There are certain readers of this blog who get the shits when I write about feminism and gender equality and subsequently comment "what about us blokes?" ignoring the fact, gender equality ultimately benefits men just as much as women ...
Anyway - if you're one of these grumpy types, soz, but I just can't help myself; the need to discuss these issues seems self-evident.
For the last couple of weeks, I've been listening to a fantastic series of lectures produced by Stanford University's Clayman Institute for Gender Research.
If you've got any interest in gender, equality, feminism or humanity, you'll find them riveting - well, most of them, there's a few duds - but one I particularly enjoyed was titled Beyond the Stalled Revolution: Reinvigorating Gender Equality in the Twenty-first Century, recorded in November last year.
You can check out the formidable list of speakers here, but I'm going to concentrate on one, Professor Myra Strober, who had some really thought-provoking things to say about the economics of gender equality.
She was talking about the US, but I feel a lot of the statistics and trends she quoted are representative of what's happening in Australia and other western countries.
"In 1970, men did about 20 per cent of the housework and childcare," said Strober.
"Now, men do about 40 per cent of the housework and a third of the childcare ... the total amount of housework has gone down, so men are doing a bigger share of a smaller amount, and it's clear to me that houses must be dirtier."
Ha, ha - who says feminists are humourless?
Anyway, Strober poses the question - how did this change come about?
She then talks of a study she and another academic conducted, interviewing the Stanford class of 1980 and the same year's class from the University of Tokyo, ten years after their graduation in 1990.
"What we found in the Stanford sample was that if women earned more than their husbands, their husbands were more likely to do more housework," said Strober, "but not in the Tokyo University sample."
"We tried to figure out what was different in Japan from the United States and the answer was that in the United States it was in the air, in the media; that women who earned more than their husbands, could bargain with their husbands for their husbands to do more housework.
"In Japan, this was not an issue discussed by anyone and these women who earned more than their husbands didn't see that bargaining with them about housework was something that either they could do or that they wanted to do.
"So I think it's important to note that women bring economic power to their families when they earn money but that that economic power alone without some change in the societal ideology is probably not going to change distribution of housework," said Strober.
That term "in the air" got me thinking about the dearth of serious media discussion about gender issues - particularly equality - and how, by ignoring these subjects, we may be depriving a new generation of the oxygen and permission to make progress.
By "serious media discussion", I don't mean the reactionary, intermittent columns we see published in the op-ed pages, where men either tell us how bad feminism is and how "the gender war" has already been won or, women tell us how bad men are, and then list all the crap things the (male run) media say about them.
To me, this stuff is as pointless as the partisan politics of parliament - where otherwise intelligent people preach a point-of-view, not because they believe in it, but because it's what their side has adopted as "policy".
With gender in particular, it goes nowhere and also lacks historical context - so we hear the same tired old arguments and counter-arguments, without acknowledging these issues have been debated and often resolved or proven moot thirty years ago.
Many men also feel put upon and cling ever-stronger to what they see as their remaining last privileges, while women refuse to frame the advances they've made as anything but "necessary" and "right", when in fact the women's movement has made as many mis-steps as the dinosaurs opposing it.
In my mind, we're back to the days of what Professor Deborah L. Rhode in 1990 identified as the "No Problem, Problem" - the widely shared perception that gender inequality is not a serious issue in our society.
"Despite substantial progress on gender issues over the last century, we remain stuck in similar places. Sexual violence remains common and reproductive freedom is by no means secure. Women are dramatically under-represented in the highest positions of social, economic and political power and dramatically over-represented in the lowest positions," says Rhode.
"The work force remains highly gender segregated and gender stratified with women of colour at the bottom of the occupational heirarchy. Whatever our progress in encouraging women to pursue traditional male roles, we've been less effective in encouraging men to pursue traditional female ones.
"Many of the rights that the woman's movement has struggled hardest to achieve in education, employment and reproductive choice are available only to those who can afford to exercise them.
"And despite these patterns, most individuals, including those who support the basic objectives of the women's movement decline to press them publicly, give them priority politically or underwrite them financially.
"A central problem remains the lack of social consensus that there is in fact a serious problem," says Rhode.