *usually* congruent, you begin to realise it IS misogyny. It's an attack on gendered behaviour / roles that aren't typically aligned with males, and in this instance are aligned with (what we are assuming to be) a gay male. What else do you think it should be called?

 

to me i find pulling all these seemingly separate forms of human ignorance apart & assigning complex psychological definitions to them all is counteractive to the cause, it just over complexifies something thats actually quite simple.. you don't need to think too hard about it to realize that racism, homophobia, misogyny & every other form of ignorance you can imagine are just separate manifestations of the one all encompassing STUPIDITY.

Yes, you can make the argument that everything is really just stupidity. But apart from being an overly simplistic, abstract generalisation, this does not help to argue, debate or even to begin to understand the different aspects of stupidity. I'd much rather add some complexity and nuance to the conversation rather than just calling everything stupid and getting absolutely nowhere, but that's just me. High-level 'meta' views can help contextualise, relate and show the interconnectedness & unity of different ideas providing some illumination and further understanding, but to completely write off complexity is frivolous at best.

 

the deep rooted misogynistic tendencies in society at a deep level is really no different from the deep rooted materialism, religious delusion, racism & toxic mass-psychological states of being that has normalized the full scale rape of every aspect of nature & human thought. just different forms of the one stupidity.

Quite probably. I haven't researched into the neurological / neuroscience of this much, but yes, a lot of attitudes are just base instict / emotions. There are some excellent psychological studies on this, particularly surrounding incest. When given the hypothetical scenario of two siblings engaging in once-off protected sex, most participants would react in disgust and label the situation as grotesque. The general consensus amongst evolutionary psychologists (and biologists) is that this is quite possibly an evolutionary trait "designed" (bad word to use, I know) to protect and nurture good genetics. Evolutionary Psychology can be highly speculative at times though.

Anyway, it seems that only after reacting in disgust will participants attempt to rationalise their view. People then fail to make any decent argument against the hypothetical and seem to instead fall back on emotions of disgust, anger, etc without any understanding or reasoning for why. I'm pretty sure (from memory) these studies extend to fMRI scans showing the differences in the activated regions of the brain when participants react in disgust versus rationalising their position. There are hypotheses that a similar thing is occurring with homophobia.

There are some terrific theories of consciousness that highlight MANY instances of the above (at neurological, psychological, chemical levels), suggesting consciousness arises as a transparent, self-model of organisms whilst providing and drawing some unsettling conclusions regarding free will / agency / determinism.

 

almost everything in this culture is a fucking pile of stupid shit & the majority of individuals are very stupid creatures & it looks like this fact means our own children & grandchildren, or the next generation in general will inherit nothing but a load of crap & probably very slow painful deaths, or maybe quick painful deaths, who knows.. if you're gay or transgender etc then you will be focused on the fact people are homophobic, cause thats your experience, if you're aboriginal you'll probably focus on racist white colonialists, if you're a woman you'll focus on misogyny. if you have half a brain in your head, enough to pay attention to the facts, you'll be focused on stupidity in all it's forms.. it doesn't matter where you're looking from, it's all just stupidity & it's fucking up everything that is good on this earth.

True. Your own being and perspective will shape and influence the causes you fight for. And yes, people should show some balance across the board. On the flip side, whilst it may seem selfish, there are a lot of fucked things in this world and it probably makes sense for individuals to focus on fighting for causes that they are familiar and well versed in. Focusing your energy in this concentrated way is quite possibly a bit more productive and fruitful, rather than a poorer, half-hearted attempt at spreading your efforts across a wider variety of issues. I believe it's possible to do this whilst still recognising the vast array of injustices in the world and lending some support without being too self-interested.

Anyhow, the above comment you've made is besides the point. Someone (well, people) made an attack on someone, and they were called out on it. In this instance, it's not as though queer allies (or whatever term you wish to use) went out actively finding something / someone to critique or attack. If someone attacks a group of people or set of attitudes, they can expect to be called out on it.

