I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Marriage benefits us all

Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek,

National Post, Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Too many Canadians know firsthand the emotional toll of family breakdown. And few would dispute there's a financial cost, too; a split household means paying rent twice, for example. There's also a public toll as a consequence of family breakdown, since the state often pays out benefits to help support broken families. It's this national financial burden that we aim to measure in the Cost of Family Breakdown in Canada, a report to be released in May, 2009.

Families headed by single mothers are at least four times more likely to be poor than those made up of a married couple and their children. When children are raised by single parents, they are more likely to be poor, and their families are more likely to rely upon public assistance programs for housing, child care and money for food, clothes and medication.

In 1960, fewer than one in 10 households were made up of single parents or common-law couples; today, that number is one in three. Yet instead of bemoaning this breakdown of marriage, our society tends to applaud it, saying

"live and let live." The irony is that raising kids outside marriage actually makes a laissez-faire live and let live lifestyle less achievable -- because it increases the need for costly social programs, all of which amount to interventions in private family life.

A U. S. study last year determined that $140-billion in public spending could be saved if all children lived with their own married parents. In the U. K., the extra costs to the taxpayer of poverty in single-parent households were measured at $66-billion, equal to more than 6% of total government spending. (These numbers are conservative estimates because they look only at the direct costs of poverty-relief and social programs, and don't take into consideration the better health and educational outcomes linked with intact families.) Although no similar study has been done in Canada, we can expect that the results here would be similar.

A marriage is a private relationship, but it is also a public institution. Strong marriages are public goods because they generate social capital from which we all benefit. Marriage makes families less likely to turn to the government for financial assistance, either directly through welfare, or, less directly, in the form of housing and day care subsidies.

All children deserve to grow up in a household with their own married parents. Supporting strong families is the right thing to do; it's also the financially responsible choice, for individual families and for Canada as a whole.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1424308

Rebecca Walberg is a Winnipeg-based policy analyst and writer. Andrea Mrozek is manager of research at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. They are the authors of The Cost of Family Breakdown in Canada, to be published in May.

© 2009 The National Post Company. All rights reserved.

The National Post ~ Lorne Gunter: The surprise is that there aren't more murderous M.T.s

Lorne Gunter: The surprise is that there aren't more murderous M.T.s
Posted: March 25, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor

"Recent events have made me wonder despairingly whether decades of modern feminism have made any significant dent at all in the quality of relationships between young women and men." So bemoaned Globe and Mail columnist Judith Timson yesterday.

As examples of young women’s lack of progress, Ms. Timson sited the support voiced by girls on Internet chat sites for R&B/pop singer Chris Brown — who is accused of battering his girlfriend, singer Rihanna — and the "soulless text messages" entered as evidence at the murder trial of M.T., a 17-year-old Toronto girl convicted last week of first-degree murder for inciting her boyfriend to stab another girl to death in exchange for sex.

Particularly in the M.T. case, Ms. Timson blames the girl’s actions on "a very retro scenario," an "ages-old pre-feminist scenario" in which girls believe they have no power on their own. So they convince themselves that they must attract a man and keep him at all costs, even murder.

Pardon me? Girls have turned to murder because they have no power? The truth is, they have turned to murder and "obsessive irrational hatred of one girl toward another, depict[ing] an emotional landscape devoid of respect, conscience or heart," because they have too much power. I don’t mean too much power relative to boys — with whom they are now equals in every real sense — but rather relative to teens of past generations.

It is just possible that all of this is the logical end product of feminism, instead of, as Ms. Timson postulates, the harbinger of some return to a regressive age.

Feminism’s attempts to release women from the strictures of the old sexual morality, and the movement’s encouragement for women to act like men, have produced violent girls like M.T. who use their sexuality as a tool, and think nothing of offering up — via cellphone text messages — "bj’s " and "bang bangs" in order to have a perceived rival, Stefanie Rengel, killed. It’s not the technology that’s changed, it’s the girls.

Now before anyone flies off the handle and accuses me of being a patriarchal, barefoot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen reactionary, let me point out that my wife is a lawyer and we teach both our 14-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son that they can and should be whatever they want. Liberating women (and men, for that matter) from the narrow gender roles each occupied for millennia was one of the great achievements of the 20th century. I would not for a second advocate going back to the old norms.

Feminism should be justly proud that our daughter and all her friends take it for granted that any career or family choice they wish is open to them. They consider their freedom quite natural, and so do the boys who know them. For the current generation of teens, the way things are is the way things have always been. It would seem as irrational to them to be told to limit their life choices as it would be to be told to stop breathing.

But feminism at its core was about more than just freeing women and girls from stereotypical careers and winning them equal pay for work of equal value. It was also about tearing down the old morality and ethics (which the movement’s most radical members saw as yokes created for women by men) and about taking away women’s feminine choices and directing them only to masculine ones.

Feminism in its most political form was a sexual revolution as much as it was a sex-role emancipation. It also scoffed at women who freely chose traditional female roles because the movement’s founders were convinced anything feminine was inferior and enslaving.

So when you tell girls for four generations that they are weak and should demand the kind of power boys and men have, and when you — through the pill and abortion — signal to them that sex is nothing more than a consequence-free, pleasurable act and when, finally, you remove faith-based morality from the mix, too, you should not be surprised to wake up one morning and find that you have created an M.T.

Having taken away all the old inhibitors that kept sex and violence in check, the only wonder is that the natural decency of human beings has prevented the creation of more M.T.s. National Post lgunter@shaw.ca

12 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment
by Psyco_Bob
Mar 25 2009 9:18 AM

Or maybe the M.T incident doesn’t mean anything at all. There are over 6 billion people in the world and every day they are doing stuff, so sooner or later, statistically speaking, everything people are capable of doing will get done. Treating outliers as trends and freak incidents as if they were common is an irrational way of shaping your beliefs about the world.

by -=Atheist=-
Mar 25 2009 9:50 AM

Well said Psyco.

Lorne you forgot to mention how video games and heavy metal music influenced M.T. as well.

by IainGFoulds
Mar 25 2009 10:32 AM

... A thoughtful, important piece from Mr. Gunter.

... Culture is sustained values which lead to the path of life, building qualities of a cheerful, considerate, constructive character. Barbarianism is mankind's natural state, a valueless "It's all good" absence of culture.

... The "rebellion" of 20th century was against culture. As Mr. Gunter says, the surprise is that there aren't more M.T.s

by Al Thomson
Mar 25 2009 10:40 AM

I am not in complete and full agreement with you Lorne, but I can't quite work out why.

That was an interesting bit of journalism though and you certainly made some good points.

by Theo35
Mar 25 2009 11:16 AM

I however am in full agreement with everything Lorne has said. There was a time when young girls did not kill and it was an extreme anomaly if they did....it is getting more frequent these days. I have 4 daughters and the complete and utter BS that these young girls had to put up with from other girls would curl your hair...there is an absence of decency and kindness in people today and it is especially noticeable in our young women and there is plenty of blame to go around from broken homes, internet, video games,, the crap they see on Much Music, etc,etc, to just plain apathy.

by MikeMurphy
Mar 25 2009 11:28 AM

Some time ago Feminism's equality goals were usurped by other "brands" including gender feminism. This s not new and was written about in books in the 90's. One only has to visit any gender feminist sight to see their opinion of men is full of vitriol and hate. These people are role models for the younger generation. Recall the lawyer who prosecuted the women who ran over her husband several times in a vehicle and I paraphrase - All she had to do was take him to court for a divorce and screw him for everything he had including the house, money, children, everything -.

