The Victim Feminists Rogues Gallery

The Pay Gap Mythology even Presidents of the USA promote

2011-03-06T10:18:00.000-05:00

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

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim
http://wwww.examiner.com/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim

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

The Wage Gap Myth
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html

Women stay away from math out of their own free choice
http://sify.com/news/women-stay-away-from-math-out-of-their-own-free-choice-news-scitech-kk1lubiiiee.html

Women In Science: No Discrimination, Says Cornell Study
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984

Lets be real about the lack of women in tech
http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9

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?feedTyâ�¦

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

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

2011-02-04T11:19:00.004-05:00

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

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

2011-01-18T10:31:00.001-05:00

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

Joan Arehart-Treichel

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>.▪

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137

Male victims get lost in domestic-abuse data

2010-12-28T11:08:00.001-05:00

By Jon Aerts

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

Clark University: New study: Men suffering ‘intimate terrorism’ by women partners

2010-11-08T10:43:00.002-05:00

Clark University

Thursday, August 12, 2010

The first findings of the largest study to date focusing on male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence were recently released, showing the existence of severe, controlling abusive behavior by women toward their male partners, on a level that many would describe as “intimate terrorism.”

Study results will be published as “Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist?” (Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research) and “A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women” (Partner Abuse).

Clark University research assistant professor of psychology Denise A. Hines is the lead author/researcher on the Men's Experiences with Partner Aggression Project, a study at Clark University funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The co-investigator is Emily M. Douglas, of Bridgewater State College’s Department of Social Work.

The research team analyzed data collected from 302 men who sustained physical violence from a female partner within the past year and sought help. The overarching goal of this study is to better understand the experiences of men who are in relationships with women who use violence.

“Extensive research has shown that men are at risk for sustaining partner violence in their relationships, yet few studies have investigated their experiences, and there are few resources available to such men,” Hines notes. “This is an under-recognized problem in the United States, and by conducting this research project, we hope to provide much needed information on these men, their relationships, and their needs.”
Fact sheets about the research and final drafts of the articles can be found online at http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm.

The studies show that the 302 men in the research sample, on average, sustained physical violence and controlling behaviors on a weekly basis, and that over three-quarters had been injured in the previous year, on average about every other month, with 1/3 of them sustaining a severe injury (i.e., something that would need medical attention) in the past year.
“With every analysis that we do of these data, what is very apparent is how much these men resemble the women who participate in studies of battered women who go to shelters,” Hines says. “The level of violence these men sustain, their reactions to the violence, their reasons for staying, their protectiveness of their children, and their mental health, all very much mirror what we’ve seen in studies of battered women over the past 30 years.”

Contrary to popular stereotypes of male victims, the men in the sample were the size of an average man and were bigger than their female partners, and about one third of them were employed in stereotypical masculine or high-status occupations, such as a soldier, doctor, lawyer, or business owner. When their female partners are violent, their most common response is to try to get away or escape from her.

Why don’t the men leave? The most common reasons are because of love and commitment to the marriage and because of the children. The men do not want to leave the children with a violent woman, and they are often afraid that they would lose custody of their children in a family court system that tends to favor mothers in custody disputes. Many men also discuss the financial repercussions of leaving – about half indicate that they do not have the money or resources to leave, with others discussing their fear of losing all, if not at least half, of everything they have worked for and saved in their lives.

Hines: “What should also be noted is the profound effect that this violence probably has on the children involved. We know that at least 70 percent, if not more, of the children who were involved in these relationships either saw or heard the violence. From prior research, we know that child witnesses of domestic violence against women can suffer severe psychological consequences. There is no reason to expect that child witnesses of domestic violence against men won’t suffer the same consequences.”

Implications: Given the serious level of the domestic violence that these men sustain, it is necessary to educate practitioners, researchers and the public about men sustaining domestic violence, their experiences, and their barriers to leaving, which can include both their emotional ties and commitments, and a lack of resources. All of the men in this study indicated that they had sought help of some form, and because of the very serious nature of their victimization, it is important to educate and train front-line domestic violence workers about the existence of male victims, the seriousness of their domestic violence experiences, and their needs.

“It is important for all who work in the field of domestic violence to realize and acknowledge that both men and women can perpetrate even the most severe forms of partner violence and both men and women can be victimized by severe forms of partner violence,” Hines says. “Serious violence and controlling behaviors demand our attention, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim.”

Hines and Douglas are currently working on publishing more analyses of the data from the men in this study, in addition to developing follow-up studies on the mental and physical health consequences to these men and their children, and on male victims’ experiences in both the family court and criminal justice systems. Hines also directs the Family Impact Seminars at Clark and is co-Director of the Clark Anti-Violence Education (CAVE) Program.

Since its founding in 1887, Clark University in Worcester, Mass., has a history of challenging convention. As an innovative liberal arts college and research university, Clark’s world-class faculty lead a community of creative thinkers and passionate doers and offer a range of expertise, particularly in the areas of psychology, geography, urban education, Holocaust and genocide studies, environmental studies, and international development and social change. Clark’s students, faculty and alumni embody the Clark motto: Challenge convention. Change our world. www.clarku.edu

http://news.clarku.edu/news/2010/08/12/new-study-men-suffering-%E2%80%98intimate-terrorism%E2%80%99-by-women-partners/

An archive of News & Media Relations posts can be found at https://news.clarku.edu/news.

Women's 'double shift' of work and domestic duties a myth finds new research

2010-10-12T18:03:00.000-04:00

Feminists are wrong to claim that men should do a larger share of the housework and childcare because on average, men and women already do the same number of hours of productive work. In fact, if we consider the hours spent doing both paid work and unpaid household, care and voluntary work together, men already do more than their fair share, argues LSE sociologist Catherine Hakim in a special issue of Renewal: a journal of social democracy.

Until recently, unpaid work such as childcare and domestic work has been hard to quantify and so mostly ignored by social scientists and policy makers. The development of Time Use Surveys across the European Union, however, has provided data on exactly how much time we spend carrying out both paid and unpaid productive activities. The findings show that on average women and men across Europe do the same total number of productive work hours once paid jobs and unpaid household duties are added together - roughly eight hours a day.

Catherine Hakim said: ‘We now have a much more specific and accurate portrait of how families and individuals divide their “work” and this data overturns the well-entrenched theory that women work disproportional long hours in jobs and at home in juggling family and work. Feminists constantly complain that men are not doing their fair share of domestic work. The reality is that most men already do more than their fair share.’

While men carry out substantially more hours of paid work, women will often choose to scale down their hours of paid employment to make time for household work when starting a family. In Britain, men are shown to actually work longer hours on average than women, as many will work overtime to boost family income when the children are at home while wives switch to part-time jobs or drop out of employment altogether.
Couples with no children at home and with both in full-time jobs emerge as the only group where women work more hours in total than men, once paid and unpaid work hours are added up.

The article argues that in societies where genuine choices are open to women, the key driver to how work is divided comes down to lifestyle preference, not gender. Individuals fall into three categories: work-centred, home-centred or wanting to combine work and family (adaptive). 80% of women fall into the adaptive category, Catherine Hakim finds, with only 20% wanting a work-centred lifestyle.

Despite this, most European policies are geared towards full-time worker carers and ignore unpaid work, although there are several countries that are starting to support family work. Finland, for example, operates a homecare allowance system that is paid to any parent who stays at home without using state nurseries, effectively paying the carer for their work. In Germany, the income-splitting tax system for couples recognises the work done by full-time homemakers by aggregating and then splitting the spouses earnings between into two halves, reflecting the idea that both benefit from the home/work arrangement.

‘Instead of looking for the one ‘best option’ policy, governments should offer several’, says Catherine Hakim. ‘One-sided policies that support employment and careers but ignore the productive work done in the family are, in effect, endorsing market place values over family values. But the altruistic and community values embraced by home-centred or adaptive individuals, such as sharing, trust and cohesion, are equally as important to a social democracy.

‘Furthermore, there is evidence that men are beginning to demand the same options and choices as women, with more claims of sex discrimination from men. Policy makers need to be aiming for gender-neutral policies that cater for all three main lifestyle choices.’

(How) can social policy and fiscal policy recognise unpaid family work? by Catherine Hakim is published in a special issue of Renewal: a journal of social democracy, out now.
A copy of the final report can be found here (PDF).

Contacts:
Dr Catherine Hakim, LSE,

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/08/domestic_duties.aspx

Obama to Social Engineer Orwellian Gender Police State

2010-10-03T17:39:00.000-04:00

A New Project for the Gender Police

Gallant government will protect the weaker sex.

by George F. Will, September 25, 2010

Photos: Have Women's Rights Paid Off?

The bad news for professional feminists is that the good news is multiplying: Last year more women than men received doctoral degrees. It is ludicrous to argue that women should be regarded as victims in patriarchal, phallocentric America and must be wards of government.

Women live five years longer than men. Their unemployment rate is significantly lower. For years they have received more high-school diplomas, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and now Ph.D.s. Yet the Obama administration wants the government to increase its protection of the (it evidently assumes) weaker sex. This, even though “contrary to what feminist lobbyists would have Congress believe, girls and women are doing well.” So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former chief economist at the Department of Labor, she is the author of a just-published (from Encounter Books) broadside against the gender politics of the Obama administration and the current Congress, both of which seem impervious to evidence.

The president wants Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. It would further enrich a Democratic constituency—trial lawyers—by saying that differences in pay between men and women cannot be based on differences of education, training, and experience unless there is a “business necessity”—an invitation to litigation.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, says: In 1963, when the first “equal pay” law was enacted, “women earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man,” and “nearly 50 years later, the wage gap has narrowed by only 18 cents,” so “women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man—and are paid less than men even when they have similar levels of experience and education.”

Well. Women were 49.7 percent of the workforce in August. Because the economic slump hit construction and manufacturing harder than government and health care, which employ more women, by November women may be, for the first time, a majority of workers. In this year’s second quarter, women earned 82.8 percent of the median weekly wage of men. Last year single women working full time earned 95 percent of what men earned. Young, unmarried, and childless urban women earn 8 percent more than similarly situated males. Why? See above: College degrees.

Pay disparities largely reflect women’s choices. But seen through feminists’ ideological spectacles, “a woman’s choice of less time at the office and more time at home with family is not considered an opportunity but a societal problem calling for a government solution,” says Furchtgott-Roth.

The gender-grievance industry—the financial-reform legislation mandates 29 new offices to favor women—has a new project. National Journal reports that the administration is “promising to litigate, regulate, and legislate the nation’s universities until women obtain half of all academic degrees in science and technology and hold half the faculty positions in those areas.”

Although women receive more B.A.s, M.A.s, and Ph.D.s than men in biology and biomedical sciences, not enough women want what the administration wants them to want. There are fewer women choosing to enter many science and engineering programs than the administration wishes, and it assumes that the reason is discrimination against women. To which Furchtgott-Roth replies: Anti-women discrimination even at women’s colleges?

At Bryn Mawr, 4 percent of 2010 graduates majored in chemistry, 2 percent in computer science. At Smith, half of 1 percent were physics majors; 1.4 percent majored in computer science. In 2009 at Barnard, one third of 1 percent majored in physics and astronomy.

Consider NASA, whose administrator, Charles Bolden, has said that “perhaps foremost” among NASA’s missions is finding “a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science.” Now that NASA has undertaken the therapeutic promotion of other nations’ self-esteem, it is not surprising that it has big ideas about how every university should have gender-parity apparatchiks to meet “weekly with the university president, provost, vice president, and deans,” the agency says, and fan out through the institution’s departments, labs, and other learning centers to determine whether “environments” are conducive to women. That such social engineering will not be conducive to science is obvious but, to this hyper-ideological administration, irrelevant.

George Will is also the author of One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation and With a Happy Eye But . . .: America and the World, 1997—2002.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/25/george-f-will-new-project-for-the-gender-police.html

Phyllis Schlafly: The Awesome Power of Family Courts

2010-07-31T17:57:00.001-04:00

The month of June when we observe Father's Day is a good time to review some of the injustices committed against fathers by family courts. Family courts routinely deprive divorced fathers not only of their own children, but even many constitutional rights.

For example, do you think judges should have the power to decide to which religion your children must belong and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? In December 2009 a Chicago judge did exactly that.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because his ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother. Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, when he saw the judge's restraining order, said, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban."

Mr. Reyes took his daughter to church anyway and let the Chicago media know about it. Soon he was back in court to be prosecuted for contempt in violating the family court order. The good news is that Reyes, fortunately, drew another Cook County judge, Renee Goldfarb, who ruled on April 13, 2010 that Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses." Judge Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child," but then criticized Reyes for going public with his case.

This case is a good illustration of the dictatorial power of the family courts. Both judges purported to decide what church a child can attend based on the judge's personal opinion about what is "the best interest of the child." The choice of a church should be none of the government's business, even if the parents are divorced, and "best interest" should be decided by parents, not judges.

Not only did the family court try to take away a father's parental rights and his freedom of religion rights, but also his First Amendment free-speech rights. The second judge severely criticized Reyes for telling the media about his case. But publicity was the reason the family court backtracked from sending Reyes to jail for violating the restraining order. It's important to shine the light of publicity on the outrageous denial of parental rights by the family courts.

In another divorce case last year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."

Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."

This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.

However, when U.S. state legislatures revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions. Family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents, and enforce their opinions by using their power to send fathers to jail and to tell them how they must spend their money.

The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government officials and employees of the courts, the public schools, and the departments of children and family services.
The "best interest" rule is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make thousands of decisions about their children, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene so-called experts. Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer), there is no objective way to say which is "best."

Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges often call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions. Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.

Sometimes these rulings are against women, but most decisions are against men, especially fathers. It's time to call a halt to the practice of letting family court judges make decisions that are rightfully the prerogative of parents.

Putting Men in Debtors' Prisons

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely called "child support," which was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States even before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly), can't afford a lawyer, serving in our Armed Forces overseas, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who is the father of her child, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father? Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy? These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men.

Most of these family court injustices are caused by the Bradley Amendment, named for its sponsor former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley. That 1986 federal law prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation, and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay. Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as Bernard Goldberg wrote in his book Bias, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, denigrating men, especially fathers, and using the epithet "deadbeat dads."

But one egregious case did make news in 2009. Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years earlier, plus a second one in 2009, proved that he is not the father. His ex-girlfriend had lied and claimed he was. The August 21, 2001 court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father, but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.
Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support." Even after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Judge Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt of court and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he was released from jail and relieved from future assessments, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government demanded that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he paid off the $16,398 debt the government claimed he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father). He paid the debt down to $10,000 but was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment. When he became unemployed and homeless in 2008, he was jailed again.
Altogether, Hatley paid so-called "child support" for 13 years and spent 13 months in jail because of a woman's lie, the Bradley Amendment, the ruthless "child support" bureaucracy, and the bias of the family court against fathers.

In 2009, the court relieved Hatley of any future child support payments (probably because of press publicity about this case) but did not restore his driver's license. This system is morally and constitutionally wrong and the Bradley Amendment is particularly evil, yet all authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Washington, police Officer Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the interrogator to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the interrogator after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.

Depriving Men of Constitutional Rights

Family courts routinely deprive men of their fundamental right to parent their own children, by charging them with a wide variety of trivial offenses. Family courts generally uphold feminists' demands to kick a man out of his own home, and take control of their children and his money, based on a woman's unsubstantiated allegations. The principal tactics in this racket are domestic violence accusations and court-issued restraining orders.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 as a payoff to the radical feminists for helping to elect Bill Clinton President in 1992. Personal sponsorship of this law was taken over by then-Senator Joe Biden.

VAWA shows the hypocrisy of noisy feminist demands that we kowtow to their ideology of gender neutrality, to their claim that there is no difference between male and female, and to their opposition to stereotyping and gender profiling. There is nothing sex neutral about VAWA. It is based on the proposition that there are, indeed, innate gender differences: men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. VAWA is not designed to eliminate or punish violence, but to punish only alleged violence against women. Most of the shelters financed by VAWA do not accept men as victims.

VAWA has been known from the getgo as "feminist pork" because it puts $1 Billion a year of U.S. taxpayers' money into the hands of the radical feminists. They have set up shop in domestic violence shelters where they promote divorce, marriage breakup, hatred of men, and false accusations, while rejecting marriage counseling, reconciliation, drug-abuse treatment, and evidence of mutual-partner abuse. There is no investigation or accountability for the taxpayers' money spent in these shelters.

VAWA makes taxpayers' money available to the feminists to lobby state legislators to pass feminist laws, to train law enforcement personnel and judges in using the laws, and to fund enforcement.
VAWA provides the woman with free legal counsel to pursue her allegations, but not the man to defend himself. He is on his own to find and pay a lawyer — or struggle without one.

Feminists have changed state laws in order to get family courts to operate on a loosey-goosey definition of family violence. It doesn't have to be violent. It can simply be what a man says or how he looks at a woman. It can even be what a woman thinks he might do or say. Definitions of violence include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," claiming to be "fearful," or just not doing what your partner wants.

Feminists have persuaded most states to adopt mandatory arrest laws. That means, when the police arrive at a disturbance and lack good information on who is to blame, they are nevertheless legally bound to arrest somebody. Three guesses who is usually arrested.

Feminists have lobbied most states into passing no-drop prosecution laws. Those laws make the prosecutor legally bound to go forward with prosecution even if the woman recants her charges or wants to drop them. Studies show that women do recant or ask to drop the charges in 60% of criminal allegations, but the law requires prosecution against the man to proceed regardless. Along with the loss of other constitutional rights, the man thus loses his right to confront and cross-examine his accuser.

VAWA has a built-in incentive for the woman to make false charges of domestic violence because she knows she will never be prosecuted for perjury. Charging domestic violence practically guarantees she will get custody of the children and sever forever the father's relationship with his children even though the alleged violence had nothing whatever to do with any abuse of the children. Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse was ever presented.

'Gamesmanship' of Restraining Orders

Family court judges issue restraining orders virtually for the asking, without any evidence of actual domestic violence or even threat of violence. The Illinois Bar Journal (June 2005) explained how women use court-issued restraining orders as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and to bar the father from visitation. In big type, the Journal proclaimed: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce."

The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial complaints against the father, in order to get a restraining order based on the presumption that men are naturally abusers of women. Restraining orders are in reality a tactical legal maneuver familiar to all family court attorneys as a way to obtain an order of contempt and unfairly increase the leverage of one side (typically the woman) in bargaining with the other (typically the man).