 

masculinity is held to higher standard by who? probably a very large number extremely stupid thick skulled people, which unfortunately for us makes up the vast majority of our society. does that mean we should spend our lives crying about it? not that i'm saying that is what you are doing by the way.. but if that was the way to go about it then i would have given up & put a bullet in my head a long time ago because this kind of stupidity is rife in all aspects of our culture, not just sexists & homophobes, it's bloody everywhere & to focus too intently on singling it out as an issue of misogyny or homophobia or racism or whatever the issue may be imo is short sighted. the only way to come to terms with it is to attempt to broaden our own perspectives & buffer ourselves against the pitfalls of confronting the horrors of human ignorance so we can manage to at least attempt some kind of intelligent discourse in this toxic global infestation of psychotically mutated monkeys we call human society.

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question. No, we shouldn't 'spend our lives crying about it'. Using the same logic, I guess women should never have fought for a right to vote or 'cried' about it? The same reasoning could apply to any issue surrounding civil liberties. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here, but it makes no sense and only serves to stifle debate and progress.

[goneski]

Perhaps when you said in the fitness thread that you "don't feel very comfortable with the idea of going to a gym full of bros", that is the threshold? Perhaps you meant a more nuanced meaning of the word "bros", but without further qualifying the term, it just sounds as though overtly masculine men make you feel uncomfortable in the same way that overtly effeminate men make some other people feel uncomfortable. So it seems a little hypocritical of you to be so judgmental about this.

'Bros' make me uncomfortable due to assertiveness, dominance and aggression (particularly roid users, of which there's no shortage). The whole 'broscience' aspect of body building is laughable, too. Like paradox, I don't have ANYTHING in common with 'bros' either, which would definitely contribute. I do some weight lifting and take supplements, however in no way am I attempting to 'bulk up' (this would be very difficult under the influence of testosterone blockers).

I didn't feel the need to qualify the term within the context of a fitness thread, as I'm sure people in that thread understand how the term 'bro' is often used mockingly or at least possess the skills to find out what it means and how it is used. We can argue the semantics of the term, how it came about, why certain characteristics are prescribed to bros, etc. I'm not entirely sure how this relates back to the topic, however. It seems quite a lot of people attribute the same characteristics to 'bros', even though they may be viewing things through a different lens than I. Again, you accuse people of bias, but it seems above you're rather quick to link bros with masculinity and thus an attack on masculinity,showing your own inherent bias. It goes both ways.

Even if we grant some link between bros and masculinity, I'm not sure how masculine men would make someone uncomfortable in the same ways as effeminate men do so. You've implied this, but it's a point that would require further exploration. If we take extremes of masculinity and femininity, then how do you propose we can argue they make people uncomfortable in the same way? There are overlapping aspects of masculinity and femininity within the middle of the spectrum that I'm sure would make people uncomfortable -- at what point do we no longer ascribe these characteristics to gender? This is really a side point though, so as to avoid the trap of setting up a false dichotomy.

 

My contention has never been that men are victimised more than women, but that when they are, it is more often ignored or minimised, that as a society we see misogyny everywhere, but ignore blatant misandry.

I agree with this view somewhat. There was an eye opening instance of this lately. I can't remember which channel or what show (I don't watch TV, but remember seeing an article and watching a video), but a talk show host responded to a video of a woman slapping a man by suggesting that maybe the man somehow deserved it. There was very MINIMAL negative reaction from the media regarding this, which would not have been the case if the roles had been reversed. However, we can't use these as instances of moral equivocation when it comes to misogyny and misandry. We need to look at frequency, etc which you've hinted at. Anecdotal evidence, of course, is a terrible starting point.

 

As for choosing to be camp or "over the top" what shits me more is when guys act over-macho. I reckon they have something to hide. Probably a secret fear of being gay (because it's a choice, right?)

There is some suggestion from studies in scientific literature that homophobia *may* be linked to repressed homosexuality and homoerotic arousal.

 

Personally, I think people (from all 'sides') place too much importance on this. So what if it was a choice? When people use it as an argument against bigots who stick their nose into other peoples' business, it almost comes across as like a concession that it would be wrong if it was something that could be chosen, like it's an unfortunate affliction or something. I know it's not meant like that, but I think it shouldn't even rate on the scale of what's important when it comes to people being allowed to be who they are, choice or no choice.