Feminism is the new "F" word because it has gone beyond the nature of equality into the adoption of the Nanny State as a females newest protector, parent and benefactor.

by IainGFoulds
Mar 25 2009 11:30 AM

... Al: When you write, you should always try to have a point.

... It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

by Sassylassie
Mar 25 2009 11:44 AM

It was also about tearing down the old morality and ethics (which the movement’s most radical members saw as yokes created for women by men) and about taking away women’s feminine choices and directing them only to masculine ones

Nicely articulated Mr. Gunter. The revolution ended in the eighties but alas the feminazies can't let go of mens' balls long enough to admit they won. The allusion of perpetual persecution is a thriving industry in the Halls of Academia. In the 21st century women are equally as violent as men, but they have an extra weapon they use their feminine abilities to get men to do their dirty work for them if they can. We can be nasty nasty nasty.

by Tossed Salad
Mar 25 2009 12:11 PM

It is refreshing to see some mainstream media commentators taking political correctness to task.

I could have done without morality, pill, and abortion references as I am an agnostic and my morals are perfectly fine thank you very much. As to the pill and abortion until after nine months I pass an object the size of a watermelon out a relatively tiny orifice of my body I am not about to tell a woman what to do with her body as long as I don't have to pay for it. But I digress, gender feminism is a hate movement which promotes not only hatred of men but also plays the role of victim and they do it very well. It is good to see that over the past year or so on comment threads (if they are not moderated) in mainstream publications that their blatant misandry is outed. The tide is starting to turn albeit slowly but there are some who will pay for their crimes. I quote a few of their brethren.

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

Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

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

Catherine MacKinnon

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.

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

Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

and I have saved the best for last from that required reading text book in woman studies courses at most universities.

The SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto by Valerie Solanas

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

And one of the current followers of this "manifesto"

"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.)

The gentler sex my backside.

by Denis Pakkala
Mar 25 2009 12:18 PM

There are a lot more M.T.'s around, just not in such extreme and violent forms.

Women manipulate men to do stupid things all the time.

Women also manipulate our justice system in domestic violence cases and escape responsibility for perjury on a regular basis.

Women also manipulate our social services and family law system, in which they weild absolute power over the lives of men.

Women have gone beyone being equal, they have too much power relative to men.

by Denis Pakkala
Mar 25 2009 12:22 PM

"Feminism should be justly proud that our daughter and all her friends take it for granted that any career or family choice they wish is open to them."

It is an ongoing Canadian Tragedy that Men do not have such freedom to be equally involved in the lives of their own children.

We need the "Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting" in Family Law to end the status-quo of manipulation by women / discrimation against men.

by chuck80
Mar 25 2009 12:36 PM

I wonder if M.T. had offered favours to another girl to have her boyfriend killed, whether Ms. Timson would claim that girls now have power?

Anyways, what's the difference between a feminist and a terrorist? A terrorist may negotiate.

What's the difference between a feminist and a pit-bull? The pit-bull doesn't wear lip-stick.

I got a million of 'em!

The Timson article and comments follow:

Rihanna, M.T. trial

Feminism in the Web era: It ain't pretty

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Recent events have made me wonder despairingly whether decades of modern feminism have made any significant dent at all in the quality of relationships between young women and men.

The Web chatter by teenage girls who have been casually forgiving of rapper Chris Brown's alleged battering of his girlfriend, singer Rihanna, has stymied me. If you judge by some of the posts, many girls seem to think she must have done something to provoke it, or that she is equally to blame. A New York Times story last week, headlined "Teenage girls stand by their man," quoted one Grade 9er: "She probably made him mad for him to react like that. You know, like, bring it on?"

Equally frustrating were the soulless text messages from the shocking M.T. murder trial in Toronto, in which a 17-year-old girl who can only be identified as M.T. was convicted of first-degree murder last week after spurring her boyfriend to stab another girl to death, partly in exchange for sexual favours.

These vile text messages, flatly discussing "bj's" and "bang bangs" and fuelled by the obsessive irrational hatred of one girl toward another, depicted an emotional landscape devoid of respect, conscience or heart. They also revealed a very retro scenario - a monster girl who thinks her power lies in bitchily, and then murderously, vanquishing another girl.

In these cases, girls see other girls as the enemy in the endless hand-to-hand combat to capture guys. Chris Brown is better off outta there, say those girls. Don't you know?

As for the convicted M.T., she joins a small cadre of supposedly empowered girl killers, so I can't exactly claim she is a feminist victim.

But her ferocious wish to have her perceived rival, 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel, "dead in coffin" stems from an ages-old pre-feminist scenario.

In it, girls believe they don't have a lot of real power, that it lies only in attracting or keeping a guy, and they'll go to desperate ends to do so.

Why on earth is this still in play? Many boy-girl relationships today have become a retro minefield because of the confluence of several things.

First, there has been the sexualization of young women very early in their teens, so that being "hot" and attracting boys becomes an early measurement of their worth, and remains that way well into adulthood.

Second, there's been a devaluing of feminism and its true principles in the media and popular culture. Feminism has been both trivialized - softened into what I call "you go girl-ism" - and demonized by exaggerating scary things such as man hatred.

Yet feminism at its best offered women - and men for that matter - the idea that anyone should be able to achieve what she wants regardless of gender, and that loving and successful domestic relationships could consist of two equal partners. It offered teenage girls - and boys - an alternate universe. They could reach out for this universe and try it on for size. They could discover its flaws but admire its aims.

What makes me tear my hair out is that teenage girls today have been given every single tool they need to gain their own equality: the words, the books, the laws; the examples everywhere of women, sometimes their own mothers, achieving at work and living in respectful and equal domestic relationships.

So is it our abject failure that some of them excuse male brutality or participate in vicious girl-to-girl cruelty? Not exactly.

Teens live in their own hermetically sealed culture, never more so than today. We can mouth all the nice feminist principles we want of equality and self-respect, but many girls have been pulled in a far more dangerous direction by a toxic culture that apparently still doesn't know how to really value girls and women. The Internet has made girl-on-girl viciousness so much more virulent, with mass shunnings, false rumour-mongering and online slagging of each other.

We may not have a lot of sway over this culture, but we still need to keep on saying: shame on you. Shame on those girls for forgiving Chris Brown. Shame on girls, too, for being so savagely and even dangerously mean to each other in order to get the guy. This kind of behaviour shows a lack of self-respect and even a lack of ambition. It's the retro road to nowhere.

But there is reason to hope that road ends naturally, after high school: One young woman I know, about to graduate from university, pointed out to me that her fellow students don't feel forgiving of Chris Brown at all, and that much of this alarming behaviour may have "a lot to do with immaturity." In which case, all I can say about maturity is, "you know, like, bring it on?"

