Archive for October, 2007|Monthly archive page

Need a good laugh?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Need a good laugh?

Need a good laugh?
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Talk about desperation. How do Feminists attempt to combat the marriage strike and IMBRA? With propaganda, of course. The gig is up.
Feminist = Misandry

Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand

Science Daily — Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan’s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.

Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

* Reference: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm

———————-

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

10-15-2007 10:22 PM

Re: Need a good laugh?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
if some of the participants in the survey were online, how are we to determine which are “sexually attractive” and which ones aren’t ? a 400 lb mexican could easily take the survey and pass himself or herself off as a playboy model. OH I GET IT ! they let audience members on the OPRAH SHOW determine which ones are attractive. this might work in movies or fantasy islands, but not in the real world. pseudoscience from a bunch of pseudomales. get a real job Rudman and Phelan and get back into the kitchen.

10-17-2007 12:05 AM

Re: Need a good laugh?
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
And the Feminist Propaganda Continues ….

The two researchers for the cited study are … FEMINISTS!

Don’t fall for this BS guys!

Can feminism help your love life?

If the words of some of our more, er, enthusiastic commenters are to be believed, women who identify themselves as feminists must have pretty crappy romantic lives. I mean, aren’t we all ugly, unshaven man-haters, the sorts of women who would spit on a guy if he so much as opened a door for us?

The simple response to that question would just be “No.” But today, dear readers, I can actually offer you scientific proof that not all self-proclaimed feminists are lonely, man-hating trolls! A study that’s to be published in Springer’s Sex Roles says that “feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships,” according to this press release. They’ve got to be kidding, right?

Nope. Rutgers researchers Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan surveyed 242 American undergraduates and 289 older adults and looked at men’s and women’s “perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction” (to quote the press release). And guess what they found? Women who said their guys had feminist beliefs had “healthier” relationships. Men who had feminist partners reported “more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.”

I know what you’re thinking: How can a man report sexual satisfaction with an ugly, man-hating lesbian? To answer this question, Rudman and Phelan decided to examine stereotypes of feminists, too, to see how well they matched up with reality. Were the stereotypes to be true, Rudman and Phelan asserted that feminists would be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian or sexually unattractive. But guess what? They didn’t. In fact, women describing themselves as feminists were actually more likely to report being in heterosexual relationships than those who didn’t identify with the “f” word.

So it looks like we’ve got it all wrong, folks. Feminists don’t actually hate men — they just have a sense of self-worth and a desire for equality in their relationships. When the heterosexual ones are paired up with guys who also believe that women and men are equal, their relationships work better. Who’d have thunk. Let’s hope that Rudman and Phelan can help answer other pressing questions, like whether feminists really do buy bras just to burn them, and whether these feminist-loving men are actually gay.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/10/16/feminist_love/index.html

—————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

10-18-2007 12:27 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women’s Infidelity


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women’s Infidelity

Women’s Infidelity
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
http://www.womensinfidelity.com/community/index.php

——————————

Women’s relationships today follow a very predictable pattern:

*They push men for commitment
*They get what they want
*They lose interest in sex
*They become attracted to someone else
*They start cheating
*They become angry and resentful
*They begin telling their partners that they need time apart
*They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.

If you’re a male, like most other males, you would probably never suspect that your partner is cheating, not only because of your wife’s or girlfriend’s seeming disinterest in sex; but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.” Unfortunately, males are frequently left/divorced by their wives and girlfriends without ever knowing about their wives’ and girlfriends’ infidelities.

If you’re a female, like most other females, prior to cheating on your partner you always proclaimed yourself to be “not the type” who would ever cheat. However, also like most other females, after they have cheated, you’re shocked and appalled by your behavior; but at the same time you can’t stop cheating.

Women’s relationships and marriages will continue to follow this same pattern unless we develop an accurate understanding of females – particularly in regard to their sexuality. In fact, after researching women’s sexuality for more than ten years, I can honestly say that most of our societal beliefs about females are grossly distorted and many are completely erroneous.

The media has finally begun to acknowledge, albeit to a small degree, the widespread problem of female infidelity. Recently, several books and articles have attempted to explain why women are now cheating as much as men. However, none were successful in their attempt. All of them left out very important pieces to this extremely complicated puzzle. I believe the majority were simply unable to find all of the information necessary to figure out the problem. Although, I’m certain that some were just afraid to disclose certain key pieces of information because the truth, quite frankly, is so contrary to our current beliefs. Unfortunately, without these missing pieces, it’s impossible to understand, and to subsequently fix, the real problem occurring in relationships today.

My story:

Shortly after my 27th birthday, I began to feel very different. I had been happily married for 4 years and then, suddenly out of nowhere, I began feeling bored and unhappy. In an attempt to figure out what was causing my unhappiness, I looked for answers in books, tried to talk to my Mother and eventually went to see a psychologist. All of the information I received attributed the way I was feeling to my husband, and similar to the majority of women, I began to view my husband as the culprit too.

Currently, women are initiating 70 – 75% of all divorces

Later, through my own research, I discovered that what I was experiencing was quite normal. In fact, women are the most likely to divorce in their late twenties and thirties after an average of 4 years of marriage. During this time, it’s quite common for women to experience a pre-midlife crisis, which is similar to the male midlife crisis, only with an important difference – a difference that can actually make women more likely to cheat than men.

The “stages” that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships

Several years into my research I was able to identify distinctive patterns and behaviors in the women I interviewed. I categorized these into four separate “stages” that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships. The stages begin with a loss of sexual desire.

Stage 1

Women at Stage 1 feel as though something is missing in their lives. They have all the things that they wanted—a home, a family, a great husband—but they feel they should be happier. Over time, many women in this stage begin to lose interest in sex. It is not uncommon for them to spend a great deal of energy trying to avoid physical contact with their husbands because they fear it might lead to a sexual encounter. They frequently complain of physical ailments to avoid having sex and often try to avoid going to bed at the same time as their husbands. They view sex as a job, not unlike doing the dishes or going to the grocery store. Some women in Stage 1 claim they feel violated when their husbands touch them. Their bodies freeze up and they feel tightness in their chest and/or a sick feeling in their stomach. The majority of women in Stage 1 feel as though there is something wrong with them, that they are in some way defective. They are also fearful that their disinterest in sex will cause their husbands to cheat, or worse yet, leave them.

Stage 2

Women at Stage 2 experience reawakened desire stimulated by an encounter outside the marital relationship. Whether these encounters with a “new” man involves sex or remain platonic, women will typically give a tremendous amount of emotional significance to these encounters.

Many women in this stage haven’t felt any sexual desire for a long time. Many experience tremendous guilt and regret, regardless of whether their new relationships are sexual, merely emotional, or both. Most begin to experience what could be termed an identity crisis—even those who try to put the experience behind them. Constant reminders are everywhere. They feel guilt when the topic of infidelity arises, whether in the media, in conversations with family and friends, or at home with their husbands. Women in this stage can no longer express their prior disdain for infidelity without feeling like a hypocrite. They feel as though they have lost a part of themselves. Reflecting society’s belief that women are either “good” or “bad,” women will question their “good girl” status and feel that they might not be deserving of their husbands. Many will try to overcome feelings of guilt by becoming more attentive toward and appreciative of their husbands. However, over time many women will move from appreciation to justification. In order to justify their continued desire for other men, women will begin to attribute these desires to needs that are not being met in their marriage, or to their husband’s past behavior. Many women will become negative and sarcastic when speaking of their husbands and their marriages and it is not uncommon for an extramarital affair to follow.

Stage 3

Women at Stage 3 are involved in affairs, ending affairs, or contemplating divorce. Women who are having affairs experience feelings unlike anything they have experienced before. They feel “alive” again and many believe they have found their soul mates. These women are experiencing feelings associated with a chemically altered state, or what is typically referred to as being in love.

These women are also typically in tremendous pain, the pain of choosing between their husbands and their new love interests. They typically believe that what they are doing is wrong and unfair to their husbands, but yet are unable to end their affairs. Many often try several times. Prior to meeting with their lovers, they will vow that it will be the last time, but they are unable to stick with their decisions.

Unable to end their extramarital relationships, women at Stage 3 conclude that their lovers are soul mates because they are unaware that they have become addicted to the high caused by chemicals released during the initial stages of a relationship. Many live in a state of limbo for years. “Should I stay married or should I get a divorce?” this is the question continuously on the minds of women at Stage 3 – it is also common for women at this stage to attempt to initiate a separation. In most cases, husbands of women at Stage 3, will launch futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house. Regardless of women’s past and present complaints, the last thing women at Stage 3 want, is to spend more time with their husbands.

The reason many women will give for their desire to separate is a “search for self.” They convince their husbands that they might be able to save their marriage if they can just have time to themselves. They tell their husbands that time apart is the only hope of improving their current situation. Women at this stage want to free themselves of the restrictions of marriage and spend more time with their lovers. Most think that eventually their confusion will disappear. They think they will eventually know with certainty whether they want to stay married or get divorced and be with their lovers. Separation allows women at this stage, to enjoy the high they experience with their lovers without giving up the security of their marriages. Husbands of Stage 3 women are often unaware that their wives are having affairs. Their lack of suspicion is typically due to their wife’s disinterest in sex and in their belief that their wife is a “good girl.”

Women at Stage 3 may also be experiencing the ending of an extramarital affair, and the ending may not have been their decision. They may have been involved with single men who either lost interest because the relationship could not progress or who became attracted to another women who was single. Women whose affairs are ending often experience extreme grief. They may become deeply depressed and express tremendous anger toward their husbands. They are typically unaware that they are experiencing chemical withdrawal due to sudden changes in their brain chemistry. As a result, many will feel that they have missed their chance at happiness due to their indecisiveness.

Believing they have become more aware of what they want and need from a mate, women at this stage will often place the utmost importance on finding a “new” relationship that will give them the feeling they experienced in their affairs. A new relationship with a new partner will also represent a clean slate, a chance for these women to regain their “good girl” status. Some women will search for new partners during their separations. Others will return to their marriages, but not emotionally and still continue to search. Some women will resume sporadic sexual relations with their husbands in an effort to safeguard their marriage until they make a decision. Although they are often not sexually attracted to their husbands, desire is temporarily rekindled when they suspect their husbands are unfaithful, are contemplating infidelity, or when their husbands show signs of moving on.

Stage 4

The women in stage four included those who chose to stay married and continue their affairs and those who chose to divorce. Some of the women who continued their affairs stated that marital sex was improved by maintaining the extramarital relationship. Some thought the lover was a soul mate, but for one reason or another did not leave their husband and did not feel torn between the two. Others realized that their feelings were intensified by not sharing day-to-day living arrangements with their lover. Almost all of the women in this latter category were having affairs with married men. They believed their affairs could continue indefinitely without disrupting either partner’s primary relationship.

The women who chose divorce and were in the beginning stages of a new relationship typically expressed relief at having finally made a decision and reported feeling normal again. Many of the divorced women who had remarried and were several years into their new marriages seemed somewhat reluctant to talk about the specifics of their past experiences. However, they did mention feelings of guilt and regret for having hurt their children and ex-spouses only to find themselves experiencing similar feelings in the new relationship.

Female infidelity will not only continue to be extremely common but it will also continue to be on the rise women’s infidelity

Women are cheating and relationships are ending because men and women lack necessary information. Today’s relationship problems are not only solvable, but many can be easily solved – once you understand what the real problem is. The information in Women’s Infidelity should be common knowledge to couples, both married and unmarried, and to dating males and females. Trying to have a relationship today without the information in this book is like to trying to read without knowing the letters of the alphabet. This is not an exaggeration – it’s a fact.

—————————-

http://womensinfidelity.com/

______________________________

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

10-09-2007 07:56 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

h t t p://www.dont-marry.com


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – h t t p://www.dont-marry.com

h t t p://www.dont-marry.com
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur
h t t p://www.dont-marry.com

10-09-2007 12:59 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

h t t p://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – h t t p://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com

h t t p://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur
http://www.dontgetmarried.proboards75.com

http://www.dont-marry.com

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 10-02-2007 02:07 PM

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 10-02-2007 02:08 PM

10-02-2007 02:05 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

This week’s Gender issues.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – This week’s Gender issues.

This week’s Gender issues.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Since the Forum has become somewhat inactive. Michael Noer has done a huge service to both Genders by articulating reality. I have decided to post a synopsis of the important highlights of both the culture and News Events for those who have an interest in Feminism, Relationships, and the Gender War. Mary Winkler the convicted Murderer of her Husband the Pastor from TN, who was angered by her Nigerian Check Scam Fraud. Was released from Jail for serving less than two months. She murdered him in cold Blood by shooting him in the back. She pleaded Domestic Abuse. This despite denials by her 9 year old Daughter who said Her Mother lied. Men’s Activists refer to this as the **bleep** Pass. Meaning the extreme double standard of justice for the Genders. The Federal Government is now enforcing restrictions on US Men who owe back Child Support from obtaining a Passport. Apparently only Men are targetted. This is discrimination Per Se. Britney Spears has been photographed topless with her Former Assistant. Raising speculation that she is Bi-Sexual. She has alot of issues, substance abuse, mental stability, anger issues etc. Meanwhile Lindsey Lohan does rehab in Utah. John Edwards wife Elizabeth claims there needs to be Affirmative Action for White Men in the Democratic Primary race. Meaning Women and Minorities have an advantage. I guess they caught the Patriarchy on Vacation or worse yet… Sleeping. The tragedy of the Utah Underground Miners and death of Three of their Rescuers yesterday. Highlights the Death Professions or Glass Cellar Jobs. Jobs that pay well but are so hazardous or dangerous that only Men will do them. Often at great cost. A Father holding his infant daughter was Tasered by a Hospital Security Guard a day or so ago. He dropped his daughter as a result.

08-17-2007 03:13 PM

Re: This week’s Gender issues.
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

khank, I wonder what on earth makes men go out and do those jobs and put their lives on the line? to put food on their family’s table? Why men, as a gender, are such naive and gullible suckers, aren’t they? Why not just go on a big nice strike and dump all those mines and sewage systems and garbage collection and firefighting, and plumbing and roofing, etc, etc and hand them over to the oppressed womyn who, due to the world-wide male conspiracy, are mising out on such glorious careers?
I think men have to nobody but themselves to blame for doing nothing better about their problems than keep being silent robots (I mean idiots).
regards

08-21-2007 11:36 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

NAACP admits no Crime in Durham


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – NAACP admits no Crime in Durham

NAACP admits no Crime in Durham
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The President of the NAACP admits that the NC NAACP Chapter erred in its accusations against the Three (3) Duke LaCrosse Players. That there was in fact no crime committed at all against Ms. Rivers aka. Crystal Gail Magnum. That still has brought no apology from the Group of 88 Miscreants of Duke, aka. the Professors who called for the expulsion of the players. Despite the facts. Our Colleges are bastions of Anti male Hatred. To the Credit of many African Americans they realize they were used by discredit DA Nifong who has been disbarred and is facing Prison for his Criminal Behavior. When will Ms. Rivers be held accountable??? NEVER. Not in FemAmerica where all Men who desire Straight Women are Rapists. Any Sex that is not satisfactory to American Females is Rape. The Best strategy is to leave them alone. Until they demand the Misandric Laws be changed. Women cannot shame us into Loving Them, Marrying Them, or having a Relationship with them. What is truly sad is that in this Vale of Tears. Women have decided to embrace Lesbianism and the hatred of Men. To criminalize our natural attraction to them. And to betray us. Feminism and its hatred of Men. Will Liberate Men from Marriage. US Women can thank Feminists for Men refusing to Marry and have children with them. In fact Last year 12% of US Marriages were to Foreign Women. And with 22% of US Men refusing to every Marry. That is one third of US Men saying No to American Women. Ladies are you listening??? Do you want to end up alone with your Cats?? If so keep listening to Oprah, Katie, Barbara Walters, Connie Chung, Diane Sawyer. They do not care if you are happy. They have an agenda and your happiness is not a part of it.

08-13-2007 06:44 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Is finding a foreigner a better idea?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is finding a foreigner a better idea?

Is finding a foreigner a better idea?
josephstevens7
Contributor
josephstevens7

The trend in people marrying women from foreign countries is exploding, and with good reason.  The traditional American lifestyle has become more illusive with more women entering the workplace, and becoming obsessed with their careers.  Do you want to learn Spanish to explore the opportunities of the countries of the 3rd most spoken language in the world?  It is worth a shot.

07-18-2007 01:16 PM

Re: Is finding a foreigner a better idea?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Since January I have been meeting with Venture Capitalists, Bankers, Lawyers and Accountants. What I have found interesting is how many High Earning, High Net Worth Men are married to Foreign Women. They have had one Divorce and said Hell No to American Women. Even refusing to date them. Most of these Men earn over $450,000 a year. Many are Executives, VC Principals and are not willing to subject themselves to the same BS they have dealt with AW. The human being is basically the same everywhere. What is different is the expectation and culture of Foreign Women. They do not have a “Chip on the Shoulder”. They do not See Men as Sexual Criminals. They appreciate Male Attention and are not hostile. American and Western Women are into Thugs, Criminals, and Bad Boys. The worst type of Men for a Stable life. Our young Celeb Women are Whores. Sluts who are addicted to Drugs, attention, and who are completely self absorbed. They are in fact unfit to breed. Example abound, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton. All are Attention Whores. All have substance abuse issues. If Lindsey Lohan does not get help she will end up like Chris Farley. And our Media worships Bi-Sexual Actresses like Angelina Jolie. Our culture is sick and debased. This is not a life script worth emulating. Look at Ana Nicole and the train wreck of a short life she led. She was a Whore. And died from substance abuse and neglect. Fools Gold shines like the real thing but it is not gold.

08-13-2007 06:56 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’

Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
There’s hope for Career Chixs!

————-

The psychologist who gave birth to twin boys at age 60 said Thursday she was on a mission to let women know they have choices.

“It’s really basically about women and empowerment,” Frieda Birnbaum told NBC’s “Today” show.

Birnbaum, who underwent in-vitro fertilization last year at a South African clinic that specializes in older women, gave birth by Caesarean section on Tuesday at Hackensack University Medical Center.

“I don’t feel like I went through a lot of trauma during delivery or even through the process of being pregnant,” Birnbaum said.

The hospital said she was the nation’s oldest mother of twins.

“Age has been redefined,” Birnbaum said.

Continued …

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/twins_at60

————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-24-2007 12:40 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women in/out the workplace


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women in/out the workplace

Women in/out the workplace
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every **bleep** time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to f*ck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2007/05/women-inout-workplace.html

———–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-22-2007 09:07 PM

Re: Women in/out the workplace
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

I recently purchased a large television at a store.  When the female retail salesperson found out which one I wanted, she immediately called upon a male associate to get the television for her.  She could not lift it.

If she can’t lift it, then the male associate deserves more pay than her …

Otherwise, this is not equal pay for equal work.

05-23-2007 12:53 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs

Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs
As More Freeze, Debate Expands

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 13, 2007; A01

As the number of women delaying motherhood continues to rise, many fertility clinics are starting to offer a new service that allows them to freeze some of their eggs to buy more time on their biological clocks.

At least 138 clinics are freezing and banking eggs — more than double the number three years ago, according to one count. Hundreds of women have frozen their eggs so far, and the numbers are increasing dramatically, experts say.

“I think we’re sitting at that tipping point between technology that is quasi-experimental and tipping over into fairly widespread use,” said David A. Grainger, president of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which represents fertility clinics. “It’s one of the most exciting areas in our field right now.”

The popularity of egg-freezing is driven by advances that have boosted the chances of having a baby using thawed eggs and intensifying demand from childless women in their 30s. But the trend has sparked intense debate about whether the technology is ready for wider use and whether society is ready for its impact.

Proponents say egg-freezing could save many women from the wrenching disappointment of running out of time to bear their own children, marking a profound step toward freeing them from some of the constraints imposed by biology.

“In the same way the birth control pill gave women in the ’70s a whole new set of options, I think egg-freezing can do the same with this new generation of women — giving them more control over their fertility and giving them more options,” said Christy Jones of Extend Fertility Inc., of Woburn, Mass., which markets egg-freezing for clinics.

Continued ….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201610_pf.html

————

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-17-2007 11:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men

The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
New Feminist Term For Cohabitating, Non-Marriage Couples.

Nonmarital Relationships: Property and Debt Division (applies specifically to Washington State)

ulrich-inferno.blogspot.com/2007/02/meretricious-relationship.html
nwwlc.org/publications/family/nonmarital_relationships3-05.pdf

This article from the Northwest Women’s Law Center shows why cohabitation is a terrible idea. Joining the Marriage Strike is not enough to prevent a woman from plundering your assets with the assistance of the Judicial System. In states that do not recognize common law marriage, the courts have devised a creative way to separate a man from his hard-earned money. Behold, the meretricious relationship.

There are no set standards to determine if a meretricious relationship exists, nor is it limited to being between a man and woman. Basically, a meretricious relationship exists wherever the courts decide it does, and they have a whole lot of latitude in making that decision. While cohabitation is one of the factors that has been used in the past to show that a meretricious relationship exists, it’s kind of scary that cohabitation isn’t necessary for such a relationship to exist.

So what happens if the court finds that you are party to a meretricious relationship? Pumpkin gets a claim on the division of your assets. The pillage of your net worth is supposed to be “just and equitable” (which it isn’t), but it isn’t even required to be an equal split. Again, the courts have a wide degree of latitude in deciding how much of your stuff you get to keep. Divorce Court is probably a good place to look if you want to see what the courts consider “just and equitable”.

It’s bad enough that men are being terrorized by draconian sexual harassment laws in the workplace, now we face the threat of meretricious relationships and judicial activism in our private lives. It took thirty or forty years for men to spread the word about the kangaroo divorce courts. I hope it doesn’t take that long to recognize the threat posed by meretricious relationships. As the Marriage Strike continues to spread, I think we’ll be hearing a lot more about meretricious relationships in the future.

—————

Washington Cohabitation FAQ’s
By Law Offices of Raj Bains, P.S.C.

Published: July 17, 2004

1. My ex-girlfriend lived in my home for the past seven years. We broke up two months ago. Yesterday, I was served papers claiming that we had a meretricious relationship, whatever that is. In her lawsuit, she wants half the equity in my house. She can’t be serious, can she?
She is serious, and you should be too. Under her theory of meretricious relationship, your ex-girlfriend is seeking an equitable distribution of the assets acquired during your relationship. In other words, she wants her share of whatever was accumulated while the two of you were together.

2. But we weren’t married. What is a meretricious relationship anyway?
A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist.

3. I can agree with that. We knew we weren’t married. How does a court determine whose relationship is meretricious and whose is not?
There is no precise formula to determine if a relationship is a meretricious one. Courts will generally review the following non-exclusive list of relevant factors:

(a) continuous cohabitation;
(b) duration of the relationship;
(c) purpose of the relationship;
(d) pooling of resources and services for joint projects; and
(e) intent of the parties.

4. Say that the court looks at the factors and decides that we have a meretricious relationship. What happens next?
Once a court determines the existence of a meretricious relationship, then it will evaluate the interest each party had in the property accumulated during the relationship and make a just and equitable distribution of it.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/washington/wa_faq12
—————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-17-2007 12:22 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
barron55
Contributor
barron55

As a guy who has seen alot over the course of my life, I think the biggest mistake this country made which was in lock step with modern feminism is the abolishment of traditional marriage to “no fault” which allows the unfettered pillaging of a mans assets should his relationships or marriage fail. To make matters worse, this empowers the lesser of the assets to plunder the estates of the wealthy and they need no reason to justify it. Only the time clock that was run on the marriage or relationship no matter how outrageous the behavior. Time and again you read the stories of women who marry into wealth, pop a few kids, then at year ten or so, pull the plug and turn the guys life upside down as they take the kids, keep the house, pillage the assets to atleast 50% and require the man to pay outrageous child support payments far beyond what is reasonable. Custody awards are virtually automatic to the woman unless the guy can prove that she is an absolute deranged mom. ( That usually means she has to be hooked on serious drugs ).  In the meantime, she can move in her current back door man who she’d been fu—-g for the last couple of years why you were hard at work to support her and the kids. Get it? It’s NO FAULT DIVORCE! This is great for the lawyers as well, as they can most surely ignite a huge fight in court to further plunder and bleed the assets down. What a deal, eh? No accountability in the marriage has to be defended. Remember the occasional stories of the guy that goes biserk and one day “for no reason” committs mass murder and suicide on his family then himself? That’s the way the media reports the story. If you look allittle closer, you find that in most of these cases, the woman was about to file for divorce and use the feminized court system to castrate her husband, both emotionally and financially. If the proceedings were “equitable” and the guys could see a future for themselves, or if the injustices of the marriage were truly addressed and used to determine asset distribution, you can bet alot of this ten years and pull the plug BS would stop, as these feminist, controlling, selfish pimpesses would soon see that using a guy in this manner for self gain without respect for the man would fail and they could end up with little or nothing from their abhorent behaviors and self serving descretions.

It is no wonder many guys don’t want to risk having their hard earned assets exposed to this kind of racket. The only defense to any of it nowadays is the prenuptial agreement. This is effective in most states if done right, but I’m told the liberal courts are squirming in their seats looking for ways to justify throwing these agreements out as well, and even if you have one, family law has been crafted around the agreements with respect to having children that again, gives the court the power to tell the guy to again, pull down his pants and bend over. He will still be getting a significant stuffing of the preverbial ” equitable and just ” green hog inserted with very little lubricant.

06-16-2007 07:37 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Prenuptial agreements don’t work. They’re routinely thrown out by family court judges (scumbags).

Pre-nups don’t stop false sex abuse charges.

Pre-nups don’t stop imputed child support payments beyond a man’s ability to pay.

Pre-nups don’t enforce visitation.

Pre-nups don’t reduce suicides.

See the discussion here for more:

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1182163586

——————————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

06-20-2007 01:50 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
barron55
Contributor
barron55

BackToTheKitchen: What you are saying about child support, ect. is all true. This is one way that liberal judge scumbags get around prenups. They simply require outrageous child support payments be made so that the guy often has to begin liquidating hard earned assets to pay. And, of course, all domestic violence/ abuse laws were written (by man hating femnazis with the help of spineless male lackey politicians who deserve to be thrown out of office and jailed for derilection of office) as control mechanisms to subdue resistant men to the outrageous behavior of their femnazi wives who want total control or are going to divorce.

Another trap that judges like to use to get around prenups is any comingling of assets. They use this and reason the guy “intended” on giving half of anything shared to the ex whether that was his intent or not. Like I’ve heard many say: ” No kind act or deed in mariage goes unpunished in divorce”. Being kind or gifting anything to a spouse becomes an obligation of the guy to the spouse to pay on forever, and any asset not listed on a prenup aquired during a marriage becomes a “marital asset” regardless if the spouse pays for a dime of it to aquire or not, and is therefore subject to division of property in divorce. No wonder so many women start making demands on their husbands to spend and incurr debt early on in the marriage to aquire real property and physical assets.Like I’ve said before, this just increases all the goodies that the bitc* can take during a divorce, like an expensive house, cars, furniture, china, ect. Oh and lest I forget, if the marital debts are high at the time of divorce, even though the spouse is saddled with paying half of that, the scumbag judges frequently take that into account as well and require a stiff enough support payment to the ex, that it will cover her payments to be made, so in reality, the guy is made to pay one way or the other. It’s what it is. A total sham and fraudelent proceeding that robs a guy blind. A feminazid court system. It’s time to end the outrageous inequities.

06-21-2007 03:28 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Another Day, Another Whore Story!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Another Day, Another Whore Story!

Another Day, Another Whore Story!
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2007/05/another-day-another-whore-story.html

After doing a little internet searching, I found a very whorific whore story which needs to get more exposure for men to read because this story hasn’t received the attention it needs to get.

This story was posted by The Black Misogynist

http://black-misogynist.blogspot.com/2007/04/amazing.html

A co-worker has been in the process of divorcing her husband for the past few months. Since you can’t really avoid hearing the latest gossip without getting a referral from your friendly HR department(who knew brushing fellow employees off to focus on work was a bad thing?) I’ve had no choice but to know all about drama it is giving this woman. As somebody else I’ve told about this put it so well a few weeks back, ” She almost makes you never want to marry doesn’t it?”

Amen. You see, She is divorcing her husband not because he has been a bad husband or father but because she just doesn’t want to be married to him anymore.

Yes. It seems that is all that is needed for a divorce nowadays. In fact, She never loved him to begin with he was just an easy way out and away from her parents when she was younger and he helped her though school. Now, Here is where the “amazing” part comes up. You would think everybody around her would see an issue with admitting that you married some guy out of convenience to yourself only.Well, Only a few did. Most just nodded their heads in approval and how she is “doing” the right thing.

Can’t really disagree with that however. It is the “right” thing to do. Would have been even more of the “right” thing to do if she never married him in the first place. How is the institution of marriage not considered nothing more than a joke at this point? Only a few guys can hear her story and think “that is so completely wrong” nowadays? Don’t know about anybody else but it sure shows me my place in the scheme of things. Me, As a man. Is only really here to be used and make life easier for some woman? Worse yet is that people get shocked at the fact that I think it is bull**bleep**. That is where my “misogynist” tag comes from?

I haven’t even got to the worse part of it all.

She doesn’t want him to pay child support for the kid that was born while they were married. If you noticed the wording I used you won’t need to know why but I’ll answer anyway. She is scared that he would have ask for a paternity test.

Yes, She doesn’t think the kid is his. There was a time where that would have gave you a big ol’ “whore” stamp on your forehead. But I guess times are changing as somebody actually tried to convince her to go ahead and try for child support anyway! On the basis that he is another of a father he still should take care of his daughter. Another one chimed in that she should give him a guilt trip if he tries to get a DNA test. After all he should have trust in her if he wasn’t some “**bleep**” jerk. That he should WANT to pay. Not only for the kid he thinks is his. But also for the one she had before they got married. Yea, she was a single teenage mother when he married her. Knew each other throughout high school. Got together their senior year. His parents helped her get though college even. Hell of a scam she ran on that poor guy and his family.

I would bet good money that I already know what kind of guy he was back then and might still be now. Your standard understanding “nice guy” who probably stood at the sidelines while she got banged by the thug who knocked her up and finally got his chance afterwards and was happy for it. The fate of guys who show they give a **bleep** it seems.

Amazing is it not? However blatant it seems to be. It is still wrong to point at times like this and say “This shows what marriage is really about now” yet you will still be ignored by the masses.

Indeed, Pointing out crap like this is where my “misogynist” tag came from. That is amazing. For something to be so blatant yet still not be acknowledged?

And people wonder why I don’t see any true reason to get married.

————

Now for the comment section.

Here is a comment left by Taras:

Yup, once again this story shows the place nice guys have in this declining and dying society. Convenient ATM’s and babysitters who unwittingly raise thugboyz kids and usually are none the wiser. This saga is one more example why men who do the right thing, who give a **bleep**, who are not a thug or player ought to avoid women and marriage. In this freak show that passes for a society, why should normal guys join the bedlam and chaos or add to it? Normal men have every reason to withdraw from and ultimately tear down the society that oppresses them. It won’t take organized violence on our part, it only takes enough of us to say NO to women, marriage and having kids with women who screw up their lives and expect us to be their Capt. Save a Ho like that silly AFLAC commercial.

Here is a comment left by flint’s gunner:

I’m only 36 and I’m looking around asking “What the hell just happened to America!?” The author of this piece is entirely correct: any man who allows himself to be suckered into a vow simply does not have all the facts. Every man needs to be shouting this from the rooftops! Hey, guess what feminists, the jig is up. You can take your Matriarchix and cram it.

————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-17-2007 09:29 AM

Re: Another Day, Another Whore Story!
barron55
Contributor
barron55

Yes, and this is just part of the ongoing story. Around the country about the time the Clintons were first in office, many feminist, man hating legislators around the country passed into to law what is referred to in most states as “The Domestic Violence Act Against Women”. This act, in conjunction with “No Fault” divorce law gives women the ultimate power over men in domestic relationships.

It basically is a “shell” created over the already existent and adequate domestic abuse laws that gives women all kinds of perks that empower them and encourage them to end their “abusive” relationships with their men. The packages include publicly paid for victims assistance programs and programs that “snare” the abusive guy. Snaring is the deliberate entrapment of the man through the involvement of law enforcement. So when and if the relationship goes sour, instead of fixing it ( which feminists have never been interested in ) when the feminist pulls the plug on the marriage, ( often exposing the outrageous reasons or behavior for initiating the divorce, and knowing the anger that will result when the guy learns he has just had his ass handed to him on his own silver platter ) she fears she will need a control mechanism to get the guy out of the house and keep her “safe”. So the magic bullet is to call 911 and claim any sort of domestic abuse. This can be as minor as claiming the guy pushed, shoved, or threatened the feminist. Then, law enforecement will come out and arrest the guy whether he did anything or not. You see, it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters. We have to keep the feminist safe. So the guy goes to jail, gets charged with domestic abuse, then gets released. End of story? Not quite. The guy is now on the wrong side of the law, and since he has now been charged with a domestic abuse crime, he is now automatically restrained from speaking to the soon to be ex, and can no longer go back to his home or come within 100 ft. of her. Problem now solved for the feminist who knew all along she was using the guy for his money. And the guy, with an automatic restraining order that can jail him for 90 days or longer on a first violation? He dare not approach or say a thing to the feminist that’s about to steal 50% or more of his assets. In addition, the charge leveled against the guy becomes a serious sludge hammer that the feminist uses against him in divorce court for a nice, big pay off!

These are real stories, guys. And don’t get me wrong. There is such a thing as true domestic abuse, and there has been unwarranted attacks on women in some bad marriages. But what I’m saying is that old laws before this act were adequate to protect women against true abuse. This new act was another example of extreme overreach by liberal, feminist, man haters and is an extreme example of a power grab to help enforce the indefensible conduct of rotten women who use men for their own personal financial gain. Guys, this trashy, self serving piece of legislation was crafted by liberal left wing women. The women Democrats in your individual states were responsible for its’ passage, and the liberal media looked the other way without exposing any of the plentiful unjust assumptions and conditions placed upon men.

06-16-2007 09:31 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Men = ATMs


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Men = ATMs

Men = ATMs
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
“Men’s contribution to the family is really nothing more than a few moments of pleasure 9 months before birth and then years of making the money it takes to finance the resulting kids. Men should keep to their traditional role, which is to be the family’s ATM machine, nothing more. Men have their careers, their work. Women have their kids. And this is why men don’t have many rights when it comes to divorce and subsequent custody/visitation arrangements. They just are not needed when it comes to taking care of children, right?

In saying that, though, I do think the whole “You are getting something that I don’t get” argument from those who remain childless is evidence of what is wrong with our society. To whine because you think that someone else is getting a benefit that you don’t get reflects a selfish attitude. If you feel so aggrieved, go home and be thankful that your life isn’t tainted by having to take care of a bunch of sick kids or some such thing.”

http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2007/05/men-atms.html

—————

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-16-2007 04:59 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Ultimate Weapon – Living well


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Ultimate Weapon – Living well

The Ultimate Weapon – Living well
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Women, especially those career chick American women, hate men that live well without them. American career chick women that I know, seem to constantly devise schemes and such to draw me into their miserable lives, but I just ignore them and continue about doing the things I want to in life and living well. I am sure I am not the exception to this, with American career chick women trying to sucker some other man into their miserable world of cats, television, and awful attitudes that don’t attract men – and they wonder why they are single?

By living well, you will also find that certain men will hate you too (this is called jealousy), but who cares, they have crap jobs as some type of salary man at big corporation X or what not, to support some nagging, abusive, demeaning wife under threat of divorce and losing it all or some ex-wife via alimony and child support, or have to put up with some b*tch American girlfriend, but you go home to peace and quite, enjoying a fine cigar and cognac, contemplating what country to visit next in your pursuit of being a world traveler and connoisseur extraordinaire.

You might entertain thoughts of having a family or kids, but then you look around at those that do here in the US, and realize, you won’t be getting off at that stop. Wait for it, plenty of women in world, plenty of countries, pick a place you find that has good laws supporting men’s rights and family and such, and pitch your tent there if you so desire a family. In the meantime, live well, for every second you do such, you are giving the middle finger to countless people around you caught up in the system as well as the system itself, and you remain free. Indeed, as they say, living well is the best revenge.

————-

Message Edited by Back2TheKitchen on 05-15-200705:52 PM

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-15-2007 08:50 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The decline of motherhood


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The decline of motherhood

The decline of motherhood
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
The decline of motherhood
As we celebrate Mother’s Day, we should pause to consider the social factors that keep more and more women from having children

Margret Kopala
The Ottawa Citizen
http://tinyurl.com/29cg2j

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Hiking along the northern reaches of British Columbia’s Sunshine Coast last week, my sister and I passed by the home of a woman recently taken by cancer. As dignified deaths go, it was exemplary. Predeceased by her husband, her care was assumed in turns by her four grown children. She died peacefully, surrounded by them and her beloved ocean views.

For the generation that’s brought Canada’s fertility rate to below replacement levels, such idylls can only become increasingly rare. With 1.5 children per couple, our best hope is a quiet death in a clean facility where the immigrant workers speak our language. And that’s only the human face of demographic decline. The economic face is hardly more appealing: unfilled labour markets, reduced GDP and no tax revenues to pay for health care — to name a few.

Canada isn’t the only country in this predicament. According to America Alone, Mark Steyn’s self-described and penetrating rant on “demography, Islam and civilizational exhaustion,” the developed world has gone from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of global population. Greece has 1.3 births per couple — the “lowest low” from which no society has ever recovered; Russia, where 60 per cent of pregnancies are terminated, has the fastest-growing rate of HIV in the world and, by 2050, 60 per cent of Italians will have no brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts or uncles. In the developed world, only the United States, with a 2.1 birth rate, is replacing itself.

How did it come to this? In Canada, one answer is infertility. This affects one in every 15 Canadian couples (in Britain one in six are affected), who spend some $30 million a year on in-vitro fertilization alone. Defined as failure to conceive after one year of trying, infertility can result from many factors affecting both males and females, but according to the government of Canada’s Biobasics website, the two biggest factors are delayed childbearing and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Today, mothers giving birth average 29.5 years of age. Since women are born with a given number of eggs that decline in quality and quantity from the age of 30, it is no surprise that for the growing proportion of 30-plus women attempting pregnancy, it is much more difficult to conceive and carry a child.

Compounding the problem, earlier and increased sexual activity means a greater likelihood for contracting gonorrhea or chlamydia. In women, pelvic inflammatory disease and, in turn, blocked fallopian tubes or ectopic pregnancy may result. In men, sterility is possible. According to healthyontario.com, rates of STD infection are up 60 per cent since 1997, with girls between the ages of 15 and 19 incurring the highest rates. In 2003, 20,000 new cases of chlamydia were reported in Canada.

Some infertility problems are preventable, but larger social and economic forces make it difficult. Industrialized food production and environmental degradation are taking their tolls. Most recently, a Harvard School of Public Health study implicated trans fats while another from the University of Rochester has raised yet more questions about hormone-treated beef. Clear connections exist between obesity and ovulatory cysts. Combined with the genetic complications already associated with delayed pregnancies, concerns about the ability of future generations to reproduce are valid. Ominously, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is calling for genetic testing of all pregnant women, not just those over 35.

Nor do infertility statistics take into account those deciding not to have children or those resigned to missing the boat. On this front, Mark Steyn blames the “progressive agenda” — abortion, gay marriage, endlessly deferred adulthood — and he’s right. He doesn’t get into many specifics but they are easily identified. In the U.S., 48.5 million abortions since Roe v. Wade only slightly exceeds the estimated 47 million civilians lost in the Second World War. And, as the University of Calgary’s Rainer Knopf predicted, gay marriage means any public distinction between procreative and non-procreative sexuality is now totally abandoned. The latest sad example? A hero’s welcome on MTV for porn king and intersexual sodomy “expert” Ron Jeremy.

So we pump our young with p i lls, wrap them in condoms and, coming soon, jab them with vaccines hoping to prevent unwanted pregnancies, STDs and, now, cervical cancer. This in the name of denying their capacity for personal responsibility by advocates who wouldn’t shake hands with each other if they had a cold.

In other words, the infantilization continues and the price tag increases. Fertility clinics offer hope, but a growing number of ethicists confirm that any rearguard action by science produces as many problems as it solves. Will Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, newly opened in Vancouver to deal with such problems, also address infertility prevention? Who will?

Universal screening may be the only solution for the STD epidemic. And if smoking can be stigmatized, so can other behaviours. Cleaning up our air, water and food and, while we are at it, the airwaves too, would also help. Those who want pornographic services should be required to fetch them elsewhere.

Parents need meaningful support from civil society as well as government. Housing prices that require two incomes make starting a family untenable — a problem exacerbated by immigration policies that raise real estate prices while ostensibly compensating for the children we aren’t producing. But within one generation, immigrants adopt our reproductive habits.

Oh, and have an especially happy Mother’s Day. Soon, there may be few mothers left to celebrate.

——————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

05-15-2007 06:42 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case

Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
I have not posted here for some time. Recently the Duke LaCrosse case came to a head. When the Attorney General of the state of NC declared the three Athletes “Innocent”. He made the extraordinary steps of stating the evidence showed no Crime of any kind occurred. That the evidence refuted it. These three young Men were verbally lynched, faced three decades of imprisonment.

Like the article that created this board. FemNags refuse to admit that Janette Rivers aka. Crystal Gail Magnum is a lying Whore, Skank, and Criminal. Despite overwhelming evidence that she lied, multiple changes to her story. And finally her candid admission that she cannot recall being penetrated. They refuse to see reality. Their abject hatred for Men is so great, so psychotic, and evil. That they will believe the delusional fantasy of a Gold Digging drugged out Stripper. Who had DNA of 7 Men in her.

The point of False Rape accusations is to criminalize the attraction that Straight Men have for Women. Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the practice. If you are a Feminist, you are being trained to embrace the Lesbian Lifestyle. Men are rejecting Feminists and should if they have any survival instincts left.

04-23-2007 06:59 AM

Re: Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case
barron55
Contributor
barron55

Very well stated, sir. And I would only add that Crystal Gail Magnam needs to be put in jail for perjuring herself and because of the seriousness of her charges ( which the liberal feminist likes to use against men to jail them without propbable cause) she needs to be given a 20 year jail sentence ( or the equivalent of what the African American community demands for hate crimes )  for the horrific pain and suffering she has caused the families of this lie that only a true man hater and whore like her could perpetrate.

06-16-2007 10:06 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters

Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters
BoyTheo
Visitor
BoyTheo
I found this on usenet. It’s a pretty good post actually! It confirms everything we know to be true.

Actually I got part way of feeling like this “guy” did here. The part when he says he was feeling like he was bad and wrong just for having testosterone…. as a teenage boy. That’s how defenceless teenage boys are made to feel, by all the adults and people in society with power over us.