The Fourth Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to be "secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects." But each year, restraining orders are issued against at least two million men without proof or even evidence, forcing innocent men out of their homes. In 33 states, fathers can be thrown in jail for even a technical violation of a restraining order, such as sending a child a birthday card or telephoning a child on an unapproved day.

Family courts have avoided facing up to whether the restraining orders issued against fathers are constitutional. Accused criminals enjoy a long list of constitutional rights, but feminists have persuaded judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminal husbands and fathers, and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations. Most states do not require proof by a clear and convincing standard of evidence. Even though these restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him 'See ya' around.'" People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order.

Too often, the restraining order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to regain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn't have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.

Probably two million restraining orders are issued each year in domestic relationships. These restraining orders almost certainly increase violence and harm, because studies show that the safest place for adults and children is in a home with two parents, rather than one that is broken by a restraining order. In 1999 there were 58,200 abductions of children by non-family members, a crime typically the direct result of inadequate adult supervision. When an adult is ordered out of a home based on some allegation of domestic violence, the children in that home are no longer supervised, and victimization by crime (and accidents) necessarily increases.

There is no evidence that the millions of restraining orders issued annually each year increase the overall safety of the applicants or their children, and most likely the opposite is true.

It is false to claim that because domestic violence often occurs behind closed doors, it is somehow difficult to prove. In fact, real domestic violence is easier to prove than most crimes. Medical record and forensic evidence is clear and convincing for real domestic violence, and the time and place of the crime are easy to determine, and a restraining order may be appropriate.

What is difficult is to disprove false allegations of non-serious domestic violence, so a higher standard of proof is essential to sift fact from fiction.

It seems elementary that husband and fathers who are accused of crimes by their wives or girl friends should have the same constitutional rights accorded to any criminal, but they do not in family courts. They are routinely denied equal treatment under law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to confront accusers, and a court-appointed lawyer when they can't afford to hire an attorney.
It's time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers and repudiate the feminist agenda that treats men as guilty unless proven innocent.

VAWA will be coming up for reauthorization soon, and it must be reformed. Reforming the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is today's basic civil rights issue. Domestic violence must be redefined to mean violence. State laws must be changed to repeal mandatory arrest laws and no-drop prosecution laws. We must eliminate the incentives for false accusations of domestic violence, which include using restraining orders as the "gamesmanship" for divorce, child custody, money, or ownership of the family home.

Persons accused of domestic violence, man or woman, are entitled to have fundamental constitutional rights, including due process and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by clear and convincing evidence in court.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2010/june10/psrjune10.html

Mythology of abused Women in Quebec, Canada

2010-07-26T11:21:00.001-04:00

The Feminists in Quebec, aided by your taxpayers dollars supplied through Status of Women Canada and Quebec's own Provincial Government are not unlike feminists organized every where tax dollars are available. They malign, impugn, and lie about maleness and masculinity and don't care how they destroy men and boys. Their mythological victim status is all that matters. Did you know testosterone is not found to be causally linked to male aggression? I thought not.

They want the public at large to believe that masculinity is a malignant curse on society and everyone would be better off if all were feminized. In the 20-30 age group of Ontario's teachers females outnumber males over 4-1. In elementary levels it is higher. Boys, who in 90% of divorces, are in the physical custody of mom, seldom see a male role model through their emotional growth as dads are marginalized and cast off as visitors. Most, if lucky , see their children 14% of the time.

Feminist spin is demagoguery and propaganda at its worst. They learned well from those, of the past, who used propaganda to destroy whole ethnic groups. It matters not that single moms are the sole largest perpetrators of child neglect, abuse and homicide. It matters not females are shown to be in large studies 70% most likely to initiate intimate partner violence in non-reciprocal situations, and DV is pretty much equal between genders. (Search this blog for the real truth). The MSM and the public at large, having being subject to the propaganda for over 30 years believe the nonsense. Mendacity has never deterred a feminist.

Women’s Shelters are found throughout Canada. There are an estimated 550 to 569 of them across the land and they are represented in every province and territory.

Canada’s Budget to keep these shelters operational is $377 million annually (Stascan 2005-2006)

Stats Can states In 2008 the percentage of abused women reporting domestic violence by male partner = 8%

In 2008 percentage of abused men reporting domestic violence by female partner = 7 %

Number of Shelters for abused Men in Canada = 1 (privately run. In Calgary, Alberta)

Canada’s budget for men’s shelters = $ 0

Whenever you see a feminist use the term women and "children" (the latter of whom are abused more often by females in domestic situations) you have found a Life Boat Feminist (LFB) (see the right side bar for definitions).

Thanks to Barbara Kay for helping to highlight the myths of feminist dogma. To suggest (by me) this idolatry of the feminine borders on religious zealotry is not far off the mark.

For example, how long does your female partner spend getting ready to go some where compared to you? How many different products does she use to prepare for a day or night out? Do you think there is a healthy market for these products? Who do you think marketers target with respect to shopping. Why do you think they don't care about men unless it is to buy a pickup or watch sports?MJM

300,000 abused

By Barbara Kay on July 22, 2010

“A bad statistic,” says sociologist Joel Best, “is harder to kill than a vampire.” Bad statistics come from bad intellectual faith. And in no field does bad intellectual faith run more rampant than that of domestic violence.
In an up-to-date example of the phenomenon, we find the “World Soccer Abuse Nightmare” out of England, in which the British Home Office carelessly endorsed a bogus study put forward by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers, purporting to find that a full 30 per cent increase in domestic violence (DV) during the World Cup. A subsequent investigation by reliable scholars found the so-called study to be riddled with errors and corrupt methodology.
The World Cup stats fiasco recalls the 1993 Super Bowl hoax, when it was “reported” that DV escalated by 40 per cent during the game, a falsity that tore through the media like wildfire, to the point that the Super Bowl was hyped by NBC as the “abuse bowl.” Only a single Washington Post reporter tracked the figure to its source in a casual remark at a press conference by an irresponsible feminist activist. It was completely bogus, but the pernicious rumour circulates every year, despite 17 years of statistical tracking that reveals the same constant message: There is no substantiation whatsoever to any sports-DV linkage.

Here in Quebec, we have our own equally persistent scandalous version of this hoax. In 1980, a false statistic was promoted by a supposedly scholarly study (Macleod et Cadieux, 1980, later conceded to be based on false statistics), to the effect that one Canadian woman in ten is beaten by her husband or live-in partner.

The unkillable “vampire” morphed into another false statistic circulated by the Minister of Social Affairs. Now, the message was that there are 300,000 victims of DV in Quebec each year. Anyone with common sense, thinking of the enormity of this charge, would realize this was an astronomical figure and highly suspect in a population of at most 8 million people – far less when you subtract the men, the very young and the elderly.

But strategically it made sense for political militants to fear-monger amongst Quebec women in order to pave the way for social changes feminists were demanding. In 2008, Quebec upped the ante in the fear-mongering game by flooding the province with print, radio and TV ads claiming that “one in three” Quebec women would be a victim of DV in her lifetime, another patent falsehood (it’s more like a lifetime risk of one in 14, which doesn’t take into account the obvious spread of the risk: A probable zero likelihood for most prudent women and the probable 90 per cent risk for prostitutes and drug addicts).

That one-in-three “statistic” was based not in research, but in an opinion poll asking women what their perception was of their risk for DV. Moreover, they included in their definition of DV such trivialities as insults, the way men looked at them and any number of subjective categories all supposedly part of a spectrum of abuse. No attempt whatsoever was made to gauge how much abuse is perpetrated against boys and men by women, even though the numbers of such sexual and physical assaults is significant.

How such a demonization of all males might affect actual boys and men psychologically, or how it might affect society’s perception of sons, brothers, fathers and husbands never came under consideration.
For an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon – that is, the whole phenomenon of the demonization of the male sex, of which false statistics are but the tip of a treacherous iceberg – I recommend a recently published anthology of essays, 300,000 Femmes Battues: y avez-vous cru? Full disclosure: I wrote the preface to it.
The book brings together Quebec’s leading researchers and “good faith” intellectuals on the subject of feminism’s crusade against men, each one expanding on the effects of radical feminism in his or her own field. The problem is approached from all sides: philosophical (François Brooks); juridical (Georges Dupuy); political (researchers Jean-Claude Boucher and Jean-Pierre Gagnon); familial (Lise Bilodeau); media (Bob Lérétik); and historic (Jean-Philippe Trottier).

Feminists in Quebec are far better organized for political action in Quebec, because women politicians, for historic reasons having to do with the Quiet Revolution, have been at their game longer and with greater focus than their sisters in the ROC. Their influence is widespread and deep and in many ways corrupt as a result of too much political power concentrated in the hands with those of a monolithic view of society that excludes men’s rights, and increasingly fewer scruples in whatever methods it takes to further the interests of women.
Meanwhile, boys are dropping out of school like flies, Quebec male suicide numbers are alarmingly high, and sexually abused boys and men have nowhere to turn for help. But escalating millions upon millions of public dollars are lavished on women’s problems, real and imagined.

The abandonment of boys and men in Quebec is an orphan topic that deserves a little more media gruel. This is the first credible book to gather all the topic’s important background and relevant information in one volume. It won’t get the attention it deserves, alas, but that it exists at all is a hopeful sign that intellectual good faith on this thorny subject may yet have its day in the court of public opinion, so long dominated by the feminist movement’s merchants of duplicity.

The World Cup Abuse Nightmare and Mendacity in the UK Government

2010-07-11T11:19:00.004-04:00

The following story is instructive in that putting a feminist in the role of Chief Feminist of the UK, won't change anything whether you are a socialist like Harriot "the harridan" Harmon or a "so called" conservative like Theresa Mary May, the current UK Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality. Feminist ideology trumps political affiliation. May is a former speaker at The Fawcett Society a feminist organization who uses misleading statistics to highlight false comparisons between the genders.

The hard line feminist bureaucrats in the British Women and Equality office seemed to have convinced the new Minister to go along with the ruse followed dutifully by eunuch's in the Police and elsewhere. Similar things occur in the Canadian Status of Women agency and if the end justifies the means it does not preclude lying. I'm surprised the latter didn't produce a report on a massive outbreak of DV when Canada's hockey team beat the USA for Olympic gold in February this year. It would not have been true but heck think of the headlines in the MSM and all the gullible corporations and citizens who sop this up and assuage their guilt by donating money to DV shelters. Its great marketing and that is what it is all about - women as victims, men as brutes - and more importantly money. MJM

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Christina Hoff Sommers

July 10, 2010 4:00 A.M.

The World Cup Abuse Nightmare

Myths about domestic violence not only libel the vast majority of men; they also put truly at-risk women at greater risk.

Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office. Determined to stem the assaults, officials flooded pubs and the airwaves with graphic warnings. “Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you,” warned a poster distributed by the West Yorkshire Police. It showed the bare back of a cowering woman marked by bruises, cuts, and the imprint of a man’s shoe. News stories with titles such as “Women’s World Cup Abuse Nightmare” informed women that the games could uncover, “for the first time, a darker side to their partner.”

Many Americans will recall a similar scare surrounding Super Bowl Sunday in January 1993. Newspapers and television networks reported that the incidence of domestic violence increased by 40 percent during the annual football classic. Journalists were soon talking of a “day of dread” and referring to the game as the “abuse bowl.” Experts held forth on how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.” During its telecast, NBC ran a public-service announcement urging men to remain calm during the game and reminding them they could go to jail if they attacked their wives.

In that roiling sea of media credulity, Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, did something no other reporter thought to do: He checked the facts. He quickly discovered that there was no evidence linking football and domestic violence. The source for the 40 percent factoid was a mistaken remark by an activist at a press conference in Pasadena, Calif. Today, what has come to be known as the Super Bull Sunday hoax, is a staple in discussions of urban legends. Could the World Cup Abuse Nightmare be a copycat fraud?

“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson. They recently investigated the alleged link between the televised World Cup games and violence in the home for their weekly program Law in Action. On June 22 — day twelve of the 2010 World Cup — they aired the story. It included an interview with a prominent Cambridge University statistician, Sheila Bird, whom they had asked to review the Home Office study and its finding of a 30 percent increase in domestic abuse. She found it to be so amateurish and riddled with flaws that it could not be taken seriously. The 30 percent claim was based on a cherry-picked sample of police districts; it failed to correct for seasonal differences and essentially ignored match days that showed little or no increase in domestic violence. Professor Bird also noted that improved police practices can lead to increased reports of violence but do not necessarily indicate more violence. A telltale sign that something is amiss in the Home Office is that it also disseminates the claim that “one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence.” That impossibly high figure may be the result of a rather expansive definition of “domestic violence” — which includes not only physical and sexual violence but also emotional and “financial” abuse.

The BBC Law in Action program also unearthed a serious study by the London Metropolitan Police Authority that contradicted the “official” 30 percent finding. But thanks to a sensational media campaign sanctioned by the Home Office, the reasonable and credible findings of the Metropolitan Police went unnoticed.

On June 27, England suffered a humiliating defeat by Germany. A few days later, news stories reported a “shocking” surge in domestic assaults in some districts. According to the Telegraph, “Kent police said it witnessed a 400 percent rise in domestic abuse” on the day of the loss. But as the BBC investigators warned, percentages can be misleading when the raw numbers are small. There were 26 incidents in south Kent on the day of the rout, compared to an average weekend total of six. Newspapers also carried stories of a spike in Lancashire reported by an ambulance service. But, according to Detective Inspector Derry Crorken of the local police force’s public protection unit, “We have not seen a big rise in callouts during or after the football compared to other weekends.” For the time being, excited reports by British journalists on this topic should be discounted heavily.

In the past 17 years, despite occasional efforts, no one has been able to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery in the United States. A major study in 2007, by two University of Alabama researchers, examined 2,387 crisis-call records over a three-year period. The authors also interviewed abused women and shelter staff. Their conclusion: “The widely held belief that more women seek shelter during ‘drinking holidays’ such as New Year’s and the Super Bowl was unsubstantiated.”

Rozenberg and Stephenson interviewed me for their BBC story because I had written about the U.S. Super Bowl fiction in my 1994 book, Who Stole Feminism? Why, they wanted to know, do such myths have such strong appeal? It is easy to understand why the American version resonated so powerfully in 1993. At the time, the “women are victims, men are brutes” style of feminism was all the rage. Many middle-class women — whose chances of being assaulted by their husbands were close to zero — were riveted by ominous pronouncements like this one from Gloria Steinem’s 1992 bestseller, Revolution from Within: “The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man on the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.” It was in 1993 that the National Coalition against Domestic Violence circulated a brochure claiming that half of married American women would face violence from their mate and that “more than a third are battered repeatedly every year.” The Super Bowl story was a handy bandwagon for this popular but twisted creed.

The motives behind the British scare are harder to fathom. It was not the work of feminist hard-liners but rather of a network of government bureaucrats, social-service workers, police personnel, and public officials — including the new home secretary, Theresa May. History offers many examples of depraved societies pretending they are better than they really are. England, an enlightened and humane country, is perversely fascinated by stories that falsely depict its citizens as corrupt and degenerate. Those behind the exaggerated crisis are not going to recant in the face of mere facts. When the BBC investigators presented Carmel Napier, the deputy chief constable of Gwent, with the evidence that the study she and her colleagues were promoting was specious, she replied: “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.”

In fact, it does harm. The BBC’s Law in Action also interviewed Davina James-Hanman, director of the AVA (Against Violence & Abuse) Project. She was concerned that the World Cup scare could place truly at-risk women in harm’s way. She explained that a woman in a violent relationship is often eager to blame external factors as the cause of the attacks. “It worries me that their safety planning may be affected by this focus on the World Cup . . . that she’s maybe getting the message that if she just hangs on until the World Cup is over everything will be okay.” Surely women at risk for violence are best served by truth. By allowing sensational half-truths and untruths to flourish, officials not only channel scarce resources into dubious programs, they also diminish public trust.

There is another serious reason why countries such as the United States and Britain should not exaggerate the victim status of their female citizens. Horrific and systematic abuses of women occurring in other parts of the world demand our attention. In May, while British officials were preparing for the “expected” explosion of domestic battery from World Cup watchers, the Islamic Republic of Iran was granted a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Human-rights activists protested, pointing out Iran’s appalling record of tyranny, cruelty, and injustice to women. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shot back that Iranian women are far better off than women in the West. “What is left of women’s dignity in the West?” he asked. “Is there any love and kindness left?” He then declared that in Europe almost 70 percent of housewives are beaten by their husbands.

That was a self-serving lie. British women, with few exceptions, are safe and free. Iranian women are not. But the lurid posters of women’s beaten bodies and bloody T-shirts (one with the legend “strikeher” emblazoned above a big zero) and bogus statistics give wings to such lies. How that helps women coping with real abuse in Britain, the United States, or anywhere else remains a mystery.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437888/the-world-cup-abuse-nightmare/christina-hoff-sommers

— 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, and the editor of The Science on Women and Science.

No bias in this study ~ Lesbian Mothers Think Their Children are All Above Average

2010-06-20T00:29:00.002-04:00

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) study quoted in the story below has an agenda and we have had some Female Chauvinist Pigs, like Pamela Paul, doing articles in magazines like Atlantic describing the maternal superiority of Lesbians over - get this - heterosexual couples. So they are not only better than normal moms, who are also women but the underlying theme is dads are not necessary. If they said that about a racial minority they would be castigated by the media rather than the useful idiots of the MSM parroting the studies results as though it was factual. Studies show that as many as a third or more of lesbians have been victims of sexual assault, including rape, or coercion at the hands of another woman. Others show the rate of abusiveness between same sex females cohabiting is higher than heterosexual DV. Additionally, single moms are the most likely to kill or abuse their children and Lesbians see more frequent breakups and they are less stable which is mentioned in the study. Paul, the maternal supremacist, fails to mention this.

This study conducted in Bejing isn't directly relevant but it is instructive in what is happening in Communist China, "The survey, funded by the Anti-Domestic Violence Network of the China Law Society (ADVN), an NGO founded in 2000 to protect women's rights, found 75 percent of lesbian and bisexual women in Beijing were victims of domestic violence."

In this report a psychology professor Carolyn West "found estimates of lesbian domestic abuse ranging anywhere from 8.5 to 73 percent but says that in most studies 30 to 40 percent of lesbians reported they'd been in a violent relationship. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, estimates based on the sparse research available that domestic violence occurs in 25 to 33 percent of same-sex couples."