Feminism in the Web era: It ain't pretty

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Many boy-girl relationships today have become a retro minefield ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Jimmy D from Melbourne, Australia, Canada writes: If teachers, mothers, fathers, and all the postive role models possible still can't get through to these tweens and teens and their immature and unfeminist behaviour, then maybe we need to try to get these young university students or working women to start telling their stories of how it is still possible to have power and self-respect without destroying others or hanging it all on the affection of some guy. The problem with social networking is that, at its core, it's still all about presenting an image and making sure everyone else's fits the acceptable standard. But just as young people don't learn calculus or how to drive without mature guidance we shouldn't abdicate our responsibility because we think they are far more able in the land of online. We are getting lazy in our web-enlightened world about making the tough decisions - and technology has just made it easier for more girls to act on their immaturity. Once again, human nature lags far behind human know-how.
  2. Valkyrie 23 from Guelph, Canada writes: Jimmy D, good point. I also think though, that teenagers often have strange ideas, and no matter how much you try to educate or influence them, they'll still believe the weirdest things... until they grow up. I agree that it is due to the culture in which they are saturated, and a lot of that comes from the media, but I also belive that these stupid girls who believe all this nonsense will eventually (most of them, anyway) come to their senses around oh, age 18. Attending University is a big help in making people mature, at least in terms of ideals and morals, as well as with respect to femininsm. When I was a teenager, feminism was a dirty word (used as a synonym for man-hater), but when I went to university, I learned what it actually meant, and why it's an important concept for everyone. Hopefully these girls follow a similar path. If not, well, then there is no way in hell I'm having children - why would I want to help perpetuate a species of idiots? Someone needs to give these girls a headshake.
  3. D N M from Canada writes: 'Yet feminism at its best offered women - and men for that matter - the idea that anyone should be able to achieve what she wants regardless of gender, and that loving and successful domestic relationships could consist of two equal partners.' There we go. This line of the article says it all. Until ALL women and men of all races, ethnicities, nationalities and RELIGIONS (emphasis on this one in particular) understand this basic truth and implement it into our societal norms, there will never be peaceful coexistence between the sexes completely. It will be a constant power struggle (from men who fight to retain ancient controls and women who violently take it back) until people realize relationships aren't supposed to be about power or control, but about mutual respect. The web does seem to bring out the darker side of people. I never knew misogyny and sexism was still this bad and rampant until I started surfing comment boards and youtube in particular. Surf any thread about abortion rights, equal pay, or feminism in general and you'll find it within the first few posts. Then again, people will say things under the cover of anonymity that they would never say to your face.
  4. Keystone Provincial from NOT Winnipeg, Canada writes: Let's see...The Bachelor, where a bunch of girls compete to get 'the guy' by any means possible; Survivor, where winning is everything and screw anybody who gets in your way; American Idol, with the brutally upfront Simon eviscerating the weak saps who stand before him; and on and on and on it goes. Our kids are inundated with the message that the world only serves those who destroy the competition first; that morals and compassion are signs of weakness and it's a dog-eat-dog world in which cooperation only leads to defeat. Yep, sounds like a web problem all right.
  5. con hack loser PM is bad for Canada from Canada writes: Good points, Keystone - reality TV was the beginning of the end for many parts of our societal morality. Technology has enhanced our abilities to distance ourselves, geographically and morally, from our neighbours, making it easier - logistically and morally - to engage in socially deviant behaviour.
  6. Man of La Mancha from Canada writes: D N M from Canada writes: ....I never knew misogyny and sexism was still this bad and rampant until I started surfing comment boards and youtube in particular. .....Then again, people will say things under the cover of anonymity that they would never say to your face. I think you've hit the nail on the head DNM - human nature doesn't change, regardless of what people say to be politically correct. Western culture is moving backwards with regard to relations between the sexes. The You-Go-Girl mentality is toxic.
  7. Post Script from Canada writes: D N M, you talk like feminism is some sort of magic modern invention that will cure the world. There is only one problem. Men and women worked together for thousands of years before feminism (eg. farming?). And because you say we are all feminists doesn't mean that men and women's basic natures will change. Believing femimism can someone change basic natures and desires that may be in our genes is rather foolish. How about accepting differences, giving people freedom and trying to teach moral behaviours?
  8. Michael S from Canada writes: I grew up during the initial feminism era. Actually, at times during this period I felt it was simply women demanding equal pay for carrying equal amounts of bricks. No worries, I believe in same-same regardless of gender and regardless of activity ... always have. And now, with a couple of generations since then reaching ages of 'maturity' under our social belts, the 'dark side' of feminism may be appearing? Interesting. Actually, my memories of the feminisim movement are mixed and generally with working for the negative for females throughout society everywhere and at every level. It's often a lose-lose result for females everywhere.
  9. Katherine R from Canada writes: Michael S from Canada writes: Actually, my memories of the feminisim movement are mixed and generally with working for the negative for females throughout society everywhere and at every level. It's often a lose-lose result for females everywhere. ....................................................................... Not so fast, Michael S....I am clearly the beneficiary of decades of struggle...I am able to realize myself in ways that would have been illegal for my grandmother. I have a PhD, I work at MIT, I earn far more than my husband, father and grandfather... I vote.... And I look at my young female cousins and nieces and they are headed in the same direction. While things are still not perfect even for those of us who have shattered glass ceilings thanks to earlier generations of feminists, there are more and more opportunities out there that are not based on one's gender, race, etc. This story saddens me, but I see hopeful, brilliant young women of all colours and religions every day at MIT that prove that society can change over time.
  10. Zoe McKnight from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't think there is a 'dark side of feminism', as such. I think all people have a dark side, and that it can be activated by all kinds of circumstances, like oppression, like a media saturated with grotesque sexuality and violence (and sexual violence). We are sending mixed messages to young girls. While we encourage them to grow, play, and learn as equals, and that they can be as successful as boys by using their minds and spirits, we also condone or at least tolerate destructive and degrading images of girls like Girlicious (that ridiculous offshoot of the Pussycat Dolls), Paris Hilton, the Bratz Dolls, and any number of the million examples from pop culture. Just look around. Little girls think they have to be sexy to gain status and power, but worse, they think this is the only route. No wonder in a culture of extremes do we see extreme competition among girls resulting in murder, and extreme subordination among pop starlets who very publicly take back their abusive, monstrous boyfriend.
  11. Chris J from Toronto, Canada writes: Lately, I have become disheartened with feminism. At university the focus was on changing the spelling of 'women' to 'womyn' and 'history' to 'herstory', which I thought missed the point and was a little ridiculous. To me the focus should have been on how I could go for a run at 1 am or walk home from a friends at night without fear and that most of them couldn't. It's not fair and fairness should be the goal of feminism, not symbolic spelling changes.