Although that’s where the difference between me and this poster ends. I would never back down on my own gender. I know males have made EVERYTHING good in the world. Who cares what society says, society is evil anyhow. Males have made everything good in the world, and males are stronger, smarter, more creative, and more honest than females. And even though females made me feel bad about being male, I knew these truths even then.

So I decided to fight for what is right, and send their bad negativity back to them instead. This “guy” just caved in and decided to become a woman. I decided to hold my ground, and fight for masculinity.

This *is* a war. Anytime children are harmed by adults in the name of a cause, only a war could be serious enough to try to destroy anyone so innocent and defenceless. And I will always remember that this is a war, because of how early they attacked me. It’s a war they started, and that I will win.

———-

By: Goddess80

I honestly believe that a great majority of American women have become
very much female-chauvinistic. Is it because of extreme feminism? I
have no idea, but here’s why I have these views, and how they pertain
to the large increase of MTF’s transexuals latley.

I’ll start by saying that I am a male-gendered woman. What does that
mean? Simply, I was born a boy and grew up to be a woman. Because I
started transitioning young in life, I pass very well. Now, this also
means one important thing, I’ve lived first as a boy, and now as a
woman.

However, I strongly belive anti-male sexism has subtly forced
transgenderism not only on myself, but many mtf-transexuals latley.
It’s as if, more and more boys are simply chooinsg not to become men.

women have power in simply being women. They’ve always had that power.
Now women will complain about the ‘objectification’ of women in media.
I will tell you, the ‘objectification’ of women has simply amplified
that power. The whole ‘sex-sells’ notion and ‘objectification’ works on
a female’s aesthetic superiority. Yes, women are aesthetically superior
to men, and we are reinforced with these images day after day, hour
after hour, and minute after minute.

Why are we constantly being reinforced with things that make a ‘woman
superior?’ To reinforce anything a man does better in the media is
considered sexist!

Now, besides for whole sex-sells media barrage, there’s basic anti-male
sexism that I’ve dealt with ever since being a young boy. Everything
from feminist teachers, to shows that constantly show bumbling male’s
being rescued from their self-stupidly by female peers(everybody loves
Raymond), to girls ganging up and calling boys stupid without any real
retaliation had really destroyed my self image as a young man.

I’ve had relationships where I did everything for my girlfriend, but
she did NOTHING for me and I was completely whipped. Girls behaved as
if they were owed everything and obligated to nothing, and I accepted
this, as MOST MEN do these days!(I hate to admit the fact that I’ve had
relationships with men, where I’ve acted this way towards them. I
really hate myself for this at times. Maybe I’m that jaded towards how
men let women walk over them that I act this way?)

For most of my adolescent life, I walked around in a state where I felt
as if I had to apologize simply for being male, as if I was a bad
being, simply because I was born with testosterone, and this messed
with my self worth until I simply began fantasizing about being female
instead of male. Anti-male sexism continued to destroy my self-worth as
a male until I finally began taking female-hormones and living full
time as a woman.

Bottom Line: Sex-Sells which constantly reinforces a woman’s
aesthetic superiority combined with constant bombarding of media and
schooling subtly saying ‘woman are smarter and better creatures’ really
destroyed my male image(You mean woman are prettier, and smarter, and
BETTER? Wow, why be a man?) And I’m sure I’m not the only boy who’s
grown up into a woman because of today’s anti-male environment. Most
XY-chromosome women will say they always felt like women living in the
bodies of men, when honestly, for some of them, we share the same
truth: We live as woman now because society tells us from the time
we are little boys, that females are simply better creatures all the
way around.

Here’s the second part, my views on sexism after having lived as
both genders.

First of all, let me say, whether any man or woman on this forum should
choose to flame me and say, ‘you’re no real woman,’ I have to let you
know now, it really won’t bother me. (It really won’t).

The point is, I’ve lived successfully as both genders, which has given
me the unique opportunity to see sexism how it TRULY is. And once
again, I will say, the average American woman is a female-chauvinistic.
And when I say average, I honestly mean most of them.

Why does this bother me so much if I live as a woman? The answer is
simple, I do not deny that I am, and will always be biologically male.
My chromosome combination is XY, and that will NEVER change, no matter
what I do. And having lived as a male, I really do sympathize with what
they go through.

1 – Women really do have an easier life in America today! I can’t even
begin to describe the liberation I felt from going from the pressures
of living as a man, to the ease of being a woman. Being a passable
woman, I’ve had many things and opportunities readily handed to me that
I never had living as a man.

I’ll honestly say, living as a boy, I had NOTHING absolutely NOTHING
handed to me at all! Women will say men have opportunities women
don’t. That’s either a knowledgeable lie, or an ignorant
assumption. I’ve lived both ways; I know firsthand what I’m talking
about.

2 – I’ve been in the ‘in club’ with both all male groups, and all
female groups. The things women say behind men’s really are sexist.
Yet, when I was living as a male, the things men say behind women’s
backs really aren’t that degrading. The whole ‘stay in the kitchen’
attitude really is dead, believe it or not.

3 – Why are men afraid to give me a piece of their mind now? When I
meet men on daily occasions, I see them through the eyes of a woman,
who use to live as a man. And honestly, it pains me to think that a
small part of me actually looks down on them; this is so NOT right. But
if I do look down on most of them, it’s only because they let me, and
other women say whatever they want to them, however they feel about
them, without them having no will to retaliate or give me a piece of
their mind.

For instance, I have this one male friend who said something that
bothered me. Yes, I was pissed about it for the larger portion of the
day, and hours later, when he asked if I forgive him, I coldly said
‘no’. He went out and brought flowers for to make it up to me.. ugh..
now some people will say what’s wrong with this? simple, I’ve said many
things(a few sexist) that have pissed him off plenty of times, and he
usually just lets it go. Never once have I ever brought him anything to
make up for it. Yes, I accepted the flowers, but all the time I feel
like telling the guy ‘where’s your backbone, Jesus Christ’ of course
that was my maleness speaking in the back of my head. Men are now so
whipped, their **bleep** near afraid to have their female peers simply
‘angry’ at them!

Society has made men are simply so cowardly, they are AFRAID to
speak out against women!!!!!

I hate the fact that my femininity allows me to walk all over men. But
here’s the horrid truth, if women today have become sexist, it’s
because men make it so easy! My social circle is mainly female, and
yes, I see this all around me.

If a man complains about his problems being a man, a female wall almost
ALWAYS BRUSH it off because ‘being a woman is so much worse’ she will
than go on and dominate the conversation, turning it into a
self-absorbed rant about how women have it worse. That’s sexism folks!
Men aren’t allowed to complain about the problems they face being men!

4 – While living as a guy, I had to deal with tons of sexism from
females, from the media, and ‘friends’ at school. Do I even need to say
that since living as a woman, I’ve suddenly forgotten what it means to
have to even deal with sexism? Here’s the thing, since living as a
women, both men AND women treat me with better respect!

What I’m saying is, I’m MORE respected by men as a female than I was as
a man! Men on average respect women MORE then they respect other men!
While women as well respect women MORE than they respect men! Anybody
see a sad imbalance here? No matter what gender you live as, you getter
better treatment and more respect as a woman!That’s not fair…
simply because men are people too.

And now, having lived six years as a woman, I find myself doing some of
the things to men I’ve always hated women for doing to them, and it
kills me. And I’m just like yelling like Why are men such cowards
and make anti-male sexism so easy

I honestly think men need to start getting just as emotional and
sensitive towards women because sexism is really out of hand now. Men
need to form masculinist groups, and Men’s awareness groups, and not
feel like ‘less then men’ for speaking out about the ways women hurt
them on a daily basis.

P.S. Whether anybody considers me a ‘real’ woman or not is not open for
debate. I readily acknowledge that I’ll never be a ‘real woman to a lot
of people and it does not bother me in the slightest. The point is,
I’ve ‘lived and been accepted’ as a real woman because of my
passability. Therefore, I’m very much qualified to speak of sexism the
way I do because I really have lived ‘both lives’.

04-22-2007 01:01 PM

Re: Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters
Kiger
Newbie
Kiger

Everything stated about sexcism is Factual. I believe everybody has dealt with some aspect of sexcism atsome point. However your not taking into account most men are men for a reason! The very essence of being the steriotypical man today is to bare the load, push on and keep your mouth shut whilst doing it! It’s seen as bitching to establish a pre falible arguement. Men are not pussies or incapable for standing up to women. Most of us just recognise the consequences if we do. You can not express one’s inability to adapt with out some change taking place! Some men may find the strength in becoming a woman. Most realise the futility of the War aspect and ride out therough times to better futures.

Surely we must recognise these are just opinions being stated and the driving force behind them is Human Emotion! Men need not start arguing over who’sgot it worse, as this is insignificant in a fit male individual with strong identity definition. We should be concentrating on the poor little guy who saw the Ultra Femanists as role models over us.

And yet the more we talk and discuss these issues which has so long plagued our society as some form of contemporary taboo, We feel as many have in the face of great undertakings. Like the sheer volume of opinion and experimental subjects. The problems which arrive from Sexcism and it’s enduring ignorance will on give rise to far more complex issues such as Transgender, Transexual natures.

We live in an era which has produced mass capacity for many things including learning, far greater standards of living and general excessive living. Instead of being aware and focusing. Most people feel powerless until they near and end of some means. We’ve witnessed Men over the past centuries do incredible things, and as men we carn’t help but measure ourselves up. So What! Nature is cruel, life wasn’t meant to be so easy. And if you can resolve an issue by creating something more beautiful. Why not do it! I am proud to live in a world we’re a transexual can express themselves to me.

Finally we should all recognise one man may arise with a solution. Chances are the solution is wrong! Even mine, However we must not ever forget to see each other surface first then deeper. this is appreciation of man. And id an understanding of that which can not be simply scribed away for future reference. The problems aren’t THE END! and to treat them like such only serves the ignorance, and only perpectuates it respectively

05-16-2007 11:54 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The female brain


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The female brain

The female brain
BoyTheo
Visitor
BoyTheo
Are females genetically pre-disposed to lying, stealing men’s houses and children?

Are females genetically pre-disposed to being so hateful malicious and determined to destroy all innocent males that they create a matriarchal male-hating media primarily designed to crush the psychological health of boys so that we end up with a male suicide rate that is 4x higher? Or at least just deny it’s existance so that the anti-male hate can continue.

I think the female brain is excellently equipped for lying and manipulation. 90% of the female brainpower is squandered on lies. All that extra white-matter in the female brain is used for lying. This is why no female genius has ever emerged. And don’t give me any lies that females are better at communicating. If they are, then how comes all the best businessmen and writers are male? (You don’t succeed in business without being a good communicator!) If females are so good at communicating, how comes they never make any sense? Females are only good at lying and warbling like a little bird.

Message Edited by BoyTheo on 04-22-200706:18 PM

04-22-2007 12:58 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist

Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist
BoyTheo
Visitor
BoyTheo
Most guys at some point will have been called a misogynist (by your
average vile arrogant commoner female), for saying pretty fair and
reasonable stuff, that’s not even hateful.

Like mentioning how women steal unfairly from fathers in divorces. Or
mentioning that females do not get paid less than males, it’s just a
lie made by feminists.

And you will be called that, even if at the time you were saying this,
you could not be called a misogynist. Some guys only started into this
whole area very slowly, starting off with the standard stereotypes that
society has because as a child you absorb all of this stuff and don’t
get a chance to verify it for yoursel. Those kind of guys may be
thinking “yeah sure women in other countries have it worse off, but
over here they have some things better too”.

This kind of “proto-misogynist” guy might have female friends which
they would gladly have defended from anti-female sexism… if there
were any to defend them from. (which there isn’t these days). And
outside of the area of gender issues, he might have been a good
potential friend to the females he knew. Like just ordinary every day
stuff, what normal friendships are based on, acceptance, good advice,
letting people be themselves…

And yet still after all that, be called a misogynist, when all of these
qualities were apparant.

Well, that doesn’t seem to make sense, does it? This kind of
“proto-misogynist” guy might easily think “how can I be a misogynist if
I like females? All I want is equality. All I did was mention the
truth.”

But the reality really is that she was right. He *is* a misogynist for
daring to speak any truth about females, unguarded with more lies.

That’s the catch. You can speak a truth about females, but only if you
guard it with more lies, so the truth does not break out into something
larger. And even speaking that “lie-guarded-truth” is taking a big risk
that should only be taken in dire circumstances. Like Bob Geldof seeing
the dire circumstances for fathers, and speaking his
“lie-guarded-truths” about females today.

His “lie-guarded-truths” of how females can easily steal and ruin an
innocent man’s life, unncessarily, for the harm of the children and
society in general, for some temporary financial gain. One of his lies
that guarded these truths were that men are naturally silent and
unsocial, and women expect too much of them to get communication from
them.

It works like this. Imagine this:

A dam.

A big, concrete dam. 3 meters high, 4 meters deep, and kilometers
across.

This dam, is the dam of female lies. The lies of how females are
oppressed today, underpaid at work, ignored by authorities, undervalued
at home, etc. The lies of how females have been oppressed throughout
all history. The lies of how females are naturally more talented,
honest, and creative than males. The lies of how females are naturally
healthier, tougher and more pain resistant than males. The lies that GO
ON FOREVER AND ENCIRCLE THE UNIVERSE.

The lies of females. A dam of lies, stopping the truth from coming out.

An ocean of truth. The truth that females have oppressed males
throughout all history. That it is males who get sexually mutilated at
birth. Abused more by their parents. Thrown out onto the streets.
Disfigured by female’s sexual selection into hairy cavemen simply
because females like to make other human beings suffer and we are a
convenient target. Expected to work a life to pay and protect and
provide for ungrateful hateful small-minded heartless fake evil
monsters who only exist to drain the life energy out of our beings,
scorning us and getting us into trouble or death the whole way along.

And that truth is misogynist. That is the truth. The truth is too awful
for almost anyone to believe in. And yet all of it can be proven with
solid down-to-earth logic. Knowing that truth would leave any fair
person unable to feel anything else but hate for females.

You see, in life, for your actions you must pay. And this payment
requires first for your actions to be known.

Females, have caused such evil actions over all of history, that for
them to pay would probably destroy them. Or at least make existance
pure hell for them.

And this hell females have indebted themselves into, requires the truth
for it to come about.

So, yes, by speaking the truth, you are being a misogynist. You might
not think it much to question to your much appreciated female friends,
something so harmless as “women don’t really get paid less now, do
they?”….

But that question is a hole in the dam. If you don’t guard that hole
with more lies, more lies forming the concrete of this dam, you are
risking more holes appearing. Then small cracks in the dam of female
lies. And soon enough the whole thing will break.

So, for those females to call you a misogynist for speaking such
innocent truths… They are right. They are absolutely 100% right. It’s
just that for you to realise they were right to call you a misogynist,
would require you to learn just how big their dam of lies is. You were
only able to see a small fraction. But females felt the whole thing,
because they are the dam, the lies are them, because females made it.

I think feminists and females in general, since the 1960s, KNEW that
unless they did something drastic, the truth would come out. After all
females were given a superior position in society (all of the
privileges like working/voting, but none of the responsibilities like
having to pay or fight to protect and provide for men.)

If females could not measure up to males after all of that, people
might start to ask. “Why”? Why is it that females cannot measure up in
the brain and “heart” (determination) department?

Awkward questions for you females, eh? Especially awkward when you know
the awful truth, because you FEEL IT in your very being every **bleep** DAY,
but you REFUSE to let the truth out.

The truth that females are stupider and weaker than males, because you
have made us do everything for you over all of history. And so you have
atrophied over generations, losing the abilities to think and work,
that you never used. Atrophied, just as parasites do.

And you, female, you KNEW this all along, deep in your heart, you knew
this. You might have not had the words, or understood consciously, but
instinctively you KNEW this.

You have forced us into this by saying “If you don’t give us your
possessions, suffer to please my sick desires, and give me your soul, I
won’t give you any children”. How you females have made us into their
torture-dolls to manipulate into a life of suffering.

Wow. What you have done is pure evil. No wonder you didn’t want the
truth to come out, now that a fair comparison of males to females in
modern society would naturally lead to discovering this.

So, in the 1960’s, feminists and females in general did something
drastic to stop the truth from coming out. They stopped us thinking,
and talking.

They harmed the minds of us males (hatred via the media, society, and
school teachers) so that we could not think for ourselves.

They blocked up and took control of the media so that we could not talk
to each other as only pro-female anti-male topics were allowed.

The only problem with all of this, is that it only ups the stakes. In
life, you must pay for your actions. You can delay it by building up
your debt, but that only gives you a bigger payment in the future.
Eventually the force pulling you in the other direction, making you
have to pay, will become so strong that you cannot fight it back.

It’s started already, with men getting sick and fed up of the divorce
laws and unfairness there. But I will make sure that it does not stop
there.

Females will pay for making males suffer through all of human history.
See my other postings on “Females reversing evolution” for what I am
talking about having made us suffer.

04-22-2007 12:49 PM

Re: Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

I think a major part of this problem stems from the biological hardwiring of men: males are genetically and then socially conditioned to protect women and their offpsring. Hence the origin of so many wars when men were killing each other by millions to get better resources for their families (women and children) e.g. when resources became scarce and famine was looming.
The privilege of being killed (mutilated, crippled, etc) to protect the rest of the community have always belonged the Oppressing Class, i.e. men. Women have always known that and taken advantage.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that whenever a man tries to question this status quo and invite women to please start pulling their weight in matters other then stupid backlash of men, “liberated women” go hysterical and come up with even more backlash. This time it is called “MYSOGINY”.

One of the latest jingles on US feminist websites is that the Iraqi war is due to the innate nastiness of men and their aggressiveness, proness to fight and kill.
At the same time, few of them ask themselves about the country of origin of the petrol that they put daily in their fancy men-made cars at men-operated gas stations, served by male attendants and the number of the Coaltion forces that have so far given their lives for that in the Middle East (as far as I know only 1 female soldier has been killed in Iraq so far. Talk about a Male Protection Instict really!..)

04-27-2007 04:43 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

New blog you all might like, if anyone is around


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – New blog you all might like, if anyone is around

New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
http://www.hookupculture.com/

03-07-2007 09:43 AM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

Not a bad blog actually, a variety of views that seem to be more balanced..

03-08-2007 12:22 AM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Hey HappyMom, long time no see.

Some of us are over at http://answers.yahoo.com/ berating feminists in the womens studies section. They’ve already expressed an extreme dislike for Christians and stay at home mothers already. One called Alexandra was bugging them like crazy.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

04-10-2007 10:46 PM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
qutepangy
Newbie
qutepangy

Men get compared too…only we don’t talk openly about the men we compare!  ohahha!!  Yeah…so…there’s some EQUALITY THERE.  But then again there is sometimes no equality – men always do the moving of heavy furniture!!

I got here doing a google search on fantasy art and blog!  lol

Anyway, this is my “personal blog”
—>  http://avatars.imvu.com/qutepangy

I am in the IMVU Apprentice competition too!
Okie…jus thought I’d brag a lil here!

Am just looking to meet new people.
I am available to chat (decent chat) on some weekends too.

If u like furry animals like chickens…oh no…chickens must be of the deep-fried variety and love watching scary movies, and chat and chat and chat, please leave me a message as we may more things in common?

“Friends are important to me – they make me smile!”

Message Edited by qutepangy on 04-19-200712:20 PM

04-19-2007 12:17 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Hatred of Women


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Hatered of Women

Hatred of Women
jimp
Contributor
jimp
Several women have suggested that some of the men who posted on this board hate women. This couldn’t be further from the truth, at least in my case.

I love women, I adore them, I enjoy women’s company, and think one of the greatest pleasures in life is to spend time with a good woman. I love women from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

However, I will freely admit, I don’t like American/Western women, I can’t stand being in their presence. And not only because they’re fat, ugly, bitchy and obnoxious, but also because of what they’ve done to the legal system of this once great country. I don’t like them because of the Kangaroo family courts they’ve helped set up, I don’t like them for enacting crazy divorce laws where people are paying $500K a year in child support (how do you spend half a million dollars a year on a 3 year old child?). I don’t like them for enacting unconstitutional laws like VAWA and IMBRA. I don’t like them for the insane sexual harrassment laws they’ve helped create that got the president of Harvard fired for simply saying that men and women are different.

What is there to like about American/Western women? I can’t really think of a single thing!

02-17-2007 05:24 PM

Re: Hatered of Women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Several women have suggested that some of the men who posted on this board hate women”

…  yet the vast majority of these same women probably have no problem with all the male bashing that has been going on for years in the media.

You have to understand something.  These women feel threatened when a man expresses his desires and wants when it comes to a female partner.  They are the ones who think they have a monopoly on this sort of topic.  But they know deep down they are dangerously close to being undesirable.  They get angry when a guy doesn’t want what they want him to want.

In other words .. there’s no stampede of guys wanting a power-suit wearing, brief -case toting, conference-call making, jock – strap wearing careerist out there.

03-17-2007 11:55 AM

Re: Hatered of Women
BoyTheo
Visitor
BoyTheo
Maybe it’s because you spent several decades hating us? Being hated as kids by adult women, girls and the rest of society just for being male.

And finally we’ve been able to grow up enough to speak back.

It’s the standard pattern of abuse.

A parent beats his kids. Then later finds out the kids don’t love him anymore, and is “shocked” to find them rebelling against him. Well duh, maybe if you didn’t beat the kids they wouldn’t hate you.

Well, I was a kid for quite a few years, hated by adult women and girls who were empowered by adult women. Same pattern.

You’ve hated me. Now I’ve finally grown up enough to be able to fight back against this evil matriarchal world.

Basically, you are getting what you deserve for being evil and hating innocent males.

04-23-2007 07:47 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief

Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Well after the revelation of the undisclosed DNA results, the ATM, taxi and dorm alibis, the umpteen times the stripper has changed her story, Amanda Marcotte still is willing to blast the Duke Lacrosse Three as guilty, guilty, guilty; and what do you know, the John-Edwards-for-President campaign has just saluted Marcotte’s acuity by naming her its blogger-in-chief (Pandagon, Jan. 21, foul language galore; Edwards blog, Jan. 30; Blogger News Network, Jan. 30, via Taranto; LieStoppers, Feb. 1). It’s enough to distract attention from all the comic joshing over the Friend of the Downtrodden’s gigantic new residence, or “Suing-’em Palace” as Mark Steyn calls it (NRO “The Corner”, Jan. 30; Dean Barnett, Jan. 30).

Update: Marcotte has now (1 p.m. Friday) yanked down her original post of Jan. 21, and appears also to have deleted several comments, but GoogleCache still has it for the moment. Here is its text, in the spirit of Fair-Use-ery:

Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let’s hope it takes off when they say it will so I don’t miss my connecting flight home.

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

111 Responses to “Stuck at the airport again…..”

Further update (1:20 p.m. Friday): Here are two comments that Marcotte appears to have deleted from the original thread. The “In her part of the country” comment had already drawn criticism from readers on the LieStoppers site:

Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.

# Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Natalia, do you know the details of the case? If so, why do you think a women enthusiastically jumped into a sexual situation with men making slavery jokes at her? Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.

This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.

Plus: I see that K.C. Johnson (“Durham in Wonderland” is on the case in typically thorough and powerful fashion. Marcotte also provides this further comment reacting to her critics (“if I see the words ‘Duke’ or ‘lacrosse’ in an email that has the whiff of accusatory tone, I’m deleting it and simply not going to reply to it”.

And again (11:30 p.m. Friday): In a further post, K.C. Johnson cites chapter and verse about how Marcotte’s hiring won much praise for the Edwards folks as a shrewd way of reaching out to progressive netroots forces. More discussion: TalkLeft forums, Betsy Newmark, Jeff Taylor at Reason “Hit and Run” (R-rated), Outside the Beltway, Patrick Ruffini, South of Heaven, Little Miss Attila, Brainster; & welcome Glenn Reynolds, Kevin O’Keefe and Michelle Malkin readers.

02-04-2007 03:06 PM

Re: Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Sadly, she is no longer on the Edwards campaign payroll.

Now she can apply for a janitor position at a favorite all female college campus so she won’t have to clean up after Duke type male rapers.

02-13-2007 06:41 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence

Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Carey Roberts

Senator Joe Biden is planning to propose a new bill called “International-VAWA,” a law modeled on his earlier Violence Against Women Act. The bill is designed to eradicate domestic violence from the farthest reaches of the globe.

This is certainly welcome news, because research is now saying that women are more likely to be the instigators of abuse. [http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf] We guys need all the help we can get — I’m not kidding.

A recent report from Japan said increasing numbers of women are hauling off on their husbands. Mitsuko, a woman in her late 30s, openly admits to being a batterer: “I punch guys for the same reasons people ‘discipline’ their children. I’ve got expectations in love and I want them to improve.” [http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/20061229p2g00m0dm011000c.html]

Some would say that doesn’t really count as domestic violence – Mitsuko was just putting a deadbeat in his place. And there must be a lot of deadbeats in Japan, because a 2005 government study found that 13.8% of men had been beaten at least once by their wife.

But goodness, I don’t need to tell you, Mr. Biden — you’ve seen female violence up close and personal. Remember the hearings you held in 1990 for the Violence Against Women Act? This was your testimony, as reported in the Congressional Record:

“In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there was an absolute – it was a nuclear sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-defense – if you ever touched your sister, not figuratively, literally. My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager, my confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our household. And I have the bruises to prove it. I mean that sincerely. I am not exaggerating when I say that.”

“And I have the bruises to prove it.” Joe, I’m feeling for you right now, because lots of guys were bullied when they were a kid – but by your older sister? She must have been a total brute.

I know most people never believed your story – they thought you were a wimp, you made it up, or maybe you did something to provoke her. People don’t want to hear about men who were bruised and bloodied by members of the fairer sex, so men keep their pain to themselves.

This is where I’m developing some heartburn, Mr. Biden.

Because last May you were briefed on the Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health of the World Health Organization. Researchers know this study was a sham from the beginning because the interviews excluded men – what better way for the WHO to claim that female-on-male violence doesn’t even exist?

I debunked this laughable study in one of my columns a year ago: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0104roberts.html .

But a few months later you hailed the research as a landmark event: “The depth and scope of the global landmark study is remarkable. This report reveals a global picture of the treatment of women – and the statistics are appalling and egregious.” [www.endabuse.org/programs/printable/display.php3?NewsFlashID=771]

Time for a reality check, folks.

The Violence Against Women Act has become hijacked by the radical feminists, who claim that domestic violence is all about men trying to keep women in their place. The Damsels of Denial assert that women can never be abusive, or say that women’s violence is done only in self-defense.

But when we downplay the possibility of female abuse, the problem can only get worse.

Last week CNN aired a segment on violence among teenage girls. FBI crime data show that while assaults by boys are slightly down over the last 10 years, attacks by girls have increased a startling 24%. I saw the story while sitting in a doctor’s office – everyone in the room cringed as the girls pummeled their victims into submission. “There’s no argument, though, that the sugar and spice moniker does not fit all,” CNN concluded. [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/17/acd.02.html]

And columnist David Usher recently compiled a listing of over 50 YouTube videos of violent females – viewer discretion definitely advised. [http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/17/why-senator-joseph-biden-must-block-i-vawa]

Guess what happens when aggressive girls grow up and become violent women? Sometimes these ladies realize they need help so they go to a local VAWA program. “He must have done something to provoke you,” comes the response from the enablers of female aggression.

Our society is in denial about the epidemic of violent women. Before we can talk about International-VAWA, Mr. Biden, we first need to wake up to the reality of female abuse.

01-25-2007 07:36 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking

Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16487654.htm?source=rss%20target=

This is the logical consequence when crazy cat ladies get power. A CA bill to punish spanking with a year in jail. This same woman finds abortion to be completely loving and non-violent.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 01-22-200708:29 PM

01-22-2007 08:25 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

first of all,  good to see you again happymom.

it’s awfully tough to keep a positive frame of mind with people who want laws like this.  if parents or potential parents can’t discipline their kids,  might that not DISCOURAGE some of them from having kids ??

will not some people think twice about having kids if the gov’t is going to be THIS INVOLVED in how they are raised ?

if parents can’t discipline the kid, then can we also apply this to ADULTS ?   i mean, why not ?  if a parent can’t paddle a kid,  then why can police force be used against adult criminals ?

this strikes me as unequal treatment under the law.

in fact, NO ONE should be disciplined.   we should all do whatever the hell we feel because that is what we want to do and makes us happy.

01-23-2007 01:13 AM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Good point about punishing adult criminals. Times outs are a favorite tool of the anti-spanking set. They most resemble solitary confinement in prison. Hmmm.

This law would:
– increase children living inpoverty (parent(s) goes to jail and loses their job)
– increase likelihood the kids would wind up in prison as adults
– increase divorce
– creat trauma in the lives of otherwise healhty and well cared for children and their parents
– increse the number of uncontrolled beasts running around whose parents where too afraid to spank them. Our juvenile facilities are already overflowing now (thanks to 35+ years of Dr Spock’s no spanking advice, his son comitted suicide, btw)

Note that it applies to parents but not nannies, grandparents, aunts etc. Strange.

All this is the result of taking parenting advice from a vetinarian’s guidelines for a cat owner. Perhaps our children should use a litter box and eat off the floor and be left alone while we leave the house as well?

The studies that claim to show a link between spanking and violence and other negative effects refuse to distinguish between a swat used as loving guidence to help develop character and beating a child out of rage. This shows their initial bias and leads to incorrect conclusions.

You may find it interesting the Japan and Singapore allow and encourage judicious spanking while Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, The UK etc criminalize it. Which societies are fairing better I wonder?

I thank my parents for spanking me as a child. What a wretched beast I’d be otherwise.

01-23-2007 01:37 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

yea it is gov’t involvement gone way too amuk.

while it may be true that parents aren’t perfect, gov’t is even more imperfect.

the child is a result of the parents.  it is their very own creation.  not the gov’t.  the parents are the ones that have a direct stake in their children.

who has more love for  their child …  parents or gov’t ??   while the gov’t may “care” about the child, they aren’t the ones doing the daily and often difficult tasks of child raising.

precious ivory tower “oh be still my bleeding heart” liberals need to move on to the next cockamania idea.

Message Edited by Halladay on 01-24-200705:59 PM

01-24-2007 05:57 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Fine, let the police deal with the extra criminals.

The bible says “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

Silly liberals think they know more than God!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

01-25-2007 01:59 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Long live feminism!


Long live feminism!
CosTas

I knew you would click on my post :-))

Khank,

I think you didn’t have the time to read that article in depth (“51%of women live alone”;) before putting it up here. It actually portrays modern WWs as so “liberated” as they do not need men in their lives at all. Well, that’s the impression I got anyway. Well, let them live alone and let them look after their assses BY THEMSELVES!

In fact, I wonder what’s so wrong with the traditional feminism that you guys keep criticising it so much all the time? Apart from some radical idiots who turned themselves into laughing stocks (yes, while screwing up familiy courts along the way and so on), the early feminists did lots, lots of good to men too.

Continue reading

Adultery could mean life, court finds


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Adultery could mean life, court finds

Adultery could mean life, court finds
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
That’s what the law says in sex-drug case Cox appealed

January 15, 2007

BY BRIAN DICKERSON

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan’s second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

“We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today,” Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, “but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion.”

“Technically,” he added, “any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I,” the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan’s criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court’s decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy’s opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan’s gossipy legal community.

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan’s criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever “sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony.”

Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress’ testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement.

Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women.

Cox’s office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor’s behalf, insisted that the waitress’ consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex “under circumstances involving the commission of another felony” — the delivery of the Oxycontin pills.

The Attorney General’s Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen’s case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale.

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, “considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code.” Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery — although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals’ reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling.

Murphy didn’t return my calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox’s confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case.

“I never thought of it, and I’m confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind,” Whitbeck told me Friday. But he chuckled uncomfortably when I asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy’s opinion couldn’t be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general.

“Well, yeah,” he said.

Cox’s spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.

“To even ask about this borders on the nutty,” Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. “Nobody connects the attorney general with this — N-O-B-O-D-Y — and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic.”

Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment.

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan’s Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy’s opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

“We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling,” he wrote.

Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General’s Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge.

“This is so bizarre that it doesn’t even merit a response,” he said.

Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn’t been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen’s current prison sentence.

Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals’ decision to reinstate the CSC charge.

The appeals court decision is available at http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/opinions.htm. Search for Docket No. 270229.

Contact BRIAN DICKERSON at 248-351-3697 or bdickerson@freepress.com.

01-16-2007 07:41 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By SAM ROBERTS

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.

In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.

In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, described the shift as “a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women.”

“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

Emily Zuzik, a 32-year-old musician and model who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, said she was not surprised by the trend.

“A lot of my friends are divorced or single or living alone,” Ms. Zuzik said. “I know a lot of people in their 30s who have roommates.”

Ms. Zuzik has lived with a boyfriend twice, once in California where the couple registered as domestic partners to qualify for his health insurance plan. “I don’t plan to live with anyone else again until I am married,” she said, “and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then.”

Linda Barth, a 56-year-old magazine editor in Houston who has never married, said, “I used to divide my women friends into single friends and married friends. Now that doesn’t seem to be an issue.”

Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single. She says her family believes she would have had a better chance of finding a husband had she attended a historically black college instead of Duke.

“Considering all the weddings I attended in the ’80s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,” Ms. Jamison said. “I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.”

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

“I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable,” said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. “I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again.”

Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

“The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,” Ms. Fidler said, “the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.”

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Some of those situations, which the census identifies as “spouse absent” and “other,” are temporary, and, of course, even some people who describe themselves as separated eventually reunite with their spouses.

Over all, a larger share of men are married and living with their spouse — about 53 percent compared with 49 percent among women.

“Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the nonmarital tipping point — more nonmarried than married,” Dr. Frey said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”

Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, agreed, saying that “changing patterns of courtship, marriage, and that we are living longer lives all play a role.”

“Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” Ms. Smock added, “and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than remarry after a divorce.”

The proportion of married people, especially among younger age groups, has been declining for decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-to-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.

“Although we can help people ‘do’ marriage better, it is simply delusional to construct social policy or make personal life decisions on the basis that you can count on people spending most of their adult lives in marriage,” said Professor Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Besse Gardner, 24, said she and her boyfriend met as college freshmen and started living together last April “for all the wrong reasons” — they found a great apartment on the beach in Los Angeles.

“We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” Ms. Gardner said. “My roommate is someone I’d be thrilled to marry one day, but it just doesn’t make sense right now.”

Ms. Crenshaw said that some of the women in her support group for divorced women were miserable, but that she was surprised how happy she was to be single again.

“That’s not how I grew up,” she said. “That’s not how society thinks. It’s a marriage culture.”

Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

“A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,” she recalled. “I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’ ”

“Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”

She said she was returning to college to get a master’s degree (her former husband “didn’t want me to do that because I was more educated than he was”), had taken photography classes and was auditioning for a play.

“Once you go through something you think will kill you and it doesn’t,” she said, “every day is like a present.”

Ariel Sabar, Brenda Goodman and Maureen Balleza contributed reporting.

01-16-2007 07:37 AM

Re: 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

khankrumthebulg wrote:
By SAM ROBERTS

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Doesn’t seem quite right. Unless they are including all females 15 and over, and including women who are cohabitating or living with roommates but not a boyfriend. Then I think that 51% is possible.

01-28-2007 05:01 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges

AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
State Office Accepts Durham DA’s Request to Recuse Himself

By LARA SETRAKIAN
ABC News Law & Justice Unit

RALEIGH, N.C., Jan. 13, 2007 — North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has announced that his office will take over as prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case.

After the case is reexamined by special prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, rape charges could be reinstated against three former Duke University lacrosse players. It’s also possible all charges could be dropped.

When asked about the possibility of new rape charges, Cooper told reporters “anything can happen.”

This comes one day after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong recused himself from prosecuting a sexual assault and kidnapping case against the three former Duke lacrosse players.

Nifong faxed a letter to Cooper, asking his office to appoint a special prosecutor take his place.

Cooper said he has accepted the request.

“[Nifong’s] basic reasoning,” his attorney, David Freedman, told ABC News, “was that he would be more than a hindrance than a help” as the case moved forward.

Nifong’s letter, sent to Cooper’s office sometime after 2 p.m. ET on Friday, cited charges of ethics violations brought against him by the North Carolina Bar on Dec. 28. Those allegations and the possible disciplinary action against Nifong apparently created a conflict of interest that drove Nifong to step down from the case.

On May 11, a panel of three members from the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission will decide if Nifong’s behavior warrants punishment, ranging from a private admonition to disbarment. He is accused of making inappropriate comments in the press about the three indicted players and the case against them.

Nifong met with the accuser in his office on Thursday. During that conversation Nifong told the accuser of his decision to recuse himself.

“He wanted to tell her his decision first,” Freedman said. “He is very loyal to her, and he didn’t want her to hear about this through the media.”

Nifong, a career prosecutor for nearly 30 years, was “devastated” by having to prosecute the Duke case, his lawyer said.

“It’s devastating to him,” Freedman said. “He cherishes his reputation as an ethical attorney and prosecutor.”

His resignation does not reflect of the strength of the case overall, Freedman told ABC News, adding, “He believes in the case.”

Separate sources close to the investigation say the accuser has every intention of moving forward and telling her story in court.

North Carolina legal analysts say it is not unusual for a prosecutor to recuse him or herself when charges of unethical conduct arise. What is highly unusual, however, is that a sitting district attorney is targeted for violating standards of professional conduct in an ongoing case.

“It’s extremely rare, if not unprecedented,” said Thomas Lunsford, a member of the North Carolina Bar Ethics Committee and a professor at Duke Law School.

01-13-2007 05:24 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case

Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By AARON BEARD
Associated Press Writer
Jan 12, 7:32 PM EST

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Facing ethics charges that could lead to his disbarment, the embattled district attorney in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has asked the state attorney general’s office to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Friday in an e-mail that District Attorney Mike Nifong sent a letter requesting the special prosecutor. She did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Nifong did not return several calls from The Associated Press. His attorney insisted the veteran prosecutor was not running from a weak case, and said Nifong is disappointed he will not be able to take it to trial.

“He feels, as a result of the accusations against him, that he would be a distraction and he wants to make sure the accuser receives a fair trial,” attorney David Freedman told The Associated Press. “He still believes in the case. He just believes his continued presence would hurt her.”

Last month, the North Carolina State Bar charged Nifong with violating four rules of professional conduct for making misleading and inflammatory comments about the athletes under suspicion.

It was not immediately clear what impact Nifong’s decision would have on the troubled criminal prosecution of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s office has previously declined to comment when asked about the prospect of taking over the case.

“If he accepts it, then they would transfer the files over, and they would probably have a lot of interviews to do,” said Peg Dorer, director of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. “It would probably stop things for a while I imagine.”

Under North Carolina law, only a district attorney can formally request a special prosecutor. The request can be made when there are potential conflicts of interest, when a case is particularly complex or when there are other unusual circumstances.

Legal experts and observers have railed against Nifong in recent weeks, calling his case pitfully weak and casting doubt on his chance of winning.

“I think we’re all delighted that we’re going to have objective and competent prosecutors reviewing this case,” said James P. Cooney III, an attorney for Seligmann. “We look forward to cooperating with those prosecutors fully and completely in bringing this prosecution to an end.”

Wade Smith, an attorney for Finnerty, was also pleased and pledged to meet with any new prosecutors. “We will assist them in every way we can.”

From the case’s earliest days, Nifong has led the investigation into allegations that a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University – hired to perform as a stripper – was gang-raped and beaten at a March 13 party thrown by Duke’s highly ranked lacrosse team.

Experts have said it appears his case is based only on the testimony of an accuser who has told wildly different versions of the alleged assault – a shifting story led him to drop rape charges on Dec. 22.

01-13-2007 05:19 PM

Re: Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case
barron55
Contributor
barron55

Nifong is a self serving arrogant **bleep** that deserves more than just disbarrment.

He needs to serve 5 years in jail for perjury and be forced to pay back the $ 800,000.00 in attorneys fees he costed the defendants families through forfeiture of any assets he has followed by garnishment of any future wages, investment income or inheritance.

06-17-2007 12:51 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Sex and Consequences


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Sex and Consequences

Sex and Consequences
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Janice Shaw Crouse

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students.

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students. The American Psychological Association reported in 2003 that counselors on the nation’s college campuses were seeing significant increases of these and other “severe psychological problems.” Why are the nation’s brightest young adults flooding the student health centers to overflowing? What has changed since the late 1980s to produce such emotional and psychological devastation among the nation’s college students?

A campus psychiatrist at a major American university has written a book attempting to answer the questions about what has gone wrong. The book, Unprotected, (written anonymously but revealed to be Dr. Miriam Grossman from the student health services of the University of California, Los Angeles) reveals that “radical politics” has replaced “common sense” in the campus health and counseling centers to the detriment of students’ well-being. In short, Dr. Grossman declared that her profession was “hijacked” and that college students are the “casualties” of “radical activism” by the health professionals on college campuses.

The nation’s 17 million college and university students are being denied truth while their risky behavior is condoned by the prevalent social agenda on campus. Dispassionate objectivity and compassionate concern for an individual’s health and well-being have been replaced by social activism. Now, the “polarization” of “opposite” sexes and a “binary gender system” must be replaced by androgyny and “alternative sexualities.” Nobody dares mention that emotionally destructive behavior produces negative consequences. Ideology takes precedence over consequences. In fact, consequences are never mentioned except in the context of smoking, diet, exercise or sleep. Certainly, no one mentions the “fascinating research on the biochemistry of bonding” which reveals that casual sex is hazardous to a woman’s mental health.

When I was an academic dean, I found that there was often (though not always) a relationship problem — usually a broken romance — behind a sudden drop in a student’s grades. Dr. Grossman describes story after story of students who came in with academic and psychological problems that, she discovered with a little probing, turned out to coincide with sexual intimacy that produced one-sided attachment. Dr. Grossman quotes a neuropsychologist who described the effect of oxytocin (the attachment hormone that produces bonding and trust): “You first meet him and he is passable. The second time you go out with him, he’s OK. The third time you go out with him, you have sex. And from that point on you can’t imagine what life would be like without him.”

Ironically, Dr. Grossman (who laments political correctness) uses the term, “sexually transmitted infections” (the politically correct designation because “infections” seem less serious than “diseases” instead of “sexually transmitted diseases.” Today, on and off campus, STDs are considered no big deal. Yet, human papillomavirus (HPV) — a major cause of cervical cancer — is so common and so contagious that some doctors recommend that women “assume” that a partner has the infection. Condom use among college students is a joke — one study revealed that less than half of college students used a condom during their last vaginal intercourse. Discussions about HIV/AIDS are even more off-limits: while definitive information is available about the specific behavioral risk factors, myths spread misinformation — anybody can get it or AIDS doesn’t discriminate. Dr. Grossman lays out the facts: HIV is spread through **bleep** sex, shared needles or a partner who does those things.

