The National Post is now on Facebook.
Oh. Well everything is baggy sweaters and herbal
tea, then. Thanks.
A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
Not once does your article mention abortion. Not once does your
article mention the huge bias in the court system against men when it
comes to custody battles.
Are you aware that there are no shelters
for men and their children in Canada whatsoever to escape from violent
female spouses. Your stats that females are disportionately the
victims of domestic violence are outdated. Reported domestic violence,
yes. I'll let you dig up that info yourself though since it is
obvious to me that your research skills could use some honing.
Incidentally, anecdotal evidence proofs nothing.
Not
one did you mention the marginalization of masculanity, in fact the
downright vilification of masculine values, in modern media
particularly in the penoply of so called sitcoms. Even supposedly
"male" shows like Two-and-a-Half-Men serve only to perpetuate the myth
that all men are sex obsessed implusive brutes that need to be
controlled.
This shows up moreso in "educational"
material. I have yet to see a sexual harrassment video where I work
where a female coworker harrasses a male coworker or subordinate
despite the fact that women comprise 68% of my organization's
workforce.
Your article did not mention the glossing
over of natural biological differences between boys and girls whose
denial have led to a disportionate gap in scholastic performance
between females and males.
Which brings me to my main question.
When they catrasted you on your first day of class did you go for the
modern chemical method or did you "take it like a man" and go the good
old fashion rusty plier route?
So they actually teach women about sexual and
genital mutilation, really so why haven't I heard from the "Official
Feminists' publicly? Where is their public outcry on female sexual
mutilation, gendercide via abortions, the implimentation of Sharia Law
in the West? Why haven't the so called professional feminists spoken
out on the above issue? Feminists work to protect girls from violence,
really well I've been waiting for decades for those so called
feminists to condone the following cultural practice:
Snippet:
What 10-year-old Aisha did not know was that after the wedding party
she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents'
home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.
"He
took out a special sheet and laid me down on it," Aisha told IRIN,
wringing her small plump hands. "After it, I started bleeding. It was
so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen
him as death."
If
those so called feminist globally united perhaps we could stop the
systematic rape of children in Muslim Countries but I realise they are
busy protecting women from that mythical glass ceiling.
Don’t boys also need education and health care in
the third world? Is it okay that boys are being bred to be soldiers,
because they have no other options available to them?
“That
the lower rates of female participation in a variety of domains — from
business to politics — might represent something other than a lack of
talented or interested women”
What about in Canada
only? Where is the evidence of lack of opportunity for women to
support discrimination in government funding against men?
In
Canada, there are far more unemployed men than women. There are more
homeless men than women. There are also fewer men graduating from
post-secondary education. Why is it necessary to ignore the very real
plight of Canadian men?
In family law…where is the
evidence to support discrimination against fathers?…relegating them to
being occasional visitors and ATMs. There is certainly good evidence
to suggest that it is bad social policy and not in the best interests
of children.
In domestic violence…where is the evidence
to support discrimination against men?…gender profiling completely
ignores violent women and male victims. There is certainly good
evidence to suggest that it is bad social policy and discriminatory.
How is it in the best interests of children for society to ignore
their mothers violent behavior towards their father?
Mike
Bowerman should read Christina Hoff Sommers and then see what kind of a
reaction that he gets from his feminist allies. What he has
experienced in feminist studies was brain washing. His acceptance of
their one-sided biased ideology makes him acceptable to the feminists.
Your classmates' reluctance to self describe as
feminists should have been a clue, Sherlock.
Jeremy: Don't make
the castrato cry.
57% of Afghan males can't read.
Behold a "believer" in the Feminist mythology of
oppression that hasn't existed in the western democracies for
generations. He is a fully indoctrinasted eunuch who now touts the
plight of women in countries, mostly governed or dominated by sexist
religious practices. You never saw the stridency because you were
already a sycophant. Did you ever try to disagree? Not likely with
that degree of affirmation you were a "bad boy" for being part of the
evil patriarchy.
What the new feminist talking points state is
these international situations keep the fires burning for the
Sisterhood at home even though we Sisters outshine males on nearly
every social indicator in Canada. We must have the international state
of affairs as constant reminders (and indeed to keep the tax dollars
flowing) that we are still victims.
I note you avoid the DV
numbers on the home front which are pretty much equal yet studies show
females are more likely to initiate physical abuse against their male
partner and Lesbians have a much higher rate. Might I remind you they
are both female. Why do females initiate at a greater rate than men.