  12. R M from Toronto, Canada writes: I suppose you can't change biology so easily afterall, eh feminists? Males will always be dominant (though we have been domesticated of late). It's a waste of energy to constantly try and fight this. We're programmed to be the bread-winners. We don't want to stay home, because, well, we never have throughout history. Our self-worth is found in going out in the hunt and bringing home the bacon. It's not that we want such responsibility, it's that we simply feel a innate urge to satisfy it... and we do it for you women. We don't want you to have the burden of power because with power comes responsibility (yes, like that spiderman quote). We try to shield you from it. Whether or not it is necessary, it's how a real man thinks. I don't want my girlfriend/wife to have to work, but she can if she so chooses, I will give her that. Let's just stop this equality battle and accept it as it is. Full equality will never happen. It's biological. Why fight biology?
  13. king kong from Toronto, Canada writes: 'It offered teenage girls - and boys - an alternate universe. They could reach out for this universe and try it on for size. They could discover its flaws but admire its aims.' Oh God--where did you learn to write? WHERE???
  14. Fake Name from Canada writes: 'Keystone Provincial from NOT Winnipeg, Canada writes: Our kids are inundated with the message that the world only serves those who destroy the competition first; that morals and compassion are signs of weakness and it's a dog-eat-dog world in which cooperation only leads to defeat.' ah ... are you saying those messages are untrue? Sounds pretty much right to me.
  15. Healthy Sceptic from Canada writes: IMHB an uncaring child is shaped by an uncaring environment. Most begin innocent and trusting, automatically trusting adults, if that trust is failed, in any number of ways, then their very survival depends on shutting down their feeling capacities - otherwise life is unbearably painful on a daily basis. Children can shut down (slowly and without anybody noticing it) from exposure to ruthlessness that can take many forms - internet, tv, and pop-culture. I would add to that - the ruthlessness, as experienced by a young child, of a distracted and/or unavailable parent/s. Children can shut down, to protect their feelings of vulnerability, if their primary care-giver/s, their trusted adult/s, are missing from their young lives for long periods of time. I am not advocating that moms stay home again, (many dads can do an equally good job), but I do think that in some ways feminism has sold out children in order to gain equality for women. Oppressive forces have a very tight grip, as a feminist, I can understand why women and their male supporters, have had to fight single-mindedly for their rights. Perhaps this is a wakeup call that children and their parents have an essential bond that simply cannot be replicated by paid strangers or institutional care. Plugging women into the male work model has not turned out to be a real liberation, if anything, it has been a well-disguised trap. Now it takes two incomes to support a family, instead of one. And we still have to do the shopping and housework after-work. What is left over for the children? It never did feel like liberation to me! Now that we have proven that women can succeed at anything they put their minds to, let's reinvent a kinder gentler workforce that takes the needs of humans (women, men, and children) into account. Read: 'Hold onto your kids, why parents matter.' by Neufeld & Mate, for real insights into children who cling to other children while trying to raise themselves.
  16. The Pinch from Toronto, Canada writes: My daughter's great grandmother walked with Mrs. Pankhurst. Her grandmother was vehemently pro choice and her mother is an ardent feminist. My daughter posted a blog outlining her desire to perform oral sex on a classmate, using real names. She was16. Her little friends in highschool like to pick fights - and I mean fights - with each other. I'd take her up on her behaviour but she has refused to see me for the last 6 years. I don't know if this teen rebellion or the shape of things to come, but I wish to hell it would go away!
  17. Western Girl from Canada writes: R M - I know you're just being a troll, so I'll forgive that. Lest there be some grain of honest belief in what you're saying, however, I don't know how many women actually like unthinking Neanderthals like you. Unless they're 14 and live on Twitter, apparently...
  18. Tracey Lauriault from Ottawa, Canada writes: Perhaps we need to get feminist ideals in the hood and not just in the nice schools. Perhaps feminism missed the class barrier. Regarding the Internet, a previous commentator had it correctly, it is not the Internet's fault, (TV, movies and computer games are in many ways worse) it is a ubiquitous deep cultural issue that needs to be addressed on an ongoing basis, at its roots, where it happens - there is still racism, homophobia and there is still sexism. Sexism is however much easier to get away with overtly than is racism as it is far more normalized in all cultures. What the Internet has done is provide us with an indicator of how much more work we still need to do with our boys and girls. This work need to happen in a concerted way for many more years to come, just like how doctors and nurses were forgetting to wash their hands - and we had to create re-education campaigns in hospitals to remind them of the obvious, we will have to do the same at home, in schools, in community centres, in communities, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, dojos when it comes to sexism for many years to come.
  19. ginny smith from Canada writes: Chris J - changing language is one way of starting to reclaim language. By looking at language, we understand how society has been constructed and we can see clearly how that construction has shaped gender norms. Language is integral to culture. Unless we look at it, we'll never be able to even get at things like going for a jog at 1 am (which I fully agree, is soemthing that needs to change). I wouldn't say this is about the 'dark side of feminism'. I think it's anti-feminist. It's spouted off in an era that would like to think of itself as postfeminist. But the popular media suggests that feminism is sorely necessary, and as another poster pointed out, the comment boards of newspapers (here, too), and youtube, are full of misgynistic hatred...language and comments that are often horrific. If that's the way people really feel about women, then we've got a major problem. And it means we're nowhere near post feminist.
  20. John H from Barrie, Canada writes: So far I read that Healthy Sceptic has the truest comments. Fact is now days a blow job is as easy to get as a hand shake. The last couple generations have no morals. We can argue how this has happened. Funny how when we hear of a dog biting a child we think that the dog owner should have required schooling and a license to own that dog. Today anyone can have a child. And they are. My opinion is the buck stops with the parents. And if you have only one raising that child well the child starts their sponge brain absorbing lives already at a disadvantage. But in this age of feminism that's ok. I'm not blaming the feminist who is old school. I'm blaming the one who's mom taught her poor values the last generation ago. The one who's dad was not there to ask the date what his intentions were so to speak... How to fix it? Well maybe do the opposite that has taken us here?
  21. Nat M from Toronto, Canada writes: To me, the most frightening thing is not the problematic relationships young women have with men, but the way they interact with each other. As evidenced by both the incidences involving Rihanna and M.T., young girls are for some reason so quick to turn on other women. How can we expect young women to expect proper and respectful treatment by men if they don't know how to treat each other with respect?
  22. butterfly princess from caledon, Canada writes: I just would like to point out is that the article is kind of demeaning to stay at home moms. Stay at home moms have alot of depth and perspective, just as working moms do. The author seems to feel that in order to be 'liberated', a women needs to take advantage of the 20th century opportunities such as working full time, being a perfect spouse and mother, and getting a post-secondary education, in other words, the 21st century standard of 'having it all'. I argue, that women should not need to have a full time job, a working mother, or university degree in order to be valued or respected. Women should just be able to be respected as persons, period. The old standard of comparing working women versus non-working women, is as outdated as 1960s feminism itself.
  23. Valentine O'Day from Calgary, Canada writes: If two guys beat each other to a bloody pulp, is it a defeat for...man-ism?
  24. Nicole B from Canada writes: Butterfly princess, where does the article refer to stay at home parents at all, let alone in a demeaning way. Feminism has nothing against stay at home parents. Equality between the sexes means that a woman should be able to work outside the home, if she wants and that a man should be able to stay at home with the children, if he wants. And that the women should not be judged as a bad mother and the man should not be judged as a bad provider, as a result of the choices.