Needless to say the NLLFS study is not to be taken seriously and those authors who are touting it have a clear agenda. Female superiority in the care of children and dads are unnecessary. What does that say about their cousins Gay men raising children. Are they twice as unnecessary. These supremacists do no favours to their very small same sex, relative to normal couples, community.

A very in depth study goes into great detail about homosexual marriages

Some snippets:

Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships
Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.

· The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]

Source: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, 30.

The study further charts specic rates of DV compared to married men/women compared to homosexuals.

Homosexual and Lesbian Couples vs. Married Couples

When homosexual and lesbian relationships are directly compared with married couples, the difference in the domestic partner violence is pronounced:

Sources: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

And they posit the following:

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE

By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home.MJM

Janice Shaw Crouse

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) just published in the online edition of the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and funded by the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, claims that children of lesbian mothers do better than children from a married-mom-and-dad family. The AAP is no stranger to controversy; they are the pediatrics group that recently capitulated to political-correctness to advocate a “less extreme” form of female genital mutilation and then, when under pressure, reversed their recommendation. The NLLFS study professes to be a highly respected, peer-reviewed “longitudinal” type of study. Longitudinal studies, however, are conducted by researchers who objectively track subjects over a long period of time. In this study, the children were evaluated by their lesbian birth mothers — hardly disinterested, dispassionate researchers.

The hype for the study was remarkable, with over 116 newspaper headlines blaring the news: “Children of lesbian couples do well.” Few of the articles questioned the fact that the children’s mothers were reporting on their “little darling’s” well-being, social functioning, behavior, and achievements; nor did publications usually note the lack of cross-checking with objective outcomes. Not mentioned, as well, is that over half of the original lesbian-couple participants in the study were separated by the time their children were age six (mean age), though such family upheaval is typically quite difficult for children. Nor did the laudatory reports question the fact that the 78 children in the study contributed their own assessments about their lives and well-being. Without comparing these personal observations with objective outcomes (teacher/counselor evaluations, school report cards, etc.) the study is highly unreliable.

The study is neither objective nor comprehensive. There are three major problems with the “study”:

1) The “research” consists of the mothers’ opinions about their children;

2) Only 77 lesbian couples participated in the “study,” and they were not typical parents in other regards. An earlier NLLFS report described the sample population as Caucasian (93 percent), predominantly college educated (67 percent), mostly middle and upper class (82 percent), professional or managers (85 percent) and a median household income of $85,000; and,

3) the study did not consist of a random sample — all the participants were volunteers — recruited via posted announcements in women’s bookstores, at lesbian events, and in lesbian newspapers in three major metropolitan areas (Boston, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco)

The personal relationships and professional affiliations of the authors engender even more questions about the study’s reliability. Dr. Nanette Gartrell of the University of California, San Francisco, is “married” to Dee Moshbacker, Ph.D., a psychiatrist and lesbian activist/filmmaker. She lamented that “there are so many places in the United States where same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt or foster children in need.”

Yet, she claims, “There is not a single study that has shown there are any problems in terms of psychological adjustment” [of the children in lesbian couple households]. The other author, Dr. Henny M.W. Bos, is an assistant professor in Amsterdam whose research focuses on “child rearing and child development in non traditional families, such as planned lesbian families, gay father families and patchwork families.”

The two authors send a message that children of lesbians fare better than the children of a married mom and dad. They state at the outset, “Despite more than three decades of cross-sectional research demonstrating that the psychological adjustment of children is unrelated to their parents’ sexual orientation, the legitimacy of lesbian and gay biological, foster, and adoptive parenting is still under scrutiny.” A close reading of the Pediatrics article reveals a broader agenda promoting donor insemination, praising female parenting in contrast to having a father present, and, typically, condemning straight society as homophobic — a disproportionate amount of attention is given to descriptions of the children’s negative experiences related to their parents’ sexual preference (but the harassment didn’t affect their well-being, you understand).

Some critics are concerned that the Gartrell/Bos study will be used, not to praise lesbian couples, but to question the fitness of fathers. Indeed, Gartrell/Bos note, “Lesbian mothers use less corporal punishment and less power assertion than heterosexual fathers.” The authors assert the benefits of a feminine environment, “Growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment.”

Still other critics pointed out the weaknesses in the control group — the 93 children who were used for comparison. They described the control group as “very different in race composition, socio-economic status of participants, and region of the country.” They also noted that there are many more minorities and Southern children in the control group than in the NLLFS study group. These critics questioned the editorial board and peer reviewers “who did not pay attention to such an obvious deficiency in the study.”

Others questioned the “enormous political incentive” for lesbian mothers to volunteer their participation. There can be no doubt as to the “political incentive” of the “research.” The authors make their purpose plain by concluding, “This study has implications for the clinical care of lesbian families, for the expert testimony provided by pediatricians on lesbian mother custody, and for public policies concerning same-sex parenting.”

In spite of the weaknesses in the methodology, the authors conclude with a vast generalization, “The NLLFS adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population.”

Clearly, these lesbian mothers are from Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2010/06/19/lesbian_mothers_think_their_children_are_all_above_average?page=full&comments=true

Feminism has led to more female violence in their quest to be more like men

2010-06-09T19:18:00.001-04:00

Feminism blamed for rising female violence

By Louisa Rebgetz

Posted Tue Jun 1, 2010 6:24am AEST

Social factors such as the rise of feminism could be behind the rise in violence amongst women, researcher says. (www.sxc.hu: Dominik Gwarek)

A Northern Territory researcher says studies show women can be just as violent as men and social changes are behind a reported rise in violence among young women.

A senior lecturer in psychology at Charles Darwin University, Dr Peter Forster, says there is no truth to the argument that testosterone levels make men more aggressive.

He says social factors such as the rise of feminism in the last few decades could be behind the rise in violence amongst women.

"We've now taken away the expectation that women will behave differently to men," he said.

"It used to be that one of the biggest differences was that women were more peaceful, they were peacemakers.

"[But] that kind of inhibition to be violent has gradually diminished to the point where it no longer inhibits women at all."

Tags: community-and-society, women, australia, nt

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/01/2914561.htm

A Hidden Crime: Domestic Violence Against Men Is a Growing Problem

2010-06-06T11:13:00.000-04:00

Daily Finance

By BRUCE WATSON Posted 10:30 AM 01/30/10 Healthcare

Comments: 183

Amid the media frenzy over Tiger Woods and Bengals receiver Chris Henry, a key aspect of both stories slipped through the cracks: Like millions of other men, Woods and Henry were -- allegedly at least -- the victims of domestic violence perpetrated by their wives or girlfriends. Beyond its brutal physical and psychological costs, domestic violence against men exacts a cruel economic toll at the personal, societal and national levels.

For the most part, the media, authorities and average citizens see domestic violence as a crime that is committed by men and victimizes women. Consequently, funding to combat the problem has overwhelmingly been spent on programs that support women.

Widely Ignored Problem

And yet, more than 200 survey-based studies show that domestic violence is just as likely to strike men as women. In fact, the overwhelming mass of evidence indicates that half of all domestic violence cases involve an exchange of blows and the remaining 50% is evenly split between men and women who are brutalized by their partners.

Part of the reason that this problem is widely ignored lies in the notion that battered males are weak or unmanly. A good example of this is the Barry Williams case: Recently, the former Brady Bunch star sought a restraining order against his live-in girlfriend, who had hit him, stolen $29,000 from his bank account, attempted to kick and stab him and had repeatedly threatened his life.

It is hard to imagine a media outlet mocking a battered woman, but E! online took the opportunity to poke fun at Williams, comparing the event to various Brady Bunch episodes. Similarly, when Saturday Night Live ran a segment in which a frightened Tiger Woods was repeatedly brutalized by his wife, the show was roundly attacked -- for being insensitive to musical guest Rihanna, herself a victim of domestic violence.

Lack of Research

Sometimes it is impossible to ignore the problem, but when domestic violence against men turns deadly -- as in the case of actor Phil Hartman -- the focus tends to shift to mental illness. The same can be said of the Andrea Yates case, which many pundits presented as the story of how an insensitive husband can drive a wife to murder.

Much of the information on domestic violence against men is anecdotal, largely because of the lack of funding to study the problem. Although several organizations explore domestic violence, the biggest single resource is the Department of Justice, which administers grants through its Office on Violence Against Women.

For years, the DOJ has explicitly refused to fund studies that investigate domestic violence against men. According to specialists in this field, the DOJ recently agreed to cover this problem -- as long as researchers give equal time to addressing violence against women.

First National Study

Researchers Denise Hines and Emily Douglas recently completed the first national study to scientifically measure the mental and social impact of domestic violence on male victims. Interestingly, their research was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health, not the DOJ. Not only does this demonstrate the lack of resources for researchers of this issue, but it also suggests that male battering is perceived as a mental health issue, not a crime.

This decriminalization of domestic violence against men affects research conclusions. While survey-based studies have found that men and women commit domestic violence in equal numbers, crime-based studies show that women are far more likely to be victimized. This inconsistency begins to make sense when one considers that man-on-woman violence tends to be seen through a criminal lens, while woman-on-man violence is viewed more benignly.

A recent 32-nation study revealed that more than 51% of men and 52% of women felt that there were times when it was appropriate for a wife to slap her husband. By comparison, only 26% of men and 21% of women felt that there were times when it was appropriate for a husband to slap his wife. Murray Straus, creator of the Conflict Tactics Scale and one of the authors of the study, explained this discrepancy: "We don't perceive men as victims. We see women as being more vulnerable than men."

Kneed In The Groin

This trend becomes particularly striking when one considers the 1996 case of Minnesota Vikings quarterback Warren Moon, who tried to restrain his wife after she threw a candlestick at his head and kneed him in the groin. Subsequently charged with spousal abuse, he was only acquitted after his wife admitted that she attacked him -- and that her wounds were self-inflicted. Ironically, her admission of fault did not result in charges being brought against her.

While Moon's trial was particularly high profile, his situation is actually very common. In fact, studies have found that a man who calls the police to report domestic violence is three times more likely to be arrested than the woman who is abusing him.

The mainstream perception of domestic violence also impacts the resources that are available to battered men. For example, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women, the only national toll-free hot line that specializes in helping male victims of domestic violence, has faced numerous roadblocks in its search for funding. In Maine, where the helpline is based, the surest route to funding is through membership in the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence.

On A Shoestring

But, according to Helpline director Jan Brown, the Coalition refused to even issue the program an application for membership, effectively denying it access to funding. Today, 45 Helpline volunteers field 550 calls per month, 80% of which are from men or people who are looking for help on behalf of a man. Operating with a yearly budget of less than $15,000, it provides intensive training to its workers and offers victims housing, food, bus tickets and a host of other services.

The Helpline's sheltering services are informal and ad hoc, largely because its lack of access to funding makes a shelter financially impossible. In fact, of the estimated 1,200 to 1,800 shelters in the U.S., only one -- the Valley Oasis shelter in Antelope Valley, Calif. -- provides a full range of shelter services to men. And, on average, less than 10% of OVW funds allocated to fight domestic violence are used to help men.

For male victims of domestic violence, the legal system can become another tool for abuse. As in the Moon case, battered men are often likely to find themselves arrested, even when they are the ones who call the police. And, even after the arrest, the process of incarceration, restraining orders, divorce court and child custody hearings continue to disadvantage men.

A High Cost

Restraining orders are a particularly difficult hurdle. Radar Services, a watchdog organization, estimates that approximately 85% of the roughly 2 million temporary restraining orders that are issued every year are made against men. In many states, the requirements for an order are exceedingly vague: In Oregon, for example, a "fear" of violence is sufficient for a restraining order, while Michigan issues them to protect family members against "fear of mental harm."

But there's nothing vague about the effect of restraining orders: They often turn men out of their homes, deny them access to children and result in further personal costs as millions of men have to find new places to live, hire lawyers and pay other expenses. For some men, as Hines and Brown point out, the legal system gives abusive wives and girlfriends tools to continue attacks even after their relationships end.

As Straus notes, "The preponderance of [domestic violence] resources should be made available to women. They are injured more often, are more economically vulnerable, and are often responsible for the couple's children. That having been said, more resources need to be made available to men."

There is no doubt that domestic violence against men can be reduced; the domestic violence initiatives of the past 40 years have brought a hidden crime to light and provided protection for millions of women. The next step is to admit that domestic violence is not a male or female problem, but rather a human problem, and that a lasting solution must address the cruelty -- and suffering -- of both sexes.

andrea yates, BarryWilliams, Chris Henry, department of justice, DOJ, domestic abuse helpline, domestic violence against men, domestic violence program, Jan brown, maine coalition to end domestic violence, murray straus, National Institutes of mental health

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/a-hidden-crime-domestic-violence-against-men-is-a-growing-probl/19297449/#

Obama Panders to the Feminists

2010-02-11T11:14:00.000-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly

Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" doesn't mean only higher taxes on taxpayers and more handouts to non-taxpayers. More especially, it means transfers of financial goodies to the president's political allies.

The American people were rightfully outraged when it became known that Sens. Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson were rewarded for voting for Obamacare with hundreds of thousands of dollars of benefits given uniquely to their states, Louisiana and Nebraska. Now we find that President Obama is paying off the feminists big-time for their support of his election.

When Obama presented his multitrillion dollar budget, he declared with great fanfare that he was calling for a freeze in discretionary spending. Feminists immediately had a tantrum to complain that the freeze exempted funding for the military, intelligence and homeland security.

Now we learn that all feminist programs and organizations will also be exempted from the freeze. Instead, they will get what White House spokesman Kate Bedingfield admits are "significant funding increases."

A White House document titled "Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls" describes 15 federal programs that will receive increased funding to appease the feminists. Chief among them is the Violence Against Women project, which is targeted for a 22 percent increase, an extra $117 million more than current funding, which is already close to $1 billion a year.

That earmark is a Joe Biden project known as feminist pork because the money goes right into the hands of radical feminist centers where they teach their anti-male, anti-marriage ideology, counsel women to get divorces and urge criminal prosecution against a man no matter how slight or unverified the alleged offense. The "Women and Girls" document reveals that Obama's budget would appropriate $50 million to give grants to incentivize the states to adopt paid family leave. That longtime feminist goal would be very costly to small business and result in a loss of jobs.

To please the feminists, other spending that will be exempted from Obama's freeze includes an additional $400 million for the discretionary nutrition program for low-income women and an increase of $10 million for family planning.

Of course, Obama's budget will increase funding for daycare, one of the most favorite feminist objectives. Head Start, which already receives $9 billion a year, is scheduled for additional funding of nearly $1 billion, despite the fact that recent studies show that Head Start provides little or no beneficial results toward the stated goal of helping disadvantaged children catch up with other children.

Obama's budget also provides an additional $1.6 billion for the Child Care and Development Fund as part of the reauthorization of government spending for daycare. The feminists believe that childcare should be taken over by government in order to overcome society's expectation that mothers should care for their own babies.

Obama's budget increases funding for a new program to recruit undergraduate students from underrepresented groups in science and technology careers. The budget also increases funding for a special program to give women (instead of men) more jobs in academic science and engineering careers.

Obama's State of the Union speech continued his pandering to the feminists. He said, "We are going to crack down on violations of equal-pay laws so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." Equal pay for equal work has been U.S. law since 1963, so there's nothing new about the law or its enforcement. Isn't his Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) agency already cracking down against violations — and if not, why not?

Obama's statement was just a throw-away line to feed the feminist myth that women are victims of employment discrimination. It was also designed to try to validate the false feminist slogan that women are paid only 77 cents for work that earns a dollar for men.

That's not true because equal pay ought to be paid for equal work, and most women don't work as many hours or in as dangerous or unpleasant jobs as men. Women prefer inside work in air-conditioned offices.

Obama hasn't yet gone as far as Norway, which passed a law requiring that women must comprise 40 percent of all companies' corporate boards. U.S. feminists probably would like that rule — they pretend to see no hypocrisy in touting gender-neutrality while demanding affirmative action for females.

Rush Limbaugh got it right when he commented on Obama's State of the Union speech as "from the 1970s ... totally cliched." Half of American women are in the workforce today, while male unemployment is setting new records.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

http://www.creators.com/opinion/phyllis-schlafly/obama-panders-to-the-feminists.html

In Canada “The Big Pink Machine” makes eunuchs of men and promotes Misandry

2010-02-02T15:28:00.005-05:00

We men are socialized to be protectors of our wives, sisters, moms, children and freedom. When thrust into the position of defendant in Divorce (75% initiated by the wife) we suffer a great deal of dissonance and confusion. The system is set up and designed as a far reaching ecosystem to support females and marginalize men, particularly fathers, who become financial drones for the ex and nanny state. Even at that men do not consider themselves victims. It is anathema to masculinity.

The Big Pink Machine sets in motion a series of events designed to wear a man down so that many end up destroyed emotionally and kill themselves. In Canada upwards of eight men a day die by their own hand, 3X's more than women. It is not rocket science why. Others are driven to desperation and take the lives of their ex's and sometimes children. Even at that the single mom is the most likely to kill or harm their children in the USA, OZ and in Canada. I make the latter assertion despite what the feminist Stats Canada people come up with. They will not separate out biological fathers from other males associated with mom. When Australia did this it became clear mom and her boyfriend were the most likely killers and abusers of children. In the U.S. it is very clear.

I could write a book on this Big Pink Machine and perhaps will at some point but I would want to direct you to one man who is fighting back in OZ. I hope he succeeds. http://fathersmensrights.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-oz-dad-launches-criminal-charges.html

If he does this will open the floodgates in Western countries based on English Common law. A recent example in Ontario is the private charge against Julian Fantino, the Ontario Police Commissioner. If we clog the courts with private charges the Politicians and Judiciary will not be able to ignore false allegations and perjury in Family Law. It is both the right thing to do and a form of civil disobedience that complies with our system of laws.