Simply because of people like you telling them they can from an early
age onward. They will reduce their injury rate by not initiating.
Please
do not try to equate the situation in western democracies with
countries ruled by theocrats pretending to be democrats in a largely
illiterate Islamiscist fundamentalist region.
If
feminists were so interested in helping these people why don't you
recruit them in your missionary work and get them on the ground working
with the Afghan women and government officials. I suggest they would
not last a week and would be on the way home very soon or if they
persisted in their stridency to impose western values on illiterate
peasants would probably end up in jail or worse.
You
are beating a dead horse as many other missionaries have done in the
past. How far has Africa progressed after more than a century of
missionary work? Not overly far. Your solutions are not the answer in
the 3rd world and will not see success.
You are
obviously a fully indoctrinated feminist or pro-feminist spokesperson,
however. Hopefully you don't have a son currently enrolled in K12
whose odds of getting into University are decreasing and if you ever
hope to be a grandfather pray your son doesn't get divorced as his ex
wife will get physical custody (90% chance unless she is a proven drug
addict) and may act as a gatekeeper over access. You may never see
your grandchild and because of people like you this will continue to be
the status quo.
You show all the signs of a highly
feminized male who may not know what is like to be masculine. Its a
pity.
If you truly believe in equality push for equal shared
parenting for fit partners after marriage. That is the real test of
egalitarians. Eighty percent of Canadians think it should be the case.
Do you?
Feb 22 2010
4:28 PM
"girly men to the rescue."
Indeed. It seems
every guy posting on this thread thus far is terrified of uppity women
and their plan to make all men emasculated, illiterate peons to their
causes.
It's rather drôle.
Feb
22 2010
4:39 PM
Nich: Don't you have a prorogation rally to
organize? Fight the Man!
Excuse us for for not taking manly
lessons from a guy who uses French bon mots and squats to pee.
Feb 22
2010
4:48 PM
dispensing with the ad homenins (*fellows*), and on
a critique of what is actually stated here -
*I had
learned about feminist economist Marilyn Waring who ... proposed
economics ignored much of the most important activity in the world —
raising children, caring for the sick or elderly, the enormous energy
and time required to maintain a home. She felt it should be accounted
for.*
this is all well and good - as far as it goes.
I've read about this before, and thought then what I do now: let's
account for *all* the work done in the world, regardless if it is
raising children, keeping care of the elderly, etc., or general
maintenance on the home, disproportionate engagement in dirty and
dangerous work, much higher rates of injury and death at work
(coincidentally, these burdens fall largely on men).
*That
sexual and domestic violence disproportionately affect women and need
to be stopped. That equal work deserves equal pay.*
Please
educate yourself. In regard to domestic violence, women have been
shown now to initiate partner violence as much as men; in regard to
sexual violence, it appears at least that boys are much more likely to
fall victim to sexual abuse; that parental abuse is carried out largely
by mothers, not fathers...
As for `equal work for
equal value', this is just a euphemism for enforced payouts to those in
female dominated professions, as these professionals are judged by the
market as less valuable than male-dominated professions and vocations.
*Other
ideas struck me as less convincing — I didn’t find the Spice Girls’
advocating Girl Power in lipstick and mini-skirts inconsistent or
troublesome as some did.*
Wow. For all the bad ideas
that feminism has come up with, you should pick an important one...
*Even
more powerful for me though, was that when that gender analysis was
taken to the international stage the disparity moved from disturbing to
appalling.*
What is most appalling about all of this
is that most Western feminists don't give a tooth about their truly
oppressed sisters in the Third World.
Feminists have
written in favour of female genital mutilation.
Feminists
have condemend those who would criticize the practice of `sate' in
India or family-honour killings in the Middle East and elsewhere, as
`imperialist hegemons.'
Mainstream feminist
organizations have either offered apologia or outright support to
Islamic-fascist terror organization and movements - such as Hamas -
which would force women back into the home, never mind paying them 66%
or whatever of what men make.
Mainstream feminists have
also urged the evacuation from the fight against the Taliban, although
of course women of Afghanistan don't want troops to leave for fear
that this particular pack of Islamic-fascists will take power again...
*While
I learned that feminists led the charge on such critical issues around
the world, early on in my women’s studies class most students resisted
the feminist label as though it was a contemporary scarlet letter — a
badge of shame.*
If it's a badge of shame, it is well
deserved by the ideas and actions of feminists themselves.