  25. peter lynch from Canada writes: This does not stop when they get to University from high school. Just read Guyland, which is what my two sons and daughter have been telling me about relationships at university for 5 years now.
  26. john smith from Canada writes: Wow we can finally comment on something that involves the Rengel Case. First Canada should have death penalty. Second this girls M.T should be locked up for good (since we don’t have death penalty) This may teach other teenagers (who have this idea that they are invincible) that they will not get away with what is not acceptable in this society, just because they are under 18 and not considered an adult. (And what is with this youth protection nonsense, reveal the name so we know the little monster.) My opinion is if you are old enough to have sex then you are old enough to be responsible for your actions. Another thing that I can&8217;t get over is how on earth these kids were never supervised. About feminism I personally think that once they stop using women as sex toys and shoving them down our throat in the media (being the cover of the playboy magazine or just an ad for toothpaste that requires a half naked woman to advertise it or Britney dancing in her bra) I would start to think that women are indeed treated equally in this society and that feminism means something more than just sexual advances and sexual freedom&8230;.
  27. Chris J from Toronto, Canada writes: Ginny - I have to disagree with your opinion. I have heard the same rhetorics whenever this aspect of feminism is discussed and while it is an interesting concept, I truly believe the modern feminism movement suffers because of it. First and foremost, the change would be purely symbolic. Let's argue that the spelling of womyn is implemented... how does that in any way change how men treat womyn? Even though you would check 'womyn' when you identify your sex on income taxes I could still pay you less than your male counterpart. Of course this is theoretical, I wouldn't actually pay you less. Secondly, language is only one way to look at how society has been constructed. Thirdly, I disagree that changing language will in any way affect your ability to jog safely at 1 am. And this is the sad part. More people would be behind your efforts to feel safer in society than changing our language. If you stopped wasting energy on these foolish language side projects, you could actually make a difference. One that is badly needed. ------------------------ ginny smith from Canada writes: Chris J - changing language is one way of starting to reclaim language. By looking at language, we understand how society has been constructed and we can see clearly how that construction has shaped gender norms. Language is integral to culture. Unless we look at it, we'll never be able to even get at things like going for a jog at 1 am (which I fully agree, is soemthing that needs to change).
  28. john smith from Canada writes: Wow we can finally comment on something that involves the Rengel Case. First Canada should have death penalty. Second this girls M.T should be locked up for good (since we don’t have death penalty) This may teach other teenagers (who have this idea that they are invincible) that they will not get away with what is not acceptable in this society, just because they are under 18 and not considered an adult. (And what is with this youth protection nonsense, reveal the name so we know the little monster.) My opinion is if you are old enough to have sex then you are old enough to be responsible for your actions. Another thing that I can&8217;t get over is how on earth these kids were never supervised. About feminism I personally think that once they stop using women as sex toys and shoving them down our throat in the media (being the cover of the playboy magazine or just an ad for toothpaste that requires a half naked woman to advertise it or Britney dancing in her bra) I would start to think that women are indeed treated equally in this society and that feminism means something more than just sexual advances and sexual freedom&8230;.
  29. A Johnson from Canada writes: I don't watch Judge Judy but I saw a commercial for her show a while ago that I actually - gulp! - found rather profound and timely for these issues. The announcer said the case was about a previous girlfriend of some guy savagely beating up the guy's new girlfriend. The boyfriend had been the one to end the previous relationship. Judge Judy was quoted as saying (paraphrasing here) 'Why do you girls (the ex) always vent your anger against the new girlfriend? I don't get it! If he dumped you - which you and him too say he did - they why aren't you mad at him? Not that you should attack him...absolutely not...but WHY are you girls who get dumped always mad at the new girlfriend...it's HIM who dumped you!' I have noticed this behaviour in teenage girls: ones I have known, ones family who are middle & high school teachers, and, yep, in the media (TV shows, movies). I ask the same question: WHY? Why do some girls think they have to be violent with who they perceive as 'competition'? Why is their frustation and unhappiness - I do think it's okay, even perfectly natural, to have those feelings when you've been 'dumped' - not directed at the ex, the dumpee...? And, yes, even when that is done it should NEVER become either verbally or physically violent of course. As for the Rhianna-Chris Brown issue: as it looks like he did beat her she should never have gone back to him! No-one deserves to get beaten!! Finally, feminism is not about women being violent, cruel or emasculating. It's a shame the word has at times been liked to any of those behaviours.
  30. Archie 1954 from Vancouver, Canada writes: 45 years ago when I was attending college in southern California I remeber clearly a beautiful young lady from Georgia who had just arrived at the school for her first semester there. She was elected the prom queen that year and the vicious rumours that started about her by the other female students were so egregious that the poor young woman packed up her bags and moved back to Georgia right in the middle of the school year. I don't think we had a prom queen that year. This happened four and a half decades ago so this kind of behaviour is not new nor more problematic than it was in those days.
  31. Terrill Welch from Canada writes: Feminism is only as strong as it is lived. I am always fascinated that people believe our work for women's equality is complete or that it will never happen. It is much easier to change believes than attitudes and behaviours. We have come a long way in changing believes and now we have a long way to go before we have internalized and live gender equality in our attitudes and behaviours. I came across a poem the other day by Nancy R. Smith. I didn't know it had been written 1973... I thought it was new! Here is the link to For Every Woman http://www.workplacespirituality.info/ForEveryWoman.html Now I must get back to work for equality as we have a lot do!
  32. It's almost like feminism never happened from Canada writes: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/03/24/its-like-feminism-never-happened/
  33. Ray jones from Hamilton, Canada writes: Healthy Sceptic gets my vote for the most perceptive, articulate comments posted so far.
  34. ginny smith from Canada writes: butterfly princess - this article had absolutely nothing to say about 'working women' or women who don't 'work' (which is already a problem in language, because it's abundantly clear that the majority of 'stay at home' women are also working)...so is this just the standard cut and paste you do everytime you see anything to do with the word feminism?
  35. Brian Dell from Hong Kong writes: The web does seem to bring out the darker side of people. That's not true: the presence of the web rather undermines the ability of traditional forces to keep a lid on 'the darker side'. Conservatives have long understood that the beast lies dormant within and humanity walks on a thin crust of civilization. Obstacles to self-gratification and self-expression are necessary to keep us from hurting each other. It's something understood by long, multi-generational experience of human nature. Leftists have nonetheless continued to believe that some emancipatory effect will follow from the rejection of coercive norms. After all, humans are essentially good, they believe. Feminism has hoist itself on its own petard. By kicking the paternalistic Victorian old boys club to the curb they handed the field to the professional pickup artists, who in reality are far more viciously misogynistic than the old boys club ever was.
  36. Man of La Mancha from Canada writes: butterfly princess from caledon, Canada writes: I just would like to point out is that the article is kind of demeaning to stay at home moms. .... The author seems to feel that in order to be 'liberated', a women needs to take advantage of the 20th century opportunities such as working full time, being a perfect spouse and mother, and getting a post-secondary education, in other words, the 21st century standard of 'having it all'. I argue, that women should not need to have a full time job, a working mother, or university degree in order to be valued or respected. Women should just be able to be respected as persons, period. The old standard of comparing working women versus non-working women, is as outdated as 1960s feminism itself. Butterfly - you're right on the money!