Dr. Grossman reveals, too, that God is not welcomed in college health clinics. In fact, psychologists are almost five times more likely to be agnostic or atheist than the general public. Almost 90 percent of Americans believe in God. Among students, over three-quarters say they pray, and an equal number say that they are “searching for meaning and purpose in life.” In fact, “cultural competency” (respecting the values of inclusion, respect and equality, especially in respect to gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and other identities) is replacing religion, even though evidence reveals that religion protects against drug and alcohol use, early sexual activity and suicide.

While the public generally sees abortion as a “woman’s issue,” Dr. Grossman cites a Los Angeles Times survey indicating that post-abortion men experience more regret and guilt than post-abortion women do. She also reveals that chlamydia is far more serious than generally perceived and that the college years are a good time to address the ramifications effectively; instead the dangers of chlamydia are ignored or profoundly sugarcoated. As a result, untold numbers of women discover too late for intervention that they are infertile.

Another profound misrepresentation takes place on college campuses: by focusing exclusively on career, many women will pass their window of opportunity for finding a husband and having children. After age 30, a woman’s chances of conceiving drop by 75 percent; if she gets pregnant, her chance of miscarriage triples, the rate of stillbirth doubles and the risk of genetic abnormality is six times greater. Sadly, as Unprotected points out, the waiting rooms of infertility centers are crowded with professional women who bought into the myth that they should focus on career and wait to have a husband and children.

The basic message of Unprotected is that today’s women are amazingly misinformed and unprotected. Casual sex has consequences, and the steady flow of students crowding campus health centers is a clear indication that somebody needs to be telling young women the truth. Dr. Miriam Grossman has begun the enlightenment. Let’s hope that others will follow her lead.

01-13-2007 05:16 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

BOXER’S LOW BLOW


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – BOXER’S LOW BLOW

BOXER’S LOW BLOW
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
January 12, 2007 — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic – but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”

Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It’s hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity – the sheer mindlessness – of Sen. Boxer’s assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike – until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: “The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course.”

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president’s speech as “a new surge without a new strategy.”

Frankly, we’re not surprised by Hillary Clinton’s rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she’ll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November’s midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)

Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this “McCain’s surge.”

Said McCain: “I’d rather lose a campaign than lose a war.”

As for Schumer, we’re profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he’s always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he’s been elevated to a top position in his party’s Senate leadership – and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards – with Clinton, presidential aspirants – as they trash Bush’s plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America’s enemies – and of course it does – he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party’s bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don’t hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge – and he’s not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: “Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work.” Instead, Kyl rightly noted, “some declared the president’s proposals unworkable even before they were announced.”

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

“I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq,” said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country’s uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

01-13-2007 05:15 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence

Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
David R. Usher
January 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Judge Robert Dierker’s new book, “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” demonstrates that some judges are waking up to the truth: behind the mysterious veil of feminist humanism hides the most profound contempt for men, marriage, and ultimately the well-being of non-elitist women.

In the past couple of years, feminism has received much long-overdue scrutiny. Kate O’Beirne excoriated radical feminism in her book “Women Who Make the World Worse.” Christina Hoff Sommers made a career trying to repatriate feminism to behave as an egalitarian movement (an impossible task given the meaning of the word). Phyllis Schlafly successfully blocked the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have created a two-tier society based on gender. Phyllis continues to be one of the most outspoken and forthright opponents of radical feminism.

Unlike his feminist opponents, whose evasively-encoded messages often take much pondering to approximately decipher, Dierker cut to the chase in Chapter One: “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism.”

Dierker proved the thesis of his book is correct even prior to publication. Feminists dominating the St. Louis Post Dispatch attacked him on page one. Missouri Senator Joan Bray (D-St. Louis) filed a complaint with the Missouri Bar even before the book was published. Joan is a classic feminist legislator, and heiress to feminist machines run by former Missouri Representatives Kaye Steinmetz and Sue Shear. Bray continues to seek ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would create inequality based on sex; supports socialized health care [1] [2], sponsored a bill promoting abortions that pretends to prevent them, and wants to force gay values on the state of Missouri.

In a St. Louis Daily Record article, Rep. Bray ranted “The venom in the book was shocking to me.” But she admits, “I probably meet his definition of femifascist.” Given the fact that modern radical feminism is the lineal great-grand-daughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan, we must credit Rep. Bray for owning up to her discriminatory attitudes towards men.

The feminist elite is attempting to pillory Judge Dierker in the same failed fashion they tried to abort Justice Antonin Scalia for his personal belief that abortion is wrong. Never mind that feminists thought it was lovely every time Ruth Bader Ginsburg waxes in favor of killing babies for no reason whatsoever.

Feminist attacks immediately point back to those who complain the most vociferously. Lynn Ricci, President of the St. Louis Women Lawyers Association gave us an in-home demonstration of how feminists slyly project their behavior on to others to avoid scrutiny. She whined that “he’s [Dierker] cloaking his own personal preferences against women in alleged legal research and a partial examination of the law.”

Ms. Ricci apparently does not understand that opposing a revolting belief system has nothing to do with what one thinks about women.

Since Ms. Ricci pretends that “alleged legal research” and “partial examination of the law” supports her position, let us look at the partiality of femi-fascism:

*
The Duke Rape Case never would never have happened if Prosecutor Mike Nifong had not been trained to pursue feminist jurisprudence in law school.
*
Feminist jurisprudence pretends that female allegers are not to be doubted or questioned (one professor I know at Washburn University school of Law will not pass any intern who in any way attempts to ascertain the veracity of allegations made by a self-appointed female victim).
*
The “feminist majority” believes women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. The alleged perpetrator must somehow be guilty, even if he proves himself innocent. They continue to monkey with evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Their goal is to establish a legal system where unverifiable allegations alone are considered sufficient for conviction.
*
Discrimination against men in the family and marriage is endemic in literally every A.B.A. publication and law school. Only a corpse or a feminist could not intuitively recognize this truth.
*
Fortunately, radical feminist agenda is finally being rebuffed at the United Nations: The U.N. Secretary General’s Report on Domestic Violence Against Women was unanimously rejected by the Third Committee in November, 2006. It is time we do the same in the United States.
*
Every major study on domestic violence proves that men and women are equal initiators of serious domestic violence.
*
Every major study on marriage demonstrates that the the intact married heterosexual two-parent family produces the best economic and social outcomes for women, children, and men.
*
Every major study on divorce and illegitimacy demonstrates that single mothers have the highest poverty rates, are the most likely to seriously abuse children, and are the least likely to have access to health care.

Judge Dierker is to be greatly commended for his work helping to advance the rule of law and jurisprudence. Pointing out that feminist jurisprudence is radical and damaging to America does not make Judge Dierker the radical. Anyone who files a complaint against him or refuses to have a case heard in his courtroom is an enemy of the very fairness and quality jurisprudence that Judge Dierker strives to achieve.

The Missouri Bar should embrace Dierker’s book. A new Gender and Justice Commission Report should be ordered, but this time the Commission should recommend changes in jurisprudence to weed out the hate and intolerance towards men and marriage on which so many laws and court decisions in Missouri are based.

01-13-2007 05:12 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD

FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Nancy Levant
January 9, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

I received a note from a “feminist” who was quite disturbed with my opinions about “feminism.” Her arguments were dialectically predictable as she simply regurgitated the pat lines of the movement, but for the benefit of young women who grow up amidst the dialectic, I will respond with clarity.

The one-world government scenario is dialectically based upon economics, environment, and equity – known as the Three E’s. These Three E’s involve global control of the common man’s labor and money, “sustainable” nature, and forcing all commoners into financial sameness. These same intentions are also documented in the U.N. Agenda 21 game plan for our “sustainable” environmental future.

The feminist movement was crafted by the one-world political initiative and invented to create and sustain global depopulation goals. That is and remains the primary mission of the feminist movement.

Women’s “rights” are disallowed definition by culture, religion, personal opinion, or any other social definition minus the feminist movement. In today’s world, we have no choices as women, whatsoever, but to agree to the think tank morality written and coded by this global movement. The feminist movement is no different than the global environmental movement, the global healthcare movement, the global education movement, or the global economy movement. All are social re-engineering tactics used to forward the take over of all world governments, economies, and cultures, and to force all commoners into the custom-made livelihoods and service of corporate-based governors. According to this government, we have no choices but to accept them all.

The “governors” are the world’s wealthiest industrialists and bankers. Their one-world government hands all power and control of people, land, water, food, human health, children and education, employment, militaries, and economic potential directly to themselves and their personal fortunes. Over and over and over again, when you tie corporate wealth and power to governing agencies, you have Fascism. However, the long-term goal of a one-world government has always been to bring Communism to fruition on a global scale. So, today, we see a hybrid Fascist-Communist system by Three E design, and it is bitterly obvious in every nation on the planet. Almost all global economies are crashing by design, and particularly America’s economy. Note that America’s elite pulled their investments out of the U.S. years ago.

The feminist piece of the global puzzle deals specifically with depopulation through women’s “healthcare,” big pharma, and the “mental health” industrial complex. Women’s rights are now defined by the right to abort, the right to be drafted, and the right to take drugs that will render women and children incapable of bearing children. And just as many women worldwide earned the right to own property, that right has now fallen to other plans, which state that no “individual” may own private property.

Also, one must note that the industrial and banking powers that be are mostly men – the men whose dynastic families created their one-world government of choice. And these same men also created the feminist movement in order to curb the tendencies of commoners to breed and out-number them billions to one. The feminist movement is based upon political lies and the control of reproduction. “Sustainable” nature is also based upon enforcing a remarkable decline in birth rates. I assure you this enforcement will not fall upon the world’s elite.

Equally, and thanks to the help of the feminist movement, “mental health” has taken center stage in the lives of women and children in the United States. It is estimated that 25 million American women are now taking “anti-depressants.” In the 1980’s and 1990’s, it became chic to seek “therapy.” Women ran in droves to see “therapists” and to tell their social circles they were taking anti-depressants. The mental health complex has now arrived in every American school, and they are now arriving in America’s daycare centers. The main impetus for the mental health “advocates” is to screen and profile America’s families to see if they are religious, procreating, and if they are mainstreaming into new government citizens. All children who fall short are then redirected to the mental health industries, which then feed the big pharma complex, which 1) drugs children, and 2) determines who will be “fit” to reproduce in the future. Let us also wonder if the mass drugging of children – and new vaccines specifically targeted to pubescent female children – will not result in future “problems” with reproductive health.

In today’s new world, women are also “checked” for mental health issues during and following pregnancy. In a nutshell of truth, women are profiled for the number of pregnancies, the health of pregnancies and babies, and genetically data based. This we are to call “liberation.”

Today’s “liberated” women are still raising children – many of which are raising children alone – and they are working one or two jobs to make end’s meet. Today’s “liberated” women are obsessed with weight, beauty, divorce, money, spending money, and careers to make money. They are far less concerned with their children, who are now raised in state-controlled (government) daycare centers, federally controlled (government) public schools, and state controlled (government) universities. In other words, the government is raising our children in ways that the government sees fit – the government of the world’s industrialists and world bankers. Your children are being raised by and into the new world order, while you are working to support the new world order rather than your children. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Take a pill. You will feel much better – or, perhaps, nothing much at all.

Let me give the women of the West a clue – “liberation” means that you are free – free to think as you choose and free to create your life according to your efforts and your beliefs. I suggest to you that the “liberation” you have achieved through the misguidance of the feminist movement is false. I suggest that Westernized women are often miserable, overworked, and suffering due to separation from their children. Think of it this way – the feminist movement actually believed they could change the fundamental meaning and purpose of womanhood, biological and instinctual gendering, and that they could culturally remove children from mothers, and call it “liberation.” You are equally liberated to destroy any children that you don’t want. Wow. I guess that means that you have a great deal of power. Congratulations. It is far greater to be a drugged laborer than a mother. Let us thank the feminist movement for making this clear to us dim-witted females.

If you are a woman in today’s new world, I suggest you read The Cultural Devastation of American Women. None of us have come unscathed through this new world culture, for it has been working on us for many, many decades. Once read, you will begin to decipher the facts from all the dialectic fiction. Read the other side for a change. Find out why you are, in fact, depressed and unhappy as contemporary women. Find out why your children are very much the same.

And to the world’s feminists – I say this: You are the dumbest women who have ever walked the face of the Earth. Week by week, day by day, you are losing every right you thought you invented. You fell hook, line, and sinker into the dialectic, and you are nothing but dictator pawns to the larger mission of total control over people and freedom. What a shame when arrogance literally beats brains useless. What a crime and a shame when you brutally victimize the very people you claim to represent – much like all other destroyers of human freedom. The day will come when you and your brothers in crime will be fully understood for your true missions. The day will come when YOU finally comprehend what you actually stood for – the total denial of rights and freedom for all.

01-13-2007 05:08 PM

Re: FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD
zoysite
Newbie
zoysite

You are ridiculous.  I can’t even see a point or a purpose in what you are saying.  I was, however, able to tell that you think feminists have undermined the rights of women.
I’d very much like to disagree.  I have great education opportunities, a wonderful career, a wonderful fiance who treats me respectfully, who honors my choice to be a career woman.  And, I’ve been with guys who didn’t, so I can tell you that my happiness is infinitely higher when I am allowed to pursue humanity through education and personal achievement.  Women and men are not so different: we are both human beings, and some men just don’t get it.  Why differentiate against another human being, deny them the rights to be fully human in their lifetime, for a genital?  The women’s movement has granted women the right to freedom of sexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of education, freedom of career, freedom of reproductive choice, and you are going to try to convince women that because men don’t throw their coats down to protect our little feet from the rain anymore, that we are being denied our rights?  Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much!

You didn’t seem to specify what rights we deserve to have that we don’t as a result of the women’s movement?  What?  To exchange one’s pu**y and not one’s ideas for living decentIy? I don’t buy that for a second.  The only things you mentioned were that women fought for reproductive rights that you disagree with.  So, you’re anti-choice, is that your point?  Because, it seems like that’s all you said in your hugely superfluous mass of nonsensical words.

02-03-2007 11:09 AM

Re: FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“You are ridiculous.  I can’t even see a point or a purpose in what you are saying.  I was, however, able to tell that you think feminists have undermined the rights of women. ”

You do realize that the original thread here was written entirely by a woman, correct ?

“Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much! ”

Agreed.  Which is why I will be very glad and rejoiceful to step out of the way of any missles aimed at precious career women.  Don’t worry about me spilling any of my blood to protect your ungrateful a$$.

“I have great education opportunities, a wonderful career, a wonderful fiance who treats me respectfully, who honors my choice to be a career woman ”

Which is why Noer wrote the article he did..  so that he can be forewarned before it’s too late.

02-04-2007 12:23 AM

Re: FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD
dillonator
Visitor
dillonator

“Women and men are not so different: we are both human beings, and some men just don’t get it.  Why differentiate against another human being, deny them the rights to be fully human in their lifetime, for a genital? ”

For the same reason that you went ahead and differentiated between men and women yourself when you said…

“Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much! ”

And not only did you differentiate between the two… you very much were pleased to when it benefited your gender.

02-04-2007 02:57 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

hatred of women


hatred of women
Spuddy

Unfortunately I got to this board a little after the fact, but I’m sure someone is still out there reading this. Anyway, I was hardly offended by the editorial. It was just plain silly. I could pull 15 different studies out of my ass that would support just about anything I want, just as Mr. Noer has. The fact of the matter is generalizations are dangerous and almost always prove to be null. I don’t care how many years of schooling you have had or how articulate you may be. If you fail to realize that simple fact, you are a moron. I can sit here and nit pick every fallacy and question every piece of data presented by this editorial and those who have posted their comments, but that would just be arbitrary and a waste of time. If you have even a half of a brain you would be able to find them out for yourself.

But nonetheless, the thing that drove me to signing up for this message board and posting is the pure hatred for women I see here. I’m not talking about the man who is simply asking questions are offering criticisms of feminism. There are some men who post just plain malicious comments toward women, who truly hate women regardless if a woman is labeled a feminist or not (and just because a woman is on here pointing out the stupidity of the editorial it does not make her a feminist, but that’s a whole different subject). Why do you hate women so much?

01-06-2007 09:56 AM

Continue reading

Man Sentenced to Prison For 10 years…


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Man Sentanced to Prison For 10 years…

Man Sentenced to Prison For 10 years…
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Owed 14,995 dollars in child support!!

I have an Idea, if all men go on strike to stop paying child support they can’t throw us all in prison!!!

http://www.malvern-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1236

They need to reform the system. If men didn’t give women money this year 40 billion would not be changing hands!!!

That would send a message, “we want more time with our children.”

BTW, the children should go to the party that can afford said children!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

12-01-2006 03:47 PM

Re: Man Sentanced to Prison For 10 years…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“I have an Idea, if all men go on strike to stop paying child support they can’t throw us all in prison!!!”

of course they can’t throw all the men in prison..  who would then die in wars and other workplace fatalities ?

we do the dying the other gender refuses to do

12-05-2006 01:29 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby

Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By JAMES HANNAH
Associated Press Writer

DAYTON, Ohio

A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven.

China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital.

“We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death,” said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office.

He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.

Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because “there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.”

The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.

Arnold’s lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child’s death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved.

“China _ as a mother and a person _ was horrified that such an act could occur,” Rion said.

The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child’s father went out for a short time and left Paris with a baby sitter, Rion said. The mother didn’t sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.

Arnold has three other children.

In 2000, a Virginia woman was sentenced to five years in prison for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven. Elizabeth Renee Otte claimed she had no memory of cramming her son in the microwave and turning on the appliance in 1999. Experts said that Otte suffered from epilepsy and that her seizures were followed by blackouts.

11-28-2006 08:11 PM

Re: Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Two Questions: Did they eventually convict the mother?

And what does “Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo” mean? Just curious.

01-10-2007 12:46 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Deciding Which Is Which

August 17, 2006

I found myself some time ago under social circumstances in a group that included an angry radical feminist, which is to say a radical feminist. Out of nowhere that I remember, she announced, “Men are sexist pigs.” Such assertions are par for the species.

It was not easy to know how to respond. She was clearly attacking. You don’t insult a group some of whose members are present unless you mean to offend. While I may have doubts about, say, the legitimacy of psychotherapy, I do not say while dining with a practitioner, “Therapists are swinish frauds.” While “sexist” might be regarded with sufficient straining as a political category, “pig” is a schoolyard insult. The comment was simply ill-bred. So are feminists.

I could have responded, “Women are useless bitches.” The problem is that I don’t think that women are either useless or bitches. A few are, yes. A few men are sexist pigs, and I don’t like them either. True, I don’t care for some of the attitudes that seem to characterize a lot of American women. This is far thinking that women are pigs or bitches.

Why do feminists go out of their way to be disagreeable? Much of human behavior is templated. Certain kinds of personality do certain things. They can’t help it. Common templates are the True Believer, the Hater, and the Victim. The salient point is that the template comes first, the content second and sometimes almost as an afterthought. They are like empty forms waiting to be filled in.

The True Believer needs to believe in something truly and, really, doesn’t much care what: Christianity, evolution, Islam, Marxism or market forces. He needs the certitude. He doesn’t need to hate anyone, however. For example, evolutionists do not.

The Hater does need to hate something. Sometimes the choice is obvious, as when a black in the slums comes to hate Whitey. Sometimes the choice is less explicable, as when a man who has suffered no direct or clear damage at the hands of Jews becomes virulently anti-Semitic. A defining characteristic of the Hater is that maintaining the grounds of his (or, most assuredly, her) hatred is far more important than truth, reason, or kindness. The hatred is an end in itself, an identity, the core of his (or her) being. All thought and balance vanish in the insistence on painting the hated in as bad a light as possible.

The Victim believes that all of his miseries and failures are the fault of others. Victims are often Haters as well. Feminists combine the two.

The need to hate is different from the possession of an opinion. A reasonable person might believe, for example, that Jews exert too much influence over American foreign policy and various domestic policies, but also grant without demur that Jews had contributed much to the economy, the sciences, and the arts. The details could be debated, but the position is not that of a Hater. The Hater in anti-Semitic form cannot go for ten minutes in private conversation without adverting with hostility to various crimes and conspiracies which he attributes to Jews, and can never concede that Jews every, however inadvertently, have done anything good. He is obsessive about it.

So are feminists.

A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.

Haters seldom know much about those they hate. It doesn’t matter to them, and just gets in the way. As anti-Semites are clueless about Jews, so feminists are clueless about men. Anti-Semites know that Jews rub their hands and say “heheheh” and want to destroy Western civilization. Feminists know that men don’t have feelings and want to oppress women, and hurt them, and degrade them. Yet they (both) think they know the hated enemy. They both pour forth half-truths, thudding clichés, carefully selected facts, and abject foolishness, and both are blankly unable to see the other side’s point of view or to concede it any virtue at all.

I have known only a few such feminists well, though I have read many. They have struck me, without exception that comes to mind, as fitting a peculiar mold: bright, very hostile and combative, but physically timid and pampered, hothouse flowers really, usually from fairly moneyed families and often Ivy or semi-Ivy schools. Often they have done little outside of feminism and would be helpless out of an urban setting. They have no idea how anything around them works—what a cam lobe is, how a refrigerator makes things cold, or how a file-allocation table might be arranged. Their degrees run to ideologizable pseudosubjects such as sociology, psychology, or Women’s Studies. They seem isolated from most of life.

None of this is characteristic of women in general. I used to belong to a group called Capitol Divers, of Washington, DC. About a third of the members I’ll guess were women. We dove the deep wrecks off North Carolina, chartered the Belize Aggressor for a week near Central America, and so on. It wasn’t lightweight diving. Sometimes we were in the open Atlantic in seas a lot higher than recommended, or ninety feet down at night on a wreck or, I remember, at 135 in the Blue Hole of Belize. (Cap Divers was a bit of a cowboy outfit.)

The women were fine divers, treated as equals by the men because they in fact were equals. Nobody thought about it. In a lot of aggregate time with them over the years, I never heard a single, “Men are sexist pigs.” The pattern is one that I’ve noticed anecdotally but widely. Women who are good at things that men respect are respected by men, and they tend to like men because they have things in common. They are not templated neurotics. Feminists are.

If you do not believe that haters are all the same people, wrestling with internal demons rather than trying to solve real problems, make a point of talking to them or, failing that, reading them. Remember though that a hater is not someone who recognizes an unpleasant truth about a particular group. A woman who says that men are much more given to violence is stating an obvious fact. So is a white who recognizes that low academic achievement among blacks is a problem. Neither is a hater.

No. You want the ones with the grinding all-encompassing hostility. “The kikes are destroying America.” “The niggers are destroying America.” “Men are sexist pigs.” These people are fascinating. Talk to them. Care is needed, particularly with feminists, to keep them from exploding before you can conduct an examination. But do it. Note that many are well educated. They can be polished. But the fundamental difference between a radical feminist and a Jew baiter is…is….

Wait. I’m thinking.

11-28-2006 07:44 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why

Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Just for You Moneyneversleeps.

New York Times
November 14, 2006
Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why
By RONI RABIN

Correction Appended

In recent years, women’s health has been a national priority. Pink ribbons warn of breast cancer. Pins shaped like red dresses raise awareness about heart disease. Offices of women’s health have sprung up at every level of government to offer information and free screenings, and one of the largest government studies on hormones and diet in aging focused entirely on older women.

Yet statistics show that men are more likely than women to suffer an early death.

Now some advocates and medical scientists are beginning to ask a question that in some circles might be considered politically incorrect: Is men’s health getting short shrift?

The idea, they say, is not to denigrate the importance of women’s health but to focus public attention on the ways in which men may be uniquely at risk — and on what a growing men’s health movement has termed the “health disparity” between the sexes and its most glaring example, a persistent longevity gap that has narrowed but still shortchanges men of five years of life compared with women.

“We’ve got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Demetrius J. Porche, an associate dean at Louisiana State University’s Health Sciences Center School of Nursing in New Orleans, and the editor of a new quarterly, American Journal of Men’s Health, that will publish its first issue next March.

The Men’s Health Network, a not-for-profit educational foundation based in Washington, has called for creating a federal office of men’s health to mirror the office on women’s health within the Health and Human Services Department, and it is backing a bill sponsored by Senator Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Representative Vito Fossella, Republican of New York, to do so. Several federal offices on women’s health were recently established to compensate for years in which women were often excluded from medical research, but there is no federal office of men’s health.

Men’s health advocates say that men are silently suffering through what may be a serious health crisis. “We keep throwing out lifestyle as an explanation for the differences in longevity, saying that men come in later for care and have unhealthy behaviors, but I’m not sure we really know the reason,” Dr. Porche said. “And we haven’t answered the question: Is there a biological determinant for why men die earlier than women?”

It is a question that has piqued the interest of some medical scientists, including Dr. Marianne J. Legato, founder of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia University. Five states — Maryland, Georgia, New Hampshire, Louisiana and Oklahoma — have either established or plan to establish offices or commissions on men’s health, and the Nov. 15 issue of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, is entirely devoted to studies on the topic.

But the mere suggestion that men need their own health bureau or that they must advocate for their rights like a victimized minority rankles some women’s health advocates, and some politicians are reluctant to take men’s health on as a cause, for fear of alienating women.

“Saying we need an office of men’s health ignores the fact that men’s health always was the main focus of medical research,” said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network in Washington, a membership organization for improving women’s health.

“During the first half-century of our nation’s investment in medical research, the majority of resources went to studying men and the conditions that affected men disproportionately,” she said. “Is their health perfect? No. But they don’t need a movement.”

Still, by just about any measure, men’s health is abysmal. American men have an average life expectancy of 75.2 years, and even less — 69.8 years — for black men, compared with 80.4 years for women over all.

Men die of just about every one of the leading causes of death at younger ages than women, from lung cancer to influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease, diabetes and AIDS. One notable exception is Alzheimer’s disease: more women than men die of it.

Topping the list for both sexes is heart disease.

But while the American Heart Association has been conducting an aggressive public education campaign to raise awareness about heart disease among women, called Go Red for Women and featuring pins in the shape of dresses, progress among men has been slipping, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. Yet, he added, the illness exacts a disproportionate toll on men.

Although heart disease occurs in women in their 30s and 40s, he said, it is “extremely unusual,” while severe heart disease in men that age is “not exceptionally rare.” Heart disease in women increases as they age, he noted.

“We’ve got to put it all in perspective,” Dr. Nissen said. “Coronary heart disease has a devastating impact on men, particularly on men who are in the prime of life — 45-year-old men with major heart attacks, who may never work another day in their life, who may have children.”

Cancer also strikes men disproportionately: one in three women at some point in life; one in two men. In part, that is a result of the fact that more men than women smoke, and possibly of occupational exposures.

But experts and advocates say that when it comes to government financing for the most common sex-specific reproductive cancers, breast cancer financing exceeds prostate cancer financing by more than 40 percent, with prostate cancer research receiving $394 million in 2005, and breast cancer receiving $710 million. The figures, for financing by the National Cancer Institute and Defense Department, were provided by the not-for-profit Prostate Cancer Foundation.

More women die of breast cancer than men do of prostate cancer: some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer this year, compared with 27,350 deaths of men from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

Breast cancer also strikes young people more often. But men’s chances of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis at some point in their lifetimes are high, with about 234,460 new cases expected to be diagnosed this year, compared with 212,920 new cases of breast cancer.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Peter Scardino, a prostate cancer surgeon and chairman of the department of surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, “there are still more people doing research on breast cancer than on prostate cancer, there’s more industry support for research on breast cancer drugs, there’s been more attention to the quality of life effects of breast cancer and we have more-effective chemotherapy agents for breast cancer because more trials have been done.”

Men’s vulnerability appears to start quite early. More male fetuses are conceived, but they are at greater risk of stillbirth and miscarriage, scientists find. Even as infants, mortality is higher among newborn boys and premature baby boys.

As children, boys are at higher risk for developmental disabilities and autism. Boys and men are more likely to be colorblind, suffer higher rates of hearing loss and are believed to have weaker immune systems than women. They may also recover more slowly from illnesses.

“It’s not that we ‘could be’ the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex,” said Dr. Robert Tan, a geriatrics specialist in Houston who is on the advisory board of the Men’s Health Network. “Even when men and women have the same disease, we often find that men are more likely to die. Hip fractures stand out, for instance: women seem more likely to recover, while men are more likely to die afterward.”

Behavior plays a role in some of the extra deaths and illnesses among men: they tend to be more aggressive than women and to take more risks. Men smoke at higher rates than women, drink more alcohol and are less likely to wear seat belts or use sunscreen. Men also suffer more accidental deaths and serious injuries and are more likely to die of injuries and car accidents. They are three times as likely to be victims of murder, four times as likely to commit suicide and, as teenagers, 11 times as likely to drown.

Some experts think that depression contributes to these reckless and self-destructive behaviors, but that just as heart disease was initially defined by men’s experiences and therefore ignored or missed in women, depression may have been framed by women’s experiences and therefore may be missed and go untreated in men.

In any case, as a result, even though more baby boys are born, among people in their mid-30s, women outnumber men. Among people age 100, women outnumber men by 8 to one.

Among the questions research might explore, Dr. Legato said, are: “Why are there more miscarriages of boy fetuses? What is it about the sexing of the fetus that makes a male more vulnerable? What makes a boy less mature in terms of lung function after he’s born? And what is this propensity for risk-taking?”

One theory is that males are vulnerable because of their chromosomal makeup: where women have two X chromosomes, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. “It is said that even before implantation in the wall of the uterus, the newly fertilized XX entity has a leg up,” Dr. Legato said, “because it can use that extra X to combat mutations in the chromosome that might be lethal or detrimental. And that might be a reason why females have a more sturdy constitution.”

Scientists and advocates who are concerned about men’s health are encouraging men themselves to take the first steps by accepting responsibility for their health status, seeking preventive care and making changes in habits, if necessary. New drugs for erectile dysfunction have helped bring men into doctors’ offices in recent years, experts say, but that is not enough.

“Men need to take as good care of their bodies as they do of their cars and trucks, and they don’t,” said Dr. Ken Goldberg, a urologist and the author of “How Men Can Live as Long as Women,” among other books. “We need men to come in” to the doctor’s office, he said, adding, “A lot of men think they’re bulletproof and invincible.”

Research based on a 2000 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that almost a quarter of all men had not seen a doctor during the previous year, compared with only 8 percent of women, and that one in three men had no regular doctor, compared with one in five women. More than half of men had not gone in for a routine checkup or cholesterol test during the previous year.

Even if something was bothering them, the survey found, men often expressed reluctance to seek medical help. Nearly 40 percent said they would delay care for a few days, and 17 percent said they would wait at least a week.

Strangely, some insights into men’s behavior in regard to their health have been gleaned from studies intended to yield information about women. A 2001 national study on ambulatory care found that women, who are in the habit of seeing doctors regularly if only because they need reproductive services, had double the number of annual exams that men had. Other studies have found that because poor women with children may qualify for Medicaid, poor men are more likely to lack health insurance.

Advocates say that research must be directed at how specific diseases develop in men, but that studies should also be done to explore the underlying reasons that men do not take better care of themselves.

Many psychologists think the problems are rooted in how boys are raised.

“We’ve socialized men from the time they are boys that ‘You have to stand on your own two feet,’ ‘If you have a problem, handle it by yourself,’ ‘Be a man, take one for the team,’ ” said Dr. William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., affiliated with Harvard Medical School. “All of which means, ‘Don’t complain, don’t ask for help and solve the problem by yourself.’ ”

He added: “Men think that being vulnerable is the worst thing. But to recognize there might be something wrong with you, you have to acknowledge: you’re vulnerable.”

11-26-2006 05:19 PM

Re: Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

Raw deal for Oz men

1.      Men comprise of 56% of employed people

2.      93% of those who die from work-related illnesses are men

3.      Men have higher death rates than women for all major causes of death

4.      Men’s use of health services in Australia is 40% lower than women’s

5.      40% of Australian marriages break down

6.      Women initiate divorce 4 in 5 cases

7.      For every $12,000 spent on women’s health research there is less than $1,000 spent on men’s health.

8.      Boy’s VCE results up to 20 per cent below female results.

1. Males make up a paltry 44 per cent of university enrolments, females now dominate most tertiary courses,
2. Boys than twice as likely as girls to drop out of High School,
3. The overwhelming number of remedial students are male,
4. Male unemployment rates for almost every category is higher than female rate,
5. Male unemployment rates for graduates is up to 40 percent higher than equivalent female graduate.

11-27-2006 11:01 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam

Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Friday , December 17, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

Last week, Viola Trevino carried her 5-year-old “daughter” into an Albuquerque (search) court to satisfy a judge’s demand to produce the child.

Complications arose.

One: Trevino had kidnapped the child moments before to pass off as her daughter. Two: the “real” daughter never existed. Three: the “father” and ex-husband Steve Barreras had paid $20,000 in child support. Four: the system finally noticed Trevino was lying.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has asked the state’s Human Services Department for a full report.

Specifically, he wants to know how several government agencies became not only unwitting partners in the fraud, but also resisted efforts to correct it.

Richardson deserves a tip of the hat for taking responsibility. The official response to child support (search) or welfare debacles is usually silence.

Sometimes a finger of accusation is pointed at specific individuals as though the abuse resulted from a few “bad apples” in an otherwise clean barrel. Richardson is acknowledging there is a problem with the system itself.

The system is broken. In recent years, heartbreaking stories from every state have flooded the media. Often they focus on the plight of children who are abused or neglected by those assigned to protect them. But just as often they highlight the abuse of parents — especially non-custodial fathers — who are processed as paperwork, not people.

With Trevino, several government agencies processed papers. Trevino falsified a paternity test by using a sample from an adult daughter who is Barreras’ child and then had a family friend process it at the lab. On the basis of the test, Trevino obtained a court order for child support.

Trevino also obtained a Social Security card, a Medicare card and a birth certificate for the “daughter.”

When a fraud is so blatant, there is a tendency to blame the victim for somehow facilitating his or her own victimhood. But Barreras, who works as a corrections officer in law enforcement, attempted repeatedly to expose the fraud and to protect himself.

His petition for a restraining order was denied. Evidence that his vasectomy, conducted a year prior to the child’s “birth,” had left him with a zero sperm count, was ignored. Phoning and writing to New Mexico’s child support agency to have them verify his daughter’s non-existence resulted in a letter. The child enforcement worker stated, “your daughter does exist, as I am sure you already knew.”

Barreras went so far as to hire a private investigator to expose the scam. Indeed, without his persistent refusal to be victimized, the fraud would have probably never come to light. It would have remained just one more injustice tucked away and protected by the system’s closed file.

Richard Farr of the family-oriented KRightsRadio has spearheaded an investigation of the matter. [For an interview on this topic with Barreras’ second wife, click here.] Farr calls the case “an egregious example of an overzealous child support agency who apparently ignored the alleged father’s repeated cries … Unfortunately, too many child support agencies are virtually accountable to no one.”

Reports from an investigative journalist at KOBTV, Albuquerque, finally brought enough pressure to bear that Trevino was ordered to produce the child in court. On the day of her hearing, Trevino went to a mall, where she convinced a grandmother and her 2-year-old granddaughter that they should all go to see Santa Claus. Instead, Trevino took them to the courthouse, snatched the girl, and tried to pass her off as the missing daughter.

The panicked grandmother could not keep up with Trevino and got left behind in the parking lot. She stated: “I thought I was never going to see my baby girl again. It’s the scariest thing.”

Richardson’s question keeps rising: how could this happen?

A partial explanation is that the child welfare system seems to automatically favor the claims of custodial mothers over non-custodial fathers.

Consider one scenario. A custodial mother swears under oath to have given birth and perhaps provides false documents. In many states, if she also swears that the absent father is violent, her statement can result in a restraining order that de facto terminates the father’s visitation rights. If a subsequent order to pay child support is delivered to an invalid address, which is often provided by the mother, then the father may not respond within the window of time provided for a protest. Now he must pay, go to jail or endure a process similar to the one Barreras suffered.

But why did the child support enforcement system not follow up despite complaints? Farr suggests an answer: “[S]ome officials see child support agencies as revenue-generating agencies. States make money off the collection of child support while the taxpayers lose money at the federal level overall. Too often, this money-mindedness does not give incentives for agencies to do the right thing for children and families.”

The stakes are higher than money, however. If Barreras had fallen behind in support payments, he would have been sent to jail. His life might have been destroyed.

Barreras is reportedly suing to recover the $20,000. There is some indication he may also sue other individuals who “perpetuated” the fraud. According to Barreras’ attorney: “the parties that were involved in this fraud will be sought. We’ve played defense. Now, it’s time to play offense.”

It’s about time.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

11-26-2006 12:04 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Kicking the F butt :-)


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Kicking the F butt :-)

Kicking the F butt :-)
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

Hi all Y-mates,

Just wanted to kindly invite you to one of the best “kick butt good” web-sites Down Under at the moment..  http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/samandthecity//
Sam is real smart and does a very good job, his topics are not really PC but, understandably, he still has to keep at least his language so..
Welcome to the show!

Khan, also I hope it can be of help to yol with the great job you are doing on the net, mate. Thanks.

11-24-2006 01:59 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels

Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
In Some Cities, Half of All Students Quitting School

By PIERRE THOMAS and JACK DATE

Nov. 20, 2006 — In several of the largest school systems across the country — from Baltimore to Cleveland to Atlanta and Oakland, Calif. — half of the students are dropping out.

And the problem is not only in the big cities.

Watch the second part of Pierre Thomas’ report Tuesday on “World News with Charles Gibson.”

A recent study by the Department of Education found that 31 percent of American students were dropping out or failing to graduate in the nation’s largest 100 public school districts.

The implications from dropping out of high school are enormous, including a higher risk of poverty and even an abbreviated life span.

So why do they drop out? Eli Thomasson, 16, of Georgia, explains why he wanted to drop out of school earlier this year.

“I was just tired of school, you know. I didn’t like it. I had made my mind up that I wasn’t going to school anymore,” Thomasson said.

His mother, Donna Thomasson, was frantic.

“Terrified,” she said. “I thought his life was over. I didn’t really see how I could force him to go because you can’t force them to learn if they don’t want to.”

And Eli Thomasson wasn’t the only student at his high school to consider walking away without a diploma.

Berrien High in southern Georgia is part of a national epidemic. More than 40 percent of students there do not graduate.

Sheila Hendley, Berrien High’s graduation coach, has the daunting job of trying to stop this epidemic.

“I have sat with students and literally begged, ‘Please don’t do this,'” Hendley said. “I don’t want you to have to suffer like I know you will if you don’t finish school.”

And in the case of Eli Thomasson, it worked. She stayed on his case and persuaded him to stay in school.

“He said, ‘You know, mom. She probably just saved my life,'” Donna Thomasson said.

It is estimated that about 2,500 students drop out of U.S. high schools every day.

“It’s like seeing a child in the middle of the lake that can’t swim, and you see them bobbing up and down. It’s like watching them drown,” Hendley said.

At Berrien High, the faculty is fighting to save students who are at risk of becoming a part of that troubling statistic. “It’s a real fight. Every day you talk to someone who needs to be motivated,” said Berrien High School Principal Mike Parker.

And why is a high school diploma so important?

Consider this: High school dropouts have a life span that is nine years shorter than people who graduate.

Dropouts are more likely to face poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Typically high school dropouts earn $19,000 a year. High school graduates earn $28,000 a year on average.

If you drop out of high school, your chances of running afoul of the law increase.

Nationally, 68 percent of state prison inmates are dropouts.

Sheriff Jerry Brogdon of Berrien County, Ga., sees those consequences every day at the Berrien County Jailhouse.

He said that “81.2 percent of the inmates we have in here today is high school dropouts.”

Anthony White is a 17-year-old Berrien County Jail inmate.

He quit high school just two weeks before he spoke to ABC News from the jailhouse. He was arrested for allegedly firing a gun in the air just three days after he quit school.

“I felt like I was grown,” White said. “Nobody could tell me not to make my own decision. That’s how I felt at the time.”

But White said, “Now I wish I would’ve listened.”

James Keefe, 19, is another inmate. He dropped out of high school, too.

He has been arrested on burglary charges twice.

“When I was in school, I didn’t get in no trouble,” Keefe said.

On Tuesday, Pierre Thomas looks at some programs that school boards are implementing to reverse this drop-out trend. Watch “World News” for the full report.

11-23-2006 09:12 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
With all the Single Mother households, with boys raising themselves, what would one expect?

By the time a boy hits 6, he can give his mother a run for her money, by the time he is 9 he is stronger than her. By the time he is 12, he IS the man of the house!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-26-2006 02:44 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

That is an utterly stupid statement you made.  There is no such thing as a boy of 12 (or 17 for that matter) who is capable fof making intelligent decisions as a man.  You are proving that now.

12-01-2006 10:55 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

A nine year old boy would not be stronger than a grown woman. I think perhaps a boy of fifteen would more likely be stronger.

I work with a woman who is raising two boys on her own. Both of them are in school and doing well. My husband was raised by only his mother.

I still believe it would be better for everyone if a stable and loving father was there as well. Children need good examples of both men and women as they grow, so they can avoid being judgemental of either sex.

01-09-2007 01:03 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Feminization of American Culture part 3


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of American Culture part 3

The Feminization of American Culture part 3
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
THE FEMINIZATION OF ENTERTAINMENT AND POLITICS

his process of femininization manifests itself, though somewhat differently, when you turn on the TV or watch a movie. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, leading men were, as a rule, infallible: think of Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind, Cary Grant in North by Northwest, or Fred McMurray in My Three Sons. But no longer. In family comedy, the father figure has metamorphosed from the all-knowing, all-wise Robert Young of Father Knows Best to the occasional bumbling of Bill Cosby and the consistent stupidity of Homer Simpson.

A mature adult nowadays is someone who is comfortable talking about her inner conflicts, someone who values personal relationships above abstract goals, someone who isn’t afraid to cry. In other words: a mature adult is a woman.

Commercially successful movies now often feature women who are physically aggressive, who dominate or at least upstage the men. This description applies to movies as diverse as Charlie’s Angels and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In today’s cinema, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, all the leading women are strong and all the leading men are good-looking.

A transformation of comparable magnitude seems to be under way in the political arena. Military command used to be considered the best qualification for leadership–as it was with Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, and Dwight Eisenhower, to name only a few. Today, the best qualification for leadership may be the ability to listen. The feminine way of seeing the world and its problems is, arguably, becoming the mainstream way.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran against George Bush p?e for the presidency. Clinton was an acknowledged draft evader. Bush, the incumbent, was a World War II hero who had just led the United States to military success in Operation Desert Storm. Clinton won. In 1996, Clinton was challenged by Bob Dole, another decorated World War II veteran. Once again, the man who had evaded military service defeated the combat veteran. In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain competed for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCain was a genuine war hero whose courageous actions as a prisoner of war in Vietnam had won him well-deserved honors and praise. Bush, on the other hand, was alleged to have used family influence to obtain a position in the Texas National Guard, in order to avoid service in Vietnam. Once again, the man who had never experienced combat defeated the military veteran. Moral of the story: It’s all very well to be a war hero, but in our modern, feminized society, being a war hero won’t get you elected president.