*All
of which suggests that feminism has won the culture war so completely
that it may well be the most successful social movement of the modern
era.*
Which, I guess, begs the question: why do
feminists themselves keep insuating that nothing has changed, that
Canada is just as sexist as any `third world' society, that women face
rape every where they look, etc etc
*Yet feminists are often
still characterized as shrill, strident, man-haters.*
(see
above, `feminists won the culture war' and yet still act like its
1900)
*History is normally written by the winners, but in
feminism’s case the sore losers kept the pen.*
oh god, not this
crap again: `history is written by the winners.'
No, it
isn't.
Losers write their own history all the time.
Losers
wrote the history of the Sparta-Athens war (the winners wrote no
history)
Losers wrote histories of the Hellenic-Persian wars.
Losers
wrote histories of World War I, II and the Cold War.
Losers write
history all the time.
I guess cliche is all that you could hope
to learn in `women's studies.'
Feb 22
2010
4:53 PM
NichD Feb 22 2010 4:28 PM
Indeed. It seems
every guy posting on this thread thus far is terrified of uppity women
and their plan to make all men emasculated, illiterate peons to their
causes.
__________________________
And you are the
liberated, eviscerated and sycophantic metrosexual I suppose.
Please
note not all posters are male. The first observance of informed debate
is to know who you are debating, why you are debating, have some
knowledge of the issues and be able to not only read but have some
ability to comprehend.
You obviously don't have a son
in school or if you do you don't have a clue what he contends with.
Feb 22
2010
5:51 PM
Rhino Party Whip;
"A coward is much more
exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."
Thomas Jefferson
MikeMurphy
- I was referring to the posters that we male (ergo not the female
posters). I read somewhere male adult illiteracy is on the rise. Did
you read much on that.
Feb 22
2010
6:08 PM
NichD,
Do you have anything intelligent to add
or are you just here for the insults?
Yes, men are also
concerned about social justice and discrimination.
Feb 22
2010
6:18 PM
Denis - My point is that most of the posters here
are just reactionary whiners with talking points for arguments.
The
slightest challenge to their held 'position' is ad hominen and other
completely irrelevant comments.
The favourite insult directed
towards the author are feminine in nature. The best way to insult a man
supporting women studies is to try and slag him as being feminine.
Such idiocy can only write itself since such insults support the
authors thesis indirectly.
Many men are concerned with
social justice and discrimination, but not in the same way you are.
Feb 22
2010
6:29 PM
What strikes me here is, once again, the old us vs.
them mentality that has fed the feminist ideology for decades. And
it's the same on the male side from the comments. Let's stop with the
whole victim ideology, let's recognize we're succesful or failures
because of our own individual choices, and let's stop blaming everyone
else.
Feb 22
2010
6:36 PM
Well, I guess that's one man's view.
This
man's view is somewhat different.
Currently separated,
get the kids 4 times a week, pay through the nose & get
accused of not doing enough. I do the parent/teacher interviews, help
with homework and have the job that allows for leaving to pick up sick
kids.
Forced to sign an agreement or she wouldn't sign
the dower release for my home.
She takes the kids to
Mexico then says she's not buying any xmas presents on Dec 15th.
Salary
goes up & so does the % (not the amt, the%) for child support.
Constantly
verbally harrassed and she won't be happy till I am living in my car.
Now
I have to consider putting my oldest boy in another school as his
teachers/counselor will not help him adapt to the female style
classroom they push (as described by my son's female psycologist). Can
no longer afford the tutor.
"Gee dad, how come mom buys
us really nice stuff & you only buy us cheap stuff?"
And
why are there not more female MPs, MLAs? Because less of them are
running for office and/or because no one is voting for them.
Substantive
equality, in this instance, is just another female division of the
left.
Mr. Bowerman, your view is limited, simplistic
& pure fiction.
Feb 22
2010
6:51 PM
NichD,
Why don't you respond to some of the
issues that we have raised, rather than joining in the ad hominem
attacks.
It appears that is your only interest and it is a typical
tactic by feminists. Ignore the issues, slander the messenger.
Feb
22 2010
6:53 PM
BlueScot, it's the feminist version of male
slavery. It's a common story in Canada.
Feb 22
2010
8:06 PM
So let me see if I have this straight (pardon the
obscene word):
Being in favor of women's equality with men is
"feminism." Right?