  37. Mark Tilley from Brampton, Canada writes: I second Ray Jones' comment that Healthy Sceptic has hit the nail on the head. 'Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it' is not new advice, but we are reaping the results of ignoring it.
  38. R M from Toronto, Canada writes: I find it interesting that ultimately, Conservatives and the Taliban believe the same thing: a woman's place is in the home. Sure they obviously have different rules and guidelines on how to achieve it, but the end result is still the same. I think maybe perhaps women need to be more modest and stop worrying about how others judge them. You do not need to be superwoman, juggling job, child, and school. Us men, we generally pick one, two of those, maximum. I know myself; I cannot work and go to school, I need time to unwind. I don't know how to achieve this but, women should not feel obligated to become superwomen for self worth, and I think somehow feminism has helped create that myth. What is wrong with being appreciated simply for helping the home? Is job satisfaction really that much better than being appreciated by your man? Sure, us men have to do our part as well in showing our appreciation, and I apologize if we don't always do.
  39. James W from Toronto, Canada writes: When it comes to M.T., I think it's important to put this in perspective. Toronto had a murder rate of about 3.3 per 100,000 in 2007. With a life expectancy around 78 years that means that about 1 in 400 people who live their lives in Toronto will have murder as their cause of death. Since multiple homicides happen but are relatively rare, we might estimate that 1 in 500 or 1 in 600 people who live in Toronto will decide, in cold blood or in the heat of the moment, that killing someone else is the best way to resolve a conflict. We can try to read a lot into an individual story like this, but it says much less about feminism than it does about the individuals who committed the crime. People kill each other for lots of reasons. As far as teenage girls defining themselves by what guys they can get, I think this is a limited view. When you are a kid you define your self-worth by what adults think of you. As a teenager you define your self-worth by what your peers think of you. As an adult, if you are lucky, you may learn to define your self-worth internally. Teenagers, regardless of sex, mostly feel good about themselves when other people like them. Teenage love is one of the most powerful emotions a person can feel, so a special premium is put on that feeling, but a lot of teenage relationships are as much about proving something to friends as they are about the boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm 30 and married, and I have married friends around my age. Some of us have children. I look at the way these relationships work and I see the fruits of the feminist movement. Look at how Barack and Michelle Obama stand next to one another: they stand together as equals even though he's the president of the Unted States. Feminism hasn't fallen away or pushed us into a dark age. But feminism is never going to turn teenagers into adults, that was never even on it's agenda.
  40. Elizabeth P from Whitby, Canada writes: Shame is a terrible teacher.
  41. kat i from Whitby, Canada writes: Instead of Family Ties, we get The Hills. Today's television is toxic to children. Today's parenting is toxic to children. Why are we taking a 10-year-old to a Britney concert? Why are we getting highlights for a 10-year-old? Why are we sending our kids to school in pajamas? Instead of allowing hours spent texting, surfing on the internet via FaceBook, etc., and chatting nonesense on the cellphone, turn off technology. Spend time and speak to your children, have the siblings share the same room, sign them up for extra-curricular activities, and demand them to have a part-time job when they are old enough. Teach your kids about responsibilities and self-respect by sharing stories and spending time together as a family. I am astounished how little parenting is taking place once a child reaches a certain age.
  42. Peter Kuehn from Kelowna BC, Canada writes: I am relieved to see, that under adults in this country we still have good reasoning and values. What disturbs me, and which I feel is at the root of the problem, has not been clearly identified, or better, accepted, because I am sure everyone knows what it is. Parents taking full responsibilities for the actions of t h e i r own children. I know, every parent has a valid excuse, right ? Until that changes, no matter how difficult, how bothersome, we will be talking about this in a 100 years and beyond. Taking full responsibility for keeping order in our own environment is the only way we can greatly i m p r o v e things, never really eradicate. Lets stay humane, but accept our responsibilities and also do the hard things, and we will significantly improve everything.
  43. Mike V from Winnipeg, Canada writes: What young women require aren't just successful women role models, but successful women role models who are sexy. The sex is in the genes, it can't be removed. Instead young women need to understand that it is possible to be respectable, responsible and hot. With that in mind, what young girls need to see right now is Rihanna to never forgive Mr. Brown and to prosecute him as best as she can.
  44. Rob Rowat from Canada writes: Chris J writes that she believes that feminism should be about being able to walk home alone at night without worry. I agree, but that has little to do with male/female issues. Men continue to be the victims of violent crimes of all types in much greater numbers than women. What Chris J raises is an issue of public safety - a very valid topic, but not one related to the subject of this article.
  45. Dominique Navarro from Okotoks, Canada writes: While I am equally horrified at the way young women are treating each other and themselves, and the way young men and women behave toward each other, I do not believe that feminism has the answer today anymore than it did over 100 years ago. The moment we view human relations in terms of power and who has it and who deserves it we will fail in any way to instill an appreciation of one another as beings of intrinsic dignity. Instead we view each other as means to an end, or obstacles in the way of getting to said end. As for how women are treated today versus how they were treated before the feminist movement inspired so many legislative changes.... I am not sure that things have gotten any better. Yes we have more say, yes we have more opportunity, and yes there is more accountability in law... But are things really better? We now have women in position of power in the corporate world, in high stress jobs dying of illnesses we only ever really saw in men! Is this better? Women are being killed and raped in combat, women dying in fires and being shot at in the streets fighting crime. Yes much more opportunity, but is life really better? If we measure relationships, worth, and life based on power, then yes women have come a long way and yes they still have a long way to go...But isn't using their sexuality to gain positions of power and authority just an extension of this great right that the feminist fought for? How about being taught to treat each other with the dignity that all human beings deserve by the virtue of our humanity not our maleness or femaleness? Not because we are the same, but in celebration that we are not! Vive la difference! Just a thought! ;)
  46. M P from GTA, Canada writes: In high school I encountered the exact opposite of positive female role models. I went to a private Catholic school where our religion teacher showed an episode of Oprah about date rape. She used it to "prove" that girls who are raped did something to provoke the rapist, for example dressing provocatively. Several of my classmates agreed that the women featured on the show were to blame for being abused that way. With teachers like that educating young girls, their attitudes towards the Rihanna/Chris Brown events don't surprise me.
  47. Chris J from Toronto, Canada writes: Rob, thanks for your opinion. I just used public safety as an example. My point was actually that I found feminism in University to be focused in the wrong area. Fairness should be its priority. Whether that means in the work place, at home, or in their ability to go do the same things as men at the same times (aka jog at night), they're all relatively important goals. I found the new feminism movement to be moving away from that and more to symbolic change in our language. I think a comment on feminism would pertain to an article about feminism, don't you? I'm also male and my studies were science based. I was going to call you 'she' too, but I'm guessing you just made an understandable mistake since Chris is a name used by both sexes. ------------ Rob Rowat from Canada writes: Chris J writes that she believes that feminism should be about being able to walk home alone at night without worry. I agree, but that has little to do with male/female issues. Men continue to be the victims of violent crimes of all types in much greater numbers than women. What Chris J raises is an issue of public safety - a very valid topic, but not one related to the subject of this article.
