Saturday, May 30, 2009
Note there is no attribution for these inane conclusions by the writer. These are the kinds of victim feminists who seem to have the ear of judges, lawmakers and lawyers. It goes to show how gullible the Divorce Industry appears to be. I'd say they have some serious mental health issues if they actually believe what they write. See the section on their rules of engagement to verify if this fits. This blog is one of many by the nut bars called anonymums, man haters from OZ, with very serious issues of a kind requiring professional assistance.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Dear Patriarchy - I am a Women, therefore, a victim of your oppressive rule. As a result these are our rules of engagement after our declaration of war on all men.
This was written a few years ago to educate men on the wiles of the feminist movement and their techniques to emasculate men. Many of you have experienced this if you are involved in a Family Law proceeding and you have definitely experienced it if you are a Father's Rights Advocate. The end result is, and it goes right over the heads of these victim feminists, a message saying we are but children in adult bodies and will always need to protection of the Nanny state. They have very clear "daddy" problems and it may well be part and parcel of a vicious circle. Their dad was removed from their lives, they have no idea of how to relate propperly to men and have concluded men are not necessary. They are, not unlike religious zealots, deluded by their ideology.
- Instantly attack anyone, on a personal level, who disagrees with any feminist precept.
- Only push the female agenda and utterly ignore male feelings and thoughts on the issue.
- When attacking male views, do not aim the attacks at the man alone (unless you are alone with the man) but loudly proclaim that all "men" who think differently are living in the past. Then refuse to accept that such behaviour is sexist.
- Claim anything that women do is OK because its her right to choose (This does not apply if the women offends the morals of the feminist concerned). At the same time, put down everything men say, do, or believe as foolish, stupid, childish, sexist, chauvinists etc, etc.
- Always minimise statistics that refer to men's pain and suffering but, always maximise (or invent outrageously exaggerated statistics) for everything women suffer.
- Use unattributable statistics, studies and quotes in arguments. For example (From to day's news) "It is estimated that 9 out of 10 rape victims never report their rape." (An estimation it is impossible to prove correct or false) This has the effects of terrifying the female population while giving the impression that rape is happening all over the place at every moment of the day. It also serves to cement the view that all men are rapists, in the minds of the public. If anyone challenges the figures given, use techniques 1-3.
- While claiming all women are stronger than all men, suddenly switch to, all women are victims of all men when the conversation demands it.
- Refuse to accept that women are capable of violence, even when shown irrefutable evidence that they are. This can be achieved by finding excuses for female violence such as; She was only defending herself: She has a hormone imbalance: She is depressed because she has to cope with her pig of a husband and two kids, PMS, Post Partum Depression, Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
- Always ridicule any man who does not agree with any of the myriad of feminist precepts but refuse to see this as verbal abuse and, if forced to admit it IS verbal abuse, claim that he was abusive first because of the WAY he disagreed and you were just responding to his patriarchal need to dominate you.
- Call any man who dislikes the techniques used by feminists a "sexist, woman hating, dinosaur who is living in a mythical 1950`s golden age in which women were chained to the sink and he had all the power."
- Surround yourself with "new men" who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with feminism and therefore emasculated. Use these men to promote feminist ideas to other men or to ridicule "old men" who can see through you.
- Lose no occasion to appear to defend "the family" while at the same time doing all one can to dismantle it. (Margaret Hodge a UK MP is an expert at this behaviour).
Notes on Hodge from Wikipedia added May 28/09 by the blog admin: Privacy International awarded Margaret Hodge the 2004 Big Brother Award for "Worst Public Servant" for her backing of controversial initiatives including the Universal Child Database. At a keynote speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 26 November 2004, Hodge strongly defended the idea of greater state regulation of individuals' choices, stating that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good".
In the same year Father's 4 Justice campaigner Jonathan Stanesby handcuffed Hodge, stating he was arresting her for child abuse. Fathers 4 Justice targeted Hodge because she was the "bogey woman of family law, who doesn't even believe in equal parenting". Stanesby and colleague Jason Hatch were later cleared of a charge false imprisonment, with the court accepting it was part of a reasonable political protest
- If caught out in an embarrassing moment of hypocrisy by a man, instantly attack him for being cruel to you by showing you up in public because he is a "control freak who has to appear superior to women" Etc, etc.)