Har har har har har har
Feminism
is a self-constructed ideology of group identity which largely defines
itself in anti-male terms. Feminism replaces conventional English with
a set of self-generated words which provide it with cult narratives,
available only to trained feminists.
The essence of
feminism is that the _superior_ sex, which it calls a "gender," is
female and that females should not have to compete with males in
society on an equal footing.
Feminism posits that female
failure is a male responsibility and accountability is a male
construct.
Feminism posits that genital mutilation in a
dark corner of Africa is none of your business, if you're a man, or
all of your fault if you're a man in Canada.
Feminism
is the guiding light of an effeminized, welfare culture, in which males
are streamed out of jobs and education, and females enjoy privilege at
the expense of male taxpayers, usually their ex-husbands. Under
feminism, all are equal except that the Head Sow is more equal than the
rest.
Feb
22 2010
8:28 PM
@JeremyW: I agree that domestic violence against
men should be taken seriously -- your point is not a counterargument
to feminism.
Similarly, the gap in scholastic
performance between boys and girls is worth considering -- there are
many reforms the education system could benefit from. Again though,
this is not a counterargument to feminism -- which fundamentally
advocates equality of opportunity -- it is an argument for better
education and is compatible with a feminist perspective.
Feb
22 2010
8:32 PM
@ SassyLassie: I share your concern, and note that
your perspective is a feminist one -- that there are unique challenges
women face internationally which urgently need to be addressed.
Systematic rape is just such a challenge, and you'll be glad to know
that feminists are leading the charge on this issue. For more
information, you might be interested in the book Half the Sky: Turning
Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, by Nikolas Kristoff
and Sheryl WuDunn. Best wishes with your efforts to combat this
injustice.
Feb
22 2010
8:41 PM
@ DennisPakala: I agree that there are serious
flaws in family law which amount to discrimination against men and need
to be revised. This is not incompatible with a feminist perspective.
Excellent
link to Christina Hoff -- however, in the essay she describes herself
as a feminist, says feminism has "won its major battles" (as I said),
that these issues are more severe internationally (as I said), and in
general points out that there are diverging views within feminism (also
in my piece). Your link seems to support my experience and
perspective, not refute it. I agree with most of what she says, hope
more people read her work, and wish more people would share her
(self-described) feminist perspective. If you agree with her perhaps
you are more of a feminist than you thought.
Feb 22
2010
8:46 PM
@nichD The best way to insult a man supporting
women studies is to try and slag him as being feminine.
______________________________
What
else would he be dear Nich? He certainly doesn't live in the real
world where boys are feminized from age 4 onward by a very feminine
education system. Its a 4-1 female-male ratio in the 20-30 teacher
cohort in Ontario. Men do not want to teach because they are demonised
as abusers - just the way feminists want it.
I
study feminism and that includes males who have a need to think they
belong in a woman's studies program to begin with. Those who do are
already feminised. No normal masculine man would give it a second
thought.
Other men, feminised from an early point in their life,
or had a bad experience with their dad, or who might well be Gay, Trans
or Bi do not have normal masculinity traits. They may even be ashamed
of it through the brainwashing received in K12 and in the media.
A
man does not have to give up his masculnity and declare himself a
feminist to understand gender equality. Those that do are to be pitied
for they do not know what real masculinity is all about. The first
responders who give up their lives to save others are predominately
male. Who do you want to save you from a collapsed building? The burly,
in shape, male walking through flames, fumes, and falling debris, ready
to give up his life just for you, no matter what your gender or a
whiny feminine studies financial consultant who has some kind of
vicarious association with helping girls in Asia through membership in a
group.
Hell he is a man - he might be a perv or so the
feminists might have you believe?
Save me your pious
rants. Study what is happening to your gender right under your nose at
the working man level in western democracies not south Asian or middle
east Islamist countries.
The latter is the new feminist talking
point but is full of hypocrisy.
Feb 22
2010
8:55 PM
@Bowerman: Again though, this is not a
counterargument to feminism -- which fundamentally advocates equality
of opportunity -
____________________________
You really are
out of touch with 3rd wave feminism and the culture of victimization
these creatures pronounce.
It is not about equality and hasn't
been since the late 80's. its about entitlements.
After
reading that drivel I won't waste my time on you. You are a true
"believer" not unlike those who are quite religious. With feminists
its a zero sum game.
Ask why they won't support men
getting equal treatment in DV or shared and equal parenting for fit
parents after divorce/separation?
