I continued to read because I was interested in John's views on what these important things are. However I was disappointed to discover that, instead of listing things that are of more importance than being manly, John chose instead to denigrate and belittle the term itself.

John equates the term "manly" with Donald Trump, spouse beating, fistfights, playing "rough" sports, engaging in dangerous activities and bullying, both physical and mental. I'm not sure how these connections can be made, given the actual, dictionary accepted meaning of the word.

Some of the online definitions are: having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, such as strength, courage and bravery; possessing qualities, such as vigour or courage; generally regarded as appropriate to or typical of a man; masculine.

Merriam-Webster defines "manly" as having qualities traditionally associated with a man: strong, virile while the Cambridge English Dictionary offers having the qualities that people think a man should have.

IN OTHER NEWS:

John also includes the ownership of large dogs. Really? John is an Associate Professor at the School of Psychology, University of New England. One would expect John to have a reasonable competence regarding the meaning of words.

Or is John's real agenda the repurposing of the word "manly". Does he wish it to have a brand new meaning? if so, on what authority can John discount the actual meaning of an established word in order to substitute his own, somewhat desperate interpretation.

I agree with John that violence against another human being is abhorrent, but I suggest that he goes about making his point in a more logical and less confrontational manner.

I would be interested if Bill Tilley could tell us specifically which NSW business owners actually said they wouldn't hire a Victorian resident because of VIC COVID cross border issues.

I would suggest that this is another example of "accusers" getting away with unsubstantiated claims for a headline. Bill says "people are saying". As Margaret Thatcher asked George Negus all those years ago, "who is saying that? Can you name them?"

Australia's problem is the topography of the state capital's hinterlands.

In political leader's minds the Kilmore Gap divides Melbourne from regional Victoria, the Blue Mountains divide Sydney from regional New South Wales, Mount Lofty ranges divide Adelaide from regional South Australia, the Perth Hills divide Perth from the rest of Western Australia.

I'm sure Brisbane, Hobart, and Darwin can similarly contribute.

As for the Australian Capital Territory, that just gets swallowed up by Lake Burley Griffin aided by the Brindabella Ranges.

Isn't it time that we became one nation, not "One Nation", and bit the bullet and realised that the concept of states is now just too restrictive and antiquated and that they should go.

You can submit a letter to the editor via the comments section of our website at bordermail.com.au, or by sending an email to letters@bordermail.com.au. Your letter must include your name (for publication), as well as an address and contact phone number (not for publication).