Conversely, being a draft dodger isn’t as bad as it used to be. A number of authors have recognized the increasing feminization of American society. With few exceptions, most of those acknowledging this process have welcomed it.17 As Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff wrote in their 1985 book The Feminization of America, “The feminizing influence is moving [American society] away from many archaic ways of thinking and behaving, toward the promise of a saner and more humanistic future…. Feminine culture, with its commitment to creating and protecting life, is our best and brightest hope for overcoming the destructive, life-threatening forces of the nuclear age.

I think we can all agree on one point: there have been fundamental changes in American culture over the past fifty years, changes that indicate a shift from a male-dominated culture to a feminine or at least an androgynous society. The question is, what’s causing this shift? Some might argue that the changes I’ve described are simply a matter of better education, progressive laws, and two generations of consciousness-raising: an evolution from a patriarchal Dark Ages to a unisex, or feminine, Enlightenment. I’m willing to consider that hypothesis. But before we accept that conclusion, we should ask whether there are any other possibilities.

11-22-2006 03:12 PM

Re: The Feminization of American Culture part 3
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

I prefer Peter Griffin to Doc Savage. He’s just funnier.

I do not like George W. Bush. I voted against him. Twice. It didn’t matter.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the last two paragraphs. Can we get there without alienating half the country, though?

01-09-2007 12:52 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminization of American Culture part Two


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminization of American Culture part Two

Feminization of American Culture part Two
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
THE NEW MEN’S MAGAZINES

t isn’t only psychology that has undergone a process of feminization over the past fifty years, and it isn’t only women whose attitudes have changed. Take a stroll to your neighborhood bookstore or newsstand. You’ll find magazines such as Men’s Health, MH-18, Men’s Fitness, Gear, and others devoted to men’s pursuit of a better body, a better self-image. None of them existed fifteen years ago. The paid circulation of Men’s Health has risen from 250,000 to more than 1.5 million in less than ten years.13 Many of the articles in these magazines are reminiscent of those to be found in women’s magazines such as Glamour, Mademoiselle, and Cosmopolitan: “The Ten Secrets of Better Sex,” “The New Diet Pills–Can They Work For You?” or “Bigger Biceps in Five Minutes a Day.” (The women’s magazine equivalent might be something like “slimmer thighs in five minutes a day.”

Men didn’t use to care so much about their appearance. Psychiatrists Harrison Pope and Katharine Phillips report that in American culture today, “Men of all ages, in unprecedented numbers, are preoccupied with the appearance of their bodies.”14 They document that “men’s dissatisfaction with body appearance has nearly tripled in less than thirty years–from 15 percent in 1972, to 34 percent in 1985, to 43 percent in 1997.”15 Cosmetic plastic surgery, once marketed exclusively to women, has found a rapidly growing male clientele. The number of men undergoing liposuction, for instance, quadrupled between 1990 and 2000.16

11-22-2006 03:09 PM

Re: Feminization of American Culture part Two
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Men’s Fitness = Good! Men ought to take very good care of their hearts and bodies in order to stay alive well into their 100s.

Men’s Cosmetic Surgery = ….. why? I mean… why for either sex? Ugh…

01-09-2007 12:43 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Feminization of American Culture


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of American Culture

The Feminization of American Culture
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
hxxp://www.worldandi.com/public/2001/October/sax.html

Leonard Sax, M.D.

n ancient times–by which I mean, before 1950–most scholars agreed that women were, as a rule, not quite equal to men. Women were charming but mildly defective. Many (male) writers viewed women as perpetual teenagers, stuck in an awkward place between childhood and adulthood. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, wrote that women are “childish, silly and short-sighted, really nothing more than overgrown children, all their life long. Women are a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man.” 1

Psychologists in that bygone era devoted considerable time and energy to the question of why women couldn’t outgrow their childish ways. The Freudians said it was because they were trapped in the pre-Oedipal stage, tortured by **bleep** envy. Followers of Abraham Maslow claimed that women were fearful of self-actualization. Jungians insisted that women were born with a deficiency of imprinted archetypes. Back then, of course, almost all the psychologists were men.

Things are different now. Male psychologists today are so rare that Ilene Philipson–author of On the Shoulders of Women: The Feminization of Psychotherapy–speaks of “the vanishing male therapist as a species soon to be extinct.2 the gender of the modal psychotherapist has changed from male to female, the standard of mental health has changed along with it. Today, Dr. Philipson observes, the badge of emotional maturity is no longer the ability to control or sublimate your feelings but rather the ability to express them. A mature adult nowadays is someone who is comfortable talking about her inner conflicts, someone who values personal relationships above abstract goals, someone who isn’t afraid to cry. In other words: a mature adult is a woman.

It is now the men who are thought to be stuck halfway between childhood and adulthood, incapable of articulating their inner selves. Whereas psychologists fifty years ago amused themselves by cataloging women’s (supposed) deficiencies, psychologists today devote themselves to demonstrating “the natural superiority of women.”3 Psychologists report that women are better able to understand nonverbal communication and are more expressive of emotion.4 ,5Quantitative personality inventories reveal that the average woman is more trusting, nurturing, and outgoing than the average man.6 The average eighth-grade girl has a command of language and writing skills equal to that of the average eleventh-grade boy.7

As the influence of the new psychology permeates our culture, women have understandably begun to wonder whether men are really, well, human. “What if these women are right?” wonders one writer in an article for Marie Claire, a national woman’s magazine. “What if it’s true that some men don’t possess, or at least can’t express, nuanced emotions?”8 More than a few contemporary psychologists have come to regard the male of our species as a coarsened, more violent edition of the normal, female, human. Not surprisingly, they have begun to question whether having a man in the house is desirable or even safe.
Eleven
years ago, scholar Sara Ruddick expressed her concern about “the extent and variety of the psychological, sexual, and physical battery suffered by women and children of all classes and social groups … at the hands of fathers, their mothers’ male lovers, or male relatives. If putative fathers are absent or perpetually disappearing and actual fathers are controlling or abusive, who needs a father? What mother would want to live with one or wish one on her children?”9 Nancy Polikoff, former counsel to the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, said that “it is no tragedy, either on a national scale or in an individual family, for children to be raised without fathers.”10

The feminization of psychology manifests itself in myriad ways. Consider child discipline. Seventy years ago, doctors agreed that the best way to discipline your child was to punish the little criminal. (“Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Today, spanking is considered child abuse.11 You’re supposed to talk with your kid. Spanking sends all the wrong messages, we are told, and may have stupendously horrible consequences. Psychoanalyst Alice Miller confidently informed us, in her book For Your Own Good, that Adolf Hitler’s evil can be traced to the spankings his father inflicted on him in childhood.12

11-22-2006 03:08 PM

Re: The Feminization of American Culture
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Meh, I was spanked as a child.

These women being quoted are dead wrong. My husband has a myriad of different emotions. He’s not the slightest bit dangerous, unless someone tries to hurt me or someone else he cares about. I look forward to having children with him.

01-09-2007 12:40 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Single-Sex Ed 101


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Single-Sex Ed 101

Single-Sex Ed 101
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
hxxp://www.slate.com/id/2153505/?nav=navoa

Welcome to the latest educational fad.
By Meghan O’Rourke
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2006, at 12:43 PM ET

Not long ago, the idea that American public schools should offer separate classes for boys and girls would have been regarded as retrograde; in the late 1980s, single-sex public schools had almost disappeared. But during the last decade, single-sex education has come to seem cutting-edge once again, backed by a startling rise of bipartisan support. In October, the Department of Education announced new federal regulations making it easier for public schools to become single-sex institutions, provided that “substantially equal” opportunities are available to the other sex. Part of the impetus behind the new rules is simply Americans’ love of choice. As a Department of Education spokeswoman told me, single-sex schools will aid families by adding “one more tool to the toolbox.” But part of it is the belief that single-sex schools will be a panacea for struggling boys and girls: Some of the staunchest advocates of alternatives to co-education are preaching new approaches based on magnifying, rather than trying to overcome, gender differences.

Behind what has been billed as a pragmatic decision lurks a more programmatic (and pseudoscientific) agenda. Invoking murky neurobiological data about innate gender differences, these advocates leap to cut-and-dry classroom prescriptions—ones that may ultimately provide less pedagogical variety for students themselves. It’s one thing to offer students the option to learn the same things in separate classrooms. It’s quite another to urge that all students learn in programmatically gender-tailored ways—and possibly even learn different things.

Among the most influential of the lobbying groups, the National Association for Single Sex Public Education is headed by an MIT-educated psychologist named Leonard Sax. Extrapolating rather freely from neuroscientific studies—many with small sample pools—Sax argues that, paradoxically, treating students in a gender-neutral manner tends to reinforce stereotypical weaknesses in the classroom, leading to declines in aptitude for both genders. His remedy is to urge educational techniques that cater to the unique “boy” brain and unique “girl” brain. Girls, Sax believes, don’t enjoy abstraction; they have more sensitive hearing than their male peers; and they work better than boys do in groups. For them, using more context in math class is useful. Boys, on the other hand, relish abstraction and are bored by context. They benefit from moving around constantly. Therefore, Sax claims, “It’s not sufficient just to put girls in one classroom and boys in another. In order to improve academic performance and broaden educational horizons, you need to understand how girls and boys learn differently.”

Consider a typical example from the NASSPE Web site: “Girls have a sense of hearing which is two to four times better than boys (depending on the frequency tested) … if you have a male teacher speaking in a tone of voice which seems normal to him, a girl in the front row may feel that the teacher is practically yelling at her. Remember that she is experiencing a sound four times louder than what the male teacher is experiencing. The simplest way to accommodate these differences in a coed classroom is to put all the boys in the front and the girls in the back—just the opposite of the usual seating pattern that the children themselves will choose.” Sax’s best-selling book, Why Gender Matters, is full of similar illustrations.

The trouble with this type of reductive emphasis on group identity is that it contributes to the very problem the other single-sex education promoters aim to combat: pedagogical practices that unwittingly enforce gender stereotypes. First of all, group differences between the genders, as psychologist Elizabeth Spelke at Harvard University emphasizes, should not obscure the wide overlap in capacities among individual boys and girls. Second, what differences do exist rarely dictate one clear-cut pedagogical response. A good teacher is, or should be, fine-tuning classroom chemistry, not proceeding on the basis of simplistic biology. Putting all the girls in the back, for example, might result in the queen bees distracting each other, and more than a few boys turning around to look at them. Third, we still don’t fully understand the import of the neuroscientific studies Sax cites, or what, precisely, “blood flow” to different areas of the brain means. Leaping to sweeping, untested conclusions is hardly scientific.

That’s not to say that single-sex education should be dismissed out of hand. Numerous studies do show that students from Hispanic and black single-sex Catholic schools score significantly better on cognitive tests than their peers at co-ed Catholic schools do. Others have found that girls at single-sex institutions demonstrate more interest in math than their co-educated peers do. And one laudable goal of single-sex educators is simply to get kids to enjoy school. You’re more likely to practice things you enjoy, and you’re more likely to learn when you’re engaged. It’s no service to students when schools push one didactic approach above all others—an emphasis in kindergarten, say, on fine-motor and academic skills and lots of sitting activities that slower-developing boys tend to find more frustrating. Finally, more than a few parents and kids themselves will attest that single-sex schooling can help focus an adolescent hopelessly distracted by the other sex.

But whatever advantages might ultimately derive from single-sex schools, the gender-specific approach all too easily devolves to formulaic teaching that promises to narrow (rather than expand) learning options for kids. When it comes to English, for instance, single-sex-education advocates tend to disparage what they believe is a “feminized” verbal curriculum and approach, arguing that it plays to boys’ weaknesses and handicaps them. Sax suggests, then, that girls and boys be asked to do different exercises in English. The girls would read Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret and engage in a role-playing exercise about the characters. The boys, meanwhile, would read Lord of the Flies and then create a map of the island, demonstrating that they’ve read closely enough to retain key details. Neither exercise sounds particularly useful. But the latter simply doesn’t accomplish the most essential work of an English class. It’s a test of reading for information—and a reaffirmation of boys’ good “spatial skills”—rather than an exploration of the thematic complexities of William Golding’s classic. Even well-intentioned prescription easily becomes a form of zealotry, as when Sax declares that “Ernest Hemingway’s books are boy-friendly, while Toni Morrison’s are girl-friendly” and adds, “some teachers suggest that we need to stretch the boys’ imaginations … surely such a suggestion violates every rule of pedagogy.”

There’s a curious paradox here: Sax’s goal is to get kids to feel more comfortable with skills that don’t come easily to them. Yet his recipe for doing so is to segregate them with similarly challenged kids. In this, the NASSPE ethos scants another central goal of school: learning how to work with those who have different aptitudes from your own. In the right circumstances, a classroom can profitably expose kids to diverse thinking and aptitudes. A friend who teaches at a private school recently told me a story about asking his students to compose a list of metaphors. In his English class is a kid—let’s call him J—who fits the stereotypical “male” learning model. He is remarkably good at abstract concepts and at logic, and it’s hard for him not to blurt out answers to math problems (which can lead to quiet girls being overlooked). But his verbal skills are less honed. In class, J read his list out loud; most of his metaphors were highly logical but somewhat literal. Then a few girls read theirs, including a student of remarkable verbal talent. After listening to her, J said, “I think some of my examples weren’t really metaphors; they were more like comparisons.” If you buy the gender-specific line of thinking, J might never have arrived at that insight.

Proponents of single-sex education would protest that their approach gives children more latitude to carve out a distinctive identity. Removing “the other” from the classroom can help kids conceive of themselves as individuals rather than as members of a gender. But the risk is that the more didactic—and “scientifically” justified—the campaign for single-sex schools becomes, the more the idea of “essential” gender differences will filter down to kids themselves. And as psychologist Carol Dweck and others have shown, the way we think about how we learn has a profound effect on the way we actually learn. Claude Steele’s work on “stereotype threat” has shown that students who absorb others’ ideas about their group’s handicaps exhibit further declines in aptitude in the contested areas. (And a 2001 study of pilot single-sex programs in California demonstrated what can happen when programs are badly implemented: In this case, unconscious teacher bias inadvertently accentuated more trivial stereotypes as well, with girls encouraged to be “concerned with their appearance,” and boys encouraged to be “strong.” What is designed as an escape from gender-based thinking—boys are better at math than girls—could, in the end, only reinforce gender-based thinking, if a more nuanced form of it: Girls aren’t as good with abstraction as boys are. That’s a result that even those who believe in innate differences, like Sax, shouldn’t be in favor of accentuating further.
Meghan O’Rourke is Slate’s culture editor.

11-22-2006 02:58 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Desperate Feminist Wives


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Desperate Feminist Wives

Desperate Feminist Wives
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Why wanting equality makes women unhappy.
By Meghan O’Rourke
Posted Monday, March 6, 2006, at 7:35 PM ET

In The Feminine Mystique, the late Betty Friedan attributed the malaise of married women largely to traditionalist marriages in which wives ran the home and men did the bread-winning. Her book helped spark the sexual revolution of the 1970s and fueled the notion that egalitarian partnerships—where both partners have domestic responsibilities and pursue jobs—would make wives happier. Last week, two sociologists at the University of Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness among women that challenges this assumption. Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and “emotional work” men contribute (or are perceived to contribute). But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals—have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose. Progressive married women—who should be enjoying some or all of the fruits that Freidan lobbied for—are less happy, it would appear, than women who live as if Friedan never existed.

Of course, conclusions like these are never cut-and-dried. This study is based on surveys conducted between 1992 and 1994, and measuring marital happiness is a little like trying to quantify sex appeal. But the data are nonetheless worth pausing over, especially if, like me, you’ve long subscribed to the view that so-called companionate couples have the best chance at sustaining a happy partnership. Among all the married women surveyed, 52 percent of homemakers considered themselves very happy. Yet only 45 percent of the most progressive-minded homemakers considered themselves happy. This might not seem surprising—presumably, many progressive women prefer to work than stay at home. But the difference in happiness persists even among working wives. Forty-one percent of all the working wives surveyed said they were happy, compared with 38 percent of the progressive working wives. The same was the case when it came to earnings. Forty-two percent of wives who earned one-third or more of the couple’s income reported being happy, compared with 34 percent of progressive women in the same position. Perhaps the progressive women had hoped to earn more. But they were less happy than their peers about being a primary breadwinner—though you might expect the opposite. Across the board, progressive women are less likely to feel content, whether they are working or at home, and no matter how much they are making.

What’s really going on here? The conservative explanation, of course, is that the findings suggest that women don’t know what they really want (as John Tierney implied in the New York Times, and Charlotte Allen suggested in the Los Angeles Times). Feminism, they argue, has only undermined the sturdy institution of marriage for everyone. The feminist and liberal argument is that reality hasn’t yet caught up to women’s expectations. Women have entered the workforce, but men still haven’t picked up the domestic slack—working wives continue to do 70 percent or more of the housework, according to one study. If you work hard and come home and find you have to do much more than your husband does, it’s little wonder that you would be angry and frustrated.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137537/

11-22-2006 02:21 PM

Re: Desperate Feminist Wives
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Perhaps another suggestion is that being constantly worried about how to be ‘progressive’ is causing these women more stress. Honestly, being a ‘feminist’ would be far too much of a headache for me. I don’t want to care what other people think of me. I don’t want to have to be an example for other women. I don’t want to blame other people for my own issues. I’ve got enough on my plate as it is without worrying about crap like that.

01-09-2007 12:29 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home

TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
BY GINA DAMRON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

On the surface, Thiago Olson is like any typical teenager.

He’s on the cross country and track teams at Stoney Creek High School in Rochester Hills. He’s a good-looking, clean-cut 17-year-old with a 3.75 grade point average, and he has his eyes fixed on the next big step: college.

But to his friends, Thiago is known as “the mad scientist.”

In the basement of his parents’ Oakland Township home, tucked away in an area most aren’t privy to see, Thiago is exhausting his love of physics on a project that has taken him more than two years and 1,000 hours to research and build — a large, intricate machine that , on a small scale, creates nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion — when atoms are combined to create energy — is “kind of like the holy grail of physics,” he said.

In fact, on http://www.fusor.net, the Stoney Creek senior is ranked as the 18th amateur in the world to create nuclear fusion. So, how does he do it?

Pointing to the steel chamber where all the magic happens, Thiago said on Friday that this piece of the puzzle serves as a vacuum. The air is sucked out and into a filter.

Then, deuterium gas — a form of hydrogen — is injected into the vacuum. About 40,000 volts of electricity are charged into the chamber from a piece of equipment taken from an old mammogram machine. As the machine runs, the atoms in the chamber are attracted to the center and soon — ta da — nuclear fusion.

Thiago said when that happens, a small intense ball of energy forms.

He first achieved fusion in September and has been perfecting the machine he built in his parents’ garage ever since.

This year, Thiago was a semifinalist for the Siemens Foundation’s National Research Competition. He plans to enter the Science and Engineering Fair of Metropolitan Detroit, which is in March, in hopes of qualifying to be in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in New Mexico in May.

To his mom and dad, he’s still reminiscent of the 5-year-old who toiled over a kid-friendly chemistry set and, then at age 9, was able to change the battery in his older brother’s car.

Now, in a small room in the basement, Thiago has set up a science lab — where bottles marked “potassium hydroxide” and “methanol” sit on shelves and a worn, old book, titled “The Atomic Fingerprint: Neutron Activation Analysis” piled among others in the empty sink.

Thiago’s mom, Natalice Olson, initially was leery of the project, even though the only real danger from the fusion machine is the high voltage and small amount of X-rays emitted through a glass window in the vacuum chamber — through which Olson videotapes the fusion in action..

But, she wasn’t really surprised, since he was always coming up with lofty ideas.

“Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbaric chamber,” she said, adding that she promptly said no. But, when he came asking about the nuclear fusion machine, she relented.

“I think it was pretty brave that he could think that he was capable to do something so amazing,” she said.

Thiago’s dad, Mark Olson, helped with some of the construction and electrical work. To get all of the necessary parts, Thiago scoured the Internet, buying items on eBay and using his age to persuade manufacturers to give him discounts. The design of the model came from his own ideas and some suggestions from other science-lovers he met online.

Someday, he hopes to work for the federal government — just like his grandfather, Clarence Olson, who designed tanks for the Department of Defense after World War II. Thiago, who is modest and humble about his accomplishment, said he knew from an early age what he would do for a living.

“I was always interested in science,” he said. “It’s always been my best subject in school.”

But, his mom had other ideas.

“I thought he was going to be a cook,” Natalice Olson said, “because he liked to mix things.”

Contact GINA DAMRON at 248-351-3293 or at gdamron@freepress.com.

11-22-2006 09:29 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?

Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Carey Roberts

It was one of those claims that only a feminist could dream up: “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70% of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape.” Despite the lack of credibility of anything that comes from the United Nations, this straight-faced claim actually made its way into a front-page article last week in the Washington Times.

That, despite the fact that the research shows Indian women are the gender more likely to abuse. Plus, no one could track down the UN report that supposedly made the claim.
The Washington Times is certainly no feminist rag. So what’s going on here?

In the wake of the November 7 electoral debacle, conservatives are doing a lot of soul-searching. Maybe it’s time to assess whether the feminist ideology has been allowed to invidiously dilute the conservative message.

There was a time, of course, when the women’s movement held the moral high ground. Susan B. Anthony not only championed women’s right to vote, but also took a principled stand against abortion.

But after Anthony died in 1906, her movement fell under the sway of a group of neo-Marxist women who dubbed themselves “feminists.” The Misses of Misery asserted that everything that is wrong in the world can be blamed on the vast anti-woman conspiracy they call the patriarchy. Here’s Gloria Steinem: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole… patriarchy.”

For years, conservatives have underestimated the dogged determination of the women’s libbers to undermine everything that is good and right in our society: the inviolability of life, sanctity of the family, free speech, opportunities not quotas, law based on due process, and limited role of government.

Let’s be perfectly plain about it: Feminism is the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for.
Thankfully, some in the conservative ranks have bravely spoken out against the rad-fem jihad, including Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlessinger, Catherine Seipp, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Myrna Blyth.

But why are there only six, not 600 conservative women on the list? And what about conservative men? Are the conservative no-shows intimidated or merely complacent? Why haven’t the mainstream conservative organizations come out four-square against radical feminism?

To be sure, one reason is that the conservative movement has become beholden to the electoral imperatives of the Republican party, fearing that any criticism of feminism might stir a backlash on election day. This fear is misplaced, however, as only a quarter of American women call themselves feminist, and 22% of women say that being called a feminist would be an “insult.”

Another reason is that many conservative men – especially politicians and newspaper editors — confuse ladies-first chivalry with becoming water-carriers for the latest feminist myth-de-jour.
It’s time that these guys wise-up to the feminist bait-and-switch. These gals claim to be the complete equals to men. But voice any doubts about their ideology, and they lapse into a pathetic cocoon of hurt feelings.

And then there are those ladies who claim to be straight-laced conservatives, but bristle with an anti-male hostility or spread poisonous gender myths.

Take conservative columnist Suzanne Fields who had the habit of making nasty asides about men. Finally her readers objected en masse, their letters appearing under an editorial headline that took exception to Fields’ “Anti-Male Diatribe.”

And then there’s marriage maven Maggie Gallagher who never passes on the opportunity to diss men. Once Gallagher claimed that, “battering is largely a male prerogative, the way a tiny fraction of evil men seek to control the women they sleep with.”
Really, Mrs. Gallagher?

Try telling that to the family of Dennis McGlothin of Peoria County, Ill., who last week was run over and killed by his ex-wife Krystle. Just to make her point, the woman also rammed his pickup truck and smashed his windows.

This case is not an aberration. Psychologist Renee McDonald has found that American wives are twice as likely as their husbands to engage in severe domestic violence.

A few months ago Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden reflected on the feminist opportunists who seize on military sex scandals to push for women in front-line combat positions. Prudent ridiculed the flat-footed military brass as “Powerful men who know better are unable to stand up to the stamp of little feminist feet.”
It’s time that conservatives found the moral courage and personal gumption to say ‘no’ to the latest feminist demands, lest we bequeath to our children and grandchildren an unruly and emasculated culture.

11-22-2006 09:07 AM

Re: Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Feminism and their inability to grasp the most basic parts of Mathematics has become a lethal combination!!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-26-2006 02:48 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Risk your life for your country today


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Risk your life for your country today

Risk your life for your country today
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
pay alimony and leave your house tomorrow, so that your wife can be f*cked in your bed by her bfs after she got rid of you. Seriously it boggles my mind how can a boy risk his life for America. They need guys who know nothing about anything. Must be why the average age in Army and Marines is nearing the levels of Hilters Youth.

11-21-2006 10:22 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

i agree with part of your statement and don’t agree with another part.

the guys that sign up to join the military are usually just as smart (if not smarter), than the general population.  they are voluntarily signing up and getting paid  for their services (which i admire).  i doubt that the precious career women that noer orginally wrote about could hold a candle to these guys and what they do out in the field of battle.

now as far as risking one’s life for america.. it depends on the reason.  if the reason is to defend my freedom and the freedom of my family, then i’d be willing to do it.  if the reason is to go to war and set women free in other countries (or even here), then no i wouldn’t do it.  i’m not willing to put my life out there for women who in turn would use it against men (i.e. courts, divorces, etc).

11-21-2006 10:38 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
By not knowing nothing about anything I was referring to life experience or even knowing the enviroment they live in, not about intelligence and school performance. I doubt a 17-20 year old did look into marriage divorce and feminism to the point of beeing sickend of how the system is stacked against him. Of course he might sign up to defend country and family, I just wonder if the average GI would be as willing if he had the knowledge and made the realizations the guys on here have, did.

11-21-2006 10:51 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

no problem cassius.. thanks for the clarification

11-21-2006 11:10 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
I have two Sons in the Military. One in Special Forces the other a Marine on his Fourth Combat Tour in Iraq. He is a Lance Corporal, his photo is hanging on the wall behind me. In his Dress blues. His Great Uncle fought at Iowa Jima, Korea, and two Tours in VietNam. That is part of his family’s heritage. Two Brothers came from Rotterdam in 1749 on the Ship Posana. Into Philadelphia and fought with the Calloway Mounted Regiment in Kentucky to free this nation. Their descendents have been defending this Republic ever since.

On the Mother’s side of the Family. Their Grandfather and Great Uncles fought with the Marines at Tarawa, Okinawa, and at Midway. They are also descendants of Judge Roy Bean. One was in the Service when 911 happened. The other quit a $60,000 a year job to serve the Nation. The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the demographic make up of our front line people, shows they are better educated than the Average Citizens, predominately White, and not the losers John Kerry claims.

Perhaps you should inform yourself of the facts before spouting off nonsense. Their younger Brother intends to join the Army. He wants to be an Army Ranger. His Great Uncle was in WW2, his other Uncle was in the 101st and fought at Bastogne, another Uncle was killed at Anzio, another on D-Day. I have respect for those who serve to defend the nation. Neither of my Sons is fighting for Halliburton, Feminism, or the New World Order.

11-22-2006 02:19 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
I wasnt talking in direspect of Gis or your sons, quite the opposite. When grandpa returned from world war he returned to a country that valued his sacrifice a wife that respected nutured and supported him and I bet he did never regret serving his country or asked himself what he risked his life for. Now how do you think your sons are going to feel if divorce hits, witht he system walking all over them, about the risks they took for their country that basically stabs them in their back now, maybe even jailing them because of unpayed child support while some bad boy does their ex wife.

11-22-2006 10:36 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
No argument there Brother. Family Court Judges have taken children away from Military Fathers while they were engaged in Combat. In both Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a fundamental betrayal of their sacrifices for this Republic. And one reason the GOP (Geriatric Oppulent Pedophiles) don’t deserve your vote. The GOP has done not a **bleep** thing to support Military Fathers. Zilch, Nada, Gar Nichts.

11-23-2006 08:58 AM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
jimp
Contributor
jimp
I think that America has moved well beyond the point where men’s status as first class citizens can be peacefully restored. It’s time American men realize that in America they’re second class citizens, just like blacks in the South were before the civil rights movement, and the only way to get back their first class status is to let the country collapse, or be taken over by muslims. It’s very sad, but unfortunately, there is no, and can never be a relatively peaceful movement, similar to the civil rights movement in the 1960’s whereby men can achieve equal rights in America again, because women are simply not rational creatures that can be reasoned with, and will not give up their first class status voluntarily.

11-25-2006 10:46 AM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
If a men movement would come along the situation could change like feminism did it for the women. You are right though if men would go on strike they sure would have a problem. Men will not even have to be told to be selfish and think only of themselfs. If wifey plays hubby she plays her sons as well and if it keeps escalating we will be surrounded by your kevin Federline type of guys who will not lift a finger to defend their country.

11-26-2006 08:53 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

My husband does what he wants. I don’t treat him like some child or lesser person. I don’t have any dominance or supremacy over him, that’s ludicrous. I love him and I want him to be happy. He wants the same thing for me. To put it simply, there’s plenty of freedom and respect for BOTH of us to be ‘first class citizens’.

We’ve both been in the military, and gotten OUT after our three years. I hope very much that your sons are safe in their duties.

01-09-2007 12:12 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism

How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By David R. Usher

Feminists absolutely cannot stand the healthy moral values of marriage, family, and fatherhood.

Feminist political players have always tended to take strong oppositional positions on issues of importance. None are based against a reasonable yardstick of moral, ethical, or social behavior.

The latest political trick applied by institutionalized feminists to scare the public away from healthy legislation is to claim that realists are “absolutist.” This word instantly dredges up visions of boorish male dictators, thus derailing meaningful debate into a trench-battle in a swamp that few realists can recover from.

We can now officially add the word “absolutism” to the unabridged Institutional Feminist dictionary. This repository of social terrorism includes other favorite bludgeons such as “intolerance,” “stigma,” “diversity,” ‘patriarchal,” “sexist,” “woman-hater,” and “abuser.”

Absolutism is not limited to spherical feminists (a “spherical feminist” is a person who is a feminist no matter what side you view them from). Conservatives have more than their share of practicing institutional feminists.

For example, former-Senator John Danforth dropped the “divisive” bomb in an attempt to make gay clerics and marriage an irrelevant issue for the Episcopal Church. Danforth is wrong: if practicing simple biblical principles becomes unimportant, the dictionary of institutionalized feminism has become the scripture for an irrelevant church. Not all battles are bad. This one should have been finished long ago. The Episcopal church should simply remove anyone attempting to sell the church into feminism and get on with life.

The unwillingness of Epicopalians to read the bible brought on the installation of the first feminist Bishop, who immediately opened the floodgates of hell by announcing that homosexuality is no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

The Episcopal Church is now an extension of the National Organization for Women. In taking this position, Katharine Jefferts Schori is preaching from the N.O.W. Times, which in 1988 declared, “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”

Mark Alexander, an Episcopalian brother of Danforth, operates the self-proclaimed Conservative Journal of Record. Alexander insists that father-absence was caused by “male abdication,” after admitting that divorce was caused by feminists. He should know better: David Blankenhorn’s theory about father-absence was thoroughly debunked long ago. More than half of all husbands are thrown out of their families, as Alexander states, “without any claim of abandonment, infidelity or abuse.” Perhaps he would also blame the holocaust on the Jewish people?

Danforth and Schori are effectively supporting the aggressive lesbian take-over of the institution of marriage and the Episcopal Church itself. Those who actually read the bible are supposed to sit on their hands quietly or be called “absolutist.” Alexander is supporting this take-over passively, by falsely declaring men’s interest in marriage to be so weak as to be meaningless, leaving it open to co-option by lesbian-feminists who now fully intend to remove men from marriage and family entirely.

A “rationalization” is the practice of inventing socially-acceptable excuses for socially-unacceptable behavior. These frail, often-emotional, relativist indulgences melt before lucid moral standards such as “Thou shalt not kill,” or “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” These are but two of the many behavioral yardsticks hated by radical feminists who feel it is reasonable to kill babies and terminate marriages and husbands at-will.

Twenty years ago, feminists realized that it was necessary to take over all major religions in order to eliminate pesky moral yardsticks. Only a handful of churches have not yet been devastated or severely compromised.

The plan backfired on feminists in the Catholic Church. Their idea: since gays could be ministers, feminists could sue the institution for what gays do inside the Church, and put it out of business. The Vatican is finally standing its ground, removing gays and speaking against feminism after finding out what gay feminist ministers do when given power. If the Episcopalian grassroots cannot find the moral resolve to clean house now, perhaps the lessons of the Catholic Church will change their minds quickly.

Feminists failed broaching the Muslim faith. Indeed, one of the reasons Muslim countries see western cultures as being threatening is due to the fact that all western cultures are radically feminist. We insist on exporting absolutist feminism via every possible channel, and then wonder why Muslims are ready for war against the evil West. Do not mistake me: I am not saying we deserved to be attacked. I am saying that it could easily have been avoided had we said “No” to radical feminism in the 1960’s.

We fear it is a rude insult to the American melting pot when American Muslim women wear a chador. It is not. It is a rejection of feminism. We should take this seriously, and clean our own house of the absolutist feminism that Muslims of both sexes so correctly reject.

When relativists drop the “A” bomb, it is always a ruse to crowbar the creation of immoral policy and law. In the absolutist-feminist playbook, “cooperation” means absolute submission to absolutist perspectives. Any disagreement with feminist mandates is “abusive.” They vociferously declare that conflict is always verboten unless it involves feminists waging war on morals, marriage or fatherhood.

There is no “middle ground”, as Danforth suggests. We are either a moral society or we are not. Feminists win simply by poking one hole in morality, from which Hell spews quickly.

V-Day luna-chicks entirely disregard the fact that women initiate slightly over half of all serious domestic violence. Their circus of emotional rants, demanding guilty-ridden reparations by post-Victorian feminist males, continues to successfully terrorize Congress into funding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As Dr. Steve Baskerville points out, VAWA is the most powerful weapon in the feminist arsenal, most often misused to destroy heterosexual marriage and fatherhood in a complete absence of fact.

Politicians and policy makers must avoid ideological feminist stumbling blocks at all costs. My recommendation: never get into arguments with feminists. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You can’t get caught if you do not bite the emotional bait.

In public debate, we must calmly stand our ground and simply point out that sound moral and social principles are mainstream values that most Americans ascribe to in every respect. We can easily force entitled radicals to battle on our turf. The benefits of marriage far outweigh the tremendous social costs and damage caused by feminist policy. Radicality becomes self-evident if one is wise enough to quietly allow it to hang itself publicly. Feminists have little traction in the public sphere. They succeed only by making politicians think they do.

Now, it is my turn to drop the “A” bomb on liberal feminists, who “are the absolutists.” They absolutely cannot stand the healthy moral values of marriage, family, and fatherhood. They will say anything to scare or threaten politicians and religions into doing what they demand.

We have only one option: we must stand firmly against all aspects of institutional feminism, or heterosexual marriage and fatherhood will be replaced in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds by entitled marriages between Murphy Browns under the insidious connivance of “equal rights for lesbian women.” Any politician, policy maker, or church leader who cannot rise to this necessary duty must necessarily be removed from positions of authority.

11-21-2006 06:24 PM

Re: How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism
barron55
Contributor
barron55

Great article! In here, the Violence Against Womens Act is mentioned which not by coincidence was championed in Oregon for passage dishonestly and under the radar from the public through a prominant lesbian legislator!

06-19-2007 04:05 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom

The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Nathan Alexander

After a decade of jousting with racist “shades,” campus multiculturalists now have a corporeal enemy: feminists. A review of Phyllis Chesler’s recent book, The Death of Feminism.

The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
by Phyllis Chesler
Palgrave-MacMillan, 2005
Hdbk., 256 pgs.
ISBN: 1403968985

Since the late seventies, “race fever”1 has gripped the Ivory Tower. The usual humdrum associated with scholarly inquiry — sifting through yellowing documents, ruminating over matters abstruse and arcane –was replaced with the aggressive accusation that one’s opponent (or subject) was “racist.” To the ancient philosopher’s question, “How do I know the world,” the Ivory Tower replied, “I don’t know about that, but I do know it’s racist.” Schools of thought which once commanded the allegiance of intellectuals — Marxism, Indo-European languages, Surrealism (not least of all, conservatism) — were now dismissed by pious allegations that their founders possessed some form of racial prejudice. Marxism failed, not because capitalism triumphed, but because Marx said unpleasant things about Jews. The idea of an “Indo-European” language family could not be correct — because it excluded other languages from the family (the connection between this and “racism,” I confess, remains unclear to me, too). And so on. Indeed, entire countries and even continents were eliminated from the burden of being understood by this newfound verbal artillery. The late Edward Said, honored as president of the Modern Language Association, managed to dispatch all of Western Civilization as racist in a mere 300 pages. In fact, such was the enthusiasm academics felt for launching accusations of racist impiety (usually at one another) that the pedestrian mind, able to grasp the evil of a particular racist act, was rarely forgiven for being unable to grasp how such an accusation might be liberally splashed across an entire culture or epoch.

While the struggle against racism proved to unify much of campus thought, campus victories proved unfulfilling. The problem was that there was no one to fight.2 Indeed, the most obvious target, white males, were often the most vociferous — and visible — militants leveling accusations (for which, a cynic might point out, they might receive tenure and other accolades). The crusaders against racism in academia were an army without an infidel — though not for long.

It is in this tendentious climate that Phyllis Chesler has written her most recent book, The Death of Feminism. “Someone must tell the truth,” she writes, “about how feminists have failed their own ideals and their mandate to think both clearly and morally.” “Multicultural feminism has led to conformity, totalitarian thinking and political passivity.” And this passivity begins in the academy, where, under the influence of postmodernism,3 “ideology is often disassociated with reality and from activism.” Chesler argues without irony that academic feminists need to prioritize feminist ideals and spend less energy attacking feminists who speak out for women’s rights in non-western cultures. The struggle against racism, lacking any opponent, had found an enemy in those who speak out for women’s rights.

The phenomenon known as postmodernism was largely a conceit of French (or rather Parisian) intellectuals in the late sixties and early seventies. It made a brief appearance at Yale University in the late seventies — and quickly died.4 Its rhetoric, however, was expeditiously (mis)appropriated by America’s race warriors, who employed it to conjure up their much needed campus opponent.

Postmodernism in its American habitat generally served as an excuse to “expose” the racism that underlay the very texts which academics had naively taught their students for generations. Books that academics had previously deemed sacred were revealed, by postmodern theory, to be infected with a spectral racism which required exhumation and exorcism. The task required constant vigilance (through publications in abstruse journals), but was not overly divisive. After all, it’s one thing to expose someone who has been dead for 900 years as a racist, quite another to raise the wages of your minority employees to a decent level. While the nature of postmodern incantation was never clear (Franco-Teutonic jargon was used to summon and then dispel the spirits of racism), the outcome was never in doubt: the racism of writers from Shakespeare to Jane Austin to Helen Keller would be held up to the light of academic piety so that all might collectively hold their noses.

The Death of Feminism is not an “academic book,” if by that is meant impersonal prose and scholarly references. Chesler speaks frequently from her own experience, both as an academic feminist and as the wife of an Afghani Muslim who lived briefly in Afghanistan. She relates conversations with Muslim women, who are aghast at an American feminist establishment which seems to be more interested in not incurring the displeasure of their male masters. She writes of Muslim women in America, who face persecution because local law enforcement does not wish to upset male-dominated Muslim communities. Her stories are horrifying — and seemingly endless.

Misogynistic Islamic attitudes towards women are being secured in America’s courts system today under the guise that Islam is “persecuted.” Chesler writes of Muslim scholar, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross Ali Khan of Washburn University in Kansas, who argues that exposing the abuse of women in America’s Islamic communities should be against the law. In a recent publication, Professor Ali Khan argues that Islam is a form of intellectual property, hence its adherents have the right to protect its “integrity” from “innovations, repudiation, internal, disrespect, and external assaults.” In such situations, Chesler argues, “Islamic Shari’a law would actually replace American law when it came to those identified (by whom?) as Muslims.” Where is feminism when it comes to Muslim women, Chesler asks. It’s busy trying not to offend “Muslim culture,” so as not to appear “racist.”

Chesler’s critique of the new academic “male Muslim sensitive” feminism goes beyond a debate of ideas. Many of these “institutional feminists,” she argues, lack the psychological independence and objectivity that was an ideal of the early feminist critic. Academic feminism’s unwillingness to even entertain the realities that Chesler and other Muslim women underwent and continue to experience in Islamic countries is less an intellectual choice than a pathology. She relates that several “feminists” from Columbia University today insist that feminists must focus on the “colonial legacy” of third world countries rather than ongoing abuses to women. Chesler is incredulous. Part of the legacy of patriarchy was putting its own agenda (be it God, country or apple pie) before the rights of women. Where does the allegiance of Columbia feminism lie?

Chesler is trained as a psychologist, and her sharp critique of academic feminism does not stop at accusations of political opportunism. Why is it, she asks, that feminists who “receive tenure, promotion and funding tend to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography, pro-prostitution (pro-sex worker), anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-American?” She believes it has to do with simple conformity: “Those who get ahead within institutions tend to be politicians and bureaucrats and not independent thinkers. They are loyal to their careers and to their cliques, not to the truth.” Today within academic feminism, “true dissent and diversity are gone.” The university offers no resistance to values anathema to feminists. While it is hard to gauge what influence the powerful pornography industry or Islamic militancy has on academic feminism, it is undoubtedly a reality. And while there is something wrong, Chesler says, with Playboy claiming to be supportive of “pro-pornography feminists,” it seems clear that there are academic feminists willing to make Islam and Playboy part of their portfolio. The issue here is not truth, but the accommodation of power. And if “feminists” are no longer willing to speak to the problems of individual women — especially out of deference to, for instance, Islamic male patriarchy — to what degree is this feminism worthy of the name?

Chesler’s anger with academic feminism comes from the clash of priorities between modern ethnic “group thinking” (which largely defined itself by accusing its opponents of “racism”) and individualistic feminism. Ethnic thinking substituted the need for racial solidarity for the particular needs of individuals — including women. Chesler finds it appalling that a woman may be beaten in an Islamic country — and Columbia University’s feminists rush to defend the perpetrators so as to not “perpetuate the racism of 19th century colonialism.” Today, by speaking out on behalf of women, Chesler is in danger of being accused of racism.

While most Americans were indifferent to the convulsive righteousness of some of their children’s professors, the same cannot be said for the Iranian mullahs. Glancing away from their appropriately veiled women for a few moments, they quickly absorbed the significance of the promiscuous application of the term “racist” by America’s cultural representatives. Donning the guise of scholarship, they were able to dispel several centuries of western approbation towards the dictatorial Pasha and his harem.5 The mullahs were quick to point out (citing postmodern academics employed at American universities, no less) that it was not they who oppressed women. It was the racism of the westerner which oppressed the mullah.