I guess if we grant people the concession that it is a choice, they will attempt to frame the argument differently and resort to the naturalistic fallacy. That is, homosexuality is "unnatural" (a ridiculous argument) and therefore given the choice, they should choose otherwise.

 

women are the victims but also I blame them for being coward and not trying to use their authority on a man world.

I.. don't even know where to start with dismantling this ridiculous comment.

[ballzac]

goneski, I'm glad to see you respond. I was worried that maybe you had felt attacked because I brought up something you said in another thread. I hope you realise that my only disagreement with you is academic, and I've always liked you and your contributions to this forum

 

'Bros' make me uncomfortable due to assertiveness, dominance and aggression (particularly roid users, of which there's no shortage). The whole 'broscience' aspect of body building is laughable, too. Like paradox, I don't have ANYTHING in common with 'bros' either, which would definitely contribute. I do some weight lifting and take supplements, however in no way am I attempting to 'bulk up' (this would be very difficult under the influence of testosterone blockers).

I guess my point is that there are various reasons that we all find different people annoying or feel uncomfortable in their presence. It doesn't always emerge from some deep seated prejudice.

 

Again, you accuse people of bias, but it seems above you're rather quick to link bros with masculinity and thus an attack on masculinity,showing your own inherent bias. It goes both ways.

I'm not sure how you could argue that the term "bro" is not an inherently gendered term. Unfortunately, it's fairly new slang in the context we are talking about (as opposed to when it is used as a term of endearment or comradery) so there's unlikely to be much in the way of serious linguistic or sociological work that has been done on the use of the term. However, even the etymology clearly indicates that it is a gendered term. The terms you have used ("assertiveness, dominance and aggression") are also commonly considered to be masculine traits, regardless of whether or not the common perception is a reasonable appraisal of what masculinity is or not.

My point was not so much that you have a problem with masculinity. It was more that if this thread implies that people have a problem with femininity, then your comments in the other thread imply that people also have a problem with masculinity. So of course it goes both ways, that was my point. Perhaps I could have been more clear on that in my initial post. The premises that lead to the conclusion that you have a problem with overtly masculine males are not my premises. I believe they are your premises applied uniformly to both situations. There is only bias if you do not apply these premises uniformly.

If you want to know my personal opinion on this. I don't really think either case has much to do with gender itself. The fact that people often have a problem with men that display what people typically consider to be feminine traits is more about non-conformity to gender stereotypes than flatly about gender itself.

The fact is that if we assume that your assertion that these standards aren't applied to women to be true (I don't know how accurate that is, but I'm accepting it for the sake of argument). And if we believe that this shows discrimination towards a particular gender, there are two main analyses that could be applied. The one that I would consider to be the feminist interpretation is your position on it. The other alternative, is that we could say this is misandry because men are held to a standard of gender rigidity that women aren't held to. Women are permitted much more gender plasticity than men. This is because our society fundamentally accepts women as they are, but men are forced into conforming to certain roles, which is a form of oppression.

Just in case it's not clear, I wan't to emphasise that I am not trying to argue that this is the case. My point is that there are at least two possible interpretations, neither of which are provable, and both of which lead to opposing conclusions. Regardless, I think it takes some convoluted reasoning to take a complaint about a man and somehow turn it into an attack on women. If your contention is that when someone attacks a person of group A for being a bit like group B, then it must be due a deep-seated hatred of group B, then your argument is either incomplete or invalid unless you also apply the same reasoning to other cases. For example, Michael Jackson was routinely criticised for being too 'white'. Using your argument, we would have to conclude that this is due to a deep-seated hatred of white people.

 

I agree with this view somewhat. There was an eye opening instance of this lately. I can't remember which channel or what show (I don't watch TV, but remember seeing an article and watching a video), but a talk show host responded to a video of a woman slapping a man by suggesting that maybe the man somehow deserved it. There was very MINIMAL negative reaction from the media regarding this, which would not have been the case if the roles had been reversed.

Yep, there are a lot of examples of this. This is a fairly well done segment on this topic.