- Ignore ones own disgusting personal habits but draw constant and loud attention to the the faults of every man close to you.
- Avoid; by changing the subject, talking LOUDLY and rapidly, going quiet, leaving the room, sulking, banging doors, etc., any conversation that begins with the phrase, "If men have all the power, how come women make all the rules?"
- If, in a public situation a man begins to win an argument, gather as many like minded females and "new men" as possible. Surround the man and begin shouting him down and calling him names. (This technique can be seen often on the "Trisha show." and other female led chat shows). This technique is known as "mobbing" and is similar to the behaviour exhibited by crows when a hawk flies close to them and may be the origin of the term "birds" used descriptively by men, of women in general).
- If all else fails resort to tears. This technique will always fool men everywhere into running to the defence of the "helpless" female and is very effective in court rooms during divorce hearings, in Internet forums and in ugly custody battles over children. Also very useful in getting reduced sentences for anything from shop lifting to murder.
- If a man at the office, or other place of employment, refuses to bow to feminist ideology, accuse him of sexual advances, abuse, rape, violence, flashing, unfair promotion of others, sexism etc., and have him removed.
- If the man in #18 is famous, seduce him and write a book about it while empathizing with his "poor wife" to avoid her coming after you in the high street with a stiletto heal. Claim in the book that he seduced you and promised to leave his wife. Call him "a love rat" and serialise your story in the News Of The World. Don't worry, the journalists are so stupid they will never see the hypocritical nature of your story and question your version of events. If they do..... cry.
- Claim loudly and often that the law and penal system discriminates against women because, "The laws were written to prop up the patriarchy and suppress women." This has the effect of fooling gullible politicians, judges, lawyers and journalists into demanding that no women should ever go to prison for any reason whatsoever. If however, a female is placed in jail, demonstrate loudly outside the prison and demand her release on the grounds that: She only did it because, "He abused her." Or, "He would not give her enough money." Or, because "The Judge was a sexist, biased, women hating, old fool." Etc. Failing that, get Channel 4 or the BBC to do a documentary showing how much the children are suffering because she is in jail. Then raise a petition for release.
- Demand the right to enter any "all male" institution, forum, or club, on the grounds that it is sexist to refuse entry to women but at the same time, demand "all women only" activities in the local gym, swimming pool, library etc., etc., on the grounds that women need to "feel safe" in an environment that has no men around. This is a very effective way of demonising and disempowering men at one and the same time.
Monday, May 25, 2009
May 12, 2009
Imagine a world where ideology takes the place of truth and laws are rooted in dubious factoids from nowhere. That pretty much sums up the fact-challenged, hysteria-mongering domestic violence industry that is propped up by $1 billion of federal money each year.
Industry ideologues are loathe to admit the fact, but they truly believe the cause of partner abuse is patriarchal oppression. Not convinced? Just take it on the authority of feminist Gloria Steinem who once made this randy claim, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."
In her now-famous PBS interview, Steinem expounded on her conspiracy-laced worldview: "It starts with the slippery slope of the supposition [of] gender that sexual relations between men and women are dominant-passive... And then it goes all the way up the scale to beatings, torture, [and] murder." www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/interv/steinem.html
That's right, share a few tender moments with your romantic heart-throb and next thing you'll end up a statistic in the newspaper obituaries.
Journalist Philip Cook has recently come out with a book titled Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Cook probes the patriarchy-equals-violence theory and concludes it has more holes than a rotted-out rain barrel.
Take lesbian battering, which experts say is more common than heterosexual abuse. Remember Lindsey Lohan coming to blows with her girlfriend in a London nightclub last November? Recall Jessica Kalish of Florida who was stabbed with a screwdriver 200 times by her former female lover? And Raina L. Johnson who last year was sentenced to 28 years behind bars for the shooting of her ex-girlfriend in Washington, DC?
It's pretty loopy to explain away female-on-female brutality by casting aspersions on the loathsome patriarchy, so it's easier to pretend such incidents never happen, I guess.
In that same PBS interview, Steinem also made the claim that domestic violence is "the major cause of physical and psychological injury to women." Everyone knows Steinem is an authority in such matters, so everyone assumed she was telling the truth.
Except for Phil Cook, who decided to trace the origin of the canard.