Who is the Big Pink Machine you ask? It is largely built from your tax dollars starting with Status of Women Canada at the federal level. This organization is staffed with strident and somewhat paranoid professional feminists. (3^rd wave feminism is itself a mass form of both ideology, delusion and paranoia and posits women are Victims and are controlled, coerced and abused by the mystic Patriarchy). That is all you men. You are responsible for women not fulfilling their true goals or rising to the top wherever that may be. You are responsible they do not have 50% of the Parliamentary seats. In other words they are victimized like children and need the Nanny state to elevate their status in one form or another. Children can be victims and so logically 3^rd wave feminists are children in adult bodies. Equalist feminists, on the other hand, wherever they are, believe in gender equality and are a different tribe entirely. Their voices have been stifled by the cacophony of whining from the Victim Feminists. Rather than merit, quotas are needed and even if most women CHOOSE not to run in the blood sport of politics eunuchs in those parties must affirm by appointment females because they deserve it. You will find most eunuchs on the left of the political spectrum. Jack Layton is probably Canada's best example and Iggy the Liberal leader a close 2^nd. One of the largest populations of these creatures work the benches of Canada's Family Law and award custody to Mom's in a 9-1 ratio. If any other overt discrimination occurred to a visible minority or women, or the handicapped it would provoke outrage. Because it is done to men it does not matter. We do not have the organized political influence and cohesiveness necessary to get the right people convinced change is desired and men are quite capable of nurturing children. I did it for 10 years as a stay-at-home dad. It is a myth that needs dispelling.

There are Provincial Government equivalents in each Province collectively pumping billions of dollars solely for the benefit of one gender. Much of that is turned into propaganda dispensed at all levels, in Academia, through research grants to feminists or pro-feminist sycophants at Universities like Peter Jaffe at UWO and Nicholas Bala at Queens, Walter Dekeseredy and Molly Dragiewicz at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and many others who receive collectively millions of dollars in grants to do research that supports their myths. There is an incestuous community of these disciples who produce only studies that conform to their preconceived ideology. Not very good science, however, comes out of the work. When Jaffe is doing studies of females at DV shelters he never asks, or if he does, he never published the information on female rates of violence on their male partners. He publishes only the male violence on the female. That's not science its propaganda.

The heartbeat of Victim Feminism (VF) is the local DV shelter which is the Mosque or Temple equivalent of the ideology (which resembles a religion). Islam and VF have much in common and interestingly enough many VF's take up Islamic causes despite it being the most patriarchal religion in the universe. (The FEMLoon Antonia Zerbisiasis at the Toronto Red Star newspaper is but one of many). I did say the ideology resembles religion and is somewhat delusional. The women in these temples of male oppression are the martyrs to the cause. There are 569 single gender only DV shelters in Canada at this writing and not one tax supported shelter for men despite the emotional, financial, psychological and physical battering many get to the point of killing themselves at 3X's the rate of women described earlier. In this little discussion for today I won't go into the relative parity of DV between genders but all the stats you ever wanted exist in these blogs supported by massive studies and our very own Stats Canada which is hard to believe given their feminist bias manifested in areas defined earlier.

Domestic Violence is a serious issue but as long as it is played as a single gender issue it will ignore 50% of the participants and in so doing also hurts women. Did I mention Lesbian violence is much higher than heterosexual abusiveness. Interesting isn't it why these scholars avoid this issue like the plague.

The recent upset with Kennedy's Senate seat in MA was, in part, because many independent males went for the Republican candidate as they saw the feminist candidate Coakley was an elitist. More men need to see through the veil of Pinkilicious policies by the Liberals and dippers. The Pink Book III produced by the federal Liberals is simply a book of misandry.

Some day men will see they do have block political power if only they visualize what is happening to their gender (not at the fat cat level but down here with us regular folk) and that day will scare the hell out of every feminist and eunuch politician in Canada. The judiciary will fall into line shortly thereafter. Currently women have more political power because the feminists take our hard-earned tax money and have turned it into a hateful gender war. The MSM and all media generators from TV, movies, to the printed page not too mention the above Academics reinforce stereotypes. Most dads/men portrayed on TV in series or commercials are bumbling idiots yet it is men mostly that invented everything useful in existence or put us on the moon.

It will change but we must be patient. It is either patience or revolution. The latter is not a current option

© Michael J. Murphy 2010

Ex-UC Davis Campus Violence staffer under new scrutiny in embezzlement probe

2010-01-03T12:17:00.001-05:00

The Domestic Violence Industry targeting all men as violence perpetrators is a multi-billion dollar industry across the USA funded in large part by your governments at the federal and state level with assistance from politically correct gullible companies and naive men who want to appear chivalrous and "feminine". This person is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg that no one wants to explore as it might explode feminist myths about patriarchy and heaven forbid open the door to female violence against men. (Tiger Woods, Mary K. Blige slugging hubby while opening a DV shelter for women only, and the missing info on Chris Brown getting clubbed by a stiletto heal before he overreacted. Did Charlie Sheen actually do that to his wife or was he set up by false allegations? Watch the Tyra Banks show on Thursday this week to see more about men getting abused every 38 seconds.

JOSE M. OSORIO / Bee file, 2000

Jennifer Beeman, ex-director of the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program, is seen in her former office. Beeman retired from UCD before allegations surfaced that she had inflated rape statistics.

By Hudson Sangree
hsangree@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Jan. 1, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 4B

A former University of California, Davis, employee whom officials have accused of inflating crime statistics may have funneled university money into a private account and paid her mortgage with it, campus police said in a court document released this week.

As part of their embezzlement probe of Jennifer Beeman, investigators also raised the question of whether she had appropriately paid $540,000 to a Bay Area woman and her companies over a seven-year period.

Reached at home Thursday, Beeman declined to comment.

Police detailed their suspicions regarding Beeman, the former director of the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program, in court papers filed as they sought a search warrant in early December.

Yolo Superior Court made the statement available this week.

In it, UC Davis Police Sgt. Paul Henoch wrote that Beeman, 52, first came under scrutiny in September 2008 for overstating her travel expenses.

Further investigation showed that she had asked for reimbursement for airfare to San Diego when her ticket had already been paid for by an outside group. She had also submitted travel mileage for meetings she did not attend, Henoch wrote.

University officials requested an internal audit and placed Beeman on administrative leave.
In February 2009, the audit concluded that Beeman had improperly submitted travel expenses of more than $1,000.

In October, campus officials said she had repaid $1,372 and retired in June.
On the same day, they also revealed Beeman had grossly inflated the number of forcible sexual offenses in three years of mandatory reports to the federal government. No reason was given.

Administrators also said in October that police were pursuing a second investigation into Beeman's finances.

Details of that investigation were spelled out in a Dec. 1 statement by Henoch. He wrote that investigators had learned in early 2009 that Beeman had a "secret" checking account for a campus program called Take Back the Night.

Beeman told a co-worker that she had paid her home mortgage from the account, he wrote.
The account was located in July at the USE Credit Union, with Beeman listed as the only signatory, the police sergeant said in his statement.

Auditors found that nearly $12,000 in university funds had been deposited into the account, and Beeman had withdrawn $5,400 for personal use between January 2002 to March 2009, Henoch wrote.

The auditors also found that Beeman had authorized $25,000 in payments of federal grant funds to a company run by a woman named Granate Sosnoff to produce a campus anti-violence guide that was never completed, he wrote.

In November, Henoch said he discovered that the Campus Violence Prevention Program had paid Sosnoff and various media and marketing firms that she controlled more than $540,000 between May 2000 and April 2007.

"At this time it is unknown what type of relationship Beeman and Sosnoff have over the years," he wrote, "if it is strictly business or if monies have exchanged hands between them."

Sosnoff, who lives in Oakland, did not respond to a phone message Thursday.
The 47-year-old woman developed a series of acclaimed rape awareness posters for the university that were paid for with federal grant dollars.

The striking posters for the campaign, called "Voices Not Victims," were featured in Ms. magazine and sought by other universities and the Ford Foundation's office in Africa, according to a university press release from 2001.

The search warrant approved in December by Yolo Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner sought bank records for both Beeman and Sosnoff.

UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said Thursday that, to her knowledge, the banks have not yet returned the requested records.

No decisions about whether to charge Beeman or Sosnoff will be made until they do, she said.

"This is an open investigation," Spicuzza said. "We're going to look at everything."

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2431619.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=8231567#Comments_Container

Domestic-Violence Crusader Mary J. Blige Slugs Husband

2010-01-01T11:49:00.003-05:00

Have you seen anything specifically about the report further below in the MSM or generally with respect to any of the recent female attacks on men. The attack dogs seem quiet when a female celebrity abuses but clearly not when its the reverse. Ditto Tiger Woods and the vicious attack by his ex.MJM

Thursday, December 31, 2009

RADAR ALERT: Mainstream Media Suppresses Stories Of Violence By Women

When Rhianna hit Chris Brown in the head with her stiletto heels while he was behind the wheel trying not to lose control of the car and Brown overreacted¹, what did mainstream media report? They showed us Rhianna's injuries, but were totally silent about what part Rhianna's temper played in the altercation.

When Tiger Woods' wife attacked him with a golf club², the mainstream media ignored his wife's violence. Hardly any of the mainstream media reported that the Florida Highway Patrol described Woods' injuries as "serious".³ Instead they waited for more stories about Woods' affairs to come out so they could spin it as a tale of Woods' infidelities rather than about female-perpetrated domestic violence.

Now we have the case of Mary J. Blige, a woman who purports to be concerned about domestic violence, so much so that she has provided part of the funding for a domestic violence shelter named in her honor⁴. But her comment, "Women from all walks of life, not just women from poverty-stricken areas," makes it clear that only female victims will be helped by her shelter. And her actions make it clear that she believes that as a female she enjoys the privilege of using violence whenever any male displeases her. On Christmas Eve, the New York Post reported that she punched her husband in the face, drawing blood, because she thought he was flirting with a waitress.⁵ How has the rest of the mainstream media covered her hypocrisy? The silence has been deafening!

Matt over at Mensactivism.org has assembled a list of mainstream media contact information and composed a sample letter. We urge you to visit http://news.mensactivism.org/node/14488 and respond as the spirit moves you.

Happy New Year everyone! Here's looking forward to creating a more enlightened world in the coming year.

info@mediaradar.org

1 http://poponthepop.com/2009/03/09/tmz-confirms-what-we-already-told-you-rihanna-hit-chris-brown-first

2 http://furmanbisher.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/updated-inside-story-on-tiger-woods

3 http://www.vancouverite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/woods.jpg

4 http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/mary-j-blige-domestic-violence-shelter-mary-j-blige-center-for-women

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/blige_hauls_off_on_husband_o32W7IKFja08UXzRipJiHI

Date of RADAR Release: December 31, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org

By Holly Won't 38 Comments

Categories: Activists, Bad Boys & Girls, Legal Messes and Musicians

Mary J. Blige has cranked out another hit, but this time it seems like a slight overreaction:

Mary J. Blige punched husband Kendu Isaacs in the face at her record release party at club M2 Tuesday night. The singer slugged Isaacs, drawing blood, after she thought he was flirting with a waitress. “She turned to him and was screaming, ‘You’re not going to ruin my night,’ ” our witness says. “They got up in each other’s faces before someone tried to separate them, at which point she shoved the guy aside, pulled back and popped [Isaacs] in the face.” The source said Blige, Isaacs and their entourage were whisked through a door to the attached club Pink, which was closed. Our witness relates, “She was yelling at him, ‘What are you gonna do, Chris Brown me?’ Four of her bodyguards and two of the club’s kept them apart.” Isaacs was kicked out. Blige went to the bathroom to fix her hair and makeup, but soon fled, creating an uncomfortable scene for partygoers Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Busta Rhymes.

That must have been especially awkward for Jay-Z, considering the way he handled Chris Brown after he attacked Rihanna last winter. No word yet whether MJB will receive the same treatment.
But didn’t Mary J. Blige just open a domestic-violence shelter in New York last month? Why yes, yes she did:

MJB’s organization recently teamed up with Gucci creative director Frida Giannini and several New York-based organizations to fund the opening of the Mary J. Blige Center for Women, based in Yonkers.
The singer was on hand to open the facility on Thursday.
She tells CNN: “All age ranges will be able to come to this center. Women from all walks of life, not just women from poverty-stricken areas. Whatever it is, they’ll be able to come here. There are gonna be psychologists here, doctors here, day care centers here. Anything that you need or they need to be able to better themselves is here for them.”
The Grammy Award winner says she is delighted to use her fame for a good cause: “That’s why I think as celebrities we’re given this job. We’re not given this job to just hold onto this stuff and die with it. We’re given this job to be able to touch someone and say, ‘me, too,’ because they look up to us and look to us for help and guidance and want to be able to relate to us.”

I don’t think “we’re given this job to be able to touch someone” means punching them in the face during a jealous rage. Keep your fists in your pockets, woman.

http://deceiver.com/2009/12/24/domestic-violence-crusader-mary-j-blige-slugs-husband/#comments

The Pay Gap Myth

2009-12-09T16:37:00.000-05:00

The Department of Labor recently funded this study, and provided a forward, which found the pay gap is a result of choices such as longer hours, flexibility, etc., not discrimination. “An Analysis of the Reason for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women,”
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Even CNN has debunked the “pay gap” myth.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm

Professor June O’Neill, Ph.D., former director of Congressional Budget Office, found the same thing in “The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000,” American Economic Review, 5/03.

This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., which 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 outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R

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 outearning 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

For more, see:

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-RSSFeeds0312
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2341324

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Update November 2009

2009-11-28T10:58:00.032-05:00

Schlafly writes another well researched missive against feminist ideology with which I have no problems. She does go over the top, as do other right wing commentators periodically, when she defines Canada as socialist. Tell that to Stephen Harper the current PM who is classified by real socialists in the NDP and Liberal Parties (there are many pragmatic socialists in the latter and it is often hard to tell the difference between either party) as a right wing dictator. Hyperbole serves no one on the right or left.MJM

Written by Phyllis Schlafly Report

Saturday, 28 November 2009 21:29

< <

The feminists are going through one of their periodic soul-searching psychological examinations of what the women's liberation movement did or did not do for them, and why they are not happy with the result. Feminist dominance in newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television and academia makes it easy to command a full media rollout for their agonizing.

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's Stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book When Everything Changed, and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately preceded Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. Carolyn Graglia's landmark book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism, explains that the chief purpose of the feminists was to make the role of fulltime homemaker economically untenable and socially disdained. She analyzed the writings of the feminist intellectuals and she documents their attempts to ostracize fulltime homemakers as childish "parasites."
The feminists have been strikingly successful with this goal; women are now half the labor force, and 40% of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama Administration give half the Stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the Stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Demo
crats they get, and the Stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care, and social services. The feminists' tactics to divert Stimulus jobs to women were described in the July 2009 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

So what are the feminists complaining about? Now that women are half the work force, they want workforce rules to be changed to be more female-friendly. (These are the same feminists who have been saying for years that there is no difference between male and female.) Feminists demand that the taxpayers provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, that new laws prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do), and probably that men should be forced to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is, because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college and who drops out. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60-40; now it's 40-60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.
But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math, science and engineering. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices. (Feminists claim that there are no gender differences, but they demand government intervention to override women's choices.)

The feminists push hard for what they call "Title-Nining," using Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools and colleges, to force equal numbers of women in all athletic programs. Since this misuse of Title IX was initiated by radical feminists in Jimmy Carter's Education Department, the feminists have forced colleges to eliminate thousands of men's teams, including many championship teams and more than 450 wrestling teams. Now the feminists are Title-Nining science and math departments. Using phony charges of gender bias, they are directing millions of dollars of federal and university money to override women's choices in order to increase the number of women in math and science at the expense of men.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."
She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists; as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful. Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar
compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but requires equal pay only for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do, and women voluntarily choose jobs that pay less.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor." That's a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.
Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason why today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote: "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39% of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband.

And one more glaring point: the lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these exposés of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Feminists Are Still Unhappy

All this self-psychoanalyzing of women's attitudes appears to have been triggered by a study released earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in the American Economic Journal. Called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," this report concluded that women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. Since this study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation movement, the feminists recognized it as a challenge to the goals and alleged achievements of their movement.
The authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, advanced a theory that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. The authors also presented a second theory that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.
A more realistic explanation is that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. If you believe you can never succeed because you are a helpless victim of mean men, you are probably correct.
Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers; if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another explanation for women's unhappiness could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (39% of American births are now born to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70% of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth around" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. At the same time, the private enterprise system produced many products that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers, and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book The Feminine Mystique, which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the fulltime homemaker dissatisfied with her role.

Economic need plays no role in the feminist argument that women should seek labor-force jobs. Feminists encourage wives to leave the home because marriage is allegedly archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force is upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's Studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, Myrna Blyth, wrote in her book, Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America, that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance the feminists' political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said, "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and unnecessary except to provide a paycheck. Most divorces are initiated by women. More women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20% of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. Women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

Feminist Attack on Marriage

While the gay lobby gets most of the blame for the assault on the institution of marriage, the modern feminist movement has always been virulently and effectively anti-marriage. When the movement marched onto the stage of the culture war in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they called themselves the women's liberation movement. The buzz word was liberation, which specifically meant liberation from home, husband, family and children.
Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's book entitled Manliness includes a most informative chapter called "Womanly Nihilism." Mansfield rightly concludes that the 20th-century feminist intellectuals, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer, wanted independence not only from men, but from morality and from human nature and motherhood.

The feminists' first legislative triumph was to change the divorce laws of all 50 states to unilateral divorce, i.e., allowing one spouse to walk out of marriage without the consent of the other spouse, and without having to allege any fault or reason to sever the marriage contract. Big media eagerly cooperated to promote the notion that we have moved into an era of "serial" (rather than lifetime) marriages. "Ozzie and Harriet," a then-popular sitcom featuring a traditional family, became a favorite epithet for feminists to scoff at traditional marriage and the role of the fulltime homemaker.

The feminists' second victory was Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always been central to the feminist movement (proving there is no connection with the movement for women's right to vote, whose leaders were very anti-abortion)
.
Their third victory (a Gloria Steinem favorite) was getting President Jimmy Carter to pluralize the name of his White House Conference on Families in order to popularize the notion that non-traditional families should be recognized and included.

The anti-marriage feminists stormed state capitols to repeal the laws designed to respect morality and preserve marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, and alienation of affection.

The only goal they failed to achieve was ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
Meanwhile, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

Feminist solidarity with the gay rights movement was cemented at the International Women's Year (IWY) Conference in Houston in 1977, following impassioned emotional entreaties by Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal. IWY resolutions proclaimed the feminists' attack not only on traditional marriage, but also on motherhood. Feminists view society's expectation that mothers should care for their own children as oppressive discrimination against women.