 

 

However, we can't use these as instances of moral equivocation when it comes to misogyny and misandry. We need to look at frequency, etc which you've hinted at. Anecdotal evidence, of course, is a terrible starting point.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you're talking about frequency of victimisation versus frequency of support for victims, then there are figures we can look at. One would be to look at the actual incidences of domestic violence perpetrated by women against males. My estimate for this would be about 40% based on my reading of the literature, but even if you take the most conservative results which, from memory are about 30% (and that is only one or two papers out of dozens that look at the relationship between gender and domestic violence). Then, we can compare these figures to the support that is offered to victims. While there are services for men that may accommodate victims of domestic violence, the actual percentage of shelters that accept male victims, as far as I know, is 0% in this country. Then, you can look at how often the actor playing the perpetrator in a PSA about domestic violence is female. Again 0% as far as I know. In this country we actually have campaigns to stop violence that are titled to exclude male victims. In the US they have a law (VAWA) that excludes male victims. In many western countries, the laws are expressed in such a way as to define male rape victims out of existence.

Clearly, I don't have all the numbers, and there is far too little research on this. Also, much of what is out there comes from feminist echo-chambers rather than serious academic groups, which I believe skews the apparent balance. But there is certainly more than just anecdotal evidence that the frequency of victimisation of men is a lot higher than the frequency of support.

[goneski]

My point was not so much that you have a problem with masculinity. It was more that if this thread implies that people have a problem with femininity, then your comments in the other thread imply that people also have a problem with masculinity. So of course it goes both ways, that was my point. Perhaps I could have been more clear on that in my initial post. The premises that lead to the conclusion that you have a problem with overtly masculine males are not my premises. I believe they are your premises applied uniformly to both situations. There is only bias if you do not apply these premises uniformly.

If you want to know my personal opinion on this. I don't really think either case has much to do with gender itself. The fact that people often have a problem with men that display what people typically consider to be feminine traits is more about non-conformity to gender stereotypes than flatly about gender itself.

Yes, and given that set of premises, I asked why you think criticisms levelled at masculinity and femininity are 'the same', if we ignore overlaps in gendered behaviour between the sexes (at which point it becomes more difficult to classify behaviour as gendered -- a point I made previously).

And why don't you think it has to do with gender? Keep in mind you're arguing against large bodies of evidence from Psychology, Sociology, Biology and Chemistry. The nature versus nurture debate would warrant an entire thread in itself, but suffice to say, hormones, genetics, etc play a MASSIVE part in affecting behaviour, emotions, etc. Of course, nurture (environment, culture, etc) will shape behaviours, gender roles etc, but there are some pretty convincing arguments suggesting that culture/environment are really just manifestations of biology anyway, and aren't exactly phenomena that form in a vacuum existing as some kind of free-standing entity that shape a person separately from biological determinism.

As an example, we could discuss how 2nd to 4th finger digit ratio is an indicator of pre-natal hormone exposure and actually appears to have quite a large impact on people. There's a fairly large body of evidence for this. Have a browse on Google Scholar to see how far reaching it is. Homosexual men tend to have a 2D:4D ratio closer to the biological female end of the spectrum, whilst homosexual women are much more toward the biological male end of the spectrum. A similar observation is made with (f)MRI scans of brain structure/organisation and function, particularly with transgender people having brains structured more like that of their target gender.

Depending on how you wish to polarise behaviour, you could argue it is non-conformity to gender normally congruent with one's physical sex and conformity with a gender not matching biological sex (as assigned at birth). This is all just semantics / word play. If we're discussing 'non-conformity to gender', we're still discussing gender. I guess it becomes somewhat murky once you move into intersexed / genderqueer territory.

I guess my point here is to show that sex and gender are fairly intertwined (generally), and that there are quite a few different correlates (neural, chemical, etc) which are highly suggestive that we are discussing does relate to gender. Simply applying some hand-waving and saying 'it's not about gender' doesn't make it so. Gender is really a statistical classification. Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but at what point do we concede correlations to be statistically significant?