Try and get in touch
with the real feminism of 2010 not the old fashioned equalist version
whose silent voice has been overshadowed by the cacophony and whining
of the victim class of feminism. Look no further than Status of Women
Canada to get you started.
Feb
22 2010
8:55 PM
Mike: a U-Nich?
Feb
22 2010
9:04 PM
@ MikeMurphy: I agree with your three main points
which seem to be that men also suffer domestic violence, that
conditions internationally for women are far worse than domestically,
and that men are often unfairly treated in family law. None of these
arguments is incompatible with a feminist perspective.
@arbyburns:
Your perspective about counting "all" aspects of work is consistent
with both Waring's position and my own. If you read her book, If Women
Counted: A New Feminist Economics, you might find you share even more
values with her than you realise. This would be consistent with your
avoidance of the ad hominem attacks -- many people don't read feminist
literature due to the word 'feminist,' and consequently misunderstand
its theory and application.
That domestic violence
against men should be taken seriously is compatible with a feminist
perspective.
Your characterisation of 'mainstream
feminism' supporting the Taliban, sate, and genital mutilation is the
exact oppostive of my experience in women's studies -- I first learned
of some of these issues in women's studies -- and the opposite of my
experience since. In fact, in the link in Dennis Palakka's comment to a
Christina Hoff essay you will read that mainstream feminism is
responsible for our awareness of these issues.
In
any case, I'm glad to know that these issues are of concern to you,
and be assured that I share your concern regardless of what terminology
describes it.
Feb 22
2010
9:05 PM
Michael, try having a serious conversation with any
feminist about domestic violence against men…you will learn a few
lessons about “equality of opportunity” and the serious professional
bias among feminist researchers.
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.../Intimate_Partner.pdf
www.nfvlrc.org
It
is a counter-argument to feminism, when Canada’s social policies and
training of social workers, police and judges are based on bad research
and academic fraud.
Do some research on the Pay-Gap
myth and representation in Parliament! There is already equality of
opportunity, feminists want equality of results.
Of
course, do some reading by Christina Hoff Somers and the Individual
Feminists at ifeminists.org. They think for themselves, rather than
blindly accepting contemporary feminist ideology.
Feb 22
2010
9:07 PM
Rhino, leave him alone
He is attempting to
engage in serious discussion, which is far more than I can say for his
feminist/liberal allies.
Feb 22
2010
9:41 PM
*arbyburns: Your perspective about counting "all"
aspects of work is consistent with both Waring's position and my own.
If you read her book, If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics, you
might find you share even more values with her than you realise.*
Perhaps
this is so.
*That domestic violence against men should be taken
seriously is compatible with a feminist perspective.*
Well,
that's as may be.
I have seen, however, feminists deny
the very existence of female domestic violence at all.
Michelle
Landsburg (sp), a former columnist with the Toronto `Star', over a
series of columns in the 1990s, said just as much. The only `violence'
she said, which women use on men, is when they slap a man's hand,
who's about to take a piece of cake before dinner (really, I'm not
kidding).
This was, admittedly, a long time ago. Perhaps
viewpoints on this have changed.
*Your
characterisation of 'mainstream feminism' supporting the Taliban, sate,
and genital mutilation is the exact oppostive of my experience in
women's studies -- I first learned of some of these issues in women's
studies -- and the opposite of my experience since.*
Yes,
there was a time when feminists believed in universal support rights -
as did the left generally. That time has long, long past.
An
example: the Code Pink organization, an avowedly feminist `anti-war'
group, visited Afghanistan recently and were surprised to discover that
women in that country do not support C.P.'s demand for U.S. troops to
evacuate the country, for fear that the Taliban would force them quite
literally back into their homes.
Of course, feminists
have been critical of the Taliban regime, too.
On
another occasion, this same Code Pink toured the Palestinian area in
Gaza under the patronage of the Hamas movement.
Quite
aside from the terrorist fascism in which that group revolves - yes,
yes, I call them terrorist you call them freedom fighter, but whatever -
there is no question whatsoever that Hamas is a congenitally
anti-feminist organization.
Feb 22
2010
9:56 PM
Michael, further on academic fraud...Dr. Peter
Jaffe at UWO, the feminist research most relied on for discriminatory
social programs and training.
From Dr. Don Dutton,
2006, Response to Dr. Johnson, Journal of Child Custody.