Marriage: One Man, One Woman

The institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since the founding of our nation. When the famous French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States in the early-19th century, he recognized the fact that respect for marriage is very American. He wrote: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated."

Not only do American laws specifically recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but many laws legislate special benefits to the institution of marriage. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the definition of marriage in its traditional meaning, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers.

Attacks on the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the feminist movement that opposes what they call the patriarchy (that supposedly makes women second-class citizens), and also from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair and/or a religious contract, and that the terms of this union should be none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.

Government's Role in Marriage

Government has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child, or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women, which is totally demeaning and harmful to women.

The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." Always a stalwart defender of traditional marriage, the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it." It's vitally important that the Republican Party continue to be the standard-bearer for traditional marriage.

We thought our nation had definitely settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but it recently raised its ugly head. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is on record as supporting polygamy. The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." And on October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.
Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that practice polygamy and marriage to children and close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been allowed to immigrate and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

President Obama's nominee for a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a radical manifesto that endorsed polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner"). Signed in 2006, this manifesto, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. In a current lawsuit, British Columbia's Supreme Court is being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

Traditional marriage is essential to a stable society. We should maintain government's proper role in defining it and protecting it.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911297520/culture-wars/feminists-psychoanalyze-themselves-update-november-2009.html

Men's Rights ~ Feminism should be about equality--for males too.

2009-11-24T12:23:00.002-05:00

Commentary

Cathy Young, 11.19.09, 10:30 AM ET

Earlier this month DoubleX, Slate's short-lived female-oriented publication (launched six months ago and about to be folded back into the parent site as a women's section), ran an article ringing the alarm about the dire threat posed by the power of the men's rights movement. But the article, written by New York-based freelance writer Kathryn Joyce and titled "Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective," says more about the state of feminism--and journalistic bias--than it does about men's groups.

Joyce's indictment is directed at a loose network of activists seeking to raise awareness and change policy on such issues as false accusations of domestic violence, the plight of divorced fathers denied access to children and domestic abuse of men. In her view, groups such as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) and individuals like columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks are merely "respectable" and "savvy" faces for what is actually an anti-female backlash from "angry white men."

As proof of this underlying misogyny, Joyce asserts that men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo" are routinely lionized in the men's movement. This claim is purportedly backed up with a reference that, in fact, does not in any way support it: an article in Foreign Policy about the decline of male dominance around the globe. Joyce's one specific example is that the diary of George Sodini, a Pittsburgh man who opened fire on women in a gym in retaliation for feeling rejected by women, was reposted online by the blogger "Angry Harry" as a wake-up call to the Western world that "it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it." But does this have anything to do with more mainstream men's rights groups? The original version of the article claimed that Sacks, who called "Harry" an "idiot" in his interview with Joyce, nonetheless "cautiously defends" the blogger; DoubleX later ran a correction on this point.

Sacks himself admits to Joyce that the men's movement has a "not-insubstantial lunatic fringe." Yet in her eyes, even the mainstream men's groups are promoting a dangerous agenda, above all infiltrating mainstream opinion with the view that reports of domestic violence are exaggerated and that a lot of spousal abuse is female-perpetrated. The latter claim, Joyce asserts, comes from "a small group of social scientists" led by "sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence." (In fact, Straus, founder of the renowned Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, is a pre-eminent scholar on family violence in general and was the first to conduct national surveys on the prevalence of wife-beating.)

Joyce repeats common critiques of Straus' research: For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence. Furthermore, Joyce fails to mention that virtually all social scientists studying domestic violence, including self-identified feminists such as University of Pittsburgh psychologist Irene Frieze, find high rates of mutual aggression.

Reviews of hundreds of existing studies, such as one conducted by University of Central Lancashire psychologist John Archer in a 2000 article in Psychological Bulletin, have found that at least in Western countries, women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men. While the consequences to women are more severe--they are twice as likely to report injuries and about three times more likely to fear an abusive spouse--these findings also show that men hardly escape unscathed. Joyce claims that "Straus' research is starting to move public opinion," but in fact, some of the strongest recent challenges to the conventional feminist view of domestic violence--as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers--come from female scholars like New York University psychologist Linda Mills.

Contrary to Joyce's claims, these challenges, so far, have made very limited inroads into public opinion. One of her examples of the scary power of men's rights groups is that "a Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, 'From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,' received positive mainstream press for its 'inclusive' efforts.'" In fact, the conference--which featured leading researchers on domestic violence from several countries, half of them women, and focused on much more than just male victims--received virtually no mainstream press coverage. One of the very few exceptions was a column I wrote for The Boston Globe, also reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women--for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings and cancer combined.

These advocacy groups practically designed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and they dominate the state coalitions against domestic violence to which local domestic violence programs must belong in order to qualify for federal funds. As a result of the advocates' influence, federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy).

Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).

To bolster her case, Joyce consistently quotes advocates--or scholars explicitly allied with the advocacy movement, such as Edward Gondolf of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute--to discredit the claims of the men's movement. She also repeats uncorroborated allegations that many leaders of the movement are themselves abusers, but offers only one specific example: eccentric British activist Jason Hatch, who once scaled Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume to protest injustices against fathers, and who was taken to court for allegedly threatening one of his ex-wives during a custody dispute.

The article is laced with the presumption that, with regard to both general data and individual cases, any charge of domestic violence made by a woman against a man must be true.

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators--including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University--sided with the father.

More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and columnist for RealClearPolitics.com, is the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. She blogs at www.cathyyoung.wordpress.com.

h ttp://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/mens-rights-feminism-equality-violence-opinions-contributors-cathy-young.html

Feminist Hatred-A Compendium of: with Commentary by Jeffrey Asher

2009-11-17T16:02:00.000-05:00

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"

Ti-Grace Atkinson 1974

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."

Ti-Grace Atkinson1996

"The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide.." "I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends."

Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1974,

"I propose that the phenomenon of love is the psychological pivot in the persecution of women."

Ti-Grace Atkinson in 'Radical Feminism and Love'

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".

Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86)

"(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".

Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."

Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."

Shelia Cronin, National Organization for Women Times, Jan.1988

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Catherine Comin -Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, in Radical Feminism - "Marriage" (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)

Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors.

Evelyn Cunningham

"Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine."

Rose DiManno-Toronto Star, January 11, 1999

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ..The demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."

Roxanne Dunbar, Female Liberation as a Basis for Social Revolution, New England Free Press, 1974)

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

Andrea Dworkin

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987

"Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Andrea Dworkin Liberty, p. 58

"The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape."

Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 114

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her.' Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."

Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Penguin, 1979)

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.

Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love.

Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.

Andrea Dworkin

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."

Andrea Dworkin

"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left...is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."

Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

Andrea Dworkin

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."

Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"

Marilyn French, Authoress; later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."

Marilyn French, The Women's Room, Summit Books, 1977

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."

Marilyn French, The Women's Room, Summit Books, 1977

"My own informal survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation--incest, molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture or imprisonment."

Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 195)

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."

Marilyn French, Author "The Women's Room"

Marilyn French

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".

Sylvia Fraser Journalist

MALE: represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN: an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

From 'A Feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae & Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985

"Women have their faults- men have only two: everything they say and everything they do."

Popular Feminist Graffiti

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."

Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

"[Men are] freaks of nature... full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals."

Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999

I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.

Germain Greer

"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry."

Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, McGraw-Hill, 1971, p. 317)

"...men bash women because they enjoy it; they torture women as they might torture an animal or pull the wings off flies."

Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999

"The man regards (woman) as a receptacle into which he has emptied his sperm, a kind of human spittoon."

Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, McGraw-Hill, 1971)

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."

Germaine Greer

In an interview Germaine Greer (radical feminist, writer) was asked the question, "You were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?" Greer first denied that she had said it, and then replied, "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."

Germaine Greer At a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book, The Change-Women, Aging and the Menopause, Knopf, 1992 from a news report dated 11/14/91)

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children…."

Linda Gordon in "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."

Susan Griffin

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have. He does not have it not because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."

Former US Congresswoman
Barbara Jordan

Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down.

Letter to the editor, signed: "Liberated Women", Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... Male society has sold us the idea of marriage.... Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it.... The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men."

Nancy Lehmann, Helen Sullinger, Declaration of Feminism, 1971

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."

Judith Levine

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."

Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."

Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'

Judith Levine

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck". Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of a $600,000.1995 settlement Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University..

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

Robin Morgan.-From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Robin Morgan.-former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and editor of MS magazine

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Robin Morgan.

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Robin Morgan.

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers".

Robin Morgan.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Catherine MacKinnon

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."

Catherine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."

Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses of Life and Law – Sex and Violence: A Perspective, Harvard University Press, 1987

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Catherine MacKinnon

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."

Catherine MacKinnon" Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

Catherine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."

Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar)

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."

Sheila Jeffreys

FMS stands for: Full of Mostly (Bull) shit; For More Sadism; Felons, Murdereres, Ssumballs; Frequent Molesters Society

From a February 1995 handout at the "Stone Angels" satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The conference was supported financially by the Ontario Government

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Margaret Sanger

"The most merciful thing a family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

Valerie Solanas, Author of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM=Society for Cutting Up Men)

"[Males should] "...go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quickly and painlessly gassed to death."

Valerie Solanas, Author of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM=Society for Cutting Up Men)

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."

Valerie Solanas

"The male likes death--it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die... The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to live at someone else's expense."

Valerie Solanas

'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

Valerie
Solanas Scum Manifesto

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed,"

Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"Masculine sexuality involves the oppression of women, competition among men, and fear of homosexuality." "Rape is the end logic of masculine sexuality." "Male sexuality is negative."

Introductory texts for Women's Studies Courses at UCLA including: "More Power than We Want: Masculine Sexuality and Violence" by

Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey [Cited in TNV]

I wondered if the woman married to a pig had read this ... Did that mean that all over the globe, in all innocence, women were marrying beasts? ... Why are so many men really beasts? "

Jeanette Winterson "Oranges are Not the Only Fruit" 1993, pp.71 -76

(Nazi propaganda referred to Jews as 'pigs,' 'intolerable,' and 'subhuman'. )

Commentary:

"Imagine the response if women's studies classes taught students that minorities are evil [Jews, blacks, Asians, Italians] and then advocated that the path to freedom was segregation, including the refusal to hire minorities or allow any into your home. And imagine the uproar if feminists announced that the root of the world's problems was actually mixed - race sex. All of these rants would be condemned as racism. And this is sexism - just what we are supposed to be fighting. For countless young women, [and men] the feminist movement doesn't only look absurd, it looks hypocritical."

Renée Denfeld: The New Victorians Warner Books Time Warner 1996

This is sexism. This is terror propaganda. This hatred is no different from racism, xenophobia, or religious bigotry. All men and women deserve to be treated with equal respect and dignity in education. Do your part to discourage and end sexism, along with all forms of hatred.

Half of the human race is condemned because it is born male. Some men also express anti-male hatred, just as members of other groups have slandered their own members. All males are thus condemned: your father, grandfathers, brothers, uncles, sons, lovers, friends, classmates, professors, employers, and co-workers.

Replace 'men' with any other group: Jews, Blacks, native peoples, or women, and read those claims aloud to friends. Teachers and students should not tolerate such slanders. 'Patriarchy' theory is a conspiracy theory. Those who call men 'pigs' and 'rapists' are no different from haters who use words like 'bitch', 'nigger', or 'kike'. Some misandrists laugh at violence against men, and others justify offensive violence against men. Would you laugh if someone joked about violence against Asians? ... Arabs? .Homosexuals? Speak out against prejudice. Teachers and students should not tolerate such slanders.

You have the right to complain, whether you are male or female.

Professor (Ret'd) Jeffrey Asher

Ottawa

Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Again

2009-11-16T15:59:00.004-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The media are glad to divert public attention from the failure of Barack Obama's stimulus to create jobs. So, we have ponderous discussions: Maria Shriver's report (with help from a liberal think tank) called "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," a Time Magazine cover story headlined with the double entendre "The State of the American Woman," Gail Collins' book "When Everything Changed" and articles from all the feminist columnists.

We wonder if it's just a coincidence that this torrent of words immediately precedes Halloween. The writers are scared of their own research because it contradicts much of their gender-neutral ideology.

These well-educated writers long ago identified the major goal of the women's liberation movement as getting more wives out of the home and into the labor force. They've been strikingly successful with this goal -- women are now half the labor force, and 40 percent of women are essential family breadwinners.

In the current recession, the majority of workers laid off have been men (especially from construction and manufacturing). Jobs where women predominate have not been much affected.

Even so, the feminists demanded that the Obama administration give half the stimulus jobs to women rather than to the shovel-ready work that was the reason for passing the stimulus funds. Whatever the feminists demand from the Democrats they get, and the stimulus money was directed to jobs in education, health care and social services.

So what are the feminists complaining about? They want the taxpayers to provide high-quality daycare and paid family leave, to pass laws to prohibit employers from ordering women to work overtime (as men are often required to do) and probably to force men to assume half the household and baby-care duties.

The feminists are still crying about President Richard Nixon vetoing a federal program to make daycare a middle-class entitlement. But Nixon's action was popular then and still is because the majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars to pay for babysitters for other people's children.

No doubt this will come as a shock to the feminists, but Time Magazine reports that "a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home."

Women's percentage in the labor force keeps rising because of who is going to college. Thirty years ago, the ratio of males to females on college campuses was 60 to 40; now it's 40 to 60, and women receive the majority of college degrees.

But the feminists are griping because women students choose humanities majors that lead to lesser-paid jobs than male students, who in larger numbers choose math and science. The feminists want government to remedy this gender difference by bribing women with taxpayers' money to make other choices.

Joanne Lipman, who has held several of the biggest jobs in publishing but still whines that "progress for women has stalled," nevertheless makes a couple of sensible comments. She writes that feminists defined "progress for women too narrowly; we've focused primarily on numbers at the expense of attitudes."

She's right about that. Attitude is the problem with feminists -- as long as they believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful.

Women won't be happy as long as they believe the false slogan (repeated in most of these current articles) that women make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1963, but it requires only equal pay for equal work, and women in the labor force don't work nearly as many hours per week as men do.

Lipman also urges feminists to "have a sense of humor" -- a very constructive proposal. When I tell a joke during my college lectures, I can identify the feminists by the students who are not laughing.

Only one sentence in all these feminist articles confronts the fundamental reason that today's women are not as happy as women were in 1972. Time Magazine wrote, "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood."

That's what the feminist movement did to America. All those impressive statistics about women holding well-paying jobs and receiving college degrees will not produce happy women as long as 39 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers who lack a loving husband and look to Big Brother Government as provider.

And one more glaring point: The lack of grandchildren isn't mentioned in these exposes of women's unhappiness. In rejecting marriage, most feminists also rejected the grandchildren who could have provided a significant measure of women's happiness.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserve

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/10/27/feminists_psychoanalyze_themselves_again

Journalistic Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication "Double X"

2009-11-10T14:49:00.000-05:00

By Mark B. Rosenthal

November 7, 2009

On Thursday, November 5, 2009, Slate.com's new woman-oriented publication "Double X" published Kathryn Joyce's article "'Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective," based in large part on her interview with me.

When Ms. Joyce first contacted me, she clearly stated that she considers herself a feminist. But the label "feminist" means different things to different people. There are many people I respect who sincerely believe that calling themselves "feminist" means they support equal treatment for men as well as for women. Unfortunately there are also many people who publicly proclaim that "feminist" means equal treatment, but accept as an article of faith that all women are oppressed and all men are oppressors.

I've found that conversations that rely heavily on labels tend to close minds, whereas conversations that avoid labels and instead discuss real human experience can often be far more productive in opening minds. I chose to speak to Ms. Joyce fully aware that her friendly demeanor might be nothing more than play-acting to mask an "all men are oppressors" attitude, but hopeful that she might truly believe in equal treatment for all and might be capable of ordinary human compassion. On occasion I've had some success informing "equal treatment for all" type feminists about injustices they've previously been unaware of, and building bridges to people like that is one of the most effective steps one can take toward healing the injustices and suffering in the world. So I felt it worthwhile to make the effort with Ms. Joyce. Although I was disappointed, I was not surprised to find that when the mask was removed, she turned out to be an "all men are oppressors" type feminist.

According to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp), journalistic ethics require that journalists:

seek truth and report it,

that journalists:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

and that journalists:

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context...http://www.breakingthescience.org/DoubleXMisrepresentation.php

Feminist politics explained in this scene from Monty Pythons film "The Life of Brian"

2009-11-05T00:53:00.001-05:00

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Feminists Rant ~ Rudov’s Sexism Strikes Again – Takes On Shriver’s “Woman’s Nation”

2009-11-05T00:01:00.001-05:00

A new post on a Feminist propaganda site lambasting Marc Rudov and my observations.

Here is a little dose below of the greater than "equality" you have and at the same time you have the impudence and audacity to call a man sexist for challenging you on it. Where are the good old days when feminism was about equality not advantage.

There are imbalances in the gender equation favouring women and you do nothing to try and stop the gender war but keep adding flame to the fire. You still use your outworn, outmoded and tiring shaming tactics to call men misogynists for challenging female advantages and feminists. You equate people like me who have absolutely no use for your feminist propaganda as hating women. Not so girls - I just hate your ideology based on victim hood. Some day you will actually grow up and be able to stand on your own two feet without the nanny state as your new patriarch.

Have a peek here and see if this is equal.

Professor Mark Perry at UoMichigan shows the following:

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Equality is a two way street but if I were a man I would start taking notice of the clear swing of the pendulum in education and elsewhere.

Posted by Catherine Epstein on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009
Filed in Media · Add a comment

Fox News regular Mark Rudov has taken on Shriver’s recent “A Woman’s Nation” report in a sexist, demeaning column at Accuracy in Media on Monday (hat tip to Media Matters). In an extended sexist rant, Rudov gripes about legislation that protects women from rape, domestic violence, and harmful workplace practices, arguing that they have come about only because “spineless men fear retribution from feminists and sexual retaliation from their wives for writing, passing, enforcing, and adjudicating gender-neutral laws.” In his “analysis,” Rudov illustrates his relentless misogyny yet again and conveniently ignores the millions of American citizens that support protections for women, as well as a history of violence against women that has made such legislation a necessity.