Or, to pose the problem a different way -- how and why does a gay man's behaviour (in this instance) possibly link directly to sexual orientation without any consideration for gender whatsoever? And why does it make people uncomfortable? And is there a reason some people seem to think there is a moral issue with it?

 

My point is that there are at least two possible interpretations, neither of which are provable, and both of which lead to opposing conclusions. Regardless, I think it takes some convoluted reasoning to take a complaint about a man and somehow turn it into an attack on women. If your contention is that when someone attacks a person of group A for being a bit like group B, then it must be due a deep-seated hatred of group B, then your argument is either incomplete or invalid unless you also apply the same reasoning to other cases

Right, so because there are multiple interpretations, we cannot discern any degree of truth? There is actually some extensive literature covering this very subject. For a layman's explanation, check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. It's not a terrific book, but at least a starting point and far more eloquent than myself. Without writing an extensive essay (I've already wasted too much time in this thread), it doesn't take 'convoluted reasoning'. To take some epistemological stance and throw our hands in the air and say 'it's all down to interpretation, there is no truth, only opposing conclusions' is quite naive and premature.

The way in which you've reduced my argument to 'Person attacks Group A for behaving like Group B -> Person has issue with Group B' is extremely crude and entirely misses the point. My question is, to those others in the thread, 'WHY does an effeminate gay male make you uncomfortable? Why do you find it 'annoying', or 'over the top'? And why don't you apply the same standard when the situation is reversed?'

The fact these questions need to be asked in the first place is quite illuminating and just shows how ridiculous and bigoted some people really are.

The only response received thus far involves back tracking and saying 'oh, the attack was ACTUALLY against exploiting this poor individual for corporate gain', which wasn't convincing in the slightest.

I'm not even really sure why it's up to me to defend a position. People made some really screwed up remarks on this thread. They were called out on it and questioned as to why they hold those beliefs (I may have been a bit indirect in that regard), but didn't really attempt justifying anything. I'm happy to provide (at some point, once the fatigue wears off) more reasoning why i think it is about gender and misogyny, but that's really just tangential.

I attempted to explain why I thought the attitudes in this thread exist, perhaps the other posters can explain for themselves why they think they hold these attitudes.. That would be far more constructive than me attempting to deconstruct statements like 'effeminate gay men make me uncomfortable / are over the top / etc'.

[ballzac]

The way in which you've reduced my argument to 'Person attacks Group A for behaving like Group B -> Person has issue with Group B' is extremely crude and entirely misses the point.

It's pointless for me to address any of your other points if I'm not understanding your main point (which you say I am missing). The thread is about someone having a problem with a man (group A) behaving in a feminine manner (group B ). And your conclusion is that it is misogyny - i.e. hatred of women - (problem with group B ). I don't think you can argue that these aren't part of what you're saying. So if there is more to your argument, then at best it would be:

Person attacks group A for behaving like group B -> some set of arguments -> Person has issue with group B

Could you clarify what 'some set of arguments' is? Or otherwise explain how this is a mischaracterisation of your point?

[gtarman]

Dont EVER knock the Banjo

its super cool and its our Brisbane meet/camp mascot

 

Did you hear about the fiddle player who locked his keys in his car? He had to break the window to get the banjo player out

[goneski]

It's pointless for me to address any of your other points if I'm not understanding your main point (which you say I am missing). The thread is about someone having a problem with a man (group A) behaving in a feminine manner (group B ). And your conclusion is that it is misogyny - i.e. hatred of women - (problem with group B ). I don't think you can argue that these aren't part of what you're saying. So if there is more to your argument, then at best it would be:

Person attacks group A for behaving like group B -> some set of arguments -> Person has issue with group B

Could you clarify what 'some set of arguments' is? Or otherwise explain how this is a mischaracterisation of your point?

Okay:

'Homophobia: personality and attitudinal correlates'

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901001179

References studies showing a relationship between homophobia and a masculine personality. Increased aggression & anger in homophobic men. References evidence and argues that there is possibly a causal link between homophobia and anti-feminine attitudes.