  48. BC Philosopher from Canada writes: So much to touch on so few characters available. Changing the language is a superficial nonsense move that provides some vague spiritual satisfaction to those ignorant enough to think it means something. Language is directly tied to a societies norms but it not an equal relationship both ways, additionally all you are doing is bowing to a percieved slight. Re-spell women as womyn? why its the same word by forcing that kind of change you lose power. A smart woman might realize, hey wait you have two more letters you are more than just a man, but that too is just pop psychological drivel. Still its more empowering. Words are meaingless without actions that prove them true. As for changing history to herstory, isn't that just sexist behaviour in respond to percieved sexist behaviour? As for inter female relations that is nothing new, its based on the nature of social interactions and the perception of social power. Men and women percieve socializing in completely different manners, men see it as a means to an end, women see it as an end in itself, the reverse is true for sex. Young girls have always been crueler than young boys ask any school teacher. Men may be more inherently violent in a physical sense but it tends to be simpler, they fight a few punches are thrown and status quo is established and continues, sometimes the fighters may even make peace with one another through the violent exchange and find respect. Women are more likely to engage in duplicitous vendetta style behaviour, undermining one another, spreading rumors, attacking the social status of their percieved enemies. When that fails some may get their violent man to do something for them. Naturally these are all extremes and I am not saying all women, but as a general tendency with differing levels of severity.
  49. Rosencrantz Guildenstern from Challenging, eh?, Canada writes: What makes me tear my hair out is that teenage girls today have been given every single tool they need to gain their own equality: the words, the books, the laws; the examples everywhere of women, sometimes their own mothers, achieving at work and living in respectful and equal domestic relationships. Wake up, Ms Timson. SOME girls have been given those things. Others have been parented in absentia, raised by television, bred by trash-wh*re mothers (whether in a trailer park or soul-less suburban mansion), and edified by a culture of trivial obsessions and self-gratification.
  50. Robert Kehl from Ottawa, Canada writes: the author gives away her brand of feminism in the beginning of the article when stating being shocked that girls might be discussing what Rhianna's role might have been in whatever happened between the two of them. that brand of feminism that preaches a very special "equality" where women never do anything wrong, can't be held responsible for their behaviour and are simply hapless victims, never involved in any situation. the author also seems confused over the degree of energy people put into finding and keeping a mate. While there are a small number of stories of unstable people who take it to a crazy level, like the recent story murder, everyone, is at base driven by this motive. we are animals, other than survival, we have one piece of programming, ONE: and that is to mate. for all our complicated and sophisticated pursuits we are still animals, biological, hormonal, instinctual and driven by millions of years of adaptation. the idea that a few years of post-modern philosophical arguments is somehow going to alleviate us of our biological selves, or worse the naive assumption that it doesn't apply to humans is so ridiculous I dont know how it ever caught hold. a lot of people rejected feminist arguments because they were hateful, unrealistic in sense of entitlement, and distorted with a sense of male guilt and female benevolence, not to mention that that many of these arguments are disempowering to women in the strange mythologies they seek to create.
  51. A Johnson from Canada writes: OOPS - my earlier post read "I have noticed this behaviour in teenage girls: ones I have known, ones family who are middle & high school teachers, and, yep, in the media (TV shows, movies)." It should have read: I have noticed this behaviour in teenage girls: one sI have personally known, ones that family who are middle & high school teachers have known/taught & have told me about, and, yep, in the media (TV shows, movies). Sorry 'bout that...
  52. Grayce at University from Montreal, Canada writes: The content of programming for girls has the nutritional value of a marshmallow. So don't let them watch it, don't let them read it! And if they already do, talk to them about what they see and what they think. This isn't about shaking these girls awake, it's about awakening their ability to think critically. I am grateful to my parents for saying 'no' to teen magazines and TV programming during my youth. So much of our media and internet has a subtle way of corroding the self-worth and self-respect that builds up in moments between episodes of Next Top Model and flipping through CosmoGirl. Tell your daughters that they are smart enough, capable enough, talented-enough, beautiful enough, and clever enough... to disagree with what they see/read and to speak these new convictions courageously -even if it means disagreeing with their peers. Girls who are smart and critical are where it's at. For girls to respect girls and for the boys to respect them, I say that girls need to respect themselves first. If you teach your daughter self-respect then she will learn to OWN her decisions (what she says, who she sees, what she does)... and likely she will give and garner respect from the boys and girls wherever she goes. And this is what feminism is about: RESPECT - for self, for others, for boys and girls and men and women - unequivocally and equally.
  53. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: Author: "Recent events have made me wonder despairingly whether decades of modern feminism have made any significant dent at all in the quality of relationships between young women and men." Men have far too much to lose in both common law and married relationships with women. The costs far outweigh any benefit. Feminism promoted this and won. Men are now indifferent, and women wonder why. Until the scales of justice, that are heavily tilted towards females, are tilted to a middle common ground of fairness, men should simply hit it and quit it. But always wear protection.
  54. kat i from Whitby, Canada writes: Indeed Dick, unfortunately it has come to that. Many men have lost trust and faith in women and that, indeed, is their misfortune. Another option to always wearing protection would be to choose the person you are going to sleep with carefully, as nothing will give you 100% protection. AS I said before, my suggestion to all the men out there is to master the ability to read your woman beneath the superficial good looks before you say "I do". In other words, use your head and not your @#$%.
  55. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: kat....it is a misfortune for men AND women. I love women, but I'll be dammed if I am going to risk losing 50% of my assets, wealth and custody of my kids. No way.....I teach every single guy I know to never get married. Especially the nice guys (tough sell) who finally get's the girl after she's sampled 25 thugs, and is suddenly attracted to the nice guy's bank account.
  56. chanel turner from Canada writes: Man women are the biggest misogynists around-- they are horrible to any woman that in any way threatens them. Witch hunts were about this, gossips that ruin women-- and women do not stop this when they are teenagers- they turn into bitter jealous middle-aged and senior women that still run down other women.....stay at home moms and working moms, business women and trades women --- all have members that behave this way.
  57. Jennifer Goldberg from Toronto, Canada writes: Feminism on the web: www.feministing.org Teen feminism on the web: www.shamelessmag.com Not all teen girls "these days" are dangerously preoccupied with landing attracting a man. Give credit where credit is due.
  58. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: ALL women want to land a man, you are another delusional feminist, especially when baby rabies kicks in or the hear a bumb in the middle of the night. The ones that don't are lesbians....where partner on partner violence is brutal and more proof of the violent tendencies of women as well.