In a snarky closing, Rudov offers a “silver lining in your estrogen cloud” which states that America is a “matriarchy, a gynocracy. Women are in control. They no longer need, and therefore cannot require, men to support them financially — at any time, in any way, for any reason.” However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

While the Shriver report marks an historic turning point in the American workforce – which is now half women – it also outlines some of the ways we need to grow as a country, many of which Gloria Steinem wrote about in her exclusive for the Women’s Media Center, “It’s Not a Man’s World or a Woman’s Nation.” And with nearly 20% of cable-watching Americans claiming it as their main source for national and international news, Rudov’s frequent appearances on Fox News spread misinformation and sexism which is destructive to these goals.
Have you witnessed sexism on your television, computer screen, newspaper, or radio? Help the WMC monitor the media, and tell us about it.

http://womensmediacenter.com/wordpress/2009/11/rudovs-sexism-strikes-again-%E2%80%93-takes-on-shrivers-womans-nation/#comment-6375

Alberta students protest 'femimenace'

2009-11-04T15:22:00.003-05:00

This is a typical feminist response when they think they are being targeted despite the advantage of 58% in Canada and it is similar in the USA. The overall degree situation there is 148 female for every hundred male but in Masters programs it is 159 F to 100 M. They then trot out the same old arguments about why its only fair they have an advantage because the women in the 3rd world or from minorities are oppressed. Such logic they learn in Women's studies.

This is the response I left on the CNEWS site.

This is a typical feminist response when they think they are being targeted. Despite the advantage of 58% in Canada and it is similar in the USA. The overall degree situation there is 148 female for every hundred male but in Masters programs it is 159 F to 100 M. See below for the breakdown. They then trot out the same old arguments about why its only fair they have an advantage because the women in the 3rd world or from minorities are oppressed. Such logic they learn in Women's studies

"Since 1981, women have collected 135 for every 100 bachelor's degrees awarded to men," according to Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint.

From Christina Hoff Summers:

Baseless Bias and the New Second Sex

University of Michigan economist Mark Perry, shows that men are now on the wrong side of the degree gap at every stage of education. Here are his figures for the class of 2009:

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.
MJM

Here is how one smart ass feminist site responds to inequality. No narcissism or smugness here heh!

The Femimenace

October 26, 2009 in Adamant Eve

Fucking brilliant.

http://www.somethingisee.com

Follow the link for more awesomeness.

h/t @dcwarwick

For more critique of the plight of white men at the university, listen to our latest podcast.

http://adamantevecjsr.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/the-femimenace/#comment-12

...and my response left on their site:

So you think having the advantage i.e. more than equal is “fucking brilliant”. Here’s one white guy who will file your response to this greater than equal status for future reference. And here we thought feminism was about equality. Not!

November 3, 2009

Students take offence to university president's remarks

By ALYSSA NOEL, SUN MEDIA

University of Alberta women's studies student Derek Warwick shows off one of the satirical posters from the Samarasekera Response Team issued following some remarks made by the University of Alberta president. (Sun Media/Jordan Verlage)

EDMONTON -- Hundreds of posters featuring the "femimenace" and other tongue-in-cheek images were put up around the University of Alberta campus last week in response to controversial comments made by the university's president.

In an interview published Oct. 21, president Indira Samarasekera said she was concerned by Statistics Canada numbers that indicate women make up 58% of the student population at Canadian universities.

She went on to say a major worry is that 20 years from now "we will not have the benefit of enough male talent at the heads of companies and elsewhere."

She also said she will be an "advocate" for young white men because, as a woman who is a visible minority, she "can be."

Are white males is danger of becoming a minority?

The comments struck a chord with women's studies major Derek Warwick and a group of students.

"The group in general felt the president's comments were pretty uncalled for," Warwick said.

"Her comment that women are going to be leading or beating men in the workplace in 20 years suggests a complete lack of understanding of our context today."

So, the Samarasekera Response Team, as they dubbed themselves, got to work designing and distributing posters voicing their opposition.

In one, a giant woman reminiscent of King Kong, is walking over a university building with a car in hand.

"Women are attacking campus!" it reads. "Only white men can save our university! Stop the femimenace."

Warwick explained it was meant to be humorous, "as well as provoke some thought."

But less than 24 hours after they were put up last Tuesday, most of the 300 posters were taken down, he said.

Samarasekera was away from work last week, the group was told, but her office was aware of the campaign.

The most disappointing part of the comments was that Samarasekera glossed over demographics that really could use a post-secondary advocate, Warwick said.

"The biggest problem we had was just how her comments were creating this fear-mongering (that the number of women enrolled in university) is increasing at a faster rate than men," he said. "There was no mention of lower classes and women of colour, whose numbers are lower."

Kory Mathewson, president of the University of Alberta Students' Union, agreed that addressing barriers to education for all people is important.

"The comments that the president made really speak to a larger issue of ensuring all qualified students are able to access a quality education," Mathewson said.

"I think the growth in female enrolment is encouraging news. But there are still under-represented groups that need representation, (such as) aboriginals and low-income (earners)."

Calls to the university for comment were not returned by press time.

ALYSSA.NOEL@SUNMEDIA.CA

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/11/03/11615366-sun.html

CSM Op-Ed Falls Flat with Claim that Family Courts Routinely Give Custody to Abusive Dads

2009-10-21T14:00:00.006-04:00

My letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County Ca, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.MJM

Contact the Christian Science Monitor here: http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/contactus.pl

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

By Robert Franklin, Esq.

They're baaaack. As if they'd ever left.

I refer to the anti-dad crowd whose latest shtick is to oppose children's rights to paternal access by claiming, against all the evidence, that fathers pose a unique danger to children. What actual social science shows is that mothers do far more (about twice as much) child injury than do fathers. That comes from the Department of Health and Human Services

Adminstration for Children and Families statistics on child injury and maltreatment, among others.

Still, that's the main thrust of the recent counter-attack on fathers' rights in Australia. This article is a special riff on the theme, though (Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09). Author Kathleen Russell co-founded an anti-PAS organization in Marin County. Hers is another claim that family courts routinely ignore a parent's claims that the other parent is abusing a child in order to give custody to the abusive parent. But take even a passing whiff of that claim and it doesn't pass the smell test.

Why would a family court judge ignore well-founded evidence of child injury or sexual abuse and grant custody to the abuser? Uh, gee, I can't think of any reason.

The strong impression these people give is that it's pervasive bias against mothers by family courts. They seldom come right out and say it, but with books entitled "Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Family Lawyers and Judges," not much is left to the imagination. To suggest that a system that gives custody to mothers 84% of the time and makes little effort to enforce the visitation orders of fathers is biased in favor of fathers, just doesn't cut the butter.

So where do those people get such a bizarre notion?

Well, they usually cite a single source - a study published in the May, 2000 issue of the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse by Ann Goetting and Amy Neustein. According to the website Stop Family Violence.com, the authors conclude that,

"In a study of more than 300 custody cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, 70 percent resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody with the alleged sexual abuser. And in 20 percent of cases, the nonviolent parent lost custody completely."

Oh. Those would be allegations of sexual abuse. Stated another way, in 70% of cases in which sexual abuse was alleged, family courts found that there was either no evidence thereof or insufficient evidence to deprive the child of its access to the target of the allegations.

But to the anti-dad crowd, all allegations of sexual abuse are true, at least when made against a father. And if they were, the study's findings would indeed be alarming. But neither the Goetting/Neustein study nor its advocates like Kathleen Russell make any effort to sort out whether the allegations were true or not.

The patently false notion that family courts routinely turn over children to sexual abusers, absurd on its face as it is, is rendered all the more so by the fact that its proponents have a hard time coming up with a single case which, on close examination, supports their claim. The Sadie Loeliger case, the Genia Schockome case, the Holly Collins case and others, are all examples, not of abusers getting custody, but of courts taking reams of testimony and concluding that in fact it was the mother claiming paternal abuse who was the dangerous parent. Indeed, study co-author Amy Neustein's is yet another case of exactly that phenomenon. I'll expound on that further in a future post.

If, as the Russell op-ed claims, there are 58,000 examples each and every year of sexual abusers getting custody, shouldn't the anti-father forces be able to come up with one that bears them out?

You'd think so, and to that end, Russell offers for our consideration the case of Jonea Rogers, a Petaluma, California woman who, so her story goes, sought the help of various law enforcement agencies in dealing with her allegedly abusive ex-husband (or maybe his father), only to be rebuffed at every turn. Rogers then fled with their daughter to various foreign countries. Once caught, the child was returned to the father, Ian Stone, and Rogers was jailed for violating the court order setting out the father's rights.

A Marin County jury acquitted Rogers of violating the court's order apparently convinced that she acted without the requisite state of mind necessary for conviction. Astonishingly enough, Russell would have her readers believe that the failure to convict Rogers of the criminal charge means that Stone in fact sexually abused his daughter. Needless to say, the jury found no such thing and their acquittal means no such thing.

And by the way, Stone still has custody.

So far, the nitty-gritty on the Rogers case comes strictly from a few newspaper articles like this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/10/06) and this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/8/06). But it's enough to strongly suggest that we can add it to the list of cases in which, contrary to the bleats of the anti-dad crowd, the mother who cries "abuse" and kidnaps the child is in fact just trying to deprive a hated ex of his child.

Consider the ease with which temporary restraining orders are obtained on little or no evidence in custody cases. Did she get one? Did she try? The articles don't say so.

Consider the fact that a variety of law enforcement officials investigated her claims over several months, but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider the fact that Child Protective Services likewise investigated Rogers' claims but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider that what Rogers was doing was so obvious to one of Marin County's sheriff's deputies that he told Ian Stone that Rogers was "setting him up" and that he should hire a lawyer.

Consider that no article makes any mention of medical evidence that the child had been injured or abused.

Consider that Rogers planned the abduction and getaway over the course of many months, secretly selling her house and small business in the process. Are those the actions of a mother who is so panicked about the sexual abuse of her child that she needs to flee immediately?

And finally consider that the child has been living with Ian Stone ever since Rogers was jailed in 2004 and is now at least 12 years old. If he sexually abused her before, he's surely done so since. Where are the charges by enraged law enforcement and prosecutors? Why doesn't Rogers renew her efforts to have him charged and get custody of the girl? And of course, what does the girl herself say?

If Russell and the others who are determined to keep children from their fathers at any cost, even that of the truth, are so sure that Stone is a child sexual abuser, what are there answers to these many questions?

And why was Russell so careful in writing her op-ed as to avoid even naming Ian Stone or making any statement that could be construed as libelous or defamatory?

I think I know. Based on their performance in other cases, their claims in the Rogers case are as threadbare as they've been in countless others. And that pretty much sums up their whole cause against fathers and their children - threadbare.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4308

Barbara Kay: Boy-hating is in

2009-10-21T13:41:00.002-04:00

Posted: October 21, 2009, 3:00 PM by NP Editor

Barbara Kay

As my first-born was a boy, I quite reasonably hoped for a girl the second time around. In my technologically antediluvian era, one discovered one’s child’s sex upon delivery. So the long gestational lull was filled with suspense and a good deal of base-covering hypocrisy: “Oh, I don’t care really, as long as it’s healthy” and “Brothers are so cute together!”

Needless to say, when informed I had produced a girl, I gave way to honest emotion and ’fessed up to great joy. I’d realized my tidy fantasy — as the old song goes, “a boy for you and a girl for me.” But had I delivered a second boy, there would still have been joy, and brothers really are cute together...

Boys will seldom encounter a male teacher in their first 8 years of education and this is not new. I note in other articles in today's paper some people in the education system are sensitive to the differences in learning capabilities between boys and girls and have plans afoot to start addressing this. That is a very good sign.

We are starting to wake up to the fact boys are falling further and further behind because of the gynocracy that rules the marketing, education, justice, divorce, media, and sundry other industries. Yes. I know there are many men leading in these industries but they follow the money or are ruled by political correctness. Western society has the opposite of some Asian cultures and that is we place far greater value on femininity than masculinity. Check on the gender discounts offered in the justice system for penalties of the same crime between men and women amongst many other differences.

In Family Law the man is replaced by the state as the father figure where judges routinely award physical custody of children to mom in a 9-1 ratio and cast dad aside as a visitor but he is necessary as a revenue spigot. As long as he pays he may get to see the children periodically (maybe 14% if he is lucky) but should mom cut him off the judge will do nothing about it. Should dad stop paying the full amount of child support because he got laid off or can't earn as much overtime then the judge and the Debtor Prison Collection agencies in each province will throw him in jail. This can occur without trial and at the whim of bureaucrats in agencies like the Orwellian named "Family Responsibility Office" in Ontario. This is the 21st century and we do throw male debtors in prison. Check to see how many females suffer the same fate.

I'm starting to write my book here about the current Matriarchal society we live in but one only has to look at the education system to view the iceberg's tip. In the USA for every 148 women getting a degree at all levels of undergrad and grad programs only 100 men do the same. The imbalance is far greater for degrees up to the Masters level. This lopsidedness in higher education has been going on for decades and is widening. Throughout history men have been gifted with inventing almost every labour saving and scientific apparatus in existence, men have saved the world from totalitarian despots and millions upon millions have died for it, yet it is still women and children into the lifeboats when a disaster strikes.

The era of Lifeboat Feminism is well entrenched which affirms men are disposable and brutish oafs while females are superior - not equal superior - but ask any one of them to let men and children into the lifeboats and see what answer you get. By the way no real man would ever get into a lifeboat if a woman or child was left behind - just so you know.

Here is the break down of University Degree recipients by gender in the USA this year according to Professor Mark Perry at the University of Michigan.

Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.

Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.

Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.

Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.

Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.

Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.

Education Department projections though 2017 show a worsening picture for men with every passing year. Christina Hoff Summers states "It is that men are quickly becoming the second sex in American education."

I would posit it is not quickly becoming so but rather it happened some time ago and is worsening.

Dr. Anthony Synnott ~ Concordia University discusses his new book Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims

2009-10-18T13:20:00.003-04:00

A well reported article from Katie Brennan that didn't unfairly dump all over Dr. Synnott. They did finally publish my eye opening comments after a second admonishment which seems to have put potential censorship in context.

Dr. Anthony Synnott may have not discussed some of the other hidden areas of gender differences that tend to obscure that women (mostly single mothers) are 2.5 times more likely to kill or injure their children, that children raised by single mothers are far more likely to have negative social outcomes compared to two biological parent families or single father homes, yet judges award physical custody in a 9-1 ratio favouring mums, women initiate DV (upwards of 70% in some studies) more then males, that women initiate 75% of divorces in Canada and the list goes on.

Over the past 35 plus years men have been demonized in the mass media and made sport of as buffoons on sitcoms. Its an interesting juxtaposition for the gender that invented almost everything we use to ease the labour burdens, discovered most of the world and beyond and saved the world on more than one occasion from totalitarian regimes.

Times are changing and there are many men stepping up to the plate to change the gender paradigm dynamic that we are evil abusers rather than loving fathers. I commend Dr. Synnott for his bravery. It isn't easy overcoming everything taught in women's studies programs often by misinformed ideologues.

Mike Murphy

Andrew Meade / The Brunswickan

Katie Brennan, 13 Oct 2009

A new human rights issue was brought to light this past week at UNB: what about men’s rights?

On Thursday, Oct. 8 Dr. Anthony Synnott from Concordia University stood in front of a roomful of students and professors and spoke about his new book Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims. Synnott sat in the hot seat as he discussed his theories on masculinity and equality for men. He believes that in the quest for women’s rights, men’s rights have been either forgotten or ignored.

Synnott points out that during and since the feminist movement, society has portrayed men as inferior and a social problem.

Synnott suggested that it is not uncommon to hear women complain that a “good man is hard to find,” to see comics or t-shirts that read “so many men, so little ammo,” or “men are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

Synnott takes this further by saying, “Prejudice against ethnic groups is called ‘racism’; prejudice against women, ‘sexism’; and prejudice against men is considered really, really funny.”

Continuing to draw attention to society’s prejudice against men, Synnott admits that men do commit more homicides and crime than women, but men are also killed more in homicides than women.

So why are men killing men, and why aren’t we doing something to stop it? Because men are seen as naturally more aggressive and dangerous, he suggested. Hate literature discusses how men are ‘in fact’ the inferior and more violent sex, proving their point by using the examples of male villains throughout history such as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc.

Synnott reminds us of history’s heroes: Gandhi, Churchill, Mandela, Terry Fox, etc, as well as the reality that the majority of men are not killers and rapists.

Synnott is not only concerned with the negative portrayal of men in society but also the lack of support men receive. He said that while it is true that male dominated jobs have higher wages and are unionized more than female dominated jobs, but jobs that men are more likely to have are the jobs that have recently been cut.

Women, he says, have taken over the workforce and there is not nearly the amount of organizations or support groups out there for men as there are for women. And, Synnott said, because of this, men make up the majority of the homeless population.

And there are other statistics we are choosing to ignore, he said. There are more females enrolled in post-secondary education than males. He says men usually work in more high risk environments and are more prone to health issues, yet there is a higher percentage of men who do not have healthcare. Less money, Synnott says, is put into the research of male-specific diseases and there are fewer academic studies done about male problem areas.

Although talking about heavy subject matter, in a roomful of people ready to jump down his throat, Synnott was able to crack lots of jokes and keep his audience smiling. And after being interrupted a few times by inquiries about his sources, followed by some debates, questions were taken, putting Synnott’s viewpoint under the microscope. After his presentation, Synnott seemed relieved to be finished. He said that he often faces hostile and defensive audiences and that it surprises him how closed-minded people can be toward his unique perspective.

Synnott calls out to men to “man-up,” a term he learned from a student. But he does not share her definition, which requested that men, “Get beer, not white wine. Don’t get the baguette, get the steak. Stop whining, and just do it… oh, and hit on us more.”

No, Synnott requests that men start organizing and fighting for their rights as women have done. Because as we have all learned at some point or other, ignoring problems does not make them go away, they only come back later to bite you even harder.

“So gentlemen, man-up! There are things to do here.”

http://thebruns.ca/content/2009-10/synnott-says-man#comment-374

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men/200908/man

Yeah - Thank you Mr. Synnott for bringing this subject to Universities, where it is long, long over-due. As a women I have had many wonderful men in my life, my father, brother, friends, husband and now my sons. I don't want my sons gowing up believing they were somehow born inferior to women, are inherentely violent or that they have to "pay" for the perceived mistakes of the past. The women's movement should not be at the detriment of men and boys, but too many times it is. Discussions such as yours, based on REAL facts and statistics (not out-dated or even mis-represented ones) are so important. Please continue your good work!