'Presumed Innocence (Hetero)Sexual, Heterosexist and Homophobic Harassment among Primary School Girls and Boys'

http://chd.sagepub.com/content/9/4/415.short

Ethnographic study across two primary schools, showing a link between attitudes of masculinity and homophobia. Illustrates what seems to be homophobia arising from observation of typically feminine traits in peers. Homophobic views seems to be more prevalent the more hypermasculine a boy perceives himself to be, allowing for a more stark contrast with less masculine and more feminine boys. Also contains references to similar studies across other primary and secondary schools, showing links between masculinity & homophobia, and homophobia & perceptions of femininity -- other said studies also make similar transitive arguments.

[mutant]

goneski>>>>

mutant said

women are the victims but also I blame them for being coward and not trying to use their authority on a man world.

I.. don't even know where to start with dismantling this ridiculous comment.

well, pity, I thought you liked to be analytical and liked to go into the things essence. Anywayz, I liked your analysis a lot, but I cannot agree with the idea men are more opressed than woman. Maybe you find my idea ridiculous, but you know what is really ridiculous is giving me a one-liner just for the point where we disagree.

Well, it might be like that in OZ, that is men are pussies and get more opressed, but I highly doubt that. Its you ozzies, well many of you that mention woman beatings when alcohol is menbtioned, no? You mentione this so many times that I tend to believe its a national sport for ya. Well, do the men take the beatings from wives that come home drunk?

As for the power women got and they could use the power to turn the world into a less misogynistic place

I am using "Lysistrata" an ancent comady my the notorious Ariustophanes.

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

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

All in all, women of the town, go on sex-strike as a means to convince men to stop war and come home, led by feminist Lyssistrata. In other words they use their pussy power to control men.

But lets say, for the arguements sake, that men are really more opressed.

In what way... ??

like homosexual men are more harassed by homosexual women??? this is a proof of a man-ruling world again.

like men are grown and led to believe they have to be extreme masculine, to be the matcho type and all that crap? But womeun are forced into similar gender shit . I dont really there is a way to prove men that dont follow those gender rules (with the exception of gayness) are opressed socially more than women. Men have greater power in this society, it has become not so obvious in the big cities,

but hey any fucking arguement ? cause last time I checked , men can be mocked for being softish and puss-ass, y'

know, but women are supposed to be like that normally. softish and pussy.

[ballzac]

Okay:

'Homophobia: personality and attitudinal correlates'

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901001179

References studies showing a relationship between homophobia and a masculine personality. Increased aggression & anger in homophobic men. References evidence and argues that there is possibly a causal link between homophobia and anti-feminine attitudes.

'Presumed Innocence (Hetero)Sexual, Heterosexist and Homophobic Harassment among Primary School Girls and Boys'

http://chd.sagepub.com/content/9/4/415.short

Ethnographic study across two primary schools, showing a link between attitudes of masculinity and homophobia. Illustrates what seems to be homophobia arising from observation of typically feminine traits in peers. Homophobic views seems to be more prevalent the more hypermasculine a boy perceives himself to be, allowing for a more stark contrast with less masculine and more feminine boys. Also contains references to similar studies across other primary and secondary schools, showing links between masculinity & homophobia, and homophobia & perceptions of femininity -- other said studies also make similar transitive arguments.

thanks goneski,

I haven't read the second paper yet. The first paper shows a correlation between negative attitudes towards women and homophobia, but I fail to see how they showed any causal link. I personally would have expected a correlation between the two, and would also expect a correlation with racism, religiosity and conservatism, and an inverse correlation with intelligence and socioeconomic status.

For example, if there is a causal link between low intelligence and misogyny, and a causal link between low intelligence and homophobia, I would expect a correlation between misogyny and homophobia, but this would not necessarily mean that homophobia is caused by misogyny.

Even in this paper, the authors point out that "this speculation awaits further empirical examination". But I am surprised that there was no explanation of how the findings support the claim that "if homophobia was an exclusive negative disposition against gay men, positive associations between this construct and anti-female attitudes would not have been found", considering that all the data seems to show is a correlation.

Perhaps it was hyperbolic of me to call these claims unprovable, so I retract that statement, but as of yet I remain unconvinced. I will get around to reading the other paper...