While few accepted the mullahs’ argument, the issue forced western academics to choose whether they would continue the long standing western tradition of “judging a civilization based upon how it treats its women;”6 or reducing western civilization to “racism.” It is unclear at present which stand academics will take. It is clear that after a decade of jousting with racist “shades,” campus multiculturalists now have a corporeal enemy: feminists.

The Death of Feminism returns to a question that was at the heart of Chesler’s previous book, The New Anti-Semitism. Encountering the crude ethnic thinking that lay at the heart of modern anti-Semitism, she courageously was led to question how useful it continued to be to use the idea of “Jewishness” in a similar “ethnic” fashion. The Death of Feminism asks something similar about the concept “woman.” What happens when the concept itself is used by academic feminists to prevent criticism of the abuse of women? In both cases, Chesler seems to suggest that a return to individualism, a skepticism towards ideological thinking, and a willingness to debate ideas seriously may prove the best safeguards for the preservation of both Judaism and feminism.

The Death of Feminism concludes by proposing how feminist criticism should engage the Islamic world. First, Chesler insists that academic feminists should pay attention to gender issues in the Islamic world: the “legacy of colonialism” should not serve as a “battered third world shelter” for Islamic patriarchy. Second, feminism has a positive role to play in Islamic countries as they begin to entertain equality seriously: feminism must pursue the “psychological relationship between voting, gender and democracy” to ensure that there is a reality behind the rhetoric of equality. This means that scholars should pay careful attention to the psychological reality behind ideological thinking and truth. Third, feminists should not hold one another to be above criticism: there is a “feminine tendency to minimize woman’s inhumanity to women,” she writes.

The Death of Feminism is vintage Chesler. It is written in an over the top style and when you’re not strongly agreeing with her insights, you are irritated by her hyperbole. Chesler doesn’t help her cause by citing tendentious sources in making some of her claims or by going on about the alleged prevalence of homosexuality and pederasty among Arab communities. Sometimes her outrage at the intolerance of the Islamic world strikes one as less Western or even American than Manhattan. The book’s main point, that academic feminism seems to have more in common with patriarchical Islam, is made relentlessly and without apology. Nevertheless, Chesler is not really calling for an end to feminism; rather, a regime change.

11-21-2006 06:20 PM

Re: The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

The article is understandable, even though it says the book isn’t.
I haven’t read many of the references made, I’m not a college educated person. But I do agree that large groups have a tendancy to get so concerned with what’s PC and not offending anyone that they forget what they were fighting for in the first place. Time to get back to the roots.

01-08-2007 12:43 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

D.C. Names Female Police Chief


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – D.C. Names Female Police Chief

D.C. Names Female Police Chief
ticktock
Visitor
ticktock
November 21, 2006
D.C. Names Female Police Chief
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:40 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — A veteran of 16 years on the force has been named chief of police for the District of Columbia, the first woman to serve as permanent chief of the department in the nation’s capital.

Cmdr. Cathy L. Lanier, currently head of the Metropolitan Police Department’s homeland security office, was named Monday by Mayor-elect Adrian M. Fenty.

Besides fighting crime in the city, D.C. police coordinates presidential motorcades and law enforcement during major events like presidential inauguration parades and protest marches.

Lanier will replace Chief Charles H. Ramsey, who had sparred with Fenty over the use of police in neighborhoods. The mayor wants more officers in street patrol.

”I do think there are lots of different ways we can do things,” Lanier said at a news conference with Fenty and Ramsey.

Fenty praised Ramsey for reforming a dysfunctional police department, but said he chose to replace the chief in part because this month’s election was a mandate for change.

”I think it’s always appropriate to look to people who can come in with a new set of eyes,” Fenty said.

He said Ramsey told him six years ago that Lanier would make a great chief. ”I can’t think of anyone better suited to take over the reins,” Ramsey said.

Although Lanier, 39, will be the first woman to lead the 3,800-person force on a permanent basis, Sonya Proctor was interim chief before Ramsey was installed in 1998.

The appointment must be approved by the D.C. Council.

Nationally, about six large cities have female police chiefs, including Detroit and San Francisco, according to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives in Carver, Mass.

11-21-2006 11:19 AM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
How many times has she killed a crook and asked questions later?

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-21-2006 02:49 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You know women are comparing guys you like you to guys like me.  That is why guys like me get la*d much more frequently and don’t get worked up over non-issues.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but when was the last time you were actually with a woman?  Remember, relatives don’t count.

11-22-2006 01:31 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Get an STD for me man!!! That’s how I know you are a chick, as if we need to get laid to find fulfillment. There are hookers all over town competing for mens business. If we want to get laid we know where to go!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-26-2006 02:47 AM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

If you are actually putting money in some chicks hands for 5 minutes of pleasure you really have no game, do you?  Funny how all the religious are deviants and queens.  Just like you.

11-26-2006 10:14 AM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Note the standard attempts to shame Men into Silence. Its so predictible. And completely ineffective. No stats, no data to support Moneyneversleeps assertions. For someone with a MBA Moneyneversleeps seems to have no coherent or rational arguements. Small **bleep**, cannot get laid, this is standard FemNag drivel. And we are immune to the insults Dirt Bag. Get a clue that stopped working 5 years ago. We don’t care if you approve of our lives. We don’t give a Rat’s Ass if you approve of our private lives. Try a new tactic, this is boring.

You are the only Feminist stupid enough to still be trying to shame us into silence. And it is not working. The other FemHags ran off. They did not get their way and left.

11-26-2006 12:09 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

No, I am not shaming you.  You are doing that to yourself, burglar.  Lets face it, you have no game either.  If it takes me longer than 2-3 days to get a woman in bed, I move on.  My success rate is very high, over 75%.  I don’t spend copious amounts of money on them to get them in the sack.  That the previous clown and guys like you favor toothless $20 hookers is funny, it’s all you can get.

11-26-2006 12:32 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Sad to disappoint you, and your shaming language again. You SOB but I am married. Twice Married to be exact. And the Alpha Unit just had $12,000 worth of Dental Work. You sure are an insulting Scum Bag. And way off the mark for someone so Educated and Intelligent. You seem to do nothing but come here and insult everyone. There is a term for that TROLL.

11-26-2006 05:18 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Maybe you get moneyneversleeps wrong. While you do both, living your life the best you can in the current setting, while at least voicing for change and pointing out the shortcomings, money just focuses on living his life the best he can in the current setting and advocates everyone does the same, although he does use shaming and goes off topic to achieve that.

11-26-2006 09:00 PM

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I call a spade a spade.  Very simple.  Whiners are losers.  Why a man had to marry 2x after he screwed up the first time explains what a punk he is and that it is sour grapes related directly to his own personal choices.  I don’t hate women.  I love women.  I understand women.  I just see no reason to marry, especially without a prenuptial agreement which idiot with the expensive dental work has no clue about.  Must not have very good hygiene or health/dental insurance either.

11-29-2006 05:34 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – D.C. Names Female Police Chief

Re: D.C. Names Female Police Chief
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Congratulations to Miss or Mrs Lanier.

Gentlemen, I fail to understand how anyone’s sex life pertains to the above article.

And as far as I’m aware, shooting first and asking questions later is a very serious police issue, one of which both men and women are guilty. I’ll wager there are more cases of male cops using deadly force without reason, though I admit, that may be simply because there are more male policemen than women.

01-08-2007 01:06 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Republican Griffin Critiques Feminism


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Republican Griffin Critiques Feminism

Republican Griffin Critiques Feminism
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Matthew Santoro

Chair of the Republican party of Virginia Kate Obenshain Griffin delivered a lecture titled “The Failures of Feminism” Thursday to a large audience. The lecture was the final event of this semester’s controversial and well-attended Ronald Reagan Lectureship Series, sponsored by the OC Republicans.

After a brief introduction in which Griffin praised Oberlin College for its willingness to engage in open dialogue on tough issues, she announced that in order for the audience to properly understand her positions, it was best that they understand a bit about her own personal life. Griffin said she grew up in a strong nuclear family until her father was killed in a plane crash when she was only nine years old. She spent the remainder of her childhood living in a one-parent household, which she believes has given her a unique perspective on childrearing and family.

After high school she continued on to the University of Virginia, where she described herself as budding into an active advocate for conservative values. The liberal atmosphere of her college education led her to question the academic status quo, especially with regard to feminism; a literature class claiming Jane Austen was a precursor to Gloria Steinem led Griffin to question her course of study.

Griffin’s distaste for feminism grew as she entered a professional life in politics. She worked for then-governor and now departing U.S. Senator George Allen, first as a campaigner and later as an educational advisor. It is here that she first encountered “hypocritical liberal Democrats,” who she criticized as attacking her integrity and expertise based on her being female. Furthermore, as she rose to the seat of Republican Party Chairman (she prefers the title “chairman”) in Virginia she was accused by Democratic opponents of “shrill and hysterical rantings,” adjectives Griffin claims are targeted at women alone.

Apart from the hypocrisy she sees in feminism, Griffin argues that successful feminism is damaging and even dangerous to American society. While she is grateful for the political and civil liberties she has gained through the early feminist movement, Griffin believes that American women achieved equality with their male counterparts over 30 years ago. Since then, the feminist movement has “succumbed to excess.”

A mother of four herself, one of Griffin’s primary focuses in her lecture was the way in which feminism has damaged the family and, as a result, damaged children.

“We have forgotten the victims [of feminism],” she said, “and these are the children.” Pressure on women to work and stigma about mothers has led, in Griffin’s opinion, to a myriad of social problems.

Under the umbrella of the harm inflicted upon children by feminism, Griffin included abortion, under-nurtured “latchkey kids” and babysitting arrangements that take children away from their own homes.

In particular Griffin feels that young boys find themselves in a damaging situation: made to feel ashamed of “natural boyishness” and forced to “get in touch with their feelings” in a way unsuited to their natures.

Continuing in this vein, Griffin discussed her belief that the cultural paradigm shifts resulting from feminist-generated statistics have resulted in a majority of Americans believing falsehoods about both girls and boys. In what Griffin calls “The War on Boys,” boys in America are depicted as inherently dangerous, in need of taming and inappropriately out of touch with their feelings. They are also depicted as having an advantage over girls in schools and general society. All of these depictions, Griffin says, are false.

Griffin believes that feminism has been primarily targeted at dismantling the family, as it is seen as an institution of male oppression. As a result, men are undervalued and children are left un-parented. Griffin declared, “Feminism has really triumphed in making mothering a low-rate job.”

Despite popular feminist notions, Griffin believes that children need their parents, and need them to be present. The failure to do so, she said, has led to skyrocketing drug use, teen pregnancy and teen violence. She suggested that popular feminists such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem ignored this for biographical reasons. These women, she said, had only been exposed to poor examples of men and the family unit which tainted their ability to rationally interpret all men and all family units.

“It’s become a trend in the feminist movement to create a crisis where there is none in order to further a political agenda,” Griffin said. While women continue to succeed in America, they are depicted as victims. All the while, boys fall behind. Griffin asserts that feminist beliefs blind us to these realities.

“The failures of this movement can only be ignored if you’re ignoring fact and reality,” she said, adding that feminism has fostered an environment that stigmatizes mothers and families, hurts children, and generates false crises. “We don’t have to tear down the family to build women up.”

11-20-2006 08:02 PM

Re: Republican Griffin Critiques Feminism
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Very well written article. There may be some issues still affecting women in this country, I’m not particularly well-versed on the subject, but things are certainly much more equal now. If I choose to go to college and take the proper courses, I can get the same jobs my husband could, and I can be as well respected there as he could. Of course, if I decided to stay home while he did those things, perhaps I would be tarred and feathered by extreme ‘feminists’.

I think it’s my choice how I want to live my life, and I’ll take the well-being of my family into account when I make it.

01-08-2007 01:00 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Latest celebrity divorces have one thing in common: toddlers


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Latest celebrity divorces have one thing in common: toddlers

Latest celebrity divorces have one thing in common: toddlers
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
All of the latest divorcing celebrity couples share one commonality – they have toddler children. In fact none of the splitting couples are childless and all of them have children between the ages of one to four.

Whenever celebrities get divorced I am particularly interested in their children – how many they have and what ages and genders they are. It struck me that nearly all of the recently-divorcing celebrities have children that are going through toddlerhood and probably bugging the hell out of them. (Along with doing plenty of cute things to soften the blow of random tantrums, like saying new words you know you never taught them.)

I’m not saying that the innocent toddlers were the causes of these Hollywood breakups, children are never to blame for a divorce. It’s just an interesting coincidence. Here are the latest celebrity splits along with the stats on their children.

Chris Rock and Maleek Rock: double toddler trouble
Chris Rock was said to have filed divorce papers in early November of this year, but that turns out not to be true. TMZ reports that Chris and Maleek seem to be giving their relationship of ten years another try. They were photographed out at a charity dinner together last week and have not made their divorce official. They have two toddler daughters, Lola, 4, and Zahra, 2.

Kate Hudson and Chris Robinson: two year-old son
Chris Robinson has finally filed for divorce from Kate Hudson after this unlikely Hollywood couple announced their separation in mid August. They have a two year-old son, Ryder, who is such a handful that they don’t even dare cut his hair.

Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe: one toddler son, an older daughter
Reese Witherspoon wasted no time filing divorce from Ryan Phillippe, who was presumed to be cheating on her with his younger co-star, Abbie Cornish. They announced their separation at the end of October and Reese made it official less than two weeks later. They have two children, Ava, 8, and Deacon, who just turned three.

Heather Mills and Paul McCartney: one toddler daughter
Heather Mills and Paul McCartney seem as ill-suited for each other as an evil harpy and beloved legendary rock star could be. They managed to procreate, though, and it was undoubtedly great sex that got them together in the first place. Their daughter, Beatrice, just turned three.

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline: one soon-to-be toddler, one newborn
What recent celebrity divorce list would be complete without Britney and K-Fed? I almost didn’t include them, though, because Sean Preston turned one in September and only just entered toddlerhood. According to the Wiki, toddlers are between one to three, or maybe two to five, so little SP counts.

These breakups during their children’s toddlerhood may serve a biological purpose. Anthropologists have found that couples typically break up when their children are toddlers, with a peak in breakups after four years together. Having seen their children through the vulnerable baby stage, they are free to find another mate and reproduce again, which is our biological imperative.

The four-year pattern, as well as a tendency to divorce at the height of one’s reproductive years, also makes sense from a sociological point of view. “For instance,” Fisher says, “a prehistoric male who ‘divorced’ his partner after seeing one offspring through infancy would have had the opportunity to pick a younger ’spouse’ more capable of bearing and raising babies. A female might leave one mate to ‘marry’ a better provider for her and her forthcoming children.”

Notable recent celebrity divorces that did not involve toddlers include Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson, Eminem and Kim Mathers, and Richie Sambora and Heather Locklear. Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards have two toddlers, though, and I didn’t include them since their split is old news.

Written by Celebitchy

11-20-2006 08:01 PM

Re: Latest celebrity divorces have one thing in common: toddlers
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

I feel sorry for the young children. They’ll grow up in a flawed environment, even IF their parents stay together. Fame can ruin a child.

01-09-2007 11:48 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

McCartney may call Mill’s former call-girl pal during divorce battle


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – McCartney may call Mill’s former call-girl pal during divorce battle

McCartney may call Mill’s former call-girl pal during divorce battle
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/83360.php

From ANI

Washington, Nov 18(ANI): Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney is reportedly planning to call a former glamour model **bleep** call-girl friend of his estranged wife Heather Mills as a witness in their divorce case

Model Denise Hewitt had earlier admitted that she and Mills entertained a wealthy Arab businessman during the 1980s.

Though Mills dismissed the claims, a former-aide to a Saudi-born arms dealer also confirmed that he personally handed over around 6,400 pounds in cash to Mills after she took part in sex sessions with his boss.

Hewitt now believes that she may be subpoenaed to testify in the couple’s divorce battle case.

“I’ve heard that I may be called by Paul McCartney’s legal team to appear in court to give evidence over their divorce. I actually don’t want to get involved. However I know they can always subpoena me to appear,” Contactmusic quoted her as saying.

Former escort Petrina Montrose, who was also summoned to the Saudi businessman’s bedroom, had earlier revealed that Mills was indeed one of three women hired to take part in an orgy with the Arab royal at the five-star Dorchester hotel in Central London. (ANI)

11-20-2006 07:57 PM

Re: McCartney may call Mill’s former call-girl pal during divorce battle
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Have you seen that Sean Conery’s wife is making claims now the he “beat her uncontious”. *sigh*… they all want to jump on the bandwagon of lying attention seekers!

11-28-2006 10:57 AM

Re: McCartney may call Mill’s former call-girl pal during divorce battle
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Anything is possible in this world. Of course, unless she intends to press charges and has evidence or convincing witnesses, there’s no point in bringing it up. Why make an accusation if you’re not willing to take action over it?

01-08-2007 12:53 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Female teacher in court on 229 sex charges


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Female teacher in court on 229 sex charges

Female teacher in court on 229 sex charges
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Christine Flatley
November 20, 2006 06:03pm

A FEMALE high school teacher and a young female student regularly met outside school to kiss and cuddle during a two-year sexual affair, a court has been told.
The 26-year-old teacher, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court today for the first day of a three-day committal hearing.

She faces 229 charges of indecent dealing with a young student over a two-year period starting in 2003 when the girl was just 13.

She was not required to enter a plea.

Several witnesses told the court they had seen the pair kissing and touching each other.

A woman who had been a trainee teacher at the school told the court her colleague had openly discussed her sex life with a person named “Katie” and had admitted they were in love.

The witness said the teacher later admitted that “Katie” was a false name and she told the court she was “99 per cent positive” her colleague had used the name to conceal the identity of a student.

A male witness said he had seen the teacher and student kissing on the beach at Surfers Paradise one night and that the teacher was also touching the young girl’s breasts.

He said he had also seen the pair having oral sex at a local park.

A neighbour, 17, who lives near the student said he saw them embracing one afternoon.

“It was two people with their arms around each other and it certainly appeared to me that they were kissing,” he said.

“It definitely wasn’t a peck on the cheek.”

Another student from the school said she saw the teacher try to kiss her friend on a school excursion.

“It was suss and it was strange to me to see our teacher trying to do things,” she said.

She said the teacher and her friend would spend a lot of time together outside of school and that they would disappear into an empty classroom most lunchtimes.

The student is expected to give evidence in closed court tomorrow after an application by the prosecution to prevent her from being cross-examined was dismissed by the magistrate.

11-20-2006 07:56 PM

Re: Female teacher in court on 229 sex charges
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

This woman has abused her power as a teacher and molested an underaged child. I hope she will be imprisoned and will never teach another child.

01-09-2007 11:40 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

STD suit could set precedent in state


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – STD suit could set precedent in state

STD suit could set precedent in state
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Leslie Parrilla
lparrilla@thetribunenews.com

A former San Luis Obispo County resident is suing her ex-husband, claiming he negligently infected her with a sexually transmitted disease in what experts say could be a precedent-setting case in California.

Legal experts say the case between Janet Smith and Patrick Neiland Smith is significant because many people do not realize passing on an STD could pose a legal liability.

The San Luis Obispo case could set a precedent because it may be the first in the state to be resolved after a California Supreme Court ruling this year stating that people are liable not only when they know they have an STD, but also when they should have known.

“People are not as careful perhaps as they need to be,” said Loyola Law School professor John T. Nockleby. “People probably aren’t thinking about potential legal liability when they’re having casual sex.”

The Smiths were married in 1979 and lived in San Luis Obispo County. They are completing divorce proceedings.

Janet Smith, 52, now a resident of Nevada, is asking for an unlimited amount of compensation in the lawsuit, claiming her ex-husband was unfaithful during their marriage, contracted the human papillomavirus, or HPV, and negligently infected her. She underwent a hysterectomy and was left fearful of having contracted other STDs, the suit states.

Civil suits represent only one side of the story.

San Luis Obispo attorney Mark B. Connely, who is representing Patrick Neiland Smith, now a resident of Santa Barbara County, argued during a jury trial this week that his client did not negligently infect his ex-wife with HPV and that Smith did not know he had the virus.

The jury will decide whether Smith is negligent and whether he should have known he had an STD.

Nockleby said the Supreme Court decision in John B. v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County “says you can sue somebody else for giving you an STD, not only if they know they have the STD, but if they had symptoms” that would have caused a reasonable person to go and find out whether they were infected.

That is something Nockleby believes the general public does not know.

“Not that I want to make sexual relationships about law, but I do think people who engage in casual sexual encounters … need to know about this kind of thing,” he said.

The Smith case is expected to continue with closing arguments today.
Leslie Parrilla can be reached at 783-7645.

11-20-2006 07:54 PM

Re: STD suit could set precedent in state
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
She’d better not win that one. There is no test to detect HPV in men. Not to mention that it can lie dormant for years, although I’m not sure that it could survive for 27 years. Perhaps he cheated, but that’s not a crime in the legal sense.

11-21-2006 12:01 AM

Re: STD suit could set precedent in state
ticktock
Visitor
ticktock
It could be a crime if he had been informed by a doctor about the disease and he knowingly had unprotected sex with someone. Not sure about HPV since you said it can’t be detected in men, but I’ve heard about cases where people with HIV were arrested after they had sex with others in attempt to infect them. You’d have to prove intent though, of course.

11-21-2006 11:22 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states

Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
News from MaltaMedia.com

EU Affairs
Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states
By MaltaMedia News
Nov 17, 2006, 12:30

A European Commission proposal concerning the establishment of common rules for cross-border divorces is under fire by a number of European Union (EU) member states. In extreme cases the proposal, dubbed Rome III, could allow Iranian divorce rules to be applied in European courts in future.

The proposal, presented last July was not well received by Malta, which stated it will oppose any proposal that would oblige Maltese courts to apply foreign laws to evade its ban on divorce.

The proposal calls for a national legislation that allows allow divorces for people who have married someone of different European nationality or are no longer resident in their home country.

According to EUObserver, the commission believes that the law will clarify issues related to divorce jurisdictions. Hence, should a married Belgian and Finnish couple, living in Ireland decide to go there separate ways and be unable to decide which law to divorce under, Rome III would impose the law of the country where they live or have the strongest ties to.

Where non-EU citizens or non-EU states are involved, Rome III would also favour a legislature to which both spouses have a strong connection. The Swedish justice ministry document is plotting a potential scenario in which European courts have to deal with a dispute under Iranian law. “The proposal means that Iranian divorce law would be applied by the Swedish court,” the justice ministry study states.

Within the EU, divorce laws differ widely. In Malta divorce is illegal, however in other countries such Sweden, it is easily obtainable. Some EU member states like the United Kingdom have voiced their dislike for Rome III because it is seen to invade national domain of family l

11-20-2006 07:52 PM

Re: Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
We could go to Islamic countries that are male friendly to get divorce!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-21-2006 02:48 PM

Re: Divorce law proposal under fire by EU states
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

I have no opinion on this law, I honestly can’t tell if it would be a good or bad thing. But good luck getting your wife to agree to go to India so you can get divorced under a foreign law.

01-09-2007 11:37 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Woman sues former lover for not marrying her


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Woman sues former lover for not marrying her

Woman sues former lover for not marrying her
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By CHRISTINA KOH

IPOH: She claimed that she had sex with him 31 times on the belief that they were in love and would marry.

She denied having any ill intention when she recorded the date and place of each sexual encounter from 1998 to 2001.

“I had a sexual relationship with him because I loved him. I thought our relationship was special,” said legal clerk S. Nagamah, 38, who is suing her ex-boyfriend R. Punnosamy, 40, for not marrying her.

Nagamah, who claims to have suffered shame and mental anguish, is asking for aggravated damages, exemplary damages, costs and compensation for assault.

Cross-examined by Punnosamy’s lawyer, Abdul Malik Matjudi, Nagamah disagreed that she kept the records of their sexual encounters to prevent him from “running away from me.”

”He deceived me,” she said, adding that Punnosamy had given no sign or warning during their four-year relationship that he would fail to keep his promise.

She testified that Punnosamy had slapped her when he went to her office on July 11, 2002, forcing her to seek outpatient treatment.

During re-examination by lawyer S. Muthuveeran, Nagamah said in the Indian community, it is believed that a couple would not have a perfect marriage if the girl had lost her virginity beforehand.

“By right, a woman is to tell her would-be husband about her background before marriage. I turned down two other marriage proposals for this reason,” she said.

Punnosamy, a legal office administrator, said they were never a couple and that she was “only a friend.”

He denied that he had promised to marry her, saying it was always Nagamah who contacted him and asked him out.

Punnosamy, who had earlier denied in his testimony that he had slept with Nagamah, admitted that he had sexual relations with her “more than 20 times” but only because she had wanted it.

“I accept her as a friend, nothing else. I never said that I loved her or arranged any engagement ceremony,” he added.

He admitted that he slapped Nagamah because she had threatened his fiancée at a tuition centre in Teluk Intan.

Judicial Commissioner Mohd Azman Husin fixed Feb 6 for decision.

11-20-2006 07:50 PM

Re: Woman sues former lover for not marrying her
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

If he only saw her as a friend, he should not have slept with her, even if she wanted it. Obviously, that would prevent her from having a perfect marriage, by their customs. That’s not something I would want to do to a friend.

He does not deserve to get sued for it though. That is ludicrous.

01-09-2007 11:23 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Police claim many ‘drugged’ date-rape victims simply drunk


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Police claim many ‘drugged’ date-rape victims simply drunk

Police claim many ‘drugged’ date-rape victims simply drunk
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By MATTHEW HICKLEY Last updated at 22:00pm on 15th November 2006

The vast majority of women who claim to be victims of ‘date-rape’ drugs like Rohypnol were actually rendered helpless by binge-drinking or taking recreational drugs, police have revealed.

A major study by the Association of Chief Police Officers found ‘no evidence’ of widespread use of Rohypnol in alleged drug-assisted rapes or sexual assaults.

They found only ‘limited traces’ of GHB, another drug said to be widely used by predatory rapists.

Researchers concluded that only one in 12 alleged cases of drug-assisted rape was genuine.

Instead, the study found, virtually all victims who claimed to have been drugged and then sexually assaulted had been drinking – often very heavily – while half had taken other drugs including cannabis, cocaine or prescription drugs which can increase the effects of alcohol.

Senior officers warned last night that rather than furtively spiking drinks in bars, predatory sex attackers often committed ‘opportunistic’ assaults after victims had willingly drunk themselves into a state of helplessness.

While Government information campaigns have focused on urging revellers to be wary of spiked drinks, the police findings suggest a much greater danger is the sheer volume of binge-drinking, particularly by young women, as predatory attackers target pubs and bars.

The study will also add to concerns over Labour’s late-night drinking laws introduced last year – in the face of stark warnings from senior judges that round-the-clock boozing would bring a substantial rise in ‘rape, grievous bodily harm and worse’.

Researchers examined 120 allegations of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) – all the cases referred to police over the course of a year in London, Manchester, Derbyshire, Northumbria, Lancashire and parts of Birmingham.

ACPO insists the findings ‘do not seek to deny or neutralise the incidence of DFSA’ but to place it in the context of heavy drinking.

Out of 120 claimed cases, 119 of the victims had reportedly been drinking.

Blood tests confirmed the presence of alcohol in half of all cases – although some were reported several days after the incident.

In a third of those cases, alcohol levels at the time of the assault were estimated to be at or close to three times the drink-driving limit.

Illegal or prescription drugs were present in victims’ blood in half of all cases. Twenty per cent had taken cannabis and 17 per cent had taken cocaine.

Researchers said the cocktail of drink and drugs would increase the effects of alcohol.

No traces of Rohypnol were found, but its traces are known to disappear from the blood stream very quickly.

Gammahydroxybutyrate – known as GHB – was found in only two of the blood samples. Out of 120 cases the study concluded that only 10 were ‘suspected DFSA assaults’ where a ‘sedative or disinhibiting drug’ was involved.

In another 11 claims, drug-assisted rape or sexual assault ‘could not be discounted due to a lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances.’

The report concludes that while some attackers may try to spike victims’ drinks, many simply get them drunk.

It adds: ‘Some may prefer to commit opportunistic assaults after the victim has become intoxicated following their own use of drugs and or alcohol.

‘In most cases the alleged victims had consumed alcohol voluntarily, and in some cases to dangerous levels.’

The report warns members of the public ‘to consider the effects of the combination of prescribed medication, voluntary use of recreational drugs and consumption of alcohol in determining their vulnerability of being a victim of crime.’

Dave Gee, co-author of the research and vice-chair of the ACPO Working Group on Rape, insisted claims of drug-assisted rape would not be dismissed as a result of the findings, adding: ‘The police will continue to take any allegations of this nature very seriously as they do for all offences of rape.’

The study acknowledged that Rohypnol, also known as ‘Roofie’, and other drugs could disappear quickly from a victim’s bloodstream and called for more research based on analysis of victims’ hair – where traces can remain for much longer.

Rape campaigners last night welcomed the report’s call for nation-wide standards for police treatment of drug-assisted rape victims, and for proper figures to be gathered by police.

Currently such cases are not counted separately to other sexual assaults.

But Graham Rhodes, founder of The Roofie Foundation, Britain’s only specialised agency dealing with drug-assisted rape, said he believed police figures were likely to understate the scale of the problem.

He said: ‘We know that people don’t report drug-assisted rapes, as the Home Office has acknowledged.

‘We are contacted by 800 people a year, and we can’t quantify the number who don’t contact us.’

Mr Rhodes said it was not surprising that almost all victims were found to have been drinking, as date rape drugs had far more effect on victims when combined with alcohol.

The latest findings echo the results from Forensic Science Service report last year which concluded that alcohol was ‘clearly the most commonly used substance’ in drug-assisted rape.

Recent legal reforms were designed to secure more rape convictions by making it clear that a drunk person cannot consent to sex.

But juries still appear less willing to convict in cases where the victim was drunk, and offenders know they are more likely to escape justice.

Rohypnol is prescribed as a cure for insomnia but when taken with alcohol causes a loss of inhibitions as well as blackouts and memory loss.

GHB, an illegal Class C drug, has similar effects, but comes in a liquid form, and can be particularly dangerous when combined with alcohol.

11-19-2006 12:35 PM

Re: Police claim many ‘drugged’ date-rape victims simply drunk
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

You have no idea how many young men and women I see toddling into my WAWA at night, drunk beyond reason. Drunk people are irrational and don’t know what’s going on around them. It is incredibly stupid for a young woman to go out and drink so heavily. You increase your risk of not only being attacked, but also of doing serious harm to yourself. In addition, if you drink to excess, it makes it that much harder to actually prove that you were the victim of a rape, and not just regretful after a drunken hump you would never have had were you sober.

01-08-2007 12:49 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence

Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By David R. Usher

A November 11th Washington Times article “Abused wives in India pin hope on anti-violence law” resulted in a number of letters to the editor of the Times, claiming that the article is biased. The Times article blithely repeated an eye-popping claim that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape”, without even questioning it.

On November 17th, the Times published three identical letters to the editor, but prefaced them with this highly unusual editorial set-up:

[Editor’s note: All of the letters below use the same phrasing to try to make a case that women aren’t the only victims of domestic abuse. But the writers detract from the issue. First of all, the article was not biased against men; it set out to report on the new laws in India and it did precisely that. Moreover, writers’ arguments would likely be taken more seriously if they were to dispense with the deceit. We asked each of the writers if they had personally written the letter and each said yes. Obviously, that is not the case. Domestic abuse, whether at the hands of a man or a woman, is a serious offense. Relegating such an issue to chain letters and false claims hurts victims of both genders. We stand by our news story.]

Anyone who has been in politics knows that “form” emails on issues of import are frequently originated by organizations who know the ropes, and lots of little guys send them everywhere. And, what Lilliputian would not like to see his or her name in the Washington Times?

Now we get to the heart of the subject raised in the letters the Washington Times so casually glossed over. The “form” letter was originated by RADAR, a highly credible organization comprised of scientists, lawyers, and scholars in an alert titled Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”.

In its alert, RADAR did the research the Times went out of its way not to do. RADAR discovered that the U.N Population Fund never issued a claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape”. In fact, nobody knows where this claim came from.

Now, this is not a minor issue, Ambassor Bolton. Misandric claims such as this are presently being misused in vast quantities to drive U.N. policy intended to force radical feminism on every country of the world. This is an international fiasco which, if unchecked, will drag American into untold wars against a growing number of countries who hate our guts.

To make sure there are no misunderstandings on the facts of the matter, RADAR cited a reputable international study on the matter by the reputable Dr. Murray Straus, titled “Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations”. His study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly distributed, and calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists.

The claim “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” is yet another load of hate promulgated by the feminist rumor mill presently being used by U.N feminists to sieze social control of the world. Their essential goal is a feminist-socialist world dictatorship powered by allegations and fear; a cabal able to seized families, property, cash, and entire governments simply by hollering “abuse”.

Now, let me question my assumptions. Is their claim hate speech? If the Times did a story wherein a white advocacy organization widely espoused that “70% of whites were victims of serious crime”, you can bet that both the Times and black civil rights advocates would be livid.

Given the special preface the letters to the editor were afforded, you can bet it was agreed upon by the entire editorial team in their morning meeting. If so, the Times has now officially staked its name and reputation on hate of men. It now apparently operates as a card-carrying member of the world feminist rumor mill driving hate of America all around the world.

Here is further proof: If the Times was interested in truth, it would have published at least one well-stated original letter instead of spinelessly changing the subject to something completely immaterial.

Speaking of unpublished letters to the Washington Times: I sent them one about their October 6th article “Time to judge the system in domestic violence”. This piece was yet another sacrifice made on the altar of the entitled feminist rumor mill. Since the Times cannot bring itself to publish the truth, here it is:

Dear Editors,

The Washington Times October 6th article “Time to judge the system in domestic violence”, and the approach of the women’s center in Prince George County, are unrealistic and will not result in changes that prevent fatal domestic violence.

Every major credible study tells us that domestic violence is not a gender problem. Women and men are equal initiators of it. Remember the case of Adolphus Jackson, who was beaten unconscious, drenched in hot sauce and bleach, burned with a hot iron, and killed with a skillet to the head by his girlfriend, Dominique.

We also know that a very large number of domestic violence allegations are entirely false: strategic moves in divorce and custody cases to seize control of family assets and children. These false cases are frequently and improperly fed into the courts by battered women’s shelters.

Women’s shelters are hindered by their own success. Many courts now justly doubt allegations of spousal abuse absent a showing of credible evidence, which women’s shelters and attorneys do not provide. In this flood of unverifiable allegations, the real cases often wash through the system.

The answer is not to lower existing legal standards, which are presently so low as to be meaningless. The answer is to raise legal standards to require a showing of credible evidence or intent to abuse. Shelters and courts must assist anyone who needs it, not just women. Women’s shelters must vet their cases better and focus on credible cases to raise their believability in the courts. Finally, judges and prosecutors must become as willing to prosecute those who abuse the system with the same gusto we prosecute abusers.

Those who still do not understand the problems we face preventing domestic violence should carefully study the RADAR (Respecting Accuracy In Domestic Violence Reporting) website at http://www.mediaradar.org.

Regards,
David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst
True Equality Network

I will not allow the Times to change the subject. The new domestic law in India and its progenitor in Prince George County are a dangerous abominations of science and truth. Anyone who hates the truth about domestic violence bears a sick hate of men that is exquisitely dangerous in this world. For purposes of future brevity, I propose we refer to people who do this as “MacKinnon Amazons”.

Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a “cultural invasion by western feminists”. They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America.

This is the stuff Muslim radicalism is built on. Mark my words: if India becomes radicalized against America, we will not be able to say that we did not ask for it. Let us do the right thing and shut down the export of radical feminism now, while we still have a chance.

Let the American people not get caught again between two very radical and dangerous elements. Before we can expect to see declines in Muslim radicalism, we must first reign in the ugly American radical feminists that have made us the most deeply hated country in the Muslim world. A lively, honest, and open national debate about this should commence immediately. Our future national security depends decisively on it.

Perhaps it is time for all men and equalitarian women to cancel their subscriptions to the Washington Times, and take their business elsewhere. Responsible advertisers should do so as well.

Corporations that fund wanton destruction of men, family, and society are hurting future corporate profits. I strongly suggest that everyone who wants to put a stop to the hate of men and the hate of truth at the Washington Times should call all advertisers of the newspaper, and ask them to take their business elsewhere.

Since the Washington Times loves to print form letters, you might wish to copy this article into an email and send it to the Times. Their email address is letters@washingtontimes.com. You might want to copy Mr. Francis Coombs, Managing Editor, at fcoombs@washingtontimes.com.

11-19-2006 12:33 PM

Re: Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
The retarded far left love adding 0’s to their calculated numbers for the sole purpose of creating more lesbians.

Rough life!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-21-2006 09:12 PM

Re: Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

The Washington Times has said all it’s going to say about this article, which is sad. They really have done RADAR a disservice, and their readers as well.

There was nothing in there about lesbians.

01-09-2007 11:19 AM

Re: Washington Times Hates Truth About Domestic Violence
barron55
Contributor
barron55

This is a very well written analysis, khankrumthebulg! I have written a response to “Another Whore Story” on this forum that mirrors the assertions in this thread that states domestic violoence claims against men by women in the USA are largely the result of false allegations  trumped up under the new “Domestic Violence Act Against Women” to control and subdue men in the course of divorce or separation proceedings. This entire act was written and passed state by state by liberal, democrat, man hating feminists that operated to pass it through the false rumour mill generated by the feminist community that men are out of control monsters that are relentlesly beating their wives. This is a similar strategy used by the feminst agenda in the Washington Times.

You are 100% correct that in the case of true violence, between the sexes, it has been purpetrated by both sides, and no law will stop it if the person about to purpetrate it is determined to do it. In this regard, the old assault laws are more than adequate to incarcerate and punish the offender, as in the case of a severe attack, the perpetrator can be charged with assault 1, or even attempted murder, both of which carry significant prison time.  The difference between the old laws and the new “Domestic Violence Act” is that it’s now emboddied with an entire array of treatment and mandatory course enrollments designed for men by a Minnesota psychologist who modelled the courses for the true abuser who is prone to out of control behavior and violence as a means of dealing with marital or relationship issues. This in reality, only fits 1% or so of the male polulation in this country. The feminists, of course, are not interested in the trurth. They insisted that this model become the “fits all sizes” for men so that any time a women claims abuse, he is considered by law enforcement to automatically be in the 1% group,( therefore an immediate threat and danger to the feminist who wants him out of the house so she can easily plunder his assets through the “no fault” divorce court designed for the feminist)  therefore, the new law requires intervention and prevention, thereby arrest of the man, automatic restraining that prohibits contact with his spouse and restraint from returning to his home ( which will soon become hers if there are children ). In addition, he is told to enroll in the diversion programs ( mentioned above ) that are brainwashing techniques used by feminists to reinforce the notion that his natural yearnings to be dominant, protective and providing for his family are all bad and signs of aggression towards women! ( Because of course, the man is considered dangerous to his spouse as he is automatically dumped into the worst offender lot as these feminists wanted when the Domestic Violence Act was passed.)   These diversion programs are usually offered by the local district attorney as an incentive to avoid a jail sentence if the case is taken to court for prosecution. But again, because they were initially designed only for the true and violent offenders, they have been additionaly designed as brainwashing tools to feminize men and get them to believe that any anger reaction to a womans desire or command is an unnaceptable form of behavior. It never mattered whether the guy who was accused has done anything or is prone to violence or not! The Minnestota model is now the national model and is used on men regardless of what happened. As icing on the cake, you, the guy are also required to pay for these programs out of your own pocket! You are also assigned to a probation officer ( who is a liberal man hating feminist most of the time ) who gets to determine how “fit” you are to return to normal life and makes recommendations to the court as to your progress. By the time they are finished f—-ng with you, you will have spent thousands of dollars in the system at the same time your soon to be ex wife or significant other has taken you through “no fault” divorce court and plundered your assets to 50% or less.

This is all outrageous and 100% true. I have a friend who this has happened to, and know of many other cases through my own research. A logical question to ask about how all of this happened to men behind their backs is to question where the male legislators were to let this happen. The liberal media let this slide without shedding any light on it because they want liberal feminism to thrive. The male politicians are apparently spineless lackeys who feared the typical liberal branding of opposition, which would call them “women haters”, “homophobic”, “racist” , ect. to oppose the act.

Guys, I don’t know about you, but Washington DC and most state capitols have become infected with and attracted this nations worst special interst sewage that is sliming any sense of decency and greatness this country once had through the systematic, relentless assault on on constitution and the liberties that it is supposed to ensure everyone.  Promotion of feminism is now a large part of this rot. I agree with previous posts that one way to deal with radical feminism is to stop marrying women or having their children until these radical woman dominating laws are thrown out and that identified feminists become enrolled in courses that teach them to respect men, along with their natural psychologically wired brains and physically wired bodies.

06-17-2007 04:05 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”

Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Throughout the world women in dating relationships are twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of serious domestic violence. In India, for example, 23.0% of severe aggression was instigated by women, 15.3% was male-initiated, and 61.5% was mutual – see http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf, Table 3.

But those facts didn’t stop The Washington Times (TWT) from publishing an article that completely ignored the problem of women who physically abuse men: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061113-120817-8603r.htm.

It’s not just that the article is one-sided – it also makes inflammatory and derisive statements about men. The story quotes Brinda Karat of the All-India Democratic Women’s Association who claims that men “want to hold on to their birthright to beat up women.”

How can any responsible journalist include such a derogatory claim about any group in society?

The TWT article does mention the problem of false allegations by women. But that does not compensate for the fact that the article doesn’t give the exact source of a key statistic.

The article claims, “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape.” Somehow that number seems a little hard to believe.

So RADAR did an extensive search of the UN Population Fund’s website. Nothing there.

Then a Google search. No luck.

So RADAR finally contacted the UNDP Information Office. The UNDP employee was unable to find a statement in any UNDP publication that even resembled that statistic.

Conclusion: The phony 70% figure was concocted by someone whose agenda was something other than reporting the truth.

Folks, we can’t let this inflammatory story pass unnoticed. The editors at the Washington Times need to hear from a boatload of upset readers. Please tell them this message:

“The ‘Abused Wives in India’ article is biased, laced with anti-male rhetoric, and uses make-believe statistics. It ignores the well-documented fact that in India, women are twice as likely as men to engage in partner violence: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf. The story is so systematically flawed that it resembles a propaganda piece. The Washington Times should promptly retract this article and do a follow-up article that tells the truth about domestic violence.”

Contact:

Mr. Francis Coombs, Washington Times Managing Editor
E-mail: fcoombs@washingtontimes.com
Telephone: 202-636-3000, then ask to speak with Francis Coombs

Or send a letter to the editor at:

letters@washingtontimes.com

Date of RADAR Release: November 13, 2006

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner. http://www.mediaradar.org.