Anonymous

* reply

Excellent Dr. Anthony Synnott your courage will not go u notice there is a long road ahead to improve the situations dealing with mens issues about health, suicide, family court ect... but you have sent a strong message to many who will not ignore mens voices any longer this will inspire other students at other Universities to talk about their mens issues and I include the female students also

this is no more a battles of the sexes but a fight for equality for all

Mike M

* reply

The inhuman extremism and extraodinary dishonesty of the western women's movement, as it has transformed itself under the banner of feminism during the second half of the 20th century, will eventually be look back upon with horror and disbelief by future generations of human beings who will have witnessed its full social and economic consequences. That is inevitable I believe.

Peter C.

* reply

Bravo Dr Synnott! Your courage is very much appreciated. Speaking truth as you have done in a hostile and "women first" arena is modeling for us men to actually "man up" and start to voice the truth of our situations. The world is and always has been built for the needs of women. Men are automatically assumed to show concern and put energy forth in order to provide and protect women and children. This is a given and most people carry this unconscious and powerful belief though most don't realize the depth to which it impacts their everyday decisions and behaviors. Dr Synnott is calling attention to the reality that our world is filled with automatons who expect men to be providers and protectors and NOT HAVE NEEDS THEMSELVES. This is how our idiot lawmakers have seen fit to not have any sort of special program for men and boys who are suicidal even though 80% of the competed suicides are boys and men. If it was 80% women and girls we would have multiple commissions studying the problem and money being dumped into trying to solve suich a horrible situation. Men are disposable.

Bravo Doc!

Anonymous

* reply

"Synnott admits that men do commit more homicides and crime than women"

Only because they are bigger and stronger and are taught to be violent from childhood - what excuse women like Aileen Wournos have i dont know.

Porky Domesticus

* reply

Interesting. It's about time this hit Academia...

I've been an MRA (Men's Rights Advocate) for over a decade and a half. I've recently completed the first issue of a magazine devoted to men's issues, and there is a huge community of us online....

Try glenn sacks' site, mensnewsdaily, Stand your Ground .com, or angry harry's site for a UK perspective.

Like i said, it's about damn time......

Factory

* reply

There are many, many examples of blatant sexism against men in our society. Dr. Synnott has only scratched the surface, but I applaud his focus on some of the more serious ones.

Divorce courts and child custody battles routinely favor women, we only allow genital mutilation of baby boys in this country and responsibility for under age sex is always the males crime, never a females regardless of age or consent.

Men are humiliated by the opposite sex in our prison system where women are protected from this type of abuse. Female reporters have demanded, and gotten, access to the locker room of the opposite sex while female athletes are given privacy and respect. There are too many to list here.

Its not just the double standards, its the attitude from women that they are entitled to discriminate against men based on gender. If we are to change all inequalities, we must be educating women and girls that they should give out the respect that they are so quick to demand from men.

James

* reply

There's nothing new about the need for men's rights. Historically, both men and women were institutionally discriminated against based on gender roles. Men were discriminated against in parenting laws, child custody, military conscription, forced labor, criminal sentencing, domestic violence policies, rape laws, public health policies, genital integrity laws, and more. This paper examines these and issues in more detail below.

We often hear of gender disparities at the top of society (government, CEOs), but rarely do we hear about the disparities at the bottom. Men account for 80-99% of homeless adults, work-related deaths/injuries, prisoners, combat deaths/injuries, and suicide deaths, are much more likely than females to drop out, skip a grade or be placed in special education, and still die younger and have higher death rates than women for the ten leading causes of death. http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/TopCausesDeath2000.pdf

The reason for the disparity at the top of society is that women have more options than men to be primary parents. A recent study funded by the U.S. Department of Labor found the pay gap is due to choices, not discrimination http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf. The "pay gap" is only a snapshot of average yearly full time incomes. It does not account for overtime (90% male) or other factors like flexibility, shorter hours, physical risk, experience levels, etc.

Below is a partial summary of men’s rights issues followed by links to men’s rights movements worldwide.

FATHERS

Fathers have historically been denied equal parenting rights with mothers. The 19th Century “tender years” doctrine explicitly gave mothers presumed custody for children age 13 and younger. Even after being replaced by the “best interests of the child” doctrine, the tender years doctrine still thrived.

As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association’s handbook advised lawyers and judges that “except in very rare cases, the father should not have custody of the minor children. He is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally.” Time Magazine, 11/11/03, “Father Makes Two,”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011119-183968,00.html

Today, fathers usually ask for 50% custody while mothers ask for and usually get 80% custody, and fathers are relegated to visitors and must pay high child support with hardly any enforcement of their parenting time. The myth that fathers get custody when they ask for it 70% of the time has been repeatedly debunked. See Cynthia McNeeley, “Lagging Behind the Times, Parenthood, Custody and Gender Bias in the Family Court,”

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/mcneely.pdf.

Research overwhelmingly shows father involvement is a very important part of a child's development, behavior and well-being.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119405387/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=513962&in_page_id=1774

It also shows fathers are equal with mothers in nurturing instincts and capabilities. http://www.israelnewsagency.com/psychologytodaydivorcechildrencustodyfathersright48060307.html

Research on joint custody laws in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany that controls for pre-existing levels of conflict strongly supports presumed joint physical custody. http://fkce.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/13/

Although we often hear about "deadbeat dads," maternal gatekeeping (maternal resistance to father involvement) is a significant contributing factor to the shortage of father involvement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092063/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124519757969321229.html

Most men would quit their jobs or lower their pay if their partner could support the family. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html

Dad's are even stigmatized for taking parental leave or denied equal rights to take it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8149702.stm

An Urban Institute study entitled “What About the Dads?” found that CPS case workers attempted to contact fathers of children at risk in their mothers care only a little over half the time. That was true even though they knew the father’s identity in 86% of cases. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/cw-involve-dads/rs.htm

Fathers are also frequently subjected to false accusations and restraining order abuse in order to gain an advantage in divorce or custody. The California State Bar has expressed concern about the rising abuse of restraining orders in divorce.

http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/family-law-news_TRO_RO_Pages%2026thru30_Vol27-Number4_2005-1.pdf

MEN’S HEALTH

The American Journal of Public Health (5/03) has declared that men are in a “silent health crisis.” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9475.php

Almost every chronic illness affects men more often than women. Men die younger and more often than women for the ten leading causes of death.

http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/TopCausesDeath2000.pdf

Men account for 80-90% of homeless adults, job deaths and suicide deaths. Men more often have mental disabilities but are less often treated. They are the majority of special education students and are more likely to skip a grade or drop out of high school.

But men’s health has been seriously neglected. There are 7 federal offices of women’s health and similar offices at every level of government but no offices of men’s health except in Georgia. Breast cancer gets by far the most funding of all cancers, and has been known as a “horde” of existing cancer funds. In fact, for decades the National Cancer Institute spent about four times more on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research.

http://www3.cancer.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm

Men’s Health Magazine did an entire story on how all other sources, including the Department of Defense, have funded breast cancer at far higher and disproportionate rates compared to prostate cancer.

The claim that women were excluded from medical testing is not only antiquated (from the 60s) but is an exaggeration that has been refuted by experts such as Dr. Sally Satel. Historically, women participated in 95% of NIH clinical trials going back to the early 1970s and men were underrepresented in research on cancer, reproductive health and sex hormones. Today men represent about 37% of participants in NIH-funded research, and gender-specific budgets favor women by more than a 2:1 margin, according to this report by Men’s Health America.

http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/2000/12dec00/acfc1200.html

See, Young, C., Satel, S., M.D., “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine”; Satel, S.: PC, M.D.:, “How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.”

CRIMINAL SENTENCING

Recent research shows men still get higher penalties than women.

Seattle Times, “State courts unfair to men, minorities, UW study suggests,”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008782782&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=courtstudy25m&date=20090225

This correlates with prior studies that found men receive higher sentences than women for the same crime even when all other factors are equal (age, race, priors, family situation, etc.) and that “gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites.” (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v 35, pp 136-168.)

A study published in Justice Quarterly in 1986 found that, for the same felony, being male increased the chances of incarceration by 165% (being black increased the chance 19%).

The gender of the victim matters as well. A drunk driver will receive an average of a 3-year higher sentence for killing a female than for killing a male (compared to a 2-year higher sentence for killing a white instead of a black). (“Unconventional Wisdom,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2000.)

Researchers Edward Glaeser (Harvard) and Bruce Sacerdote (Dartmouth) examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6% (compared to 26.8% for killing a white instead of a black).

FORCED LABOR

For years, the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 exempted “able-bodied males” between ages 18 and 45 from the ban on slavery and forced labor. See Article 11 at

http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029

We never hear of this in gender studies courses. And although the exemption was eventually eliminated, Article 2 still exempts prisoners and soldiers (90+% male).

Male slaves are frequently ignored by human rights laws and policies.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/headlines/headlines_30034148.php

For example, male slaves in China have had trouble getting their slavemasters prosecuted because only women were protected from slavery.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Male victims of domestic violence have been seriously neglected in public policy, outreach and services. But they are not rare. They’re less likely to report it, which makes oft-cited crime data (DoJ, etc.) unreliable especially for men.

Prevalence and Injuries

Virtually all empirical survey data shows women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships and that men suffer one-third of physical injuries from domestic violence. Over 200 of these studies (and growing), using various methodologies, are summarized by Professor Martin Fiebert at

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "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."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

The study also found: "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)."

A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide.

http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

Discrimination

Many government-funded domestic violence programs still discriminate against male victims. In Australia and the UK, the government had to revoke funding from domestic violence shelters for refusing to help male victims.

http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding

Other governments, like Holland, have created funds for battered men’s shelters.

http://www.amsterdamnews.net/story/464390

But in many countries, battered men’s shelters remain without any public funds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1146783/First-refuges-battered-husbands-offer-support-male-victims.html

Battered men's shelters have recently formed in Serbia in Croatia.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48608

In October 2008, the National Coalition For Men won a landmark appellate case in California that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from the statutory funding provisions or from state-funded services. Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm

NCFM did this on a pro bono basis and thus focused on overturning the law, not on doing deposition and gathering evidence of the discrimination itself. The court accepted the State's claim that 15% of state-funded shelters refuse to help men (which is significant in itself especially when they are concentrated in certain areas), but the number is much higher than that. The ones that "help men" usually just refer them to a far-away shelter that gives men hotel arrangements.

The federal Violence Against Women Act discriminates as well. First, it explicitly excludes American Indian men from its provisions on Native American. Second, it is implemented in a discriminatory manner nationwide, as the funds get routed to state coalitions that limit the funds to women. Dr. Richard Gelles explains this in his article, "Male Victims: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence."

http://www.ncfm.org/chapters/la/gelles.html

Finally, the very title discriminates and stigmatizes male victims by leaving them invisible and downplaying the seriousness of male victimization, making them an afterthought at very best. We don’t have a “Men’s Occupational Safety and Health Act” just because 92% of occupational deaths happen to men.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm

"Build Your Own Shelters"

Some claim men's groups do not really care about male victims or do anything to help them. First, this claim is misleading because the main goal of men's rights groups is to end discrimination against men, similar to other anti-discrimination groups. Second, men's groups do care about and help male victims. Battered men's advocates also built a privately-funded men's shelter in Yreka, CA and set up the National Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women. NCFM networks with sober living homes in parts of California to shelter battered men referred by NCFM and has transported battered men to and donated money the Valley Oasis shelter in Lancaster, donated money to Valley Oasis, sent volunteer advocates to court with male victims, and provided moral and other support to male victims.

Telling men to "build your own shelters" is like telling women "build your own unions" because men built most unions. The discrimination we challenge is in taxpayer-funded programs, and men pay at least half of those taxes. It will take decades to establish the geographic spread that existing shelters have and meanwhile taxpayer-funded shelters can at minimum offer hotel vouchers to battered men, but most do not.

The CTS

Another common criticism is that the studies showing women initiate domestic violence as often as men are based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) which, they say, is not contextual enough and does not account for self-defense. At the outset, this is a hypocritical argument because these same critics have used CTS-based studies for decades to cite figures on female victims and they only criticize CTS when it applies to male victims. Even the DoJ, which most feminist groups cite, uses CTS. It is the most common methodology used in science to measure abuse.

In response to the criticism, researchers updated the CTS in 1985 to ask who initiated the violence first and found the same results (and even if one can "initiate" violence in self-defense, that would be true of both sexes).

Dr. Richard Gelles explains:

"Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men."

"The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, re-printed with the author's permission at www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

Professor John Archer further explains:

“It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack. (Bland & Orn. 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird. 1989. cited in Straus. 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men report using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988). This evidence does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women’s self-defense."

"Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin," Sept. 2000. v. 126, n. 5, p. 651, 664.

Subsequent research asked about motives and self-defense and found self-defense is only a small percentage of the violence by either sex. For example, one of the largest studies ever done in England found not only equal perpetration by gender but that men and women assaulted their partners for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes and men were hitting in self-defense slightly more often than women were. Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships: A Descriptive Analysis, Aggressive Behavior,” 1996, 22: 401-415.

California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner. Their most common reasons: (1) my partner wasn’t listening to me; (2) my partner wasn’t being sensitive to my needs; and (3) I wished to gain my partner's attention. Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., Denise Gonzalez, Ph.D., “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.

A 32-nation study of domestic violence by the University of New Hampshire in 2006 found women's violence in dating relationships was just as controlling as men's. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

Professor Don Dutton further refutes the self-defense myth. See Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., "Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice," (11) 2006, 457-483 http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf

MALE RAPE VICTIMS

Historically, many rape laws excluded male victims from the protections women receive. The Model Penal Code of the United States, for example, defined "rape" so that only women could be victims.

In England, funding for sex abuse victims is often denied for male victims.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2007/06/25/4287949-sun.html

The federal government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying rapes on college campuses while ignoring rapes in prisons where men are frequently subjected to prison rape or sexual abuse, and not just by other men. In fact, consensual sex between prisoners and guards is considered sexual abuse, especially when the prisoner is a minor, and female guards commit this form of abuse in significantly high numbers.

"Inside youth prisons, scores of female guards violated boys." http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA041107.01B.krod.3a6c8d4.html

See also, "Female Prison Guards Are More Likely Than Males to Have Sex With Inmates"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3024521&page=1

Rapes of males frequently occur in the form of statutory rape, and not just by other males. A student survey in New Mexico found 43% of teacher sex abuse comes from female teachers but over 90% of prosecutions are of male teachers.

http://www.newsobserver.com/672/story/501955.html

A recent study found 2 out of 5 South African boys say they were raped, “most often by adult women.”

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ad3524cc-6076-4bc2-a015-23860553bd04

A large study in Canada found high rates of homeless kids being molested, with 3/4 of the molestations of boys being by adult women, but there were still no programs for the boys, only for girls.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=604d29af-5999-47ec-a156-0f5bc96954f2

Though there is little empirical research, adult women do forcefully rape men, including disabled men. For example:

African men being raped and battered by women in Namibia

http://allafrica.com/stories/200708210872.html

Quadriplegic man used eyes and toes to testify about female caregiver raping him. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4090392a12855.html

Female Caregiver For Mentally Disabled Man Charged With Rape

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/13766990/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news\

Tembisia police report women gang raping men.

http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=413523

An increasing number of men in Tasmania are reporting sexual assaults.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1957242.htm?site=idx-tas

Two Kuwaiti women were convicted of kidnapping and raping a man. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=iol11669473496...

Nun receives only one year in jail for raping two boys. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse_nun;_ylt=Ai...

Police Say HIV-Positive Woman Raped Boy

http://www.local6.com/news/5604460/detail.html

Men are also frequently victims of “sexual coercion” by both women and men. (Sexuality and Culture, Summer 2000.) According to a May 2008 study by the University of New Hampshire, 28% of college women and 11% of college men experienced unwanted sexual contact and the perpetrator was a member of the opposite sex 98% of the time for girls and 91% of the time for boys. See Table 1 at

http://www.unh.edu/news/docs/2006unwantedsexualexperiences.pdf

FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RAPE

Almost every month we read of another man let free by DNA after years of incarceration due to a false rape accusation. False accusations are hard to measure and there is not much available research, but the existing research shows the problem is not uncommon.

A study in India found 18% of rape accusations are false and are often “coached.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/18_rape_cases_false_Study/articleshow/3910217.cms

In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred. In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false. Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi. Kanin EJ. An alarming national trend: False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994 http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.pdf. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. But His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

The U.S. Air Force study found 60% of rape accusations were false and the most common reasons for false rape accusations were: (1) spite or revenge; (2) feelings of guilt or shame; or, (3) to cover up an affair. Mental illness also played a role. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI, ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.6 It should be noted that rape involves a forcible and non-consensual act, and a DNA match alone does not prove that rape occurred. So the 25% figure substantially underestimates the true extent of false allegations. Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. June 1996 http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt

According to former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, “For 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. ... I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. ... A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.” http://web.archive.org/web/20050404230831/http://www.thedenverchannel.co...

According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Forcible rape. February 17, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20050404230831/http://www.thedenverchannel.com/kobebryanttrial/2812198/detail.html. Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American. Innocence Project: Facts on post-conviction DNA exonerations. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php

Some of these men are wrongly convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Even if there is no conviction, a false allegation of rape can “emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person. False accusations of rape are a form of psychological rape that is not included in the traditional definition of “rape.” And false accusations are not studied enough because it’s politically incorrect to talk about. Meanwhile the names of the accusers are often protected while the names of the accused are not.

Here are just a few sample stories about false accusations:

Four young men traumatized by false rape accusations.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/18/hofstra.case/index.html

Man released on rape charge after 22 years in prison.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/22/planes.collide.in.midair.news12longisland

6 falsely accused young men rescued by video of orgy directed by accuser.

http://www.ocweekly.com/features/sex-issue/great-dick,-babe_2006-02-09.html

Female rapists sentenced for rape and false accusation.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Rape_Lie.html

Women falsely claims rape to justify lover's attack on ex boyfriend.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444298&in_page_id=1770

17 year old boy released after false rape accusation.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/704/6.php

Innocent man falsely accused of rape to win back lover.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444298&in_page_id=1770

Victim Now Accused of False Report," The News Herald, 11/22/06.

http://www.morganton.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MNH%2FMGArticle%2FMNH_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191836434&path=!news

Orange County woman jailed for false rape claim.

http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_313163134.html

U.K. judge jails "skillful actress" who falsely accused man of rape.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1939368,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Woman charged with filing false claim of sexual attack to police after road rage incident.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_falserape_0911sep11,0,7666977,comment-display-all.story

The claim that only 2% of rape accusations are false is totally unfounded and is purportedly based on FBI crime data though we have yet to see this confirmed by anyone and crime data is never a reliable source to project upon the population as a whole, as compared to empirical research. But no matter what the numbers are, there is no excuse for the lack of attention to the problem or the hostile and emotional reactions that come when anyone discusses false rape accusations.