Apart
from IPV directed to a partner, feminist theory also ignores violence
by women directed at children, probably because such violence falls
outside the political view of being a response to an oppressor male.
However, violence and abuse toward children is of central importance to
custody assessors, more so than the varieties of IPV described by
Johnson. In that respect, custody assessors should be aware of the
largest study of child abuse and neglect that, to my knowledge, has
ever been conducted. This is a study of 135, 573 child maltreatment
investigations conducted by Health Canada and Published by the National
Clearing House on
Family Violence (Trocme and al.
2001). The study designates the abuse type as physical abuse, sexual
abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment and "multiple categories". The
investigations are further divided into substantiated, suspected and
unsubstantiated categories. Substantiation rates do not, in general,
vary by gender of perpetrator and run from 52 to 58%. Biological
mothers (as compared to biological fathers) are the more likely
substantiated perpetrator of physical abuse (47 vs. 42%), neglect (86%
vs. 33%), emotional maltreatment (61% vs. 55%) and multiple categories
(66% vs. 36%). The biological father is the most likely perpetrator of
sexual abuse (15% vs. 5%). For physical abuse the substantiation rate
was 6% higher for fathers, bringing the total perpetration rates to
equality ( Table 4, page 49).
These data, based on a
huge nationally representative sample, tell a very different picture
than that presented by JAFFE et al, Bancroft et al, or Johnson, all of
whom over rely on shelter samples to draw erroneous conclusions about
risk to children. Johnson concludes by saying "assume that all violence
is intimate terrorism (which is "largely male perpetrated and related
to gender attitudes") until proven otherwise". Compare this to the
American Psychological Association Guidelines for forensic evaluation
summarised in Weissman and DeBow (2003). The forensic evaluation must
begin with a "cognitive set and evaluative attitude" of the assessor
that is "neutral, objective and detached" (p. 39). Jaffe et al,
Bancroft et al and Johnson make adherence to this principle impossible.
Dutton,
Corvo 2006, Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology
and science in domestic violence research and practice
Although
some critics have disparaged the instrument of measurement, the
Conflict Tactics scale or CTS (Straus, 1992), in fact this scale is 16
times more sensitive than government “crime victim” surveys (Straus,
1999) such as the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden
& Thoennes, 1998). These surveys, in turn, tend to filter out
male reports of victimization because of the “set” of the survey
(criminal victimization of women). When this set is altered, more
equivalent rates of violence are reported, as in the Canadian General
Social Survey of 25,876 respondents, equally split by gender. In this
survey (Laroche, 2005) the “crime victim” filter was dropped and the
focus was on “perceptions of crime”. In addition, men were asked about
instrumental controlling behaviors used against them, (Laroche, 2005)
something that had not previously been asked because of the assumptions
of the patriarchal paradigm.
Equivalent rates of
severe abuse were found, 8% of women, and 7% of men reporting
victimization. Use of repeat, severe instrumental violence by a partner
was reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2% of women. Equivalent injuries,
use of medical services and fear of the abuser were also discovered in
cases where the abuser used repeat instrumental abuse. Why is this
small but destructive sub-group not receiving a concentrated
intervention strategy?
...
Stets and Straus (1992a,b)
concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of
violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The
results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%)
than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus
& Gelles, 1992). This latter result is difficult to explain
from the patriarchal view that women are more afraid of male violence
than the reverse.
...
Simply put, the evidence for
theoretical patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and
contradicted by numerous studies: male dominant couples constitute only
9.6% of all couples (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are at
least as violent as men (Archer, 2000); women are more likely to use
severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse (Stets
& Straus, 1992a,b); powerlessness rather than power seems
related to male violence; there are data contradicting the idea that
men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable
(Dutton, 1994; Simon et al., 2001) and that abusiveness is higher in
lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit,
Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991) suggesting that intimacy and
psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than
sexism (Dutton, 1994).
Feb 22
2010
10:01 PM
Note that Christina Hoff Sommers was slandered and
excommunicated from her feminist groups when she attempted to think for
herself. She joined up with Wendy McElroy to start Ifeminists.org.
...More
on active feminist denial of male victims of domestic violence and
active interefence in research.
Processes Explaining the
Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner
Violence
In this paper, Murray A Strauss lists the different ways
in which feminist activists deliberately distort and conceal evidence
in order to create the false impression that men are more violent to
their partners than women.
pubpages.unh.edu/.../V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
Feb 22
2010
10:52 PM
@ Denis:
Don't waste your time with this guy.