11-19-2006 12:31 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

IMBRA And Tahirih’s Destructive Behavior


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – IMBRA And Tahirih’s Destructive Behavior

IMBRA And Tahirih’s Destructive Behavior
albert1962
Regular Visitor
albert1962

In the last post, “IMBRA And Tahirih Justice Center’s Hypocrisy”, I have shown (that) there is no justification to force unilateral release of personal and criminal information of all American male clients of International Matchmaking Organizations (IMOs) at the time of initial contact because at that stage, there is no risk of harm to foreign women.

I have also stated that unlike IMOs, Domestic Matchmaking Organizations (DMOs), such as Match.com and Friendfinder.com, are given a complete exemption (or a “free pass” on having to do any background checks on their male clients. Proponents of IMBRA justify these “free passes” by claiming that in DMO-facilitated relationships, men and women are charged and treated the same and therefore, the balence of power is not skewed to empower the male client. As result, they claim, there is less risk for abuse in these relationships.

This assertion is a complete hogwash – in fact, all evidence indicate that there is a significant threat of harm against women and girls as result of these initial contacts made via DMOs. There have been numerous documented cases of brutal murder, rape, torture and exploitation which have occurred as result.

Here are some examples:

(1) A 14 year old girl met a 37 year old man in an American Online Chatroom in 2000. The man was convicted of taking her across state lines to have sex with her. http://www.dangersofinternetdating.com/int…tcrimelinks.htm

(2) A 13 year old girl, Christina Long, was murdered by a 25 year old man she met in an American Online Chatroom. He has confessed to strangling her. http://www.dangersofinternetdating.com/int…tcrimelinks.htm

(3) The body of a young woman who posted her profile in myspace.com was found near Richmond, VA. The suspect is a man whom she met through myspace.com. http://www.bobparsons.com/october2005.html

(4) A 13 year old girl was killed by a 47-year old SanDiego man (who later committed suicide) whom she met in an internet chat room. http://www.bobparsons.com/october2005.html

(5) An affluent real-estate agent in California is charged with with raping three women, two of whom he met through MillionaireMatch.com, a domestic marriage broker.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews…ia/15833372.htm

(6) A man has been charged with raping 10 women in the Philadelphia area. He met these women via Match.com Hey Tahirih, why isn’t Match.com regulated?
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=…&id=4713302

(7) A man is charged with having sex with minor, whom he met via MySpace.com
http://www.nbc5.com/news/10205650/detail.html#

These are just a few examples of hundreds of vicious murder, rape, torture and exploitation against women and girls which have occurred as result of contacts facilitated by DMO’s. Many of these horrifying acts of violence may have been prevented if DMOs were forced to do extensive personal and criminal background checks on their male clients.

Now, here is the most heinous part – Tahirih Justice Center, a main proponent of IMBRA, has been fighting in the court of law to preserve these exemptions for DMOs, despite the fact that these “free passes” have enabled many cases of horrendous rape, torture and exploitation against women to occur. We can not afford to let Tahirih prevail regarding these exemptions because if Tahirih gets its way, it will allow murderers, sexual predators, rapists, pedophiles and premeditated torturers a free pass to find their next victims. Tahirih’s behavior has been deplorable and deeply destructive to efforts to protect women and girls.

Therefore, I urge everyone, in the name of protecting our women and girls, to fight against Tahirih Justice Center’s efforts to preserve exemptions for DMOs. These “free-passes” for DMOs must be eliminated.
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?

11-18-2006 12:51 PM

Re: IMBRA And Tahirih’s Destructive Behavior
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The growing numbers of Men going overseas looking for Wives threatens the control Feminists have over American Women. They realize if enough Men refuse to Marry American Women, changes will be forced on their laws. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to regulate market demand for Wives, American Wives. The unrealistic demands of American Women are forcing American Men to cope in ways their Fathers and Grandfathers never envisioned.

Tom Leykis has a career of advising Men on how to get their Sexual needs met with Women, without incurring the huge Liabilities.

11-18-2006 05:34 PM

Re: IMBRA And Tahirih’s Destructive Behavior
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

I agree that “free passes” must be eliminated and DMOs should fully screen all clients, male or female. Underage kids must be supervised when on the computer. Computers should never be in a private place. Parents should be aware of where their children are whenever possible, and children should be warned thoroughly and graphically about the danger of meeting someone they have met online. They must be made aware of how easy it is to lie online and pretend to be someone you are not in order to win trust.

Even grown men and women should not trust someone they met online enough to meet in person without following strict safety precautions.

I may be mistaken, but International Wives should become fully American citizens with all rights and privelages in a certain amount of months or years after your marriage. Essentially, that means they can make the same demands as every other woman.

I’d also like to think that ‘feminists’ do not control me. I can make my own decisions without them harrassing me with their opinion.

01-09-2007 11:06 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

How To Spot a Princess


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – How To Spot a Princess

How To Spot a Princess
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

I was sitting in traffic a while ago, gawking at one of those billboards for the Spring race carnival featuring some very edible honey in a frilly hat and the slogan “Princesses Welcome.”

It got me thinking; ‘if the races is full of princesses, will that make blokes want to go or give them a swerve completely?’

We all know princesses, and really, isn’t it just a politically correct term for a woman who’s a high-maintenance, pain in the arse?

I had a girlfriend a few years ago who was so far up the Canadian royal family tree, I got maple splinters every time she got in bed. I don’t have to tell you it ended in tears. Hers.

Anyway, I thought if blokes could pick the warning signs of the Princess Syndrome early, it might just save some heartbreak. I’ve put together the following guide for you, my brothers …

Once upon a time

As a rule, royalty doesn’t drink anywhere that has a whiff of vomit in the carpet or where punters are screaming “Double it! Go the Black!” at the pokies.

Princess accredited venues sport asylum chrome, Norman and Quaine furniture and a bartender whose name is a verb. Like Kick.

Princesses do not drink beer. It’s “unfeminine” and they “don’t like the taste.” That’s fine, except you’ll be springing for caprioscas at $14 a throw because her ladyship never pays.

They also count how many beers you’ve had — either on the town or at home. Guaranteed, after your third or fourth, you’ll hear something along the lines of, “are you having ANOTHER one?”

My kingdom for a horse

Princesses like to be chauffeured. If you knock off work before a princess and feel like catching a quick wave, forget it. The princess expects you’ll be waiting outside her office in a late model car with the passenger door open and Donovan Frankenreiter burbling on the stereo.

Like certain trade unions, princesses won’t work in the rain. If it starts to spit, you’ll have to fetch the car so she won’t ruin her blow dry. And keep your air-con gassed up, because you can’t roll down the window for fear of jumbling the highborn hair.

Belle of the ball

Sound familiar? You get a last minute invite, but her majesty can’t get dressed in less than an hour, so she refuses to go.

Princesses are never ready when you arrive to pick them up and once you’re out, spend more time in the brasco checking their make-up than at the dinner table.

If you’re out with other people, they’ll undoubtedly be her friends. Princesses don’t like your mates, unless they’re worth flirting with.

Be warned, the friend the princess criticises the most is the one she’s attracted to and will doink as revenge when you break up.

Princesses’ nostrils also flare when you make any flattering reference about other females. The charm you used to win her now becomes a constant concern if you’re making strange women laugh.

“Can we go now?” will suddenly replace “it’s too smoky in here” as the most uttered phrase of the night.

We are not amused

Things that really piss a princess off:

*Princesses get filthy if you don’t call at acceptable daily intervals “just to say hi”.

*They hate it if you switch your phone off to avoid them.

*Hard rock and rap music are a no-no. Indie rock is iffy.

*Princesses genuinely laugh if you suggest they might actually enjoy going to the footy.

*Any public convenience. I know one who uses tissues to touch ATM buttons.

*The beach. Never, ever spring a quick swim on them. There’s a multitude of obstacles, from her not having waxed, to getting the hair wet, and the unacceptable water temperature.

Empresses’ new clothes

The princess creed is thus: “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine.” The princess may earn as much as you but still expects you’ll pay for dinner and weekends away.

When she shops for herself, she’ll also get you to pay for items because “I just want to look good for you.” When she shops for you, it’s to make sure your outfits won’t embarrass her.

Princesses expect you to drop enough on birthday gifts to make her girlfriends jealous. Any expensive gift that has a spin-off for you (like a holiday to Bali) is not considered a real gift because “that trip was for you, too.”

The Crown Jewels

Princesses will decide when and where you have sex. They require all suitors to shower before the act and insist you change your bedsheets before the patrician personage gets horizontal.

The Coronation

If I’ve sounded a little harsh in my description of the imperial gal, may I temper it by saying that it’s only because I’ve been down this road enough times to know what’s involved.

The truth is, if princesses weren’t such hard work they wouldn’t be worth chasing.

This type of woman may have her faults but she also has her dreams, expectations and standards. She’s often very bright, ambitious and knows what she wants.

On a superficial level she’s more than likely gorgeous, smells **bleep** fine and somehow seems to make the sun shine brighter when you’re on her arm.

11-17-2006 08:33 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

In loco parentis – The Duke LaCrosse case


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – In loco parentis – The Duke LaCrosse case

In loco parentis – The Duke LaCrosse case
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Professor KJC Johnson whose blog, Durham-in-Wonderland has been covering the Duke Lacrosse case, is interviewed by FrontpageMag and offers the most complete and accurate account of the matter. Read it all and be revolted by the unethical behavior of the press, the prosecutor and the outrageous behavior of many of the Duke faculty:

In the first week of the investigation (March 16-23), Duke administrators actively assisted the state. Without informing President Richard Brodhead, administrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening’s events, allegedly citing a non-existent “student-faculty” privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity. Multiple sources told me that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a “facilitator” in arranging for a group meeting with police.

After Nifong began his publicity barrage on March 27, faculty leftists became involved. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter denouncing the “abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us” and demanding the “immediate dismissals” of “the team itself and its players.” Then, on April 6, 88 members of Duke’s arts and sciences faculty signed a public statement saying “thank you” to campus demonstrators who had distributed a “wanted” poster of the lacrosse players and publicly branded the players “rapists.” To date, not a single member of what has become known as the “Group of 88” has retracted his or her signature or publicly criticized Nifong’s procedural violations.

Clarice Feldman 11 16 06

11-17-2006 10:47 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Understanding SANE, V


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Understanding SANE, V

Understanding SANE, V
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
To the extent that the run-up and aftermath of the election distracted attention from the details of the case, we’ve all missed out on a series of first-rate posts by Kathleen Eckelt at Forensic Talk.

Eckelt, it’s worth remembering, was way ahead of the curve in using her professional experience to cast doubt upon the medical evidence in this case. At a time when Duff Wilson of the New York Times was suggesting that the medical evidence was quite strong, Eckelt was maintaining the opposite.

The recent revelations—the accuser pole dancing in a limber fashion, the former security manager saying she was boasting about getting money from “white boys,” the former manager saying that she frequently passed out in the strip club—suggest that, on the medical front at least, the blogs’ coverage was far superior to that of the Times.

Several recent posts continue Eckelt’s impressive work on this case. Her major conclusions:

1.) The accuser’s behavior is far more typical of someone “hospital shopping” for drugs than of someone who was sexually assaulted.

“Those who engage in drug seeking behavior,” Eckelt noted, “or ‘doctor shopping’, often hit the various emergency rooms, complaining of extreme pain, hoping to get a physician to prescribe the drug.” Specifically, why, the day after the alleged attack, did the accuser go all the way to Chapel Hill and UNC Hospital to complain of pain and request drugs?

According to Eckelt, “part of the standard discharge instructions given to our patients is to instruct them to call or return to the ER or SANE unit if they have any further problems or bruising showing up . . . The accuser showing up at UNC the next day indicates to me that she did not receive a prescription at Duke, even though she supposedly was in ‘extreme pain.’”

Indeed, Eckelt wonders how the accuser could have received Percocet and Flexeril from UNC even though the doctors knew “that she had mixed alcohol with Flexeril.”

2.) The only item listed on the SANE nurse-in-training’s report—diffuse edema of the vaginal walls—is not characteristic of sexual assault; and, in fact, several behaviors with which we know the accuser was associated would account for this condition.

Eckelt wrote that she recently asked a colleague with almost 15 years experience, who hasn’t been following the Duke case, how she could recognize diffuse vaginal wall edema in a sexual assault case. According to Eckelt, “she gave me this kind of dumb founded look, then asked the same question I’ve been asking myself all along: ‘How could you even see it?’”

Eckelt has “never” seen diffuse vaginal wall edema “by itself, without any redness or other signs.” Yet, according to SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s report, this is exactly what Levicy saw with the accuser. But, notes Eckelt, “edema, diffuse or otherwise, is not an injury. It is the body’s response to an injury, an infection, or a disease or inflammatory process of some sort.” According to Eckelt, what could cause diffuse vaginal wall edema?

* Smoking
* Sex within 24 hours of the vaginal exam
* Frequent sex
* Tricyclic anti-depressants, or other medications with properties similar to them—such as Flexeril.

It’s unclear if the accuser smokes. But she certainly seems to exhibit the other characteristics.

Eckelt concluded that neither she nor her colleague “felt that diffuse vaginal edema, alone, without any other symptoms or injuries, would be indicative of sexual assault,” and that certainly “neither one of us would be willing to walk into court and state that it is.”

3.) The Inside Edition “pole-dancing” video is extraordinarily damaging to the prosecution’s case.

“Patients who engage in fraudulent behavior or doctor shopping,” Eckelt recently wrote, “are often videotaped by investigators displaying behavior not consistent with their claims.”

According to Sgt. Mark Gottlieb’s infamous “straight-from-memory” report, on March 16 the accuser was, as Eckelt notes, “limping, grimacing, crying, and couldn’t sit down—shifting from one side to the other—not able to sit on her buttocks.” These symptoms would be associated with a herniated disc, yet those with herniated discs could not be captured on the Pole Dancing Video.

Moreover, Eckelt writes that studies have shown those with lower back pain—as the accuser claimed in her multiple trips to UNC Hospital—”have a significant problem with flexion and movement of the hips and lower back.” Again, based on the pole dancing video, it seemed as if the accuser had little difficulty with these matters.

While the person captured on the Inside Edition video thus had few, if any, signs of legitimate pain, she did demonstrate behavior consistent with someone faking an injury for ulterior purposes: “exaggerated symptoms and continued complaints of extreme pain (8 – 10/10) with no obvious physical basis for the pain.”

In Eckelt’s words,

Nurses spend a lot of time dealing with patients’ pain. We’ve seen many different types of people, different types of pain, and different responses. After awhile, we get a sense of what appears to be true pain and what appears to be exaggerated. We know how long it should take for medicine to kick in and how that medicine works on the body to relieve the pain. As I said before, when a patient’s behavior is inconsistent with their claims, red flags go up. In my opinion, with this particular case, red flags are popping up all over the place.

4.) The accuser’s claimed conditions are inconsistent with that of a full-time college student.

Eckelt recently noted that the case reminded her of a previous fraudulent-pain claim, when a patient, a full-time college student, was actually obtaining drugs to sell on the open market. Though he complained to his doctor of extreme back pain, the doctor could find no other symptoms, but initially prescribed the drugs anyway.

When the case was reviewed for insurance fraud, the investigator wondered, “Just how did he manage to sit all that time in those hard chairs, and for studying, when he had such extreme back pain?”

In this case, it would be interesting to ask the accuser’s professors how she behaved in class—did she, for instance, constantly fidget in her seat, indicating the kind of extreme back pain that Sgt. Gottlieb claimed to notice in his “straight-from-memory” report?

In general, the revelations over the last couple of months raise some doubts to me. The accuser hasbeen described as an “honors” student at North Carolina Central. To my knowledge, the only source for that claim is the March 25 article in the N&O—an article that, essentially, is no longer credible.

I teach at a school (Brooklyn College) where a majority of students have jobs; a good chunk work full-time. Yet in my seven-plus years at Brooklyn, I can never recall a student who had anything resembling the schedule described of the accuser in the Jarriel Johnson statement, the recent Joseph Neff article, or a similar piece in the Herald-Sun. These items reveal a person who spent long periods of time—frequently extending into the wee hours of the early morning—in a strip club, where she sometimes, according to the Herald-Sun article, ended the evening passed out.

The Jarriel Johnson statement goes into considerable detail about the accuser’s activities in the days before the lacrosse party. Driving around to “appointments” or strip clubs forms a prominent role in the Johnson narrative; driving the accuser to class (the accuser, of course, had her license revoked) is never mentioned.

How, exactly, did the accuser get to class? Based on the schedule we now know she kept, how did she maintain a regular courseload? Her written statement to police suggests someone operating at a 9th or 10th grade reading level. In light of that, and based on the kind of behavior seen in the Johnson statement and recent articles, how did she maintain an honors GPA—at the same time that she was, allegedly, experiencing such extreme back pain that she couldn’t sit properly?

I have no answers to these questions. But—coming at the matter from the standpoint of an academic rather than a SANE nurse—I agree with Eckelt that the accuser’s behavior seems rather atypical of a full-time honors student.

11-17-2006 10:28 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reluctantly Divorced


Reluctantly Divorced
khankrumthebulg

You are the Unknown Soldiers of the Culture Wars.

Like the soldier buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, no one knows your name. But at least everyone recognizes what the Unknown Soldier died for. Unlike the soldier buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, no one knows that you have died a thousand deaths, or what you died for. You are the Reluctantly Divorced.

You are among the large and invisible group of Americans who were divorced against their will. You did not want to be divorced. You wanted to work on the marriage. But the unilateral divorce laws in this country allow one party to end a marriage, without cause or penalty, so you are divorced, like it or not. One person can end a marriage for any reason or no reason.

Some of these things may have happened to you:

* Your spouse left you for another person.
* Your spouse left you for no reason that makes any sense to you.
* You have been told to “get over it” or “suck it up” by people whom you thought ought to help you, such as relatives, counselors or even clergy.
* Your contact with your children is limited by court order or by the non-cooperation of the child’s other parent.
* Your children’s other parent shows little or no interest in your children. He or she is more interested in the children of their current relationship.
* You have faced costly legal battles to gain access to your children, or to protect your children.
* You feel you have been victimized by an anti-male bias in the family courts.
* You have had your wages garnished or your assets seized to pay for child support or spousal maintenance.
* You have been the victim of a paternity fraud.
* You have been stalked by your ex-spouse

11-17-2006 10:20 AM

Continue reading

Court orders doctor to pay for unwanted baby


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Court orders doctor to pay for unwanted baby

Court orders doctor to pay for unwanted baby
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
From correspondents in Berlin, Germany
November 16, 2006 12:00

A COURT ruling which ordered a gynaecologist to pay child support for up to 18 years as compensation for botching a contraceptive implant has been condemned by the German media as scandalous.

The Karlsruhe-based federal appeals court ruled that the doctor must pay his former patient, now a mother of a three-year-old boy, €600 ($1007) a month because she became pregnant after he implanted her with a contraceptive device.

“A child as a case for damages – this perverse idea has now been confirmed by one of Germany’s highest courts,” conservative Die Welt daily newspaper wrote in an editorial.

The device is meant to protect against pregnancy for up to three years, but half a year after the operation, the implant could no longer be found in the woman’s body, the court said.

While it should be welcomed that a doctor can now be held to account in the same way as a shoddy plumber, the newspaper said, how could a child whose parents had sought damages for its birth ever come to terms with the situation?

“In addition to the highly private inkling that he was not wanted by his parents, he now has official confirmation that he was born by mistake,” Die Welt also said.

The award covers the first years of the child’s life and also subsequent costs to the age of 18.

The parents, who had known each other six months at the time of the conception, were no longer together, the court said, ruling that the father should also be compensated for the maintenance he was paying towards the child.

The ruling could spark a flood of similar claims against gynaecologists, Stern magazine wrote on its website.

11-17-2006 10:09 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Parents’ Rights Activist Endures 108 Days Without Eating


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Parents’ Rights Activist Endures 108 Days Without Eating

Parents’ Rights Activist Endures 108 Days Without Eating
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Documentary ‘Support? System Down’ to Include AKidsRight.org Founder John Murtari

11/16/2006 11:43:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Teri Stoddard of A Kid’s Right, 925-628-1206 or teri@akidsright.org

SYRACUSE, N.Y., Nov. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ — Angelo Lobo, producer of “Support? System Down” will be arriving in Syracuse today, Nov. 16, to film John Murtari, founder of AKidsRight.org, in the Onondaga County Justice Center, on his 108th day with no solid food.

“John’s story is special in that he has taken a stand against a system that desperately needs reform, on a national level,” said Lobo, “He is a voice for thousands who are being incarcerated against their constitutional rights.”

Murtari, 50, an Air Force Academy graduate, was sentenced to six months incarceration for willful failure to pay child support, a charge he disputes. Inspired by Gandhi, Murtari started the parents’ organization AKidsRight.org and has been advocating for a Family Rights Act.

“The child support system is broken; their information is too frequently not accurate or complete,” said Jane Spies of the National Family Justice Association. “If an honorable man like John can get locked up, anyone can,” she continued, “How does this help his son? Why does his son have to suffer the loss of a loving father?”

Murtari urges parents who want change in family law to demonstrate faith, love and personal sacrifice, and to participate in peaceful protest. He once climbed the art structure in front of the Federal Building and displayed a large banner in his quest to get a meeting with Senator Clinton. Murtari stopped eating July 31, the day he reported to jail. “John is a hero to parents around the world,” said Spies.

Lobo has interviewed parents across the country who have said it’s time for change in family law. “This is the new civil rights movement,” said Teri Stoddard, “Parents are demanding truth, justice and equality. They want their constitutional rights upheld.”

Everyone is encouraged to join the AKidsRight.org mailing list http://www.akidsright.org/register/sign-up.php4

Murtari will be released on Dec. 1, and his first priority, is visiting his son.

—–

For more information on A Kids Right visit http://www.akidsright.org

For more information on AGINELO Productions visit http://www.aginelo.com

http://www.usnewswire.com/

11-17-2006 10:05 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Odour and mating preferences, The smell of power


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Odour and mating preferences, The smell of power

Odour and mating preferences, The smell of power
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Human behaviour
The smell of power

Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Odour and mating preferences

WHAT’S a girl to do when faced with the choice between a powerful action man who has great DNA but is likely to love her and leave her, and a carpet-and-slippers kind of bloke who will hang around and bring up the kids but may not be Mr Right in the genes department? Well, ideally, she should fool the latter into bringing up the former’s children. And a piece of evidence that this is exactly what happens emerged this week from a research group led by Jan Havlicek of Charles University, in Prague.

Dr Havlicek and his colleagues were interested in discovering whether women are attracted by the smell of dominant men. A preference for the scent of dominants has been found in the females of other species, and scent is known to be important in attraction between the human sexes in other contexts, such as avoiding inbreeding. The attractiveness of body odour is also correlated with the attractiveness of the body it came from, even when presented separately from that body. But whether the odour of power—or, at least, of powerfulness—is attractive to women had not been established.

Deciding who is and is not a dominant male is the first question, of course. To do this, the researchers turned to one of the world’s most widely used experimental animals, the hard-up male student. Their subjects were asked to rate such things as their tendency to correct others, to want to control conversations, and to surpass others’ accomplishments, in a questionnaire designed to assess their dominance. In their paper in Biology Letters the researchers laconically observe that dominance in this questionnaire “corresponds to the scale ‘Narcissism’ in the widely used California psychological inventory”.

After baring their all in this manner, the volunteers had to wear cotton pads under their armpits for 24 hours to collect the sweat therefrom, and also had to lay off curries, beer, cigarettes and similar delights of student life that might affect the smell of their sweat. Surprisingly, given these constraints, the researchers managed to persuade 48 men to volunteer.

Compared with this, the female volunteers had it easy. They had to smell the pads and rate them for “intensity”, “sexiness” and “masculinity”. Okay, perhaps not that easy. They also had to vouchsafe whether they were single or in an on-going relationship with a man, and to submit to a saliva test that would show the phase of their menstrual cycle.

The upshot of the trial was that women did, indeed, find the odour of dominants sexier than that of wimps—but only in special circumstances. These circumstances were first that the woman was already in a relationship and second that she was in the most fertile phase of her cycle. In other words, dominant males’ scent was only more attractive at the point where a woman could both conceive and cuckold her mate. Which, given previous studies that show dominant men are indeed more likely than others to leave a woman holding the baby, makes perfect sense.

11-17-2006 09:07 AM

Re: Odour and mating preferences, The smell of power
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

how will the makers of old spice red zone react to this  ?

11-21-2006 11:30 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Boys will be boys but there are ways to better educate them


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Boys will be boys but there are ways to better educate them

Boys will be boys but there are ways to better educate them
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Shane Desiatnik

Research shows that boys have been underachieving at school compared to girls since the 1980s and the gap has increased with time.

But a $19.4 million Australian Government initiative called Success For Boys aims to change all that in 1600 schools by 2008 – and four schools in the NSW Blue Mountains will be among the first to implement it.

“Zip it!” That’s the first thing University of Western Sydney’s boys education expert Peter West tells teachers at professional development workshops to do more of in their lessons.

“Teachers should talk less at the beginning of lessons and get in there and get boys to do something straight away,” he said.

“Why? Because boys are not as good listeners when it comes to learning.

“They like lessons with a structured action focus because they learn best by seeing and doing.

“It’s not the same for all boys, but they do have preferred learning styles and these need to be incorporated more in lessons.

“It won’t disadvantage the girls. In fact, if boys’ learning and engagement in class is improved, it will only benefit girls.”

Federal member for Macquarie Kerry Bartlett, who taught for 25 years and was chairperson of the House of Representatives Standing Committee overseeing an inquiry into the education of boys in 2002, agrees.

“Some people criticised the Standing Committee’s recommendations because they thought it would have a negative effect on girls, but it was not putting boys up against girls, it was not a competition,” he said.

“The aim was to recommend ways to ensure education is tailored to better suit the differing needs of boys and girls.”

Mr Bartlett said he was staggered by the report’s research that found boys are underachieving in average performance at school at a significant level on almost all indicators.

The Success For Boys initiative was driven by the report’s recommendations and aims to make a real difference in boys education.

Among the schools to secure $10,000 in program funds this year are Katoomba High School, Blue Mountains Grammar School, Our Lady of the Nativity School and St Columba’s High School.

“Success For Boys works on a number of fronts, including teachers’ professional development, producing and sharing successful teaching and assessment strategies to take more advantage of boys’ interests and strengths and developing male mentoring systems,” Mr Bartlett said.

“It’s not that some boys are intrinsically bad, they are just less engaged.

“Underperforming boys need to feel a sense of belonging inside the classroom as much as in the playground.

“Boys tend to like reading books about adventure, prefer writing about the story rather than describing how characters feel and favour a phonics-based approach to learning literacy.”

Peter West stressed the importance of student-teacher relationships for boys.

“Using humour to break things up and appealing to boys’ interests is very important,” he said.

“Girls tend to study subjects and boys study teachers.

“Writing is another key area to work on. Why? Because boys need to be assessed and tend to be poor at descriptives, yet many teachers like putting those sorts of things in tests.

“Assessments are becoming more literacy-based across all key learning areas.”

Katoomba High School boys education co-ordinator Lance Bones said the school will use half of their grant in 2007 to develop a formal male mentoring program and the other half will be used to ease the transition from primary to high school.

Both programs will target boys who are at risk of underperforming or disengaging from school.

“The idea of the mentoring program is to have males as role models within the school community, including teachers and local residents and businesspeople,” Mr Bones said.

“It’s about the three Rs of relationships, relationships and relationships.

“If you don’t have a relationship based on respect with boys, you are hitting against a wall.

“Each boy has a different learning style and you pick up on this over time. When it clicks, everything works.”

Mr Bones said the transition program will see boys having trouble settling into high school life bonding together as a group doing a variety of team problem solving workshops.

“I’ve seen kids at one of these workshops not knowing anyone’s names and coming away half an hour later knowing everyone in the group and having a ball.

“This can help enormously because being in a new environment with six teachers a day instead of one can put some boys under a lot of pressure.”

Mr Bones said this will complement current strategies in the school like gifted and talented programs, literacy modules across all key learning areas and after school sessions offered in subjects like maths, industrial arts, drama and music.

“The school achieved excellent results in numeracy and literacy tests for years seven and eight this year and achieved a huge improvement, so we must be doing something right!”

Source: The Blue Mountains Gazette

WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS

*The difference between boys’ and girls’ average NSW TES (now called UAI) results widened from 0.6 marks in 1981 to 19.4 marks in 1996

*Research indicates the gap between girls’ and boys’ performance at school increased between 1994 and 2000

*About 80 per cent of students suspended or excluded from school are boys and this rate is consistent in each state

*The gender gap in school retention rates remained stable between 11 and 12 per cent from 1991 to 2001

*On average, boys do not perform as well as girls in each aspect of literacy, particularly in expressive modes like writing and speaking

*Only 21 per cent of primary school teachers in Australian schools were male in 2001, down from 26 per cent in 1991

*The senior school curriculum has become more language intensive in all key learning areas and this is likely to be a factor in boys’ declining relative performance

(Source: Report on the Inquiry into the Education of Boys, 2002)

11-16-2006 07:25 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

65 and pregnant


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – 65 and pregnant

65 and pregnant
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Again from the front page of msn, My boss is 65 and pregnant

How do you like this gem: “And as more intelligent females delayed getting hitched, that meant that more intelligent men would be floating around, unattached. The dating scene became a more interesting place to dip in and out of for a decade or so, and the risk of being trapped with a small choice of husbands (“Sorry, only the economists are left …” fell.”

Some of us might suggest it is not the intellegent females that are delaying but quite the opposite. And what the heck is wrong with an economist?

A totally unrelated note is that I found a quote some of you may like:
“Alimony is repossesed love that one must still pay out on the installment plan.”

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-16-200611:05 AM

11-16-2006 11:04 AM

Re: 65 and pregnant
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

65 and pregnant = very stupid and self absorbed.  It also =’s being an invalid when you children are in junior high school.

11-16-2006 12:26 PM

Re: 65 and pregnant
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
There is alot of women that waited until they were 35 to make a baby only to find it was to late!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-17-2006 11:50 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

DNA test rights proposed for duped dads


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – DNA test rights proposed for duped dads

DNA test rights proposed for duped dads
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Patricia Karvelas

November 16, 2006 01:00am
Article from: The Australian

MEN would have an automatic right to DNA testing to check that they are the biological parents of their children under a plan being pushed by the Government’s back bench.

The backbenchers insist radical legislative reform is needed in the wake of a High Court ruling against Melbourne man Liam Magill, who was deceived about being the father of two of the three children born during his four-year marriage.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the Government was “weighing up its options” on protecting men in Mr Magill’s situation.

Mr Magill last week failed to secure $70,000 awarded by a lower court for his pain and suffering. His now ex-wife Meredith began an affair 17 months into the marriage and he paid child support for the three children for eight years in the belief that he fathered them all.

Federal MPs Sophie Mirabella and Alby Schultz are spearheading a push for the Government to amend legislation so that people in Mr Magill’s position are not “forced to jump through hoops to obtain DNA testing”.

“It is simply not good enough to leave judges with the discretion to allow or disallow a DNA test,” Ms Mirabella said yesterday.

“Surely a man has the right to know whether they are the biological parent of a child. The Family Law Act and the Child Support Act need amendment to enable non-intrusive DNA testing of children at the request of alleged parents.

“This will allow more equitable property settlements and assessments of child support.”

Ms Mirabella, who will raise the issue with Mr Ruddock, said the alternative would leave men fighting to obtain DNA tests, then fighting to have property settlements and child support assessments altered.

Mr Schultz said DNA testing must be allowed without delay to avoid situations such as the one faced by Mr Magill, which leave men with “no legal right to redress for having been deceived and misled as to the paternity of the child”.

“Liam Magill’s watershed case highlights the need to beef up legislation to allow justice in cases where alleged fathers’ lives are wrecked by deceitful actions in relation to child support and family breakdown,” Mr Schultz said in a joint statement with Ms Mirabella.

“Liam Magill has been a victim of paternity fraud in the cruellest way.

“It was indeed a sad day when the highest court in the land delivered this crushing blow.

“The decision gives women who have lied about the paternity of their children great comfort; wives have virtual carte blanche to have another man’s child and leave the poor husband with no access to justice.

“Now it is critical that society’s contemporary attitudes be reflected in our legislative standards on marriage and family.”

In bringing the High Court action, Mr Magill and his supporters in the men’s rights movement had attempted, through the courts, to force women who have doubts about the paternity of their child to disclose those doubts to their partners.

But three judges found “there is currently no recognised legal or equitable obligation, or duty of care, on a spouse to disclose an extra-marital sexual relationship to the other spouse”.

“There is a mantle of privacy over such conduct which protects it from scrutiny by the law,” said judges Susan Crennan, William Gummow and Michael Kirby.

11-16-2006 07:51 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

False rape report leads to 1-year sentence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – False rape report leads to 1-year sentence

False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
A Dana Point woman accused six men of abducting her, but a video shows her orchestrating some of the sex.
By Mai Tran, Times Staff Writer
November 10, 2006

A Dana Point woman who told police she was kidnapped at gunpoint and raped by six men was sentenced Thursday to 360 days in jail after confessing that she had made up the crime.

Tamara Anne Moonier, 30, was arrested after one of the men brought forth a video that showed the woman was a willing participant in a night of sex.

In court Thursday, a tearful Moonier pleaded for leniency and said she was remorseful.

Moonier, who works as a receptionist at a woman’s fitness center, said she had suffered from mental illness, depression and bipolar disorder since her teenage years, and is on prescription medication. She is currently in divorce proceedings and a custody battle for her 14-month-old child.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Carla M. Singer said that if Moonier was well behaved during the first 90 days in jail, she could serve the remaining time under house arrest, officials said. Moonier was also ordered to repay more than $2,000 to the state for financial aid she received for being an alleged victim of violent crimes.

Moonier, who had no criminal history, pleaded guilty in July to two felony counts of making false police reports and one count each of perjury and grand theft. She was facing a maximum of four years and eight months in prison.

Moonier went to Fullerton police June 6 and reported that she had been abducted outside a bar at gunpoint then taken to an unknown location and raped, authorities said. But police later determined that she agreed to go to a house and have sex with the men, which was videotaped.

One of the men showed police the 40-minute tape that depicted Moonier orchestrating some of the sex, authorities said.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Chrisopoulos said the woman’s punishment was not harsh enough.

“I wanted her to serve all year in custody,” Chrisopoulos said. “She exposed these men to a lifetime in prison. To serve a year in prison is minuscule to what she was accusing these men of.”

The six men, who were not arrested or charged, would have faced life sentences had they been convicted.

mai.tran@latimes.com

11-15-2006 04:28 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/great-**bleep**-babe/24507/

Here is the link to the story.  Old news.

11-15-2006 07:57 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

The only old news around here is you jack ass.  And here’s the link to prove it..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/

Scientists decode Neanderthal genes

“Humans went through several stages of evolution in the last 400,000 years,” said study co-author Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago. “If we can compare humans’ and Neanderthals’ genomes, then we can possibly identify what the key genetic changes were during that final stage of human evolution.”

A completed genome will also reveal new insights about Neanderthals, who disappeared mysteriously about 30,000 years ago.  Except of course, moneyneversleep who even more mysteriously appears 30,000 years after his time.

11-15-2006 09:53 PM

Actually, my small, frustrated friend
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

it is you that, along with these other fools, continue so snap each other with towels and act like Don Quixote.  Sadly, a fool and his money are always parted as you and those like you continue to prove.

11-16-2006 11:14 AM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you don’t have a clue as to anything about me .. nor is it  any of your business to have one

11-16-2006 04:49 PM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are quite easy to read.   A frustrated little man railing at the world.  Dumped by a woman.  Unable to move on.  Working a dead end job making middle income and just enough to get by.  Very easy to read.

11-17-2006 11:21 AM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you have missed the mark yet again.. but that’s not surprising since that’s about the only thing you are good at around here

11-17-2006 04:39 PM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I am quite sure I am spot on.   You seem to very responsive and angry for someone who is not being accurately profiled.  What a little loser you are.

11-17-2006 07:47 PM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you are more like a spot on the wall.. that’s about as large as you get

11-17-2006 10:12 PM

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

are you are friend of Ted Haggard’s?  You seem to be following me around a lot.   Sorry, I am not interested.  I don’t bat that direction.  I am sure you will find a few closeted fruits here though.

11-18-2006 01:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – False rape report leads to 1-year sentence

Re: Actually, my small, frustrated friend
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

your batting average is .000

11-19-2006 01:49 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Right, keep chasing me around.

11-20-2006 08:09 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

for someone with nearly 400 posts , you are in no position to accuse anyone of chasing anything here

11-21-2006 01:57 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are gay, aren’t you?  You seem fascinated by me and pursue me everywhere.

11-21-2006 03:30 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

fascinated by you ?  no.   believe you to be a trolling dweeb ?  yes

11-21-2006 03:55 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

By the way, stalker, how is Ted Haggard?  You two come out yet?

11-21-2006 07:27 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you are the one that thinks about him so much … call him on your direct line and ask him

11-21-2006 07:48 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Still following me around.  Get a life.

11-22-2006 11:49 AM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

i sure as f%^& wouldn’t want your life

11-22-2006 05:28 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You’re gay right?

11-29-2006 05:36 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – False rape report leads to 1-year sentence

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

sorry to dissappoint you.. you aren’t my type.  go search for a boyfriend somewhere else.. like those bath houses you frequent

12-01-2006 10:08 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Actually, that you are following me around trying to stick you nose up my *ss is proof of your batting for the same sex team.  Not my type.  I prefer women, not frustrated men railing at how lousy their life is, taking drugs and acting manic.

12-02-2006 12:45 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

no.. what you prefer is to kiss your own *ss and then project your own fantasies onto others.  admit it jackass… if you had much of a life, you wouldn’t have 400 posts and running.

12-02-2006 01:23 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Now that I know you are a militant homosexual I will avoid you. Thanks for the clarification.

12-02-2006 01:37 PM

Re: False rape report leads to 1-year sentence
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you know precious little for starters.. and you aren’t doing a great job of avoiding me

12-02-2006 01:54 PM

OK….
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

cupcake.

12-02-2006 03:14 PM

Re: OK….
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

you just got through saying you were going to avoid me.

so you say one thing and do another evidently

12-02-2006 03:42 PM

There, there…
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

cupcake.

12-03-2006 02:39 PM

Re: There, there…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

again.. you aren’t capable of avoiding me

12-03-2006 06:49 PM

You really are
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

a gay stalker.

12-05-2006 03:50 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – False rape report leads to 1-year sentence

Re: You really are
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

your fantasy

12-05-2006 04:58 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Sleeping in the Basement


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Sleeping in the Basement

Sleeping in the Basement
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
When you have a reputation as a defender of marriage, you’ve got to deal with the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. This week, I got an e-mail that was definitely Not Good.
“Dear Dr. J,
“I’m part of group of 5 men. We all work together; we are all married, with children. Our ages range from 35 to 45. All but one of us sleeps in the basement because our wives don’t really want us very badly. The youngest of our group does not yet sleep in the basement but he reports the same frustration that moves all of us there. Sharing a bed with a woman who does not want you is painful.
“Oh, she wants you to pay the bills and be a father to your children, but she doesn’t want you. It’s difficult to just leave when you know you’ve created responsibilities, but it is pretty clear she’d rather you just left.
“It’s entirely possible that all 5 of us are losers, bad lovers and just plain whiners. It’s possible, but it’s statistically highly improbable. All 5 of us have good jobs; all but one has an advanced degree. We live in pleasant houses in safe neighborhoods.
“So pardon us if when we read the phrase “abandoned their wife” we are more inclined to believe that is was a “sotto voce ejection”.”
Mr. No Name.

OK Ladies: Can we talk?
This is Not Good. Take your pick between Bad and Ugly, but let’s be clear. It isn’t good for a man to feel his wife doesn’t want him sexually. It isn’t good for him to feel that he is a combination ATM and Assistant Mom.
My husband and I have been there. Not that either of us ended up in the basement. But we have had our share of conflict over sex and intimacy. I can remember many conversations where he was trying hard to explain himself and I was trying hard to listen. He may as well have been speaking a foreign language, which, come to think of it, he was. He was speaking Man-ish. I had no idea what he was talking about. He was really asking me to open my heart to him, and to take this issue seriously.
Men and women are very different from each other, and in no area more different than sex. There may be absolutely nothing wrong with either one of you. You are confronting the Great Divide between men and women. If you can bridge that sexual divide, and make marriage work, it is magic. If you can’t, the alternatives are lousy: adultery, alienation or divorce.
I don’t want you to become a divorce statistic. Nor do I want you to make a mockery of marriage by allowing yourself to get comfortable with a situation that is inherently unfair to your husband, yourself, your children, and to marriage itself. Too many women take this route, thinking it is the easy way. But it isn’t. Ignoring your husband’s sexual needs is the low road, not the high road.
I wish I could give you the Three Steps to Marital Bliss, and your husband the Five Secrets to Driving Her Wild. But I can’t. I can’t even put my finger on exactly what we did that broke the deadlock between us. We muddled through. We didn’t give up and we’re still muddling through. It would be foolish to presume to tell you in particular, what you should do to get your husband back in the bedroom and your heart, where he belongs. There are ten thousand different ways to do this right.
Unfortunately, there are probably fifty thousand ways to do it wrong. If your husband is sleeping in the basement, literally or metaphorically, you’re doing it wrong.
I would just ask my women readers to do this. Forget your own feelings for a moment. Think about how unhappy your husband must be if he is sleeping in the basement. Take this column to him, and say something like this.
“I’m sorry for the pain you must feel over sleeping in the basement. I’m sorry for my part in causing it. I don’t know what to do to improve this situation. But I want you to know that I’m committed to trying. It is not ok with me for you to be this unhappy.”
And ladies, if you can’t do this, if it really is ok with you for your husband to be this unhappy, you need a heart transplant. The one you have isn’t working.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the author of 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage: (You can improve your marriage, even if your spouse doesn’t change a bit) which you can find at http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com
This column is available for reprinting or reposting on your church or non-profit’s newsletter. Please notify me that you plan to run it, and give the following attribution: “This article originally appeared on http://www.townhall.com and is reprinted here with their permission and the permission of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. Her book, Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World is available at http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com.

11-15-2006 01:28 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Government: Not the answer for blacks


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Government: Not the answer for blacks

Government: Not the answer for blacks
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Walter Williams

Blacks and Hispanics, especially blacks, are the most politically loyal people in the nation. It’s often preached and taken as gospel that the only way black people can progress is through racial politics and government programs, but how true is that? Let’s look at it.