  59. H M K from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As a woman navigating the middle-aged singles scene, I have have a few comments. First, we all want our girls to be respected, intelligent, successful. Yet the women who attain all of that are feared... considered to be "intimidating" by their male equals. Guyland, a book mentioned in an earlier comment, might point to some of the reasons for that. I've literally had to dumb myself down, giggle more, and appear unconfident to gain the attentions of even the most outgoing of men. Second, have you read any mens personal ads lately? They all read like a want ad for a Maxim-girl model. Intelligence, personality, etc. are usually a footnote, a nice to have - or ignored when that busty blonde arrives on the scene.
  60. You (Mike Murphy, from Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada) wrote: I have found the comments interesting. It revolves around female behaviour and the author is somehow trying o relate the behaviour of a 14 year old to a concept called feminism. Firstly, the old idea of equality feminism was usurped by gender feminists some time ago. The term now is very confusing to many men, and indeed a great many women. The brand is not so easily defined. For those of you with tweens and female teens you know they don't give a hoot about such concepts. They want there digital camera, cell phone with camera and ipod to carry on in the narcisstic manner they do and lose themselves in the dreams of a teen. If you have access to your teens Facebook page you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you are the tech guru at home you know exactly what songs are on her ipod. One of the mysterious surrounding this child is the interplay with her parents. She had a mom and dad I understand. One parent families do have a higher incidence of socially unacceptable responses for a variety of reasons. She does not appear to have been given limits on her behaviour which every parent has a duty to impose. Were they too passive, were they too busy working, were they emotionally available to the child? So many questions, so few answers. I was a stay-at-home father to 2 of my 4 daughters for 10 years. For the record it was the most rewarding 10 years of my life. My testosterone levels went down & my nurturing hormones went up. The best of both worlds would be the ability to work from and raise your children at home. Your day will be long. Mine was a minimal 18 hours but it can be spread out so you can do school volunteer work, go on field trips with the children, take them to skating, skiing, soccer, swimming, gymnastics et al in a more balanced manner. I miss that now but I am addicted to it and every time I see a baby or toddler I ogle them and fondly remember my kids at that age. Men are capable too.
  61. kat i from Whitby, Canada writes: Dick, I hope you choose to respond to this because I must know your take on this. How do you know when I woman had 25 guys versus a woman who had 5? Please enlighten me. And secondly, have you ever received a punch from any of these young men whom you have tried to discourage from experiencing the best things in life, yes, love, marriage, and kids. And as much as women want to land a nice man, the same goes for men. They want to land a nice woman. The problem is that many men look for love in the wrong places.
  62. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: kat...clearly I am using hyperbole to make my point. But I don't believe women are looking for a nice guy. Women settle for the nice guy when their tired of the bad boys. And when they're tired of the nice guy, they return to said thug. I'll let you in on a male secret. When a man decides to settle down with a women, he has probably placed looks, boobs and buns a little further down on the priority list. He has moved beyond the superficial. By this time he wants an equal partner, a wife and a mother for his children. Looks are a bonus as the boys will tell you. This is the reason so many men are blindsided by their wives when they ask for divorce....and hence the claim...."he never saw it coming". There is a reason women initiate divorce 70% of the time, and it isn't domestic violence, it's because women CAN....and they have a litany of laws and free passes that perpetuates their entitlement. You asked if the men punch me when I try to educate them. Actually, most ignore my advice and get married. This exemplifies how committed most of these men are to their future wives....I have a very small success rate convicing them of what they stand to lose. Of course, upon their divorce, I am their lawyer, mentor and sage. "experiencing the best things in life, yes, love, marriage, and kids" Agree 100%, then why do women leave their husbands so easily (70% divorce initiation)...is this not what they want?
  63. miss w from Canada writes: dick brown please shut up, you're an idiot. i can tell you as a woman that i've never wanted to get married to a loser like you who obviously has no sense of responsibility and may in fact be a sociopath. as for the rest of you, before you comment on feminism, the death of feminism or teen girls, maybe you should read some feminist theory so that you'll sound a bit better informed. timson is right, many young girls, even college age girls, today do not understand feminism at all and in many cases are totally against it. this is a serious setback to the women's rights movement and a setback to all women. and dick brown, i don't know what kind of women you've been seeing but maybe you should up your standards or maybe you should try and learn how to cook and clean on your own without expecting your wife to take care of you (or ex wife i imagine from your bitter tone).
  64. kat i from Whitby, Canada writes: Dick, I hear you. Let’s just say that by a certain age, if you haven’t found your perfect match, men and women will settle because most people do want to have children and ultimately nobody wants to be alone. Yes, women will settle for a “nice guy” after a few heartbreaks, but at the same time, the “nice guys” will settle, too, not for someone they sexually desire but someone who is in their mind is going to make a perfect mother and wife. 7-10 years later they realize that their sexual needs are not met and they will start looking elsewhere during so-called “business meetings” during cocktail hours and entertaining so-called “clients” late into the evenings on Wednesdays and Thursdays. These “nice guys” are very happy in their current state. They have their wives at home to look after the house, run errands, take care of the kids while they have found their extra-curricular entertainment elsewhere. I cannot think of a better example than Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, with 2 teenaged daughters and an educated, elegant, beautiful wife. Only God knows why she didn’t leave but the 70% of women you refer to in your post will leave. We want to be desired and lusted after even in our 30’s and 40’s, and so on, and if we cannot get it at home, we can get it elsewhere, too. In all other cases where this clearly does not apply, women have gotten into these marriages for the wrong reasons. At the end of the day, men have got to look in the mirror, too. You have to ask yourself when you are 5'9, fat, and bold, why is this stunning woman with me, she can have anybody? As Robin Williams said a divorce is having your balls ripped through your wallet. So be aware. However, there are plenty of men who have no problems paying for a gorgeous wife because they know that is the only reason they are able to have them. It is a contract, in many ways. This kind of love is not for free. Cheers.
  65. You (Mike Murphy, from Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada) wrote: Miss W: You sound like a self styled expert on Feministic Theory. You almost make it sound like a "religion". Perhaps you could enlighten on us on the ideology of feminism and tell us which brand you prefer. I clearly would like to be enlightened. But, of course, it still hasn't anything to do with a sociopathic 14 year old girl (that's a real sociopath in case you needed to be enlightened). Feminism is the new "F" word in many corners and perhaps you can help turn the corner on it not being a negative term. Given your descriptive terminology and pejoritive manner I have my doubts. For those of you who think men are the only ones who "wander" you may wish to do your homework. In every relationship between a man and a women their are two genders and many are married women looking for "greener pasture". Don't look any further than your own daydreams. In the discussion about Chris Brown has any one read the reports he was attacked first while driving a $150,000 lethal weapon? That doesn't excuse retaliation of the kind that may have occurred but IPV is statistically pretty much equal between genders which is largely ignored in any discussion about DV. Now how come a discussion about female conspiracy and coercion in the killing of an innocent youngster and two adults attacking each other revolve around the theory of feminism. Is it narcissism or a genuine attempt at thinking clearly that all of us are equal and all of us can achieve our goals with out the inducements and entitlements of the Nanny State if we really want it. The latter is one of the main reasons almost 70% of women initiate divorces added to the "greener pastures" they see but seldom ever attain.