Falsely accused persons are victims too, and to deny or downplay the experiences of those victims is a hypocritical form of victim-blaming. False accusations of rape are a form of psychological rape that can damage a person for life regardless of whether there is a conviction.

Much more attention and research is needed in this area. False accusers should be prosecuted (they rarely are) and face same punishment their accused could receive. And the names of the accused should be protected as much as the names of the accusers.

For a good site on false accusations of rape visit

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

MILITARY CONSCRIPTION

No gender oppression is comparable in magnitude to the deaths of males in war, which includes forced conscription. Over 20 million male soldiers died in WWII alone, about 500,000 of them U.S. soldiers. http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

Historically, a large percentage of men were drafted before they were old enough to even vote. The Vietnam Memorial has 58,000 male names and 8 female names. Males throughout the world are still forced to fight wars, even at ages as young as 6 in some countries. In the U.S. males must still register for the draft by age 18, including “only sons” and even disabled men if they can move about.

People who say “men make war” are the same ones who find it sexist to say men make science, medicine, etc., as women were restricted from participating and still did contribute in many ways. The same is true of war. Women leaders supported and declared wars, and women in the general population have supported wars at almost the same rate men have. E.g., 76% of women and 86% of men supported the U.S. military attack in Kuwait and Iraq during the Gulf War.

In his report, “War and Gender,” University of Massachusetts political scientist Joshua Goldstein documents how women have actively encouraged military adventurism, both in modern and indigenous societies, and that in the face of imminent conflict, women goad their men into combat. For example:

- During the American Revolutionary War, women were known to withhold sexual favors from reluctant fighters.

- During the American Civil War, Southern belles refused to accept suitors who did not take up arms.

- In World War I, British women organized the White Feather campaign in which they gave a white feather to men who refused to fight, as a sign of their unmanliness.

- Among the Bedouin, frenzied Rwala women bare their breasts and urge their men to war.

- Before the 1973 coup in Chile, women threw corn at soldiers to taunt them as “chickens.”

- During the era of the Soviet Gulag, female interrogators were just as ruthless as their male counterparts in extracting confessions.

- In the Rwanda genocide, Hutu women played a major role in killing Tutsi men:

“Women of every social category took part in the killings. … Some women killed with their own hands. … Women and girls in their teens joined the crowds that surrounded churches, hospitals and other places of refuge. Wielding machetes and nail-studded clubs, they excelled as “cheerleaders” of the genocide, ululating the killers into action.” African Rights report, Rwanda – Not So Innocent: When Women Become Killers, August 1995.) http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html

THE “PAY GAP”

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 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

See also, Prof. June O’Neill, Ph.D. (former director of Congressional Budget Office), “The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000,” American Economic Review, 5/03.)

This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., which 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 outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R
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 outearning 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

For more, see:

ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity”

GENITAL INTEGRITY

Role of the Foreskin

The male foreskin is a highly-functional sexual organ that has been present in all mammals for over 60 million years, but is most highly developed and erogenous in the human male. In addition to protecting the glans and producing chemicals such as pheromones and anti- viral substances it contains a profusion of nerves that are highly sensitive to fine touch and are also found primarily in our lips, eyelids and fingertips.

The president-elect of the International Society for Sexual Medicine, Dr John Dean, has commented on his netdoctor entry on circumcision that a reduction in penile sensation is an “almost universal’’ result of the surgery.

A recent study used fine-touch medical instruments for the first time ever to study the fine-touch sensation on 19 points of the penis and found circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis and that an intact penis is much more sensitive than a circumcised penis. Sorrells, Snyder, et al., “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis,” British Journal of Urology International, v. 99, issue 4, p. 864, April 2007. http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html

The full study is posted at

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

A subsequent study in China confirmed the same thing. Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2008; 14: 328-30, Dept. of Urology, the First Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou,Guangdong 510120, China.

Prior studies on this issue – which had mixed results – were unreliable because they were based upon self-reports of men who were either circumcised as adults for medical purposes or were circumcised as children and could not compare the difference. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Robert Van Howe, explains that the male foreskin is concentrated with high-sensory nerve endings that are only found in our eyelids, lips and fingertips. The foreskin has many other roles as well, such as acting as a buffer and lubricant.

Non-religious circumcision has been traced to the prevention of masturbation. And historically circumcision has been a cure looking for a disease, constantly being claimed to prevent one disease after another and repeatedly disproven afterwards. For more, see http://www.circumstitions.com/

HIV Prevention

There has been a flurry of media coverage over three studies in Africa that found male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. The conclusions of the studies have been criticized by a number of experts. See http://www.circumstitions.com/

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians reviewed the studies and concluded there is "no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males." They also suggested parents wait until their child is old enough to give informed consent, and added: "There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experience."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence-to-support-routine-circumcision-20090911-fkna.html

This confirms what the American Academy of Pediatrics found long ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990302063210.htm

Dr. Dean Edell called the African/HIV conclusions "silly" and warned, "it will backfire." He recognized the gender double standards, the loss of sensation in the penis, how condoms and education are the solution, and how the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision in the West and also the highest rate of HIV while European men don't circumcise and have lower HIV rates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

In fact, there is research showing female circumcision also reduces the changes of contracting HIV. Stallings, R. Y., and E. Karugendo. “Female Circumcision and HIV

Infection in Tanzania: For Better or for Worse?” Abstract of paper given at Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Rio de Janeiro, July 25–27, 2005. But even the least intrusive form of female circumcision is illegal to perform on an infant girl. But the male foreskin is gynecologically equivalent to the removal of the clitoral hood, one of three forms of female circumcision all of which are forbidden by law. See Darby, R. and Svoboda, J. S., ‘A rose by any other name?; rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting,’ Medical Anthropology Quarterly (2007), Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 301-323.

For much more, see:

http://www.circumstitions.com/

http://www.circumcision.org/

http://www.nocirc.org/

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

http://www.stopinfantcircumcision.org/

http://www.arclaw.org/

THE “HOUSEWORK” MYTH

The media has repeatedly publicized studies that purportedly found men do not do their share of housework. These studies, including one by the United Nations, were seriously flawed as they did not account for work outside the home and/or failed to factor many traditionally male forms of housework. The mass media also virtually ignored subsequent studies that disproved the housework myth. For instance:

A recent 25-nation study by economists from Berlin, Brussels and Texas, which included rich and poor nations, found men do as much work as women when all types of work are combined.

http://www.slate.com/id/2164268/

A University of Maryland study found the total workloads of married mothers and fathers is roughly equal when paid work is added to child care and housework, at 65 hours a week for mothers and 64 hours for fathers.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007204060320

A University of Michigan study found women work an average of 11 hours more housework per week more than men while men an average of 14 hours per week more than women outside the home.

MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENTS AROUND THE WORLD

INDIA

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/chandigarh/Harassed-men-kin-to-hit-streets/articleshow/5079028.cms

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090817/jsp/nation/story_11368453.jsp

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/harassed-husbands-plan... struggle-against-biased-laws_100232981.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4859757.cms

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071203&fname=Husband+(F)&sid=1

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Mens_groups_rise_against_DVA_... http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1190494

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080625/812/tnl-as-renuka-fights-for-women-men-alleg.html

MEXICO (men’s rights march in Mexico City)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY

KENYA

http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=20858

http://www.africanews.com/site/Kenya_15m_men_suffer_domestic_abuse/list_messages/25041

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/602726/-/item/0/-/6313roz/-/index.html
SOUTH AFRICA

http://www.dailytimes.bppmw.com/article.asp?ArticleID=10548

ENGLAND

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/14/opinion/edtaylor.php

IRELAND

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1222/1229728440856.html

SCOTLAND

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/

JAPAN

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562400,00.html?test=latestnews

HAWAII

http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story

AUSTRALIA

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24289828-953,00.html

NORWAY

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1924493.ece

SINGAPORE

http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2009/05/01/singapore_mens_rights_watch.html

MOROCCO

http://en.afrik.com/article16241.html

ALPHA PHI ALPHA (Black fraternity wamts White House Council on Men and Boys)

http://apa1906.net/PressNewsDetails.php?newsID=90&newsCat=Press%20Release

Marc A.

* reply

Thank you Dr. Synott for speaking out. Your views are also expressed in many books especially Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power."

For sources I recommend people look at

http://www.ncfm.org/?page_id=482

Marc A.

* reply

Dr. Anthony Synnott may have not discussed some of the other hidden areas of gender differences that tend to obscure that women (mostly single mothers) are 2.5 times more likely to kill or injure their children, that children raised by single mothers are far more likely to have negative social outcomes compared to two biological parent families or single father homes, yet judges award physical custody in a 9-1 ratio favouring mums, women initiate DV (upwards of 70% in some studies) more then males, that women initiate 75% of divorces in Canada and the list goes on. Over the past 35 plus years men have been demonized in the mass media and made sport of as buffoons on sitcoms. Its an interesting juxtaposition for the gender that invented almost everything we use to ease the labour burdens, discovered most of the world and beyond and saved the world on more than one occasion from totalitarian regimes.

Times are changing and there are many men stepping up to the plate to change the gender paradigm dynamic that we are evil abusers rather than loving fathers. I commend Dr. Synnott for his bravery. It isn't easy overcoming everything taught in women's studies programs often by misinformed ideologues.

Mike Murphy

* reply

A few facts on Feminist disinformation about Domestic Violence

2009-10-17T23:17:00.002-04:00

A few facts on Feminist disinformation about Domestic Violence

West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased

2009-10-10T14:35:00.003-04:00

The Pamela Cross' of the world need to pay attention to their mistaken ideological premise in Canada as well. The walls of radical feminist ideology are falling around the world. Its only a matter of time for Canada to wake up to its blatant discrimination courtesy of Cross and her ideologue "Sisters."MJM

October 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Last Friday, a West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state. It did so in part because the rules and their application were explicitly gender-biased, contrary to the "crystal clear" gender-neutral language and intent of the statute.

The full opinion is here and is well worth reading. It draws a clear and detailed picture of a state agency utterly in thrall to a concept of domestic violence that is well established as false. To men's rights advocates, it strongly suggests effective litigation tactics for attacking the blatantly discriminatory statutes and administrative rules that so distort our response to the problem of domestic violence.

Here, as I understand it from the court's opinion, is what happened in West Virginia. The legislature passed a law that established an administrative agency, the Family Protection Services Board (FPSB), whose mission it is to license and oversee DV shelters, and programs to assist DV perpetrators in changing their behavior. The FPSB was empowered to set standards for these programs and shelters, and did. But the intent of the legislature was clear - all West Virginians, irrespective of sex, were to have access to services.

But when the FPSB swung into action, it directly contradicted the "crystal clear" intent of the legislature. First, it relied exclusively on the feminist DV group, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It promulgated a rule that required at least one-third of the staff of a DV shelter to have been trained by the Coalition. Into the bargain, the Coalition refused to train anyone who was not a member of the Coalition. In short, members of the general public who wanted to be trained in domestic violence response or advocacy, were barred from doing so. Only those with the "correct" ideology were permitted licensure.

And, given the political slant of the Coalition, it should come as no surprise that the court found that this rule "excludes any person who does not adhere to the gender-biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition." Those "gender-biased fundamental beliefs" meant that men and adolescent boys were excluded from all DV shelters in the state based solely on their sex (and age). That, of course is standard Duluth Model practice, but it is not gender-neutral as required by West Virginia state law.

The same held true for perpetrator intervention programs. Again, in strict compliance with the political doctrine that holds that only men commit DV and only women are victims of it, the Board, through its hand-picked agent, the Coalition, directly contradicted the clear terms of the law. In doing so, it deprived female abusers of the benefits of intervention programs, while simultaneously depriving their adult male and child victims of the benefits of intervening in the perpetrator's behavior. The court struck down that rule too.

Through the lens of a court opinion, it looks like the Board was taken over by the usual radical DV advocates, who then appointed the Coalition to do the daily work of creating and maintaining a DV shelter and intervention system that blatantly discriminated against men, women and boys.

Not only is it clearly discriminatory, it doesn't work. It doesn't work to address the problem of DV because its approach to the problem is ideological. By pretending that DV is a political, as opposed to a psychological, matter, the approach taken by DV shelters and programs across the country cannot work. The simple fact is that they misperceive the problem. Plenty of psychologists know this and have said so. If we truly want to deal effectively with DV, we'll listen to them.

The West Virginia case carries the seeds of future attacks on the blatantly discriminatory DV industry. As such it is a valuable tool as well as a landmark decision of sorts.

I do have one criticism, though. Without being overly technical, the plaintiff in the case was an organization called Men and Women Against Discrimination. It sought to advocate against DV in a gender-neutral way and was prevented by the gender- biased requirements promulgated by the Board and implemented by the Coalition. Among other things, the legal wrong done to the organization was the limitation on free speech the Board's rules placed on its members.

That's fine as far as it goes, but attorneys in future court actions will be well advised to include an individual man or men who sought DV services but were refused. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights. Clearly, if the suit had included an individual plaintiff, instead of just a corporate one, those vital legal concepts would have come into play and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule on them.

But beyond that, this is a great day for men's rights.

Thanks to our good friends at the American Coalition of Fathers and Children for sending along the court's decision.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4285

Sex Assault stats fraud ~ UC Davis: Procedure on reports to be changed

2009-10-05T13:55:00.004-04:00

This is only the tip of the iceberg. You can bet the Profs in the UCD women's studies programs and some feminist law professors, not only knew about this but use inflated and cherry picked stats all the time to support the notion the patriarchy rules women. It gets them funding for studies and in this case funding from the Feds who don't care if they are accurate. It is good to see them get caught in action. If UCD wants to find more misinformation just check the above two faculties for more of the same. In fact anywhere you have a known 3rd wave feminist, especially in Academia, you will find fraud associated with their stats and it occurs in all western democracies, .MJM

Sacramento Bee file, 2000

Sacramento Bee file, 2000 Jennifer Beeman, who officially retired from the university in June after 16 years as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, has been accused of grossly inflating federal statistics on sex crimes at UC Davis for the past three years.

By Hudson Sangree
hsangree@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Oct. 2, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 10A
Last Modified: Friday, Oct. 2, 2009 - 9:02 am

Past problems with misreported campus sex crimes statistics, through both understatement and exaggeration, re-emerged Thursday at the University of California, Davis.

Officials alleged that the former head of campus anti-violence efforts, Jennifer Beeman, had grossly inflated the number of forcible sexual offenses in three years of mandatory reports to the federal government.

Beeman officially retired from the university in June after 16 years as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program. She did not respond to The Bee's attempts to contact her Thursday.

University officials said Beeman was placed on administrative leave in December 2008 amid separate allegations that she improperly charged travel expenses to federal violence prevention grants.

That investigation was closed after Beeman repaid $1,372 for overbilling for hotel costs and mileage to meetings she apparently did not attend. But a second investigation related to those travel expenses is ongoing, officials said.

At a news conference Thursday, one top campus official called Beeman's alleged over-reporting of sexual offenses "an isolated incident" that the university hadn't seen coming.

"It's a sound program and this one incident of misreporting should not cloud that fact," said Robert Loessberg-Zahl, the assistant executive vice chancellor.

But it wasn't the first time the reporting of sexual assaults on the UC Davis campus had been called into question or that Beeman had been embroiled in controversy.

In an investigative series published in 2000, The Bee found the university had consistently under-reported sexual assaults to the federal government.

In 2001, a Bee story revealed Beeman had written a federal grant application in 1999 in which she said that as many as 700 students at UC Davis were victims of rape or attempted rape each year.

In that same time frame, the university was officially telling federal authorities that rapes and assaults on campus were practically nonexistent.

Beeman's estimate was part of a proposal that netted the school more than $500,000 from the U.S. Justice Department for crime-fighting efforts.

At the time, Beeman said she had extrapolated the number from statistics that showed 1 in 20 college women was a victim of rape or attempted rape.

While Beeman's grant application to the federal government included the statistic, a copy she gave The Bee omitted it. Beeman explained the difference between the two as a mistake.

Yet after that discrepancy was exposed, Beeman was nonetheless allowed sole authority for reporting her office's sex-crime statistics � a move described Thursday by university officials as a mistake.

From now on, they said, a panel of campus police, lawyers and students would be involved.

Annual campus crime reports to the Department of Education are required under the Clery Act � a federal law named for a freshman murdered at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University in 1986. Clery Act reporting violations can result in a fine of $25,000 per incident, according to the university.

Not until Beeman was out on medical leave did another UC Davis employee review her figures for previous reporting periods, officials said.

Marisa Messier, a victim advocate at the violence prevention program, said she was stunned to find no records of many of the incidents Beeman had reported.

Messier said she was "shocked and incredibly disheartened" by her discovery.

Loessberg-Zahl summarized the findings of an internal review and an investigation by an outside expert.

In last year's Clery Act statistics, based on Beeman's figures, UC Davis reported 48 forcible sexual offenses in 2005, 68 incidents in 2006, and 69 offenses in 2007, he said.

But reviews showed the actual numbers were less than half that high: 21 in 2005, 23 in 2006, and 33 in 2007, Loessberg-Zahl said.

Whether the misreported statistics had played a role in a nearly $1 million crime-fighting grant awarded to UC Davis and other University of California campuses by the Justice Department in 2007 could not be determined Thursday.

In total, past announcements suggest, Beeman may have played a role in securing nearly $3 million in federal grants awarded to UC Davis during her tenure.

UC officials said Beeman's alleged misdeeds had been reported to the Justice Department and the Department of Education.

A Justice Department official said need, usually shown through crimes statistics, is one factor in awarding violence prevention grants.

UC Davis officials said Clery Act statistics were not used directly in the $1 million grant application. Asked whether the false reporting would affect the prestigious grant, campus Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said, "Our hope, of course, is that it would not."

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2225250.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=158854