In 1940, poverty among black families was 87 percent and fell to 47 percent by 1960. Would someone tell me what anti-poverty program or civil-rights legislation accounted for this economic advance that exceeded any other 20-year interval? A significant chunk of that progress occurred through migration from rural areas in the South to big Northern cities. Between 1960 and 1980, black poverty fell roughly 17 percent and fell 1 percent during the ’70s. Might this have been a continuation of a trend starting much earlier, or was it a miracle of the civil-rights movement or President Johnson’s War on Poverty?

Dr. Thomas Sowell’s research points out that in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959. What’s more, the rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater during the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than the five years afterward.

In 1940, 86 percent of black children were born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate among blacks was about 15 percent. Today, 31 percent of black children are born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate hovers around 70 percent.

In the mid-1960s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sounded the alarm for the breakdown in the black family in his book “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” At that time, black illegitimacy was 26 percent. Moynihan said, “[A]t the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of the Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.” He added, “The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.”

Moynihan’s observations were greeted with charges of racism and blaming the victim. If one accepts that a weak family structure has devastating effects on well-being, pray tell us what solutions can be found by electing Republicans or Democrats to the Congress, Senate or White House. By the way, today’s growing illegitimacy among whites is what it was among blacks in the 1960s.

Another significant problem for black Americans, independent of whether there are Democratic or Republican congressmen, senators or president, is the level of crime in many black neighborhoods. It’s a level of crime unimaginable to most Americans and unimaginable to blacks of yesteryear. In 2005, the nationwide murder rate, per 100,000 of the population, was 5.6. Cities with large black populations had much higher murder rates, such as: Gary, Ind. (58), Richmond, Va. (43), Detroit (39), and Washington, D.C. (35).

According to Justice Department figures, blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims, and 94 percent of black victims were murdered by blacks. Again, pray tell us what solutions will be found by electing Republicans or Democrats to the Congress, Senate or White House.

Homicide is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the level of crime in many black neighborhoods. The overwhelmingly law-abiding residents of these neighborhoods live their lives in fear of assault and battery, rape, robbery and various forms of intimidation. High crime not only turns many neighborhoods into economic wastelands, but they cause the most stable members of those neighborhoods to be the first to leave. The solutions to the major problems that confront many black people won’t be found in the political arena, especially not in Washington or state capitals.

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

11-15-2006 01:27 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

High Earning Wives are miserable


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – High Earning Wives are miserable

High Earning Wives are miserable
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
From the front page of msn today, under the heading of
Tired of supporting your Husband?

11-15-2006 12:58 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Yea.. their high earning misery just makes me want to wipe my tears with 2 one hundred dollar bills.

And who is to say that a struggling actor today won’t be somewhat successful next year ?  David Letterman, etc didn’t start out at the top.

Their misery only supports Noer’s contention to not marry them.

11-15-2006 06:07 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Women want to work all the time, let em’!! We will stay home and shuttle them off to school clean the house and go to our buddies house to play video games!! What a life!!!

Then if we get tired of her “working to much”, then we just leave her, take the house, the kids and demand alimony!!! What a life, women why would you want to go to work!!! You battle traffic, then your little headache machine inside your head will sound off!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-15-2006 10:14 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Afterall, they did burn their bras to get to do this.  They should be thankful for their misery

11-15-2006 11:28 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I see there is a message board attached to that:

Women in Red

And Cassius is already on there giving them a hard time

Excellent.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-19-2006 10:17 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Its pretty much in vain. If you have a point or say something intelligent you get pretty much ingored.

11-21-2006 09:54 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
I admit its HILARIOUS though. “NooOOo high paying job are not issued based on the female demand for good earning husbands ? Dont tell me. Some of you will have to provide if you block jobs that allow to provide. Tough luck.” I can not believe they did not saw THAT coming. THat is why men should always lead and women always follow, always, always, always, always. They just dont think further in the future than the next 5 min and that only if they are not distracted by something shiny.

11-21-2006 10:40 PM

Re: High Earning Wives are miserable
legacy42
Contributor
legacy42

The “Women in Red” had a message board that went with the article, but they closed it down.  Anybody venture to guess why?

11-28-2006 08:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Family Courts are ruining America.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Family Courts are ruining America.

Family Courts are ruining America.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The phrase “Give Back My Son” is not a command but rather, a plea to a broken system. The Family Court system is remarkably inept the way it divides families. Courts all over our country allow a theft of heartbeats that can never, ever be replaced; our sons and daughters lose time with their parents forever. Family Courts do little to heal already fractured families. For the sake of our children, we must cooperate to create a new and better system that works equitably for all.

Our family courts do not work to resolve differences; they actually make them worse in many cases. To rely on the political process to make incremental change in our broken family courts and unjust laws is a dream that will not rid us of the nightmare of the mindless and malicious toying with out families and our rights as parents by the court.

xxhttp://www.givebackmyson.org/

Family Law has morphed into something decidedly anti-family. Courts rob children of their parents under the guise of child custody. Beset with systemic problems, our tyrannical and bureaucratic Family Courts are beholden to special interests, captivated by corrupt social ideology, embrace unabashed gender prejudice and have usurped power at the expense of our constitutional and parental rights and the rights and the best interests of our children.

Our society is under attack from terrorists who have commandeered our institutions and corrupt our values and morals. No-fault divorce has created skyrocketing divorce rates, vicious child custody battles and has opened a Pandoras box of social problems. Liberal social architects and anti-father ideology disguised as feminism have infiltrated our lives and laws to re-define family, dilute our religious traditions and the meaning of marriage itself.

The culprits for Family Law malfunction are lawmakers, courts, judges, attorneys, court psychologists, social workers, government agencies and of course, the parents who are indulged as adversaries in the legal system.

Families are the cornerstone of our society and the well from which wholesome values and morality has traditionally sprung. Over time, government authority and media influence has replaced our religious guideposts. The substitution of church by a governmental big-brother bureaucracy has taken a toll on our societal well-being; the evidence is everywhere. Family Law adversely affects our families and poisons the well of promise; the future of our children. Family Courts are the last place parents should go to resolve their differences.

Marriage is no longer a tradition and sacred covenant protected and strengthened by the church; it has become a loose association of convenience, severable at will and the result is the dismemberment of our society, one family at a time. We must extract family matters from the stifling reign of Family Courts. Until we return to wholesome traditions and the law of God rather than the law of man, our society will continue to fracture and dissolve.

11-15-2006 08:18 AM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Another religious wackjob.  By the way, how is Ted Haggard?

11-15-2006 10:36 AM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Another substanceless and bigotted insult of people of Faith. Congratulations Asshat at least you are consistent. By the way FYI I am not a Christian. I am a Nichiren Buddhist, but still see what Cause and Effect is doing to our culture. Family life is imploding, and you are making nothing but insulting comments. Are you off your Meds again?

11-15-2006 01:26 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are no more a buddhist than I am a unicorn.

11-15-2006 03:00 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Wrong dirt bag. I took my Ghozaki (Buddhist vows) in 2003. I am sitting three feet from my Bhutsudan, where I do my Gonyo twice daily. I have my Bhutsugu,Bell, Candle Sticks, Offerrings, Incense, and my Prayer Beads.
On my desk are the Gosho (writings) of Nichiren Daishonin.

I am planning a Tozan Trip to Japan in 2007, and a Trip to the Nichiren Temple in Los Angeles. Try again. Reverend Tanaka performed my Ghozaki ceremony. My wife who is a Christian attended the ceremony, it was held here in Dallas.

Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo

Message Edited by khankrumthebulg on 11-16-200606:46 AM

11-15-2006 04:27 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Riiiigggghtttt.   I have a bridge to sell you.  Dirtbag.  I should have known you were from texasss.

11-15-2006 05:51 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
thetruthbeknown
Newbie
thetruthbeknown

There is another blogger online, “givebackmyson.blogspot.com,” and an associated web site at “givebackmyson.org” that is trying to dupe the readers. The author is fabricating and maliciously exaggerating information about his ex-wife and others. In addition, he is not allowing commentary that disagrees with his point of view. We will set the record straight on the “ex-wife” shortly but for now know the following information about the author at these “givebackmyson” sites. Please check public records for verification: for example, court records in Santa Barbara County and San Francisco County, etc.

1) He wasn’t able to graduate from high school.
2) It took him close to 20 years to graduate from college–which begs the question how did he get into college without graduating from high school in early 1970’s?
3) He has held jobs in the oil and health and safety fields, but left under dubious circumstances much of the time, being fired or asked to resign. Can’t he get along with others? Why such a pronounced pattern?
4) Several restraining orders from several different people including co-workers.
5) Terrasof warning (danger to self and others) issued and building cleared.
6) Abandoned family (ex-wife) and their child.
7) Physically and emotionally abused his ex-wife.
8) One of his favorite sayings is “Hitler had the right idea he just chose the wrong people.”
9) Another favorite saying is “I wouldn’t want to be part of any group that would want to have me as a member.” Does that apply to his current cause on family courts and children of divorce?
10) 7 attorneys or so have represented him at different times throughout his ongoing divorce and custody dispute (5+/- years) and he is suing several of them. His suits seem to be going badly as reflected in the Santa Barbara County records.

Much more factual information to come, but this is all for now. You get the picture…he doesn’t seem to be able to get along with others at work, home, or in other areas of his personal and professional life. His sister even classified him as a borderline personality disorder–last I heard he doesn’t talk to her any more.

What is this guy after with his web sites? He says it is to change the family court system and help children of divorce, according to the givebackmyson sites. But if that is the case, why is he constantly slamming his ex-wife instead of working with her to more effectively raise their biological child? Why does he try to alienate his son from his ex-wife? Why is he spending all of his money on courtroom battles and ruining a good man’s (custody evaluator) reputation? Is he in it for the money he hopes to get from a book he would like to publish? Is he in it to beat his ex-wife? Or is he simply deranged and can’t help himself. You read his sites information, look at the records, and then decide.

The Truth Will Be Known!!!

01-28-2007 01:59 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
thetruthbeknown
Newbie
thetruthbeknown

More information forthcoming on the givebackmyson pretender at http://letthetruthbeknowntoday.blogspot.com/

01-28-2007 02:01 PM

Re: Family Courts are ruining America.
barron55
Contributor
barron55

Why does his backgound seem to be more important to you rather than the message he is conveying?

This is a switch and bait tactic used by many people who have nothing to offer themselves, but want to attack the messenger rather than the message!

I suggest that if you want readers to believe your claims, that you stick to the topic and attack the message, not the person. Alot of a—-les I know act like this.

So, if his message about family courts are wrong, why don’t you tell us why instead of all the personal attacks ?? HMMMM?

06-18-2007 04:02 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Question: How old I was when i realized what was going on…


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Question: How old I was when i realized what was going on…

Question: How old I was when i realized what was going on…
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
I am going start Blogging Questions that I am asked to prevent me from having to rewrite & answer them repeatedly to save time…
Question:
I would like to ask you how young you were when you started to
realize your mother was trying to keep you from having a good relationship with
your father?
My answer:
My dad moved out when I was in grade 1….I moved out of her house when I was 13…So in between that time that she was always bad mouthing my dad saying stuff like he is a alcoholic, drinks too much, that he left us for another woman, his girl friend got him to turn off the power on us & the phone…I never really found her to be loving, she was all about nagging & preaching & not about god & money…If i wanted something she would tell me ask your father he has lots of money…She would tell me how my father was 10 years older than her (She lied about her age to him) & always bad mouthing him every chance she got…but there were times she would speak nice of him but it always seemed to me that she hated him so much because she still loved him & couldn’t get over him cheating & leaving her… In that time Terry moved in & then it was him & her saying that stuff about my dad…The more they said the more I resented it & I was always a daddy’s girl nothing they said would make me hate my dad it just did the opposite…& because nothing they said matted to me they would tell me that my father got me brain washed & my father wasn’t the one bad mouthing my mother & her boyfriend use to try to interfere with me & my dads relationship & I always knew that & I hated him for it…He would use any excuse like my dad being late to pick us up to argue with my dad & taunt him…I think Terry hoped dad would hit him so that he could call the cops on him but dad would get frustrated & leave witch upset my little brother who is down syndrome & me & it just made me hate him more…He use to beat me with the belt or spoon to discipline me with he had no right….My dad never hit me…I cant remember how many fist fight I got into with Terry as I was getting older but I think I always knew that they were trying to turn me against dad but it would never work but for my brother who is down syndrome he will repeat & believe any thing you tell him…I was also like the mother to my brother until I moved out…After I moved out Is when Troy started saying things & he would tell my dad oh (dads’s name not dad)your trying to brain wash me so me catching on to that was because of her saying that to me…troy would repeat thing that mom always said so I knew she had to of been saying it to him..Like her & terry use to say oh you just trying to butter me up & then when Troy came to the house he was saying to dad that he was just trying to butter him up…Now I think it was just after we lost the house & moved into the apartment when dad was on strike that she started accusing dad of touching my brother…She even came to the house & was bad mouthing my dad to my boyfriend who is my husband now…whispering stuff to him at Christmas time…Well ever since that my husband has never liked her…she would even talk to my friends & say stuff to them…then I did get pregnant on purpose & moved in with my husband (boyfriend at the time)…Then my friends were telling my husband that my mother was saying that he was beating me up & stuff witch wasn’t true…He wouldn’t dare because I would knock him down…lol

So with her it wasn’t hard for me to tell what she was up to…I don’t know if the mother you are talking about would be as unstable & manipulative as mine…I know my mom so well it’s like i can see through her…When she gets down & dirty playing these head games with my dad it really make me ugly & she is playing with fire because I know the game…She taught it to me well…like the little time that we were talking before she started this stuff again she told me stuff that i can burn her bad with & i will If she don’t lay off my dad…I can tell he is so stressed out & he still doesn’t talk bad about her he was feeling sorry for her because she was having problems with her new x-husband & their son…
If it wasn’t for dad i wouldn’t have even spoke to her again…but she was giving him the sob story but my dads girlfriend knew it…I am the one that search the Internet to try & find cases on children being brain washed & that’s when I found the PAS site of Richard A.Gardner,M.D. I printed off ever thing & gave it to the lawyer & the social workers & even the social workers don’t want nothing to do with mom they suggested maybe putting Troy in a foster home witch my dad don’t like but I think in this case it would be best that way mom couldn’t use him to hurt dad & dad would be able to see him with out her there interfering…& mom use to always talk about putting him in a foster home before to me I think she just keep him for dads money…

I know I have gone way beyond what you asked but it all connects & I think the best advise I could give any one where I was that child in the middle & I am still you could say the adult child in the middle is no matter how much the mother pisses you off don’t ever let the kids see you arguing about the mother. Just love them spend time with them & if the mother try’s to have a conference in front of the children just walk away from her…Just try to make the kids time that they do get to spend with you guys be the best…& make sure that they know that they are loved…I hope I didn’t bore you too much & I hope some of my babbling will help you guys…

http://tishas.blogspot.com/2006/10/
question-how-old-i-was-when-i-relized.html

11-15-2006 08:03 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Mother Faces Charges After Throwing Toddler Into Traffic


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Mother Faces Charges After Throwing Toddler Into Traffic

Mother Faces Charges After Throwing Toddler Into Traffic
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Reported by: Lance Barry
Web produced by: Neil Relyea
Photographed by: Phillip Lee
First posted: 11/11/2006 11:47:58 PM

A Roselawn mother has been charged with doing the unthinkable, throwing her child into the street and oncoming traffic.

It happened early this morning on Seymour Avenue.

Police allege the suspect was involved in a verbal altercation with the young boy’s father and that then the child allegedly became part of his mother’s rage.

Police say she picked her child up and threw him out onto a busy road.

“I woke up to them arguing in the street,” Jermaine Gamble, a witness, told 9News. “He was grabbing his son and she was trying to get her son back.”

Just moments before, 21-year-old Rebe Cobbins’ son Danontre, thought to be as young as two-years-old, had been thrown onto busy Seymour Avenue.

When 9News asked if the mother seemed to realize what she had done, Gamble responded, “She was crying, saying she was sorry and all that. But the baby’s Daddy wasn’t having it, he was going to take his son back.”

The incident happened at 4:30 a.m. Saturday morning outside Cobbins’ apartment complex in the 1600 block of Seymour.

No came to her door Saturday night.

It’s not known how close any cars came to hitting the boy.

Gamble told 9News that the boy’s father quickly retrieved the child out of the street, and the boy likely didn’t even realize what had happened to him.

“The kid is alright,” said Gamble. “He wasn’t banged up or any thing.”

The boy’s mother is facing one count of domestic violence and is scheduled to be arraigned on Monday.

She was released from jail on a $5,000 bond.

11-15-2006 07:57 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

A parental alienation survivor speaks.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A parental alienation surivior speaks.

A parental alienation survivor speaks.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
I faced [parental alienation] too. My mother tried to convince me I was molested in order to take my dad to court. I almost bought into it because I was very young and believed my mother, but I never had any memory of anything happening so in the end I could not go through with it. Still it took years to repair the damage between my father and I.

She also referred to him as Hitler and literally danced a jig years later when we heard he had a heart attack, while I was on the floor sobbing. She did and said many other horrible things over the years; this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I took care of her when she was dieing from cancer, and did a damned good job, but after she passed I suddenly felt nothing but searing hatred for her. I refused to get her body from the morgue and was ready to see her put in potters field. Her family took care of it eventually.

I’ve struggled with the hatred and it’s ruined my life. I haven’t had a relationship with a woman in years and don’t plan on it. I’ll probably die alone with no offspring and that’s probably for the best, considering I could never trust a woman.

Mothers who do this do not care AT ALL about the wellbeing of their children, whatever justifications they make, and should be prosecuted as child abusers.

xxhttp://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com//

11-15-2006 07:54 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Desperate Grandmas


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Desperate Grandmas

Desperate Grandmas
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
City Journal
Desperate Grandmas
Now sexagenarians, narcissistic feminists are still seeking the Best Sex Ever.
Kay S. Hymowitz
Summer 2006

Time passes, and we get old. Our faces wrinkle, our hair goes gray and MIA, our teeth yellow, our knees ache, we forget the names of people we said hello to just yesterday on the way to pick up the Geritol, and there are days when a nap sounds real nice.

At least that’s the way it’s been for most of humanity. But rumors that boomers will be joining the great biological stream turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Boomers—especially feminist-influenced women of a certain class who are now publishing their philosophy of life after 50—will not be growing old. And it seems equally inaccurate to say that they will mature. They are going to season, as Gail Sheehy puts it in her most recent book, Sex and the Seasoned Woman. They will “develop”; they will “grow.” Sheehy and her sister scribes have come forward to tell you that today’s older women are a new breed. They’re busy, busy, busy! They go to the gym! They work in animal shelters! They travel! They get divorced! And yes (Yes! Yes!), they have orgasms!

And in their own inimitably modern, American, follow-your-bliss, self-absorbed way, they want to tell you all about it.

Not so long ago, enlightened women of the boomer generation were known for worrying about equal rights, equal pay, Roe v. Wade, Title IX, and the location of the Masters Golf Tournament. Today, not so much. As they shuffle off into their golden years, many appear to be turning inward. As the title of a catalog that arrived in my mailbox recently put it, they want “Time for Me”—time that appears to involve a lot of anti-aging formulas, herbal supplements, figure-shaping undergarments, and vibrators. Don’t get me wrong. Boomer fems continue to be enemies of the patriarchy. They still want men to do the laundry. Their tone remains defiant. But their personal is no longer very political; even their political isn’t very political. Nobody’s putting it this way, but it seems that liberation politics have become irrelevant to what is now their most pressing concern, which—depending on your emphasis—is: how to bring meaning to their dwindling years, or how to avoid being mistaken for their grandmothers.

It probably should have been clear that Second Wave feminism would be changing direction a while ago. In 1992, Gloria Steinem, who just happened to be staring at 60 at the time, published Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem. With its talk of the inner child and “authentic selves,” the book was a noticeable break from Steinem’s usual menu of feminist topics. A year later, Betty Friedan gave us The Fountain of Age, in which she proposed that we consider the years past 50 not as a time to play golf and show off pictures of the grandchildren but as “an additional stage of development,” a time of further emotional, intellectual, and spiritual growth. But despite Steinem’s and Friedan’s legendary history as trendsetters, no one paid much attention at the time, doubtless because boomers, who had yet to receive their AARP cards in the mail, were still in a “what, me worry?” mode.

But now that Newsweek has made it official with a cover story announcing the first boomers’ arrival at age 60, the signs of a revolution going inward are unmistakable. “Our record is impressive,” writes Suzanne Braun Levine in Inventing the Rest of Our Lives: Women in Second Adulthood. “We fought discrimination in the workplace and popularized the notion of family leave and flexible work schedules; we forced our way into institutions and professions and levels of leadership that even the most optimistic didn’t dare predict. . . . But for many, enough activism is enough. They want to stop fighting the system and invest their energies in themselves.”

Levine takes the phrase “Second Adulthood” from Gail Sheehy. Sheehy, you may remember, mapped the “stages of adult development” in 1970 in her megahit Passages—though she stopped at age 50, because at the time the post-50 years didn’t seem worth the price of ink. For obvious reasons, she has changed her mind, and in New Passages: Mapping Your Life Across Time she has announced the discovery of Second Adulthood, a new “frontier” that encompasses the years from 45 to 85+ (oh, the “passage” evoked by that “+”!).

Now, Second Adulthood does not—repeat not—suggest a decline. It does not bring inevitable loss, nor does it suggest that we should turn to the consolations of philosophy, religion, or arthritis medication—because Second Adulthood is nothing like your grandmother’s 50 or 60 or 70. According to Levine, Sheehy, and the numerous coaches, therapists, and lifestyle gurus who are banking on the idea, it is a thrilling time of growth and change, an exciting opportunity to redefine our lives and ourselves—“a second chance—to do it better, to do it differently, to do it wiser,” in Levine’s words.

The women of the Second Wave were already highly evolved—liberated yet sensitive, strong yet compassionate—but in Second Adulthood they are ascending into goddesshood. Christiane Northrup’s bestseller The Wisdom of Menopause describes the years after menopause—average age 51—as potentially “the beginning of a woman’s most sexually passionate, creatively inspired, and professionally productive phase of life.” So profound are the changes that a woman goes through as she passes into Second Adulthood that she must first pass through what Sheehy has dubbed “Middlescence,” a term that may sound to the cynics suspiciously like “obsolescence” but is actually meant to stand for “midlife adolescence.” Middlescence is Sheehy at her most canny—which is very canny indeed. Through the elixir of pop sociology, she offers boomers what they have most wished: they can now remain teenagers into old age.

The shape of midlife teen turmoil is well on display in Levine’s Inventing the Rest of Our Lives, a book of such stunning banality it makes Sheehy look like Hannah Arendt. “My teenagers and I are grappling with the same two disorienting questions,” Levine explains. “What is happening to my body and Who am I?” “The Problem That Has No Name has been replaced by The Question That Has Many Answers: What am I going to do with the rest of my life?” Don’t try to learn from the past, and definitely don’t count your blessings, because “You’re Not Who You Were, Only Older.” You need to “let go” of your past self by doing something dramatic. “Sooner or later each of us does do something. The something is different for every woman I talked to, as minor as throwing out that pillowcase full of mismatched socks once and for all, or as major as interviewing for a new job, getting divorced, or going back to school.”

What’s striking about all of this heavy breathing about missing socks and adult extension courses is that Levine is actually not only a woman of significant accomplishment but one who has personified the feminist dream. She was the first editor in chief of Ms. and went on to helm the Columbia Journalism Review. She has published in major magazines and serves on boards. She has also been married for decades to the same man, with whom she has raised two sons. Yet in Inventing the Rest of Our Lives, she trembles like a wallflower. She worries about what to do with her life. She frets about how timid she has been in saying what she really thinks. There is not the remotest hint of the authority or insight that you’d expect to emerge after 35 years of successful struggle in the trenches of the New York publishing world and the post-sexual-revolution marriage culture. More striking, though she does not repudiate the feminism of her First Adulthood, there is no indication that the success it inspired did anything to bring her the satisfaction of a life well lived.

On the contrary. Like other Desperate Grandmas, she now sees careerism as a distraction from finding her “real self.” In First Adulthood, say the acolytes of Second Adulthood, women figure out how to please the people who have power over them—parents, teachers, mates, and bosses. But when they are in what Levine labels “The **bleep** You Fifties,” they need “no longer care what other people think, only what I think.” “If our 20s were about our physical peak and our 30s and 40s about work and productivity, after that it is about being and becoming you,” Alexandra Mezey, a Second Adulthood life coach, promises on her website. Turning in your office keys can be “a chance to shift from work to the self, from responsibility to freedom,” promise Alice Radosh and Nan Bauer-Maglin in Women Confronting Retirement: A Nontraditional Guide.

Somehow, though, the word “retirement” seems inadequate to the task of describing what happens to Second Adulteers when they cash their last paycheck. The Greatest Generation retired; they took up hobbies, joined book clubs, and went to lecture series near their Fort Lauderdale condos. Maybe they volunteered to read to poor kids at nearby schools. But Desperate Grandmas don’t retire. They “pursue the passionate life,” in Sheehy’s words. They “follow their dreams.” Levine celebrates a human rights lobbyist who becomes a devotee of “Neuromuscular Integrative Action” (a trendy mishmash of martial arts, yoga, and dance), a woman who is volunteering in an animal shelter, “a high-powered corporate executive” who at 55 joins the Peace Corps and goes to the Ivory Coast, and the psychologist Carol Gilligan, who is writing a novel: “Now sixty-eight, she has only just begun to explore new aspects of her talents.”

The Desperate Grandma who really wants to pursue a passionate life might try something even more dramatic. She might file for divorce. Since the 1970s, Sheehy has been an enthusiastic promoter of the notion that divorce is not the tragedy once imagined but rather a fabulous opportunity for personal growth.

A 50 percent divorce rate and the heavy damage inflicted on legions of children haven’t dampened her enthusiasm. Sheehy eagerly cites a study showing two-thirds of divorces among couples over 40 initiated by women. That’s because women, like men, “love the freedom that being single brings—citing independence, getting to keep their houses however they want, and not having to compromise with another person.” Single women are in a better position to “get to know [their] new self.” They also go on dates in the “midlife singles bazaar.” Sheehy quotes an AARP survey about midlife singles: 75 percent of women who divorced in their fifties had a serious relationship after splitting from their husbands. The fact that more men—81 percent—had such relationships passes by without comment. At any rate, “lusty, liberated women” are finding lots of romance, much of it, she assures us, with younger men.

In fact, sex is at the center of the passionate life of the Desperate Grandma. When they were young, boomers famously discovered female sexual pleasure. Now they are discovering that the fun never ends. Along with Sex and the Seasoned Woman, we are seeing a slew of books about sex and the 60-something, including Still Doing It, Better Than I Ever Expected, Jane Juska’s A Round-Heeled Woman, and Erica Jong’s latest orgasm dispatch, Seducing the Demon—all of them filled with examples of how today’s hip grandmothers are spending their leisure time. Jong and Juska write only about themselves, but the other writers go out hunting for horny females of a certain age interested in discussing their sex lives with a stranger. They find hordes of them.

What these women have to say will raise a lot of eyebrows. They are not just having sex; they are having the Best. Sex. Ever. They rejoice in their lovers, their fantasies, their sex toys, their orgasms—which they have in airplanes, in elevators, in the shower, in the woods. “Whether the writer is having sex after heart surgery, self-conscious about a wrinkly stomach hanging down, making love without an erection, experiencing leg cramps in certain positions, or worrying about dentures . . . ,” writes Joan Price in a review of Still Doing It, “most report that sex after 60 is the best they’ve ever had.” (The book, edited by Joani Blank, takes into consideration people of all sexual inclinations, including those who “choose self-pleasuring,” though whether they also are enjoying the best they’ve ever had, she doesn’t say.)

As for Price herself, the author of Better Than I Ever Expected: “Tell them at age fifty-nine, I’m having the best sex of my life!” she tells her publicist, who is no blockhead and does exactly that. And, of course, there is Jong, who in Seducing the Demon describes earth-moving tantric sex with her fourth husband. Even without Viagra—he’s on heart medication—“He could have a whole-body orgasm while giving oral sex—his orgasm triggered by mine. He could feel electric shocks down his spine—as if the kundalini were rising”—which, despite its ominous sound, evidently poses no danger to cardiac patients.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_urbanities-grandmas.html

11-15-2006 06:13 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations

Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By David R. Usher

If United States Ambassador John Bolton fails to act, world feminists will seize vast powers to destroy families internationally while committing tremendous human rights violations against men, women, and children in every country of the world.

The Secretary-General’s study on domestic violence against women [DAW], developed under the corrupt leadership of Kofi Annan, is a much greater threat to America than the rejected Kyoto Protocol ever was. It calls for the establishment of a new feminist world order, possessing unilateral powers to mindlessly destroy marriage and steal family and business assets by teaching women how to holler “abuse”.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is a problem. Feminists dishonestly pretend it is entirely problem of unruly men, buttressed by unreliable myopic surveys of women. The purpose of this feminist approach is to achieve the primary goal of radical feminism: to destroy marriage, seize children and family wealth, and establish the liberated single-mother family. Unfounded allegations of abuse are the political and legal vector already used in many western countries to achieve this end.

The senseless destruction of marriage, homes, families, and the lives of children in western cultures has deeply violated the human rights of everyone. It has transformed many good cities into third-world urban disasters suffering from rampant illegitimacy, prostitution, crime, child sexual predation, and poverty. Radicals at the United Nations wish to force their new world order on the rest of the world.

The truth is this: women are as likely, or even more likely than men to engage in, and initiate, domestic violence. According to a 32-nation by Murray Straus, female-only partner aggression is twice as prevalent as male-only partner abuse.

Many credible individuals now recognize this fact. They acknowledge the truth, and in many cases advocating strongly against the looming radical takeover of the United Nations. You can count on leaders and knowledgeable professionals (not driven by entitlements or political power) such as President Bush, Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Gerald Koocher (President of the APA), Dr. Murray Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, Wendy McElroy, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and Lee Newman [SAFE International] to speak the truth.

Even a child could see through the rumor-mill-fed machinations of feminists. Here are a few examples:

* The 113-page United Nations Report admits it is based on a “lack [of] systematic and reliable data on violence against women”. There is no evidence in the report that any information was collected about women’s violence against men. Without any supportive factual foundation, the U.N. Report claims that “Violence against women persists in every country in the world as a pervasive violation of human rights and a major impediment to achieving gender equality”.

* The U.N. Commission on Human Rights framework for model legislation on domestic violence is a carte-blanche vehicle empowering feminists to violate science and human rights in every country of the world. It defines domestic violence solely as “gender-specific violence directed against women“, and admonishes states to “adopt the broadest possible definitions of acts of domestic violence”. It states, “There shall be no restrictions on women bringing suits against spouses or live-in partners”. The victim must be advised “of her rights as outlined below”. The responding officer must “arrange for the removal of the offender from the home and, if that is not possible and if the victim is in continuing danger, arrest the offender”. It permits immediate seizure of assets, and criminal conviction on the sole basis uncorroborated testimony by the alleged victim.

* WHO’s director Lee Jong-Wook made a stunning, scientifically-juxtaposed claim about global domestic violence: “Women are more at risk from violence involving people they know at home than from strangers in the street.”

* The World Bank estimates that “sexual and domestic violence accounts for 19 per cent of the disease burden among women aged 15-44 in industrialised countries”. Do banks scientifically study domestic violence?

* A UNPF report alleges that two-thirds of married women in India were victims of domestic violence, and then contradicts itself by claiming that 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex. This report also asserts that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

* UNICEF makes a wild assertion based on a “study” done in conjunction with Body Shop International (a mail-order firm specializing in toiletries) “at least one in three women globally has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some other way-most often by someone she knows, including by her husband or another male family member. Globally, one woman in four has been abused during pregnancy.” If one-quarter of pregnant women are beaten, that leaves only 8% being beaten when they are not pregnant. The report spends much time discussing children living in situations of domestic violence, but fails to determine whether domestic abuse by the mother or father is the cause of child problems.

Where do these dangerous claims come from? Non-Governmental Womens organizations around the world generate volumes of narcissistic surveys about violence. These are fed to feminists in the United Nations, whose re-sytheses are recited round-robin by NGO’s, creating vast illusions for predatory political use.

Here are a few examples how the revolving feminist rumor mill works:

* Women’s activists in Russia claim that 50,000 Russian women are beaten every hour. If this is true, every one of the 66,758,805 women in Russia would be beaten every 13 days.

* The Texas Council on Family violence makes unfathomable claims based on nothing more than informal surveys of women: “Over 24,000 women from 15 sites in 10 countries were interviewed for the World Health Organization’s study which showed that over 75 per cent of them were physically or sexually abused since the age of 15 and reported a partner as the culprit.”

* Based solely on self-generated “surveys” of women, feminist activists in India claim that 70% of women are abused, despite the fact that no credible scientific studies have ever been undertaken to support the claim.

* The Feminist Majority cites World Health Organization (WHO) surveys of women, saying that “More than 25 percent of women said they had experienced moderate to severe domestic violence in the last year. At six of the 15 sites, over 50 percent of women had experienced a moderate to severe level of domestic violence. The study found that rural Ethiopia had the highest rate of domestic violence, with 71 percent of women experiencing violence in the home.

United Nations should be involved in ending domestic violence. The approach must be realistic and scientifically appropriate on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, the ideological feminist approach will harm many women, men, and families, and be dangerous to the world. The United States must not submit to foreign controls that lump it in the same category as Sudan.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Ambassador Bolton should testify against acceptance of the Secretary General’s Report, and state why it is unacceptable. President Bush should send a message that the United States will not support the United Nations at the present level of $5.3 billion annually, should it pursue a course of action that will clearly violate human rights in most egalitarian countries of the world.

11-13-2006 05:56 AM

Re: Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Sad, feminists are waging war against God. They are trying to destroy the God ordained institute of marriage, and murder and destroy the unborn before they come to life!!! Why are these women allowed to prostelytize unless high ranking men allow them to!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-15-2006 02:02 AM

Re: Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

“Sad, feminists are waging war against God. They are trying to destroy the God ordained institute of marriage, and murder and destroy the unborn before they come to life!!! Why are these women allowed to prostelytize unless high ranking men allow them to!!! ”

What would happen if you took your god and stuffed it up your butt>? Would you still be able to think of something to say, or think of a reason for opposing feminist hegemony? It would be harder, of course, since you wouldn’t have a ready made answer to everything. You’d have to think. That is the question – for you, not your gods.

11-15-2006 05:18 AM

Re: Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Well, they are trying to destroy the institution of marriage.  And they do try to take the lives of the unborn.

Just because you refuse to admit it, doesn’t mean he isn’t thinking or reasoning.

11-15-2006 10:10 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

We are failing a generation of boys admits Gordon Brown


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – We are failing a generation of boys admits Gordon Brown

We are failing a generation of boys admits Gordon Brown
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
A generation of boys is being “wasted” by serious failings in schools and society, Gordon Brown has warned.

The Chancellor said underachievement among boys had become an “acute problem” and said the rise of single parent families meant too many no longer had good male role models.

In an extraordinary speech ranging far beyond his traditional Treasury brief, Mr Brown also spoke in highly emotive terms about what he called the “soul of man”.

Borrowing from the language of 17th century Protestant religious reformer Gerrard Winstanley, he spoke about a “moral sentiment that animates us as human beings” and would underpin a Government he led.

Attempting to open up clear dividing lines between him and Tory leader David Cameron, Mr Brown attacked the promotion of what he called “self-interested individualism against the encroaching power of civic institutions”.

Aides said the Chancellor intended to take head on Mr Cameron’s pledge to roll back the state and bring in voluntary organisations to help run public services.

Delivering the annual Donald Dewar memorial lecture in Glasgow, Mr Brown defended the role of the state in “serving the people and communities of the country”.

Mr Brown highlighted the plight of Britain’s six million carers, who he said wanted local and national government to do more – not less – to help them.

“Carers are not asking for government to get out of the way, to leave them alone,” he said.

“Rightly, men and women who are carers want pensions and time off with respite care and an understanding of their financial positions,” he said.

“Theirs is not a call for less action by our great national institutions, whether it be on the Health Service to our pensions service. They want us to do more and they are right.”

On education, Mr Brown set out a powerful vision of how he intends to transform boys’ prospects if he succeeds Mr Blair.

The Chancellor suggested the school curriculum should be tailored to meet the different needs of boys and girls and called for a “fathers’ revolution” at home.

He said fathers must become “directly involved” in their children’s learning and schooling and said more should be enabled to work “flexi-time” following the birth of a child.

“This is more important given the threefold increase in one-parent families over 30 years – and too often boys’ loss of contact with male role models,” Mr Brown insisted.

Mr Brown and Education Secretary Alan Johnson are to order a review of how teaching methods and the curriculum are tailored to boys’ particular needs.

“Boys and girls appear to learn in different ways and at different paces,” the Chancellor said.

“Boys get bored easily, tend to respond more to activity-based learning, flourish where there is access to computers and need clear targets.

“We must never accept the existence of a wasted generation of boys.”

Girls now decisively outperform boys at all levels of the school system up to the sixth form.

The gender gap widens during primary school and by the age of 14, girls have opened up a massive lead in English and a slight advantage in maths and science.

This year, 80 per cent of girls passed national curriculum tests in English compared with just 65 per cent of boys.

Mr Brown said 61 per cent of girls went on to get five or more good GCSEs, against 51 per cent of boys.

Boys who struggled academically or came from backgrounds with low aspirations often went on to lead “wasted lives”, the Chancellor said.

Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: ‘Gordon Brown has belatedly come to realise that the gap between girls’ and boys’ achievement at school is a big problem, and he is quite right to focus on it.

“His words are a refreshing change from those of Alan Johnson, who seems rather more complacent.

“The problem is not getting better, and if anything it has got worse over the last nine years. We need fresh ideas on how we tackle it, but sadly it seems Gordon Brown offers just more of the same.”

11-11-2006 06:27 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Judge Who Discourages Divorce Embroiled In Bitter Divorce


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Judge Who Discourages Divorce Embroiled In Bitter Divorce

Judge Who Discourages Divorce Embroiled In Bitter Divorce
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
ORLANDO, Fla. — An Orange County family law judge well-known for lecturing couples and lawyers about the value of staying married is embroiled in a bitter divorce battle of his own.

The divorce dispute has the estranged wife of Judge James Hauser asking for legal protection, WESH 2 News reported.

Since last year, two circuit judges in Orange County have faced serious ethics allegations and ended up

leaving their posts. In this case, Hauser’s estranged wife said she’s terrified of him.

In legal circles, Hauser was well-known for his stance on the need for couples to work out their differences rather than divorcing. In 1998, he spoke to WESH 2 News about a law making divorce in Florida tougher.

“What we want is for the parties to be educated to be able to deal with the everyday problems that married couples have so that they will not get divorced and be able to make the marriage successful,” Hauser said.

Now, Hauser’s wife has gotten a domestic violence injunction against him, claiming she’s afraid and intimidated. She said she is terrified that he’s going to “lose control and harm me.”

Hauser’s hearing room in Orange County juvenile court was empty Thursday. An assistant said he had the afternoon off.

In a written statement, Hauser told WESH 2 that his wife’s restraining order against him is a culmination of threats she has continuously made.

“If I dare left her, she would do everything she could to destroy me,” he said.

Hauser said he was the one who filed for divorce.

Since last year, two other judges in Orange County have left the bench under fire. Judge James Henson was removed for practicing law on the side and allegedly telling a client to flee the country to avoid prison.

This year, circuit Judge Alan Todd was put on trial after a female deputy who had a child out of wedlock accused Todd of calling her a “tramp.” Todd abruptly retired.

A spokesman for the 9th Judicial Circuit’s Chief Judge Belvin Perry said he considers Hauser’s issues a personal problem that do not affect his ability to carry out his job on the bench.

Hauser is an elected official who makes just under $150,000 a year.

11-11-2006 06:04 PM

Re: Judge Who Discourages Divorce Embroiled In Bitter Divorce
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
This year, circuit Judge Alan Todd was put on trial after a female deputy who had a child out of wedlock accused Todd of calling her a “tramp.” Todd abruptly retired.

I thought this was the freest nation on earth!!! Now you can’t even call a tramp a tramp!!! Without loosing your job, thanks to the liberal extremists!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-15-2006 02:05 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Psychological science is not politically correct


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Psychological science is not politically correct

Psychological science is not politically correct
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
One thing has become consistently evident as I talk with members of the association and read mail sent generically to the “APA President.” Many groups and individuals would like to use behavioral science as a rationale to promote or oppose political and social policy agenda. In many instances, psychological science can provide important answers to guide policy, but the very nature of behavioral science data will often contribute ambiguity. Politicians, social advocates, and people in general, do not tolerate ambiguity well.

Most of the variables psychologists study originate with hypothetical constructs (e.g., adaptation, coping, intelligence or personality). How people choose to define and measure these constructs leads to assorted claims of validity in all its forms. For example, do the questions we ask seem to directly address the behavior under study (i.e., face validity or content validity)? Better still, do the data we collect seem to predict future behavior (i.e., predictive validity)? When we attempt to apply data from a piece of research to help address a public policy concern, we must remain mindful that findings often do not generalize well. Other population variables are not always equal, and regression to the mean remains ubiquitous.

Findings that may surprise

As we strive to conduct and disseminate high quality behavioral research, some people might respond angrily to, discount or ignore data that do not comport with their beliefs about how things are or ought to be. Consider the following examples.

John Jost and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 88 samples from 12 nations analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition and confirmed that several psychological variables predict political conservatism (e.g., heightened dogmatism, reduced openness to experience and intolerance of ambiguity). They concluded that the core ideology of political conservatism stresses resistance to change andjustification of inequality, modifiedby needs that vary across situations and disposition to manage uncertainty and threat.

Kelly Brownell has studied obesity extensively and notes that nutritionists have offered relatively consistent dietary advice for decades, while Americans continue to gain weight. He has proposed a controversial “Twinkie Tax” to raise the price of inexpensive high fat, high calorie, high sugar foods, in what he calls a “toxic food environment.”

Linda Waite and colleagues found frequent attendance at religious services linked to higher emotional satisfaction and pleasure in sex. Christopher Ellison and colleagues found domestic violence reports lower for the more religiously observant couples sampled.

Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them). In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly.

Science, not sound bites

I hope some of these findings surprise you. I know that some may appear contrary to your personal values, beliefs or social policies you wish to advocate for (or against)—and hopefully you will veiw such unexpected findings with an open mind. Such findings can serve to spur on further research in a given area.

I hope that after reading this column you will agree that psychological science cannot be held to a standard of political correctness by social liberals or conservatives. Any attempt to use isolated behavioral science findings to frame answers to broad social policy questions will require a level of explanatory detail and nuance that defies the sound bite mentality of many news outlets and political messages. Ideally, policy-makers need to draw on the body of psychological research in a given area to inform their decisions.

Let’s not sell psychological science short. Rather, let’s continually strive for a full and accurate accounting of ways in which our science can better inform public policy.

