Thursday, May 2, 2013

Modern Feminism in Canada

Feminists, male and female, try to disrupt a Canadian Association for Equality meeting at the University of Toronto in 2013

Hateful Feminist Quotes

If you thought Feminism was about equality take a listen.


Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Gays and Bisexual women more at risk to Domestic Violence, Rape.



Gays and Bisexual Women More at Risk to Domestic Violence, Rape



Violence in homes, stalking, and abuse all seem to be issues most linked to women who may be suffering from physical and verbal abuse from husbands.

But according to findings of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the United States, gays suffer the same risk as heterosexuals, while bisexual women are more likely to be at risk than other women.


In the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, released this month, Reuters reports that 44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexuals reported domestic abuse, compared to only 35% of heterosexuals on the same issue.


"Bisexual women had significantly higher prevalence of virtually all types of sexual violence," said the CDC in the report.
In response to this report, the Senate has started to push the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, according to Reuters. Amid CDC findings, part of the renewal would be to include portions stating the protection of the LGBT community.

In Australia, the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities (QAHC) has published a response to the Queensland Government strategy, which mainly targets and deals with domestic and family violence.

According to the report, the QAHC continues to appeal for the health issues in LGBT communities. The QAHC also highlighted a recent national LGBT survey on abuse in these relationships, and found that females suffered more abuse than males at 40.7%, with only 10% of the total number of abuse of the LGBT community being reported to the police.
To further aid the movement, the QAHC has also suggested mobilizing the involvement of LGBT communities of Queensland. As of now, there are only federal funding to the LGBT community for HIV prevention for gay men through the QAHC and Open Doors Youth Service, which helps LGBT homeless youths in Brisbane.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/428881/20130129/gays-lgbt-domestic-violence-australia-cdc-report.htm#.UUnuJ1eOWK9

Friday, April 27, 2012

Another reason why women make less than men

By KAY HYMOWITZ 

First, the Atlantic magazine announced "the end of men." Then a Time cover story in March proclaimed that women are becoming "the richer sex." Now a Pew Research Center report tells us that young women have become more likely than young men to say that a high-paying career is very important to them. Are we really in the midst of what Pew calls a "gender reversal?" 

One stubborn fact of the labor market argues against the idea. That is the gender-hours gap, close cousin of the gender-wage gap. Most people have heard that full-time working American women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Yet these numbers don't take into account the actual number of hours worked. And it turns out that women work fewer hours than men. The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. 

In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap. The main reason that women spend less time at work than men—and that women are unlikely to be the richer sex—is obvious: children. Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage. 

One study by the American Association for University Women looked at women who graduated from college in 1992-93 and found that 23% of those who had become mothers were out of the workforce in 2003; another 17% were working part-time. Fewer than 2% of fathers fell into those categories. Another study, of M.B.A. graduates from Chicago's Booth School, discovered that only half of women with children were working full-time 10 years after graduation, compared with 95% of men. Women, in fact, make up two-thirds of America's part-time workforce. 

A just-released report from the New York Federal Reserve has even found that "opting-out" by midcareer college-educated wives, especially those with wealthy husbands, has been increasing over the past 20 years. Activists tend to offer two solutions for this state of affairs. First is that fathers should take equal responsibility for child care. After all, while men have tripled the number of hours they're in charge of the kids since 1970, women still put in more hours on the domestic front. But even if we could put a magic potion in the nation's water supply and turn 50% of men into Mr. Mom, that still leaves the growing number of women with no father in the house. 

Over 40% of American children are now born to unmarried women. A significant number—though not a majority—are living with their child's father at birth. But in the next few years when those couples break up, which is what studies show they tend to do, guess who will be left minding the kids? Which brings us to the second proposed solution for the hours gap: generous family-leave and child-care policies. 

Sweden and Iceland are frequently held up as models in this regard, and they do have some of the most extensive paternity and maternity leave and publicly funded child care in the world. Yet even they also have a persistent hours and wage gap. In both countries, mothers still take more time off than fathers after the baby arrives. When they do go back to work, they're on the job for fewer hours. Iceland's income gap is a yawning 38%—that is, the average women earns only 62 cents to a man's dollar. Even Sweden's 15% gap—though lower than our 23% one—is far from full parity. All over the developed world women make up the large majority of the part-time workforce, and surveys suggest they want it that way. 

According to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, in 2008 only 4% of the 70% of Dutch women who worked part-time wished they had a full-time job. A British Household Panel Survey interviewing 3,800 couples discovered that among British women, the happiest were those working part-time. A 2007 Pew Research survey came up with similar results for American women: Among working mothers with minor children, 60% said they would prefer to work part-time, while only 21% wanted to be in the office full-time (and 19% said they'd like to give up their job altogether). 

How about working fathers? Only 12% would choose part-time and 70% wanted to be full-time. Some counter that the hours gap would shrink if employers offered more family-friendly policies, such as flexible hours and easier on-off ramps for moving in and out of the workforce. We don't know if there is a way to design workplaces so that women would work more or men would work less or both. What we do know is that no one, anywhere, has yet figured out how to do it. Which means that for the foreseeable future, at least when it comes to income, women will remain the second sex. 

Ms. Hymowitz is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author, most recently, of "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys," just published in paperback by Basic Books. A version of this article appeared April 26, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Women Make Less Than Men.  

Sunday, March 6, 2011

The Pay Gap Mythology even Presidents of the USA promote

Here are some links on the Pay Gap Myth  This mythology produced by Feminists is designed to appeal to gullible people everywhere, and in particular, chivalrous people in positions of power.  Obama is one of the apparent believers and is pandering to his left wing including union base.  Does Obama pay his women employees less in the White House or in the government public service? Not likely but he is a politician and a mangina.  He should read his own studies as follows.

The gap boils down to personal choices by men and women.  I like to cite the difference in pay between Male and female Doctors in Canada. Female Doctors make less. Do you know why?  Its because they work fewer hours.  Pretty simple math and clearly shows they prioritize their lives differently.  Its choice not oppression or collusion by the Patriarchy.

The pay gap is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors. The Department of Labor (USA) recently funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
 
Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don't compare like with like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html
 
Fair Pay Isnt Always Equal Pay, Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp
 
Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R
 
Female CEOs out earned men in 2009.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664
 
Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
In the book Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don't have. That is why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTyĆ¢�¦
 
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men.
Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/
 
This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
 
Blaming men for women's choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives out earning them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243
 
Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html
 
Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm
 
ABC News: Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R

 

Friday, February 4, 2011

USA Today: Domestic Violence Myths help no one: Christina Hoff Sommers

This article points out how gullible politicians are, among others, in their efforts to appear to be chivalrous. They will buy propaganda as truth, resell it on their web sites and denigrate men, even in their own race. Holder is Black but he drank the feminist kool-aid.  In the overall statistics DV Injuries of all women are not in the top 10. MJM







By Christina Hoff Sommers


"The facts are clear," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45."

That's a horrifying statistic, and it would be a shocking reflection of the state of the black family, and American society generally, if it were true. But it isn't true.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics, the leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide comes in fifth — and includes murders by strangers. In 2006 (the latest year for which full statistics are available), several hundred African-American women died from intimate partner homicide — each one a tragedy and an outrage, but far fewer than the approximately 6,800 women who died of the other leading causes.
Yet Holder's patently false assertion has remained on the Justice Department website for more than a year.
How is that possible? It is possible because false claims about male domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation. During the era of the infamous Super Bowl Hoax, it was widely believed that on Super Bowl Sundays, violence against women increases 40%. Journalists began to refer to the game as the "abuse bowl" and quoted experts who explained how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could "explode like mad linemen." During the 1993 Super Bowl, NBC ran a public service announcement warning men they would go to jail for attacking their wives.

In this roiling sea of media credulity, one lone journalist, Washington Post reporter Ken Ringle, checked the facts. As it turned out, there was no source: An activist had misunderstood something she read, jumped to her sensational conclusion, announced it at a news conference and an urban myth was born. Despite occasional efforts to prove the story true, no one has ever managed to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery.

World Cup abuse?