Back in 1985, advocates Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft poured through a stack of hospital emergency room records. Without rhyme or reason, they tallied every case of injury as caused by domestic violence, unless the chart specifically said a stranger had caused the harm. When later pressed to explain his unconventional methodology, the best Stark could say was, "maybe domestic violence is the leading cause of injury and maybe it isn't."
That's right, and maybe the moon is made of cheese so the Man in the Moon can have something to eat. Or maybe it isn't.
But that logic didn't stop former senator Joseph Biden from becoming a True Believer. "The single greatest danger to a woman's health is violence from men. Something is sick in our society," he once admonished. That line of thinking is reflected in the federal Violence Against Women Act that Biden succeeded in passing in 1994.
The DV-as-the-leading-cause-of-injury legend soon became a dependable applause line as President Bill Clinton and senators Olympia Snowe and Ron Wyden joined in the sing-along.
And sure enough, look at the Security and Financial Security Act that Rep. Roybal-Allard of California introduced just a few months ago. Peruse the bill's findings, and once again you see the lie standing straight and tall: "Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of physical injury to women."
Once such myths are embedded in the national psyche, they become ferociously difficult to remove. Take a Department of Health and Human Services website that once featured the "Domestic Violence is the leading cause of injury to women" claim.
"It took two years, letters from a congressman, and an inquiry from a Senator's office, plus numerous letters, which mostly went unanswered, for an undersecretary at HHS to finally respond that maybe 'the' leading cause was erroneous, but it was 'a' leading cause. The truth, of course, is that is was neither," recounts an exasperated Philip Cook. "Eventually the HHS removed the statement from its Website site but refused to issue a retraction, even after eight years of perpetrating an outrageously false 'health' statement."
Curious to know what are the leading causes of injury to women? Here they are: unintentional falls, car accidents, and overexertion. Domestic violence did not even make the list: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/hi/pages/226i.html
So relax ladies, everything you've heard about the "epidemic" of domestic violence is mostly hype calculated to stampede you into divorcing your husband and voting for yet another taxpayer-funded, ideologically-charged abuse reduction program.
© Carey Roberts
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
In the Federal Public Service have a look at the numbers from the
Sixteenth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada
Public Service Diversity
Since 1998 - 10 years ago - women have been the majority population in the Federal Government.
The gender feminists won't be happy with this though, (are they ever) because they will whine about the top jobs being controlled by men. Affirmative action has been in place since the 70's and they have no one to blame but themselves if they can't get the top jobs on merit.
(March 31, 2008)
- 263,000 employees (251,000 in 1983)
- 54.9% women (42% in 1983)
- 41.2% of executives are women (less than 5% in 1983)
- 60.1% of employees in the regions and 39.9% in the National Capital Region
- 85.5% indeterminate employees; 9.5% term employees; 5% casuals and students
- 70.6% declare English their first official language; 29.4% declare French
- Average age 44 years (39 in 1983)
- Average age of executives 50.4 years (48.7 in 1983)
- Public service represents 0.8% of the Canadian population (1% in 1983)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My comments left on the National Post Site:
Thursday, May 21, 2009
This pattern is not new but may have just been discovered in medicine. Feminists like to promulgate the myth of women making 71 cents on the dollar as compared to men. The reasons why this is so are also evident in this study. Women have different work patterns, take more time from work for a variety of reasons including child birth, they work fewer hours on their jobs, they commute shorter distances.
The Victim Feminist spin will be the female Doctors earn less money than men. Now that we have that out of our system we learn to deal with it. We need more Doctors enrolled in med school whether they be men or women. Life goes on. If the victim feminists start to spin this as further victimization of women - mow them down with facts. This isn't about the patriarchy suppressing females it is about personal choices....and this on the MacLean's Magazine site.
When you give a monopoly to any group or organization they have not got the right stimulation (in the private sector competition) to redress what customers are telling them. If the RCOPS is behind the shortage and not government policy they need to be removed from any form of recruitment in med schools.
The study proves that females have different work habits, work fewer hours, take more time off for family reasons. There is nothing wrong with this and it is their choice. Those of us men who have been stay-at-homes for periods to raise children understand it completely. More men are doing the same thing and much more involved in the nurturing and rearing of children.