Find this article at:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pc.html

11-11-2006 03:43 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance

Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Michael Foust
Nov 10, 2006

WASHINGTON (BP)–Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is set to make history next year by becoming the first female House speaker, but she’ll also become the highest ranking political leader in American history publicly to support “gay marriage.”

Her San Francisco district is known for its large homosexual population, and in early 2004 its mayor made headlines when he ordered the city to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. Eventually, 4,000 were issued, although they were later deemed null and void by the state?s Supreme Court.

In March of 2004, Pelosi was asked by FOX News’ Neil Cavuto, “Can same-sex couples marry?”

?Yes,? Pelosi replied.

Moments later Cavuto asked, ?So what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, you would approve of it??

?Yes,? she replied.

On the same show, Pelosi said a federal marriage amendment would ?enshrine discrimination in the Constitution? against homosexuals.

?I don’t think they should be discriminated [against] in the Constitution,? she said. ?And my goal is to defeat that resolution.?

In recent months Pelosi has tried to distance herself from the more liberal views of her district.

At least two Democrats in the Senate — Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — also support “gay marriage.”

In 2004 Vice President **bleep** Cheney said he opposed a federal marriage amendment, although he did not state his personal position on “gay marriage.” He said the issue should be left to the states; conservatives responded by saying judges were forcing their will on the states and that an amendment was the only remedy.

11-11-2006 02:51 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
Is she mad??

She obviously didn’t see the numerous Gay Marriage bans that were passed the same day her party was elected into power.

The Dems are showing their true radical agenda even before they get into Congress as the ruling party.

Bad strategy methinks.

11-12-2006 08:06 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Good for her. In the long run, there are many more pressing things with which politicians should concern themselves. If a gay couple wants to get married, it will really have no impact on the “institution” of marriage, but battling it out could definitely take our attention away from more important issues.

11-13-2006 11:49 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
How appropriate a name DumbBroad. Gay Marriage in Scandanavia and Europe will and is having a huge effect on Marriage. It is also threatening the Legal Standing of Biological Parents. The Legal Standing of Fathers is already in serious trouble. Australia’s Supreme Court ruled that a Father who is paying child Support for three children, on one of whom is his. Is obligated to pay support despite the fact that DNA tests confirm on one child is his. His ex wife is living with the biological Father of two of the children.

Paternity Fraud is a huge issue for Men in the US. DNA tests should be mandatory in the US.

11-16-2006 07:50 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
I wasn’t talking about paternity fraud. I’d agree that the man who did not father those children should not have to pay child support.

My comment was directed toward gay marriage. I’m still unconvinced, unless you can prove otherwise, that two women or two men committing themselves to one another would cause a breakdown in a marriage between a man and a woman. If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with?

11-16-2006 10:10 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom

dumbbroad wrote:
I wasn’t talking about paternity fraud. I’d agree that the man who did not father those children should not have to pay child support.

My comment was directed toward gay marriage. I’m still unconvinced, unless you can prove otherwise, that two women or two men committing themselves to one another would cause a breakdown in a marriage between a man and a woman. If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with?

Well traditional marriage has been significantly weakened with the no-fault divorce laws and do whatever feels good culture already.

We were made as men and women to compliment each other. This is just a further breakdown of simple values and getting further away from the way God intends us to live our lives.

Maybe we should do away with legal/government sactioned marriage completely and just have church services/church recognized marriage. In the eyes of the law, we can all be roommates. Churches can have the freedom to determine what constitutes a marriage. People can make lists of who can see them when they are sick and we can all have the same tax code. No lawyers/divorce courts. If one peson wants to move out, they are responsible for themselves. the only law would be that you can’t take a person’s children away or kick the other parent out of the house(unless you have some standard of proof of wrong doing, not smiply allegations. )

I’d have less a problem with that. I don’t want to be required or have businesses be required to recognize 2 men, 2 women, a man and his dog, a woman and her cat etc. as a legal couple.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-16-200610:46 AM

11-16-2006 10:45 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“If a straight married couple’s union is so threatened by a gay union that their own marriage crumbles, how strong was it to begin with? ”

Let’s make polygamy legal then.  If your future husband shacks up with more than one woman, then how strong was your marriage to begin with ?

11-17-2006 12:24 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Let’s make polygamy legal then. If your future husband shacks up with more than one woman, then how
strong was your marriage to begin with ?

Um, not very strong at all? I don’t see your point. Infidelity is not the same as polygamy. If a man cheats on his wife, it doesn’t mean that a) he’ll want to take that woman on as a second wife or b) that his current wife would be amendable to that.

I think you’re talking about two different things.

Comments against gay marriage that I’ve heard – specifically from politicians like Rick Santorum – are that allowing gay people to get married would somehow ruin the sanctity of existing straight marriages. I have not received an answer, however, as to why this is. If two men in Vermont get married, how exactly does that affect Mr. Santorum’s marriage? Or yours?

And I find it insulting that some people compare gay marriage to bestiality or incest (as Mr. Santorum did in an infamous AP interview). Perhaps it’s because you don’t have many gay friends, but from those gay couples I do know, they don’t want to ruin straight marriages, marry their dogs or have sex with young children.

HappyMom commented that men and women were meant to complement one another. Yes, biologically, men and women do complement each other. But biology is not perfect and somewhere along the line, some people emerged with a preference for the same sex. It’s clear to me that being gay is not a phase or a choice, and that is perhaps where we differ.

11-17-2006 10:51 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
It is compared to those two things in the Bible. Leviticus 20 links these acts as equally abominable.

11-17-2006 11:25 AM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Um, not very strong at all? I don’t see your point. Infidelity is not the same as polygamy. If a man cheats on his wife, it doesn’t mean that a) he’ll want to take that woman on as a second wife or b) that his current wife would be amendable to that.

I think you’re talking about two different things”

my point is to make polygamy legal so that it isn’t infidelity.  can’t a guy love more than one woman ?  should adults be allowed to do whatever they want ?  does the gay marriage ordeal open a pandora’s box to other opportunities ?  oh i think it does dumbbroad.  i think it does very much so.

11-17-2006 05:23 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“And I find it insulting that some people compare gay marriage to bestiality or incest (as Mr. Santorum did in an infamous AP interview). Perhaps it’s because you don’t have many gay friends, but from those gay couples I do know, they don’t want to ruin straight marriages, marry their dogs or have sex with young children.”

and i have many friends that would secretly like to be with more than one woman.

so will you grant them the opportunity to marry more than one woman ?

Message Edited by Halladay on 11-17-200605:39 PM

11-17-2006 05:33 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
People can sleep with as many other people as they want. Live it up. I really don’t care. The only people whose sex lives affect me is that of myself and my partner, and we have agreeed to be honest with each other and that sleeping with anyone else is unacceptable. There are people out there who don’t have that standard. Some have open marriages and it works for them. I can’t imagine ever doing that, but who they sleep with (as long as it’s not me or my man!) and for what reasons doesn’t affect me.

As for MARRYING multiple people – can any of you say that you know or have heard of: (a) someone would marry another person just because they want to have sex with him/her (in response to Halladay’s point that he knows men who would like to sleep with multiple women), or (b) someone would be able to love, as in love and support unconditionally – the type of love that people should have in a marriage – more than one person at a time?

The somewhat oddball thing is that while homosexuality was an abomination in the Bible, having multiple wives was not at all.

11-20-2006 02:39 PM

Well, actually…
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
It does certainly affect the lives of any children conceived by such actions. The spread of diseases affects everyone that pays taxes or pays for insurance or for their own health care out of pocket.

And Jesus defines marriage as “one man one woman on lifetime”( so polygamy is not sanctioned under the New Testament). This excludes divorce and remarriage as well (es=xcept in the case of fornication.) i personally don’t see divorce and remarriage as being all that different from polygamy. You just space out the time during which you have more than one spouse (I guess time-dispalced polygamy is how I see it)

11-20-2006 03:20 PM

Re: Well, actually…
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
Yeah, if you want to sleep with more than one person, go right ahead. Marriage might not be the best option. If all these men you know are so anxious to put another notch on their bed post, why did they get married? There are likely many married people who have lusted after another but chose to honor the commitment they made. And just because they want to sleep with another woman doesn’t mean they want to marry that person.

I’m talking about men or women who have found a partner to whom they wish to commit. That’s all. A man loves another man (or vice versa) but also wants to be entitled to inherit the home they share, visit their spouse in the hospital, make medical decisions, put them on their insurance plan, adopt or conceive children and do whatever else straight, married couples do at this point.

HappyMom – the notion that gay couples do nothing but spread disease is rather outdated. Of the more recent stats I read, occurrence of HIV/AIDS grew most among straight women.

11-20-2006 05:16 PM

Re: Well, actually…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Yeah, if you want to sleep with more than one person, go right ahead. Marriage might not be the best option”

no.. if you will follow along with me .. what i propose is to make polygamy legal.  that means that a man can marry a number (now listen very carefully here) LARGER than ONE.  not zero.  not just one.  but a number larger than one.

it’s not what i want or how many women i want to marry that is important here.  i’m asking you if you will grant a man the right to marry more than one woman ? i mean you are so concerned with gays. . why do you care how many women a guy marries ?  or.. how many women another woman marries ?

11-20-2006 06:36 PM

Re: Pelosi makes history with ‘gay marriage’ stance
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“As for MARRYING multiple people – can any of you say that you know or have heard of: (a) someone would marry another person just because they want to have sex with him/her (in response to Halladay’s point that he knows men who would like to sleep with multiple women), or (b) someone would be able to love, as in love and support unconditionally – the type of love that people should have in a marriage – more than one person at a time? ”

Would it make you feel any better if i said that a man would want to marry multiple women due to which day of the week they agreed to cook for him ?  People can already marry for numerous reasons.

11-20-2006 06:39 PM

Re: Well, actually…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“It does certainly affect the lives of any children conceived by such actions. The spread of diseases affects everyone that pays taxes or pays for insurance or for their own health care out of pocket”

absolutely it can affect lives of others.  just because i don’t steal from stores doesn’t mean i don’t pay higher prices for products.

just because i don’t engage in gay sex, doesn’t mean i don’t pay higher health insurance costs that result from such activity.

happy mom i am glad you realize we don’t live in a vacuum.  some evidently prefer to think they live on a fantasy island immune from other’s decisions

11-20-2006 06:41 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Judge jails ‘wicked liar’ who falsely claimed ex-husband had raped her


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Judge jails ‘wicked liar’ who falsely claimed ex-husband had raped her

Judge jails ‘wicked liar’ who falsely claimed ex-husband had raped her
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
· Court hears sentence is to deter false complaints
· Naming after conviction concerns women’s groups
Steven Morris
Saturday November 4, 2006

Guardian
A woman who falsely claimed that her ex-husband had raped her was jailed for a year yesterday and branded a “wicked liar” by the judge.

Sally Henderson, 40, claimed Richard Cooke had repeatedly raped her during their year-long marriage. But police discovered her claims were a repetition of false accusations she made five years earlier against a previous partner.

Sentencing Henderson at Bristol crown court, Recorder David Lane QC said: “You told a series of wicked lies against both men. You are a very skilful actress who is adept at making people believe you are a victim when you are nothing of the sort. Yours is one of the most serious crimes because you framed an innocent man.

“You accused him of the most serious offence in the criminal calendar to be brought against a man. His life was turned upside down and the strain he suffered has been incalculable. The sentence I pass is to punish you and to deter others from making these false complaints.”

Henderson was found guilty of perverting the course of justice. During her trial a court order protected her anonymity but once she was convicted the judge allowed her to be named, to the concern of some women’s groups.

Lisa Longstaff, of Women against Rape, said yesterday that she was concerned at a trend of women being prosecuted and identified after making allegations of rape.

She said: “We think there is a concerted witchhunt at the moment. It’s a new trend which will stop women from coming forward and making rape complaints.”

Margaret Gardener, director of the False Allegations Support Organisation, said: “The worst thing about this case is it could put genuine rape victims off coming forward.”

But she said men wrongly accused of rape struggled to cope. “Many men who ring us are suicidal. They have to try and get their lives back together. They will have had no help and probably faced some media coverage. Some lose their families, their jobs.”

A spokesman for Gloucestershire police yesterday said they hoped the sentencing of Henderson would not deter genuine rape victims from coming forward. Matt Ford said: “Gloucestershire constabulary is committed to tackling rape offences and takes all reports extremely seriously.”

Yesterday in court Henderson, from Woodmancote, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire, continued to protest her innocence. She said: “I’ve told the truth. I ‘ve not made up any allegations. I’m here on the words of the rapist and he lied in court.”

During the trial, she claimed her ex-husband, whom she met on an internet dating site, had viewed her as a sex object, had demanded sex constantly and had raped her at a friend’s wedding reception.

But the jury was told the allegations were almost identical to previous claims she made against a former boyfriend, Mark Rowe, 42. Both men were questioned by police but neither was charged.

How rape cases are prosecuted has become a big political issue. At their conference the Liberal Democrats agreed men accused of rape should be given anonymity before conviction. Last month the Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours used parliamentary privilege to name a woman who had claimed she had been raped after the man’s conviction was quashed.

11-11-2006 01:10 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Abused men often suffer in silence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Abused men often suffer in silence

Abused men often suffer in silence
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Joanne Hatherly
Victoria Times Colonist

Friday, October 27, 2006

VICTORIA — Terry is like any other spouse who has suffered physical abuse at a partner’s hands. The shame, the stigma, the sticking it out in the hopes that things will change — all these are part of Terry’s experience.

“I couldn’t believe it was happening to me,” says Terry in a phone interview. Terry is not his real name. Yes, you just read a masculine pronoun.

He is one of Canada’s 546,000 male victims of domestic abuse. His wife’s behaviour escalated into physical violence within their first year together. Identifying factors about Terry’s story have been altered.

While the ratio of male-to-female victims is much closer than commonly believed, the availability of support services is lopsided, says Robert Waters, 51, a fathers’ rights activist.

“There is a reluctance on the part of the spousal-violence industry to acknowledge that females could be perpetrators and males could be victims,” Waters says.

The report, Measuring Violence against Women: Statistical Trends 2006, shows that male victims of spousal assault trail females by only one percentage point, with seven per cent of female respondents saying they had experienced violence from their partners within the past five years, compared with six per cent of men. That’s 654,000 women and 546,000 men who have experienced physical abuse ranging from shoving, slapping and scratching all the way to assault with a weapon.

It’s a far cry from the rate of assaults found in a 2005 report from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, where only two in 10 offences are reported to police by male victims.

Sherry Wallace, a spokewoman for StatsCan, says that the disparity between the reports can be attributed to men’s reluctance to report violence to police. Men are only half as likely as women to seek social services and to report violence to police.

Jonathon Van der Goes, 55, director of client services at the Men’s Resource Centre in Nanaimo, B.C., says it’s very difficult for male victims to come forward. “It’s absolutely a harder thing to do. They have a sense of powerlessness. The stigma is huge.”

So huge, in fact, that counsellors at Victoria’s Men’s Trauma Centre recommend male victims call them before calling the police so they can accompany the victim to the police station.

“We know the officers; we can steer the victim through the process,” says Alana Samson, 56, therapist and director at the centre. “It’s such a tremendously difficult step to take that they need the support. Being abused is one thing, but when someone disbelieves them, it can be worse than the abuse itself.”

Emotional abuse typically predates physical abuse, and in this area, victim support counsellors say some abusive women might excel over males.

“They know what hurts and where. They know how to humiliate,” says Maureen Betts, 57, program manager at Greater Victoria Police Victim Services. “They can have incredible psychological power over another person. It’s a bullying mentality they had as children, and they’re very successful at it.”

Women are more likely to kick, bite, hit or slap their partners, and Frances Strauss, 58, victim services co-ordinator at the Men’s Trauma Centre, says a woman wielding a frying pan is not just a stereotype. Ambush is a common strategy.

The StatsCan report says, “Overall, women were two-and-a-half times as likely as men to report the most serious forms of violence, such as being beaten, choked, threatened with a gun or knife, and sexually assaulted.” But the estimated number of men who suffered attacks of this severity over a five-year period was 89,000, markedly less than the 254,000 women, but a number that Waters says should draw more attention.

Males are also victimized by their homosexual partners. The survey found that between 1991 and 2004, spousal homicides among estranged homosexual partners showed the same history of domestic violence as for female divorced heterosexual homicide victims. Spousal violence is twice as common among homosexual couples.

All the problems that abused women face are shared by male victims, but with a twist. Female assailants sometimes exploit the stereotypes in the social services and justice systems to their advantage.

Strauss says, “The wife says (to her male victim), ‘Do whatever you want, I’m going to call the police and say that you hit me.’ “

Sometimes men stay in the relationship because they fear leaving their children alone in a home with a volatile mother who might later use the court process to block the father’s access.

“They know that the courts tend to see the mother as the primary parent,” Waters says. “Once a man has been accused of abuse, he has a very difficult time overcoming that allegation. Even if you overcome, there’s six to 12 months to wait for a court date, and the stigma sticks.”

Like most male victims, Terry never reported the abuse to police. He’s still wary of rocking the boat with his ex-wife, who has custody of their children, and from whom he is divorced. He is, however, in counselling.

11-11-2006 09:57 AM

Re: Abused men often suffer in silence
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Yeah, crimes men do get major play on the media, whereas crimes gays or women do get very little coverage!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-11-2006 01:45 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Aussie courts deny men moral justice


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Aussie courts deny men moral justice

Aussie courts deny men moral justice
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

Court keeps nose out of bedroom

*
November 10, 2006

LIAM MAGILL has discovered one of the few places the law just won’t go – infidelity – and some kinds of justice it just cannot deliver.

Soon after he married Meredith Magill in 1989, she bore him a son, and soon after that, she took a long-term, secret lover.

Unknown to Mr Magill, it was a productive affair. The second son and daughter he thought were his, in fact were the offspring of his wife and her lover.

He thought all three were his even after the marriage broke down in 1992, and did so until Mrs Magill revealed her “suspicions” about their second son’s paternity while she was admitted to hospital with a nervous breakdown three years later.

Her suspicions were raised much earlier, after she saw a photograph of her lover’s other child, who looked remarkably like her own.

In 2000 a DNA test confirmed the two children were not Mr Magill’s. His child support payments were adjusted, and his arrears cancelled, but that was not enough.

He sued his former wife for damages, claiming compensation for the severe anxiety, depression, money spent and loss of earnings wrought by her deceit.

The Victorian County Court surprised many by awarding him $70,000 in 2002, despite acknowledging Mrs Magill’s difficulty in investigating her suspicions while maintaining her marriage.

It found Mr Magill had relied on his wife’s deceitful representation that he was the father, when he signed his children’s birth registration forms.

The decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal last year, and yesterday the original decision was unanimously dismissed by six High Court judges. Three judges found there could be no legal action for deceit about paternity between spouses, while three said there could, but only in exceptional cases, and this was not one.

All six said the law could not provide Mr Magill with the moral justice he sought. There could be no duty to disclose infidelity.

Justice Ken Hayne said: “The law cannot satisfactorily prescribe how a relationship that depends entirely upon matters wholly personal and private to the parties to it is to be maintained. The trust and confidence between marriage partners is based in much more than considerations of sexual fidelity.”

The Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, said Parliament had legislated the policy of protecting and preserving the institution of marriage, and imposing a legal duty to disclose infidelity would, “in the practical circumstances of many cases”, go against that policy. Nor would he impose a duty to give an assurance of paternity.

Justice Gleeson said: “Few husbands expect, or seek, from their wives, assurances of paternity. Such assurances, if volunteered, would often raise, rather than resolve suspicions.”

Three judges – William Gummow, Michael Kirby and Susan Crennan – jointly said fault was no longer relevant in divorces, and the child support scheme allowed for the recovery of money wrongly paid. They said infidelity should be left “to the morality of the spouses”.

The judgements should leave no doubt about the High Court’s view. Answers to quarrels such as these are not to be found in the blame of the common law, but in the no-fault procedures set up under the Family Law Act.

Mr Magill’s lawyer, Vivien Mavropoulos, said the case had highlighted fundamental social issues in Australia. “They are the importance of truth in relationships and marriage, a child’s identity and heritage, parentage and the responsibilities that go with that and a person’s blood line, health issues and medical history,” she said.

11-10-2006 01:49 AM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Like I have said before:

1.  Don’t get married. You don’t have to.
2.  If you do, get a prenuptial.
3.  If you have children get a paternity test before signing the birth certificate.

Simple solutions then men have no one to blame but themselves for being foolish.

11-10-2006 10:45 AM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Judges routinely void PreNups where they have Judidical Discretion. This especially applies to cases where there are minor children involved. Also with the tactic of using Restraining Orders passed out like Candy with no penalties for false accusations, Women routinely accuse ExHusbands of physical and Sexual Abuse. It has become an accepted Legal Tactic many Attorneys advise Female Clients to use it.

DNA testing only applies before a Judge issues a Paternity finding. Many Men are falsely accused of Paternity, are not notified and given a Child Support order for another Man’s child. Even with expensive litigation there are no guarantees of the order being recinded. Paternity Fraud is rampant in the US, estimated to be at least 30%.

Women only have to change their minds. Once they Marry all power in the relationship shifts from the Man to the Woman. Men are 100% dependent on the largesse and kindness of Women. With Women initiating Divorce over 70% of the time that strategy if flat earth thinking. No Fault Divorce, generous Child Support with imputed Wage calculations reward Women who cash out on their Husbands. Men are smarter not to Marry.

11-10-2006 05:44 PM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

“The law cannot satisfactorily prescribe how a relationship that depends entirely upon matters wholly personal and private to the parties to it is to be maintained.”

So in other words, the law will butt it’s nose in if the male is to blame, but in cases where the woman is to blame, it’s none of their business.

“Few husbands expect, or seek, from their wives, assurances of paternity. Such assurances, if volunteered, would often raise, rather than resolve suspicions.”

The reason being men are too used to trusting non-skank women, with feminism resulting in a higher percentage of skank women in the population. Feminist groups seek to ban the use of DNA testing for paternity in Australia, however.
What happens if the man wants a paternity test before signing the birth certificate and the wife refuses?

Here are some better sensible solutions:

1) Don’t get married.
2) Use a condom.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-10-2006 10:40 PM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

That is what I have been saying.  Also, no judges DO NOT void prenuptial agreements if they are properly prepared.  In a prenuptial agreement you must disclose all assets and liabilities else it voids the agreement.  The previous fool demonstrated how low on the food chain he is and what and idiot he is.

11-11-2006 12:25 PM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
from Findlaw.com

Top 10 Reasons a Premarital Agreement May be Invalid

1. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. Premarital agreements must be in writing to be enforceable.

2. NOT PROPERLY EXECUTED. Both parties must sign a premarital agreement before the wedding in order for the agreement to be considered valid.

3. YOU WERE PRESSURED. A premarital agreement may not be valid if one of the spouses was pressured by the other (or by his or her lawyer or family) to sign the agreement.

4. YOU DIDN’T READ IT. If your spouse-to-be puts a bunch of papers in front of you, including a premarital agreement, and asks you to sign them quickly, the premarital agreement may not be enforceable if you sign it without reading it.

5. NO TIME FOR CONSIDERATION. A prospective spouse entering into a premarital agreement must be given time to review it and think it over before signing it. If the groom hands the contract and a pen to the bride just before she says, “I do,” the agreement is probably invalid.

6. INVALID PROVISIONS. Although a premarital agreement can cover just about any financial aspect of the parties’ relationship, it cannot in any way modify the child support obligations that either spouse would have if the marriage should end in divorce. Any other provisions of the agreement that violate the law would also be invalid. It is possible, however, that the court would strike the illegal clauses and enforce the remainder of the agreement.

7. FALSE INFORMATION. A premarital agreement is valid only if it is entered into after full disclosure by both parties — as to their income, assets, and liabilities. If one prospective spouse provides the other with information that is not true, the agreement is invalid.

8. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. Failing to provide pertinent information is as bad as providing false information, and it renders a premarital agreement unenforceable.

9. NO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. Because their separate interests are at stake, both parties to a premarital contract should (and in some states must) be represented by their own attorneys, or the agreement will not be enforced.

10. UNCONSCIONABILITY. It’s true that you can agree to give up your right to inherit from your spouse, which you would otherwise be entitled to do upon your spouse’s death, even if he or she left you out of a will. You can sign away your right to spousal support if you should end up in divorce court, even if your spouse makes ten times as much money as you do. You can even agree that your spouse gets all of the property and you get all of the bills, if that is what you want to do. But if the agreement is so grossly unfair that one party would face severe financial hardship while the other prospered, the court is unlikely to enforce it. “Unconscionable” contracts are generally found invalid, and premarital agreements are no exception.

11-11-2006 01:09 PM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Obviously you are an idiot, demonstrated again by your straw man positions.  If you do a prenup correctly it will not be overturned.  Very simple, idiot.

11-11-2006 01:21 PM

Re: Aussie courts deny men moral justice
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
A Satisfying Agreement

If you’re thinking of taking the plunge for a second time, you should seriously consider having a prenuptial agreement or marriage contract in place before you walk down the aisle.

By Nancy Kurn, CPA, JD, LLM, MBA, CDFA

A prenuptial agreement is a contract that two parties enter into in contemplation of marriage. It can also be referred to as a “premarital agreement,” “antenuptial agreement,” or simply a “prenup”; in Canada, it is called a “marriage contract.”

In most states, until the 1980s, prenuptial agreements were deemed against public policy and not valid to the extent they pertained to divorce or separation. They were considered against public policy, because it was thought that they encouraged divorce and allowed the husband to thwart his legal obligation to support his wife. Prior to that time, they were valid to the extent that they pertained to the death of one spouse.

A postnuptial agreement (a marriage contract in Canada) is similar to a prenuptial agreement except that it is entered into after the parties have married. In some states, postnuptial agreements are not valid if either spouse is contemplating divorce or separation.

Canadian law also recognizes cohabitation agreements for couples of the same or opposite sex that currently, or intend to, live together.

First, a brief overview of U.S. law. In community-property states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), any assets that are acquired during the marriage are marital assets and divided equally between the spouses upon divorce. In equitable-distribution states, any assets acquired during the marriage are divided between the spouses in a fair and equitable manner. In many states, the appreciation in value of a separate asset during the marriage is a marital asset.

Generally, a prenuptial agreement sets forth how the marital assets will be divided in the event of divorce or either spouse’s death. It can also address what assets remain the separate assets of each spouse and what happens to the appreciation in value of the separate assets. For example: Joe has an IRA worth $200,000 at the time he marries Barb. When they divorce, six years later, the IRA is worth $500,000. In some states, $200,000 would be considered Joe’s separate property and $300,000 would be considered a marital asset to be divided between Joe and Barb.

Barb has a home worth $250,000. Joe moves in after they marry, and they use the home as their marital home. When they divorce, the home is worth $400,000. The court is very likely to decide that Barb made a gift to the family, classify Barb’s home as a marital asset, and split the entire asset. If Joe and Barb created a prenuptial agreement, they could have agreed that Joe’s IRA — including any appreciation during the marriage — would have remained his separate property and that Barb’s home — including any appreciation — would have remained her separate property.

Although there are limitations in many areas, prenuptial agreements may also cover issues of spousal and child support. The spouses can agree not to contest any estate-planning documents prepared by the other spouse and to give up certain statutory rights upon the death of one spouse. They can also agree to file joint or individual tax returns during the marriage.

Some couples also cover issues that arise during the marriage, such as their children’s religious upbringing, how household duties will be divided, how finances will be handled, and sometimes even how often the couple will have sex. These provisions are best left out of the agreement, because a judge has no mechanism to enforce them. In addition, you have to be very careful with these provisions, because if they are too unusual, the entire agreement may be deemed invalid by a judge.

In addition to addressing how the assets will be divided, it is also important to decide how debts, particularly those acquired before the marriage, will be divided.

Limitations

Generally, two parties can agree to anything that does not violate any law or oppose public policy (interest). For example, contractually encouraging someone to divorce would be against public policy and invalidate the agreement. A prenuptial agreement has several limitations; some are unique to prenuptial agreements:

1. The parties must fully disclose their assets to the other party. Otherwise, one spouse is giving up rights to assets that he or she knows nothing about.
2. Some states do not allow prenuptial agreements to limit or eliminate spousal support. In addition, the agreement may be deemed invalid if the spousal support is very high, because the agreement then encourages divorce and is against public policy. In Canada, spousal support provisions are valid.
3. Child support cannot be limited pursuant to a prenuptial agreement. In some states, child-support provisions will be upheld as long as the support is not less than the statutory guidelines. In other states and in Canada, provisions regarding child support are invalid. Anything limiting child support to less than statutory amounts cannot be enforced. Child support is governed by state guidelines in all 50 states.
4. In both the U.S. and Canada, any agreement regarding child custody or visitation in a prenuptial agreement is invalid.
5. A judge could deem the agreement void based on typical contractual theories such as fraud, misrepresentation, duress or coercion. A unique circumstance with the prenuptial agreement is the timing of the signing of the agreement. If the groom takes the agreement to the bride the night before their wedding, then she could certainly argue that she signed the agreement under duress, or that she was coerced into signing it. To avoid the argument that the agreement was signed under duress, it should be signed long before the wedding takes place. Some would argue at least 30 days and others recommend before the wedding invitations are sent to the guests.
6. The prenuptial agreement cannot be unconscionable. If one spouse is left destitute, the court may decide that the agreement is not valid, because it is unconscionable.
7. In Canada, any provision in the prenuptial agreement regarding the right to live in the matrimonial home, or the right to sell or transfer the matrimonial home, will be invalid.

Benefits

Prenuptial agreements are not just for the wealthy. They are particularly useful in second marriages, where one or both spouses have children from a previous marriage.

Mike and Carol are going to be married. Mike is a widower and has three sons. Carol is a widow with three daughters. Both of them have assets that they are bringing to the marriage, including the death benefits they received upon the death of their first spouses. Mike and Carol are contemplating hiring attorneys to prepare a prenuptial agreement to ensure that the assets they received from their deceased spouses will go to their respective children.

A prenuptial agreement has numerous benefits. Some of these benefits include:

1. The certainty it provides as to what happens in the event of a divorce or the death of either spouse.
2. Protecting children from a prior marriage.
3. It is prepared, in theory, when there is harmony instead of at a point when the relationship is very contentious.
4. The parties can negotiate the terms of the agreement; instead of having a third party (a judge) and state and provincial laws decide how to divide the couple’s assets.

Challenging a Prenuptial Agreement

If you’re going to have a prenuptial agreement, you should each hire a lawyer to ensure that it is valid and will hold up in court. Do not try to prepare one yourselves! Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving allegedly drafted their prenuptial agreement on the back of a napkin; the court did not recognize it as a valid contract, and it has been reported that Irving received over $100 million in assets after their four-year marriage ended.

A prenuptial agreement can be successfully challenged in the following ways:
1. If it has not been signed. Most states require the prenuptial agreement to be signed by the party to be charged with the agreement.
2. By proving the other party did not fully disclose their assets.
3. By proving that you were not represented by independent counsel. Each party should be represented by his or her own attorney. Generally, this alone will not be sufficient to invalidate the agreement.
4. By proving that the agreement was unconscionable when it was signed.
5. By proving that the agreement is now unconscionable based on today’s circumstances.
6. The agreement can be challenged based on duress, due to the timing of the signing.
7. It can be challenged on any other typical contractual theory such as fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.

Additional Issues to Consider

Each spouse should draft their estate plans so that they conform to the terms in the prenuptial agreement. You do not want to force your children and surviving spouse to get involved in litigation involving your estate. The costs could result in everyone getting significantly less.

You may also want to consider using life insurance to replace assets that go to either your children or your spouse. For example: Mike and Carol purchased a new home with the proceeds from the sale of Mike’s previous home. Mike wants Carol to have the home upon his death. He can purchase insurance, naming his sons as beneficiaries, to replace the proceeds from the sale of his previous home.

Prenuptial agreements can be amended or revoked at any time. Some couples add a sunset provision terminating the agreement after a certain period of time, such as ten years.

Case Study: Sarah and Brad

Sarah has a technology business that she thinks is worth approximately $1,000,000. In 2003, it had gross sales of approximately $750,000 with profits of approximately $300,000 (including Sarah’s compensation). The income has steadily increased at about 20% annually. She is about to marry Brad. This will be the first marriage for both of them, and neither of them have children. Brad’s net worth is approximately $50,000 and his annual income is approximately $40,000 and increases at about 3% per year. Should Sarah have Brad sign a prenuptial agreement to protect her business?

If Sarah wants to protect her business and its future growth, then she should have Brad sign a prenuptial agreement. Otherwise, any future increase in the value of the business during the marriage would likely be split between both parties. Without a prenup in place, if Brad sometimes helped Sarah with the business, then a judge may find that the business is a marital asset and split the business. Sarah must hire an expert to perform a business valuation; better still, she and Brad could jointly decide on the expert that will perform the valuation, or each of them could hire their own expert and then average the two valuations. If this is done, then Brad would have a difficult time challenging the value of the business.

Nancy Kurn (CPA, JD, LLM, MBA, CDFA) is the director of Educational Services for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts. For more information about how a CDFA can help you with the financial aspects of your divorce, call (800) 875-1760, or visit their website at http://www.InstituteDFA.com.

Canadian Marriage Contracts

By Michael G. Cochrane, LLB

A marriage contract is an agreement signed before or after a wedding that provides a private and custom-made set of rules for dividing the couple’s property should they separate and divorce or die. In fact, a marriage contract can overlap in many of its functions with a Will. A cohabitation agreement is essentially the same thing as a marriage contract, but it’s designed for people who intend to live together — or who are already living together — who wish to set out some rules to govern any separation that they may experience. A cohabitation agreement is automatically converted into a binding marriage contract if the couple gets married. Marriage contracts and cohabitation agreements can also establish some rules and regulations for how the couple manage their day-to-day marriage, not just their separation.

In every Canadian province, marriage creates an economic partnership, the fruits of which will be divided between the husband and the wife should they decide to separate and divorce — unless a couple agrees otherwise in a marriage contract.

A marriage contract allows couples to opt out of provincial law with respect to property. A marriage contract, if drafted and signed properly, is legally binding. In order to have a properly drafted and executed agreement, you must follow four simple rules:
* the agreement must be in writing;
* it must be signed by both parties;
* the signatures must be witnessed;
* there must be full disclosure and honesty in the negotiations leading up to signing of the contract.

Michael Cochrane is a lawyer with Ricketts, Harris in Toronto and the author of For Better or For Worse: The Canadian Guide to Marriage Contracts and Cohabitation Agreements (John Wiley & Sons).

11-11-2006 02:00 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Court strips father of compensation rights Made in Oz


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Court strips father of compensation rights Made in Oz

Court strips father of compensation rights Made in Oz
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/09/1162661832139.html?page=1 Father loses out in child support battle with ex

DNA testing, the sure-fire method of determining paternity, caused Liam Magill to become tangled in a legal web when he discovered two of three children conceived during his marriage were not fathered by him.

But it provided no recourse when the High Court yesterday dismissed his claim against his former wife for “deceit”.

Mr Magill’s legal fight began six years ago when he pursued compensation in Victoria’s County Court. The Melbourne man said he was too “devastated” to talk about the verdict yesterday. But his girlfriend, Cheryl King, spoke for him and, she claimed, many other men: “How do you get over something like this? You don’t. Most men could never really recover.”

The Magills’ troubled marriage, which lasted five years, came under the glare of public scrutiny through the determination of Mr Magill to make his former wife, Meredith, pay.

Four years ago, he won $70,000 in the County Court for pain, suffering and economic loss stemming from supporting the children fathered by her extra-marital partner.

Six High Court judges, however, have ruled that these circumstances do not provide the basis for civil compensation, and also ordered that he pay his ex-wife’s legal costs.

In the 85-page judgement, three judges stated that the law of deceit did not apply to personal relationships, but was best applied to commercial dealings. Three others, including the Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, left the door ajar for a possible future claim. Justice John Heydon said the “non-commercial context” of paternity fraud did not prevent claims. But legal commentators — including Mr Magill’s lawyer, Vivien Mavropoulos — suggest the possibility is now remote.

“If a case like Liam Magill did not make it where two children out of three are not his, then how is a father going to make it with one child?” Ms Mavropoulos said. “What they (the judges) are saying is that if a child is born within a marriage it’s presumed to be a child of that marriage, end of story.”

She said the High Court was suggesting that any redress for unjust child support should be sought through the family courts and the Child Support Scheme, but the reality she claimed was that under discretionary powers money was never returned to husbands.

Joanna Fletcher, policy lawyer with the Women’s Legal Service, which represented Meredith Magill at earlier hearings, also confirmed it was now extremely unlikely that a paternity fraud claim would proceed.

“It’s interesting to see the importance that at least four of the judges placed on social policy considerations and the social context in determining whether they were going to extend the law to a new area,” Ms Fletcher said.

“It’s also important here to remember that this case has a human face, and three children still have a roof over their heads which would not have been the outcome had the court gone the other way.”

Mr Magill married his wife in 1988. DNA tests in 2000 showed that Mr Magill was the biological father of only the first of their three children born between April, 1989 and November, 1991.

After the couple separated in late 1992, Mr Magill made child support payments for all three children until 1999. At one time his take-home pay was reduced to about $130 a week.

He was awarded compensation in 2002, but that decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Mr Magill launched a further appeal to the High Court.

Father’s rights activists have made Mr Magill a cause celebre. But Ms King, who met Mr Magill seven years ago and has supported him through the legal actions, said it remained a personal tragedy for Mr Magill.

Since seeking DNA tests, with the consent of the mother, Mr Magill has had no contact with any of the three children.

“This has put a huge strain on him,” said Ms King. “Of course, we live in a modern society and people have affairs. If honesty had been in place from the beginning, none of this would have happened.”

SwinburneUniversity sociologist Lyn Turney, who has been researching the impact of DNA testing, said the case illustrated complex problems in the use of new technologies. “It’s very difficult for the law to keep up with changing technologies and the way people use them,” she said.

Dr Turney said her research showed that fathers who embarked on DNA testing did not often think about the consequences for their relationships with the children.

Barry Williams, of the Lone Father Association, said the group would press the Attorney-General to make genetic testing compulsory at birth if there was doubt about paternity.

11-10-2006 01:45 AM

Re: Court strips father of compensation rights Made in Oz
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Women keep holding children hostage. Reward our bad behaviour, or they will suffer. I say it is time that the children suffer too BIG TIME. This way women will think twice before messing around and we will have less cases of paternity fraud and infidelity in the first place.

11-10-2006 08:41 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?

Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Carrie Lukas
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

They say it’s a historic moment for women–Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House! Not only will Madame Speaker be in charge of the ”people’s house” of Congress, she will be third in line for the presidency. In the weeks to come, no doubt, breathless pundits will explore whether Pelosi’s ascension is a harbinger of another, more profound turning point: A President Hillary Clinton.

Many female voters may feel vindicated. For two decades, women have consistently voted for more liberal candidates than men. If only women voted, America would have had a President Gore in 2000, a President Kerry in 2004 and a Democratic-controlled Congress. This voting trend sends the apparent message: Women want caring, nurturing, “feel your pain” Democrats running the show on Capitol Hill.

American women should be careful what they wish for. Over the next two years, they will witness some of the consequences of having liberals in charge, as Democrats push for bigger government, higher taxes, and more regulation—none of which benefit women.

Consider taxes. Democrats have derided the Bush tax cuts as solely rewarding the rich. Yet when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, middle class families will learn how much these tax laws have benefited them. In four years, the child tax credits will be cut in half, the marriage penalty will return, and the bottom income tax bracket will rise from ten percent to fifteen percent. Middle class families may be surprised that the Democrat’s agenda of repealing Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” will put a serious squeeze on their family budget.

American women will also learn how higher taxes hurt the economy. Many of us don’t feel directly affected by investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. Yet these cuts have a significant, positive impact on the economy, and their elimination will have the opposite effect. Increased taxes on investment make capital more expensive, which makes it harder for businesses to expand and create jobs. That means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

One of the few specific items in the Democratic agenda for 2007 is a minimum wage increase. Like most Americans who don’t look closely at the policy, many women see this as economic common sense. The reality is, like all regulations, a higher mandated wage comes with hidden costs like unemployment and higher consumer prices. Liberals portray employers as having an endless supply of money that they could give to employees were they not so coldhearted. The truth is companies forced to increase wages must find ways to cut costs or to increase revenue. This means reducing other salaries, firing workers, hiring less, or raising prices.

Democrats champion numerous, feel-good spending initiatives. They want more government funding for healthcare and welfare programs, and greater subsidies for student loans and daycare. Sounds appealing, but these “giveaways” come with significant costs. They increase taxpayers’ burden, short circuit economic growth, change people’s decisions, and usually result in greater government control over important areas of our lives. Consider if Washington further subsidizes institutional daycare facilities. Many women may find their private daycare providers struggling to compete and closing their doors, leaving women fewer (and often less appealing) options. Similarly, government provision of healthcare invariably means lower quality and less choice.

These domestic policies are only the beginning. Democrats have different priorities for fighting the War on Terror. The incoming Speaker of the House voted against the Patriot Act, opposed the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance program, and—while a big spender in just about every other area—has supported cutting funds for intelligence programs. Many American women are frustrated by the course of the war in Iraq, but will they feel comfortable with Speaker Pelosi’s tactics of reigning in our intelligence and national security community’s effort to defend our homeland? Intelligence is our only alternative to military campaigns abroad.

Many women may celebrate Speaker Pelosi’s ascension to one of the highest offices in the land as a milestone reached for women. Yet this could be a turning point of another kind. Over the next two years, American women will become reacquainted with the consequences of Democratic policies and may begin rethinking their support of liberal politicians, regardless of their gender. Republicans were far from perfect in their running of Congress, but sadly, all indications are that Speaker Pelosi will fare worse.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

11-08-2006 10:24 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
What the stupid Democrats don’t realize is that increasing the minimum wage just means that businesses hire less people to make up the difference. Giving a flat across the board tax of 8% would do wonders to the economy!!! As businesses would be allowed to expand faster than ever.

You watch, just as the woman Governor in Washington State Made it so the State can take up to 65% of a mans income to pay child support (which actually increases the amount of divorces and illegitimate children). Men are being sheepish about giving good women, who may not be cheaters and stealer’s, the children they so desperately crave before their eggs dry up!!! Pelosi will have the whole country United under Gay/homosexual agenda!! Which will bring us nothing but the wrath of God!!!

I just cannot believe Pelosi is in charge of anything, she is sheepish, she try’s to act powerful, but is weak. Mostly the Democrats want her to keep her mouth shut!!

This will hurt the Lizard Queen!!! I don’t thing we want a female president, a vice president women, and a Speaker of the House Female!!!

Who needs that!! We will be called Weakica!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-09-2006 02:45 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You don’t really believe the bile you spew from you piehole