Yet the story has proved too politically convenient to kill off altogether. Last summer, it came back to life on a different continent and with a new accent. During the 2010 World Cup, British newspapers carried stories with headlines such as "Women's World Cup Abuse Nightmare" and informed women that the games could uncover "for the first time, a darker side to their partner." Fortunately, a BBC program called Law in Action took the unusual route pioneered by Ringle: The news people actually checked the facts. Their conclusion: a stunt based on cherry-picked figures.

But when the BBC journalists presented the deputy chief constable, Carmel Napier, from the town of Gwent with evidence that the World Cup abuse campaign was based on twisted statistics, she replied: "If it has saved lives, then it is worth it."

It is not worth it. Misinformation leads to misdirected policies that fail to target the true causes of violence. Worse, those who promulgate false statistics about domestic violence, however well-meaning, promote prejudice. Most of the exaggerated claims implicate the average male in a social atrocity. Why do that? Anti-male misandry, like anti-female misogyny, is unjust and dangerous. Recall what happened at Duke University a few years ago when many seemingly fair-minded students and faculty stood by and said nothing while three innocent young men on the Duke Lacrosse team were subjected to the horrors of a modern-day witch hunt.

And then there's Iran

Worst of all, misinformation about violence against women suggests a false moral equivalence between societies where women are protected by law and those where they are not. American and British societies are not perfect, but we have long ago decided that violence against women is barbaric. By contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran — where it is legal to bury an adulterous woman up to her neck and stone her — was last year granted a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended the decision by noting Iranian women are far better off than women in the West. "What is left of women's dignity in the West?" he asked. He then came up with a statistic to drive home his point: "In Europe almost 70% of housewives are beaten by their husbands."

That was a self-serving lie. Western women, with few exceptions, are safe and free. Iranian women are neither. Officials like Attorney General Holder, the deputy constable of Gwent, and the activists and journalists who promoted the Super Bowl and World Cup hoaxes, unwittingly contribute to such twisted deceptions.

Victims of intimate violence are best served by the truth. Eric Holder should correct his department's website immediately.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys, co-author of One Nation Under Therapy, and editor of The Science on Women and Science.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-sommers04_st_N.htm

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

Psychiatric News August 3, 2007
Volume 42 Number 15 Page 31
© American Psychiatric Association

  • Clinical & Research News

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

In addressing intimate partner violence, the focus is usually on women who are physically battered by husbands or boyfriends. However, women sometimes hurt their partners as well.

Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners. 

In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators. 

These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health

In 2001, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health attempted to amass data about the health of a nationally representative sample of 14,322 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. The study also asked subjects to answer questions about romantic or sexual relationships in which they had engaged during the previous five years and whether those relationships had involved violence.

Of those subjects, 11,370 reported having had heterosexual relationships and also provided answers to the violence-related questions. So Whitaker and his colleagues decided to use the responses from these 11,370 subjects for a study into how much violence is experienced in intimate heterosexual partner relationships, who the instigators are, and whether physical harm accrues from the violence. 

The 11,370 subjects, Whitaker and his colleagues found, reported on 18,761 relationships, of which 76 percent had been nonviolent and 24 percent violent. That almost a quarter of the subjects had engaged in violent relationships may seem high to some people, but “the rates we found are similar to those of other studies of late adolescents and young adults, a time period when interpersonal-violence rates are at their highest,” Whitaker told Psychiatric News. Also, he added, “these rates demonstrate the magnitude of interpersonal violence as a health and social problem.”



Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence. 

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). “This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.

Of the study's numerous findings, Whitaker said, “I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner.”

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, upon which this investigation was based, was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development with co-funding from 17 other federal agencies.

An abstract of “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence” is posted at<www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941>.▪ 

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Male victims get lost in domestic-abuse data





WASHINGTON — When Adele Freeman fired five .38-caliber bullets into her boyfriend in 2000, she contributed to an often-overlooked statistic within the sometimes-deadly world of partner abuse: namely, that more than one-third of all homicides each year connected to domestic violence are perpetrated by women.

Capital News Service

WASHINGTON — When Adele Freeman fired five .38-caliber bullets into her boyfriend in 2000, she contributed to an often-overlooked statistic within the sometimes-deadly world of partner abuse: namely, that more than one-third of all homicides each year connected to domestic violence are perpetrated by women.

"Men can be victimized in the same way women can," said Laura Martin, the Calvert County, Md., state's attorney who helped secure Freeman's first-degree murder conviction in 2002. "And it's not just the violence. It's about control, dominion, power," she said.

The fact of female abusers and male victims is often lost in the discussion of domestic violence. In fact, women's advocates have used selective statistics — the same federally funded survey that found women are equally as abusive to men — to bolster their plea for funding and services.

That absence of attention to the men's side of the coin has contributed to an imbalance of services for men who are victimized in abusive relationships.

"This is the best-kept secret on family violence," said Murray Straus, a sociologist who led the commissioned survey in 1975, and again in 1985 with the same results. "There is a tremendous effort to suppress and deny these results."

No one disputes that when physical violence occurs, women are prone to more serious injury than men; however, Straus and others caution that this should not obscure the fact that about a third of men sustain injuries, or are killed, from partner violence.

Bill Hall, of Adam's House, a health and wellness center in Suitland, Md., agreed. He called domestic violence an "equal opportunity" issue that often gets overlooked by the 24 or so women's advocacy centers throughout the state.

"It's kind of hard to find programs that cater to men and boys," he said. "Most of the agencies I know of refer men to us ... as abusers."

Each Monday night, he and his wife, Stacie, counsel two groups of some 30 women and 65 men. Within each group, about 70 percent have been court-ordered to attend the 90-minute-long counseling sessions, aimed at curtailing future violent behavior.

In dealing with those who've punched out girlfriends and choked wives, socked boyfriends, stabbed exes and even shot at spouses, both Halls agree that domestic violence is anything but a one-way street of male-on-female violence.

"Most women who abuse in the relationship [do so] because they feel pressured and don't feel that they can communicate any other way," Stacie Hall said. "Because he's just not listening, and [men] are much bigger than we are."

But other advocacy groups ignore female-on-male violence.

Take one particular bullet point from a brochure sponsored by Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, a state advocacy coalition backed largely by federal funds: "Every 15 seconds a woman is battered in the United States by her husband, boyfriend or live-in partner."

To Michaele Cohen, the nonprofit's executive director, that statistic sounds about right. "There are male victims, of course, but the majority of victims who come forward are female," she said.

Cohen said other data suggesting that men suffer from equal rates of violence are unreliable.

"That methodology is very controversial because, you know, you're saying that every hit is equal and you're not taking into account context," she said. "I think you have to look critically at those studies."

Yet both sides of the debate are actually looking at the same studies: that 1975 survey, updated 10 years later, that revealed nearly identical rates of abuse by men and by women.

Cohen did not know of the connection to the statistics in her group's brochure, but said anecdotal evidence supports their contention.

"I don't really want to quibble about the particular stats," she said. Instead, Cohen pointed to the "huge number" of female victims she sees in need of assistance each and every day.

"I'm not relying on statistics. I'm relying on 30 years of experience."

That reliance on nonscientific data is no shock to Richard Gelles, who co-authored the 1975 and 1985 surveys with Straus.

"People cherry-pick their numbers for advocacy studies," he said. "This is what advocates do, and that's not sad. What's sad is policymakers don't create evidence-based policy."

Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, offered up the Violence Against Women Act as an example.

Since 1994, the federal law has doled out some $4 billion to states — dollars aimed at eliminating domestic abuse, stalking and sexual assault through increased financial, legal and housing support to women. The act has also upped the penalties against offenders and more closely knits prosecutors, judges, police and victims advocates to the effort.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May, Gelles said the law, which is set for reauthorization in 2011, mostly ignores services and resources for male victims of abuse.

"No other federal legislation dealing with an aspect of family violence, including child maltreatment, sexual abuse and elder abuse, singularly focuses on one sex," he testified.

So what of services available to men?

Laura Dugan, a public-policy expert and associate professor at the University of Maryland, said you might not know of a need for men based on the services available to them.

"All of these service providers, they do not let men on their premises," she said, recounting a case she was familiar with in which an alcoholic wife was abusing her husband. "She really abused him. And he had nowhere to go."

In Maryland, the House of Ruth, one of Maryland's largest domestic-violence service providers, will assist men, but active outreach efforts seem in short supply.

"We also work with men," said program development director Cheri Parlaman, referring to an abuser intervention program

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html