He keeps repeating, and there is no doubt he believes it,
"None
of these arguments is incompatible with a feminist perspective."
It
is nothing more than baffle gab. He has no notion of the reality in
today's feminist hierarchy. We should send him to a class run by
Christina Hoff Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Phylis Schafly and Ann Cools all
feminists but shunned by the Victim Tribe of Feminism which currently
predominates the discourse. God knows when he took his woman studies
course but I sure wouldn't buy a financial product from him given his
clear lack of knowledge and insight on the state of masculinity.
Note
particularly he says none of these are incompatible with feminism.
Well as we full well know not only is he wrong but further what is is
prepared to do about it to help his gender? Why nothing of course
because he is a feminist and has his opinion.
Feb 22
2010
11:20 PM
I think that Michael has good and humanist
intentions. He has an opinion, but he is not closed minded to feeling
compassion for his own gender, unlike the typical feminist that is
responsible for all of the negative stereotypes.
Indeed,
if feminism is to change and become equality in practice, it will take
a man to do it! I encourage Michael to do his own research and think
for himself.
Michael may have an epiphany some day. He
may come across an impoverished boy in a third world country and tell
him that he doesn't have to be sold as a sex slave or used for slave
labour or become a soldier.
Michael may come to
recognize that boys also deserve the right to be healthy, live without
violence, get an education and be a father to their children.
Feb 23
2010
1:09 AM
Mike and Denis, it's hard to find substance and
sincerity in what Bowerman has written, including in his pro-forma
"replies" to you.
What I hear is the trained
condescension of a house feminist: "This problem you say you have,
sonny, you only think you have it..."
Ten years ago
they were still saying things like "being defensive, aren't we???"
Ally dismissive to condescending, and there you have it, the feminized
male voice.
From what this gentleman has written, I
see no evidence he actually _knows_ what feminism _is_. Here's a hint,
Bowerman: a travesty of philosophy, social science, and epistemology.
Feb 23
2010
1:19 AM
The world just turned upside down, CBC is reporting
the truth.
www.cbc.ca/.../f-vp-smol.html
Feb 23
2010
3:31 AM
Denis, I peeked at that CBC report. I am
gob-smacked to a month of Sundays.
Musta taken a lawsuit to get
it published. Every fembo lawyer will howl.
Feb 23
2010
4:12 AM
Oh me oh my, I've just read this article carefully.
Look at this:
"Waring proposed [that] economics
ignored much of the most important activity in the world — raising
children, caring for the sick or elderly, the enormous energy and time
required to maintain a home. She felt it should be accounted for. I
agreed — and wondered what other bright ideas might be found in the
feminist camp."
Dear Mike: What Mizz Waring "proposed"
was an idea floated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mddle of
the 19th century.
Mizz Waring, then, is warmed-over
marxism from 160 years ago.
Come sit by me, an
ex-professor, we'll do some private lessons. I'll show you how
"feminist scholar" is an oxymoron.
Feb 23
2010
4:16 AM
Hello Mr. Bowerman,
You say that
domestic violence perpetrated by women against men and children, that
women suffer internationally more than domestically, and that men are
unfairly treated by our family courts are not 'incompatible' with a
feminist perspective.
You devious little manfem (if you
are even a man): these facts are not even mentioned by feminists
because it counters their belief that women are the victims in the here
and now. They underscore, publicize, exaggerate, and grossly distort
any information that supports their aim. They ignore that which does
not.
Feminists are an incorrigibly
mendacious bunch. One is wise to question anything that comes out of
their mouths. The bizarre science within women's studies finds a cousin
in Man made global warming.
When
confronted, they like you sheepishly fold into a further body of lies;
paying lipservice to any valid point with the proverbial lie, "but we
seek equality."
You are a coward, Bowerman. Hoff
Summers exposed the MANiacal underpinnings and practices of feminism a
long time ago. Most women will have nothing to do with the utopic
Island of Lesbos and Gaia worship.
Gary Marshall
Feb 23
2010
4:26 AM
@Denis and the CEEB: I am taking great pains to
refrain from a celebratory little dribble of 20 year old single malt
scotch so I can remain focused on the Canadian Ice Dance champs on in a
few moments.
Most assuredly this is a cause for wondering what
has happened in the CBC censor's office. Surely the Ombudsman is not
having an impact after all the complaints he has received.
I'll
just have a peak at the bottle instead.
Posts