This pattern, as found in this study, is not new but may have just been discovered in medicine. Feminists like to promulgate the myth of women making 71 cents on the dollar as compared to men. The reasons why this is so are also evident in this study. They make less money because of the factors shown in this study and it is by choice not the patriarchy as victim feminists like Antonia Zerbisias, over at the Toronto Red Star, like to spin.
The Victim Feminist talking points will be the female Doctors earn less money than men and it will be true!. But it will be for reasons of choice as it is most every where else not because of that nebulous and evil patriarchy. Now that we have that out of our system we learn to deal with it. We need more Doctors enrolled in med school whether they be men or women. Life goes on. If the victim feminists start to spin this as further victimization of women – mow them down with facts.
If restricting entries into med school is artificial then it needs to be changed by the government regulators and the money found to support it. Tax and spend McQuinty can juggle his allotments and find it easily instead of buying our votes with our own tax dollars.MJM
Published: Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The growing ranks of female physicians in Canada will slash medical productivity by the equivalent of at least 1,600 doctors within a decade, concludes a provocative new analysis of data indicating that female MDs work fewer hours on average than their male colleagues.
The paper comes just a year after a blue-chip list of medical educators publicly condemned what they called the scapegoating of women for Canada's severe doctor shortage.
Dr. Mark Baerlocher, the study's lead author, acknowledged he is tackling a thorny issue, but stressed he does not favour curbing the number of female physicians. Instead, the study calls for greater increases in medical-school enrolment to offset the phenomenon.
"It's not meant to be a negative paper in any way," he said in an interview. "It's meant to take an objective, hard look at the work-hour differences that most people would agree are very real.... You can't simply ignore it because it's a sensitive issue."
The researchers led by Dr. Baerlocher analyzed results from the 2007 National Physician Survey, a canvass of doctors sponsored by major medical associations.
The survey found that women, on average, provided 30 hours a week of direct patient care, compared to 35 from men, a result of female doctors - still burdened disproportionately with child rearing and other domestic tasks - doing less on-call work and being more likely to take leaves.
Those figures were then factored in with population numbers to calculate doctor productivity per capita.
In 2007, women made up 32% of doctors. But with female students accounting for about 60% of medical school classes now, the numbers are expected to even up within a decade. When the male-female balance reaches 50-50, overall productivity will have decreased by the equivalent of 1,588 male doctors or 1,853 female doctors, all else being equal, the study concluded.
The decreased productivity would be felt sooner in specialties already becoming female-dominated, such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology, the researchers say.
The long surgical wait times and lack of family physicians that plague the Canadian health care system are largely blamed on the paucity of doctors. Their ranks - now at 67,000 - would need to jump by another 20,000 to reach the average for Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.
Much of the problem is blamed on a decision by provincial governments in the early 1990s to slash medical-school enrolment, just as the ageing Baby Boom generation was producing more illness. In recent years, enrolment has been increased somewhat again.
Dr. Robert Ouellette, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said medical schools need to train even more doctors than they do now, but he steered clear of suggesting the lifestyles of female doctors are making the shortage more acute. The new generation of physicians - both male and female - tends to work fewer hours generally than older colleagues, he said. And there is evidence that women spend more time with patients, are better communicators and offer more preventive medicine.
"It's not only the hours that count - it's the quality of care that's important also," Dr. Ouellette said.
After a spate of media coverage of male and female doctors' different work patterns, the deans of medicine and other senior administrators at the universities of Toronto and Western Ontario wrote an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year that urged "ending the sexist blame game."
"To disparage in any way the intelligent, dedicated women ... who have chosen to devote their lives to medicine is shameful," they wrote.
Dr. Baerlocher, a radiology resident at the University of Toronto, said he agrees women should not be blamed, but lamented a general reluctance in the medical profession to examine controversial issues, such as gender differences and abortion.
"There are a lot of topics that aren't adequately studied, because it's deemed a socially sensitive topic."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Often, injuries can be controlled by either preventing an event (such as a car crash) or lessening its impact. This can occur through education, engineering and design of safety products, enactment and enforcement of policies and laws, economic incentives, and improvements in emergency care. Some examples include the design, oversight, and use of child safety seats and seatbelts, workplace regulations regarding safety practices, and tax incentives for fitting home pools with fences.
In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).
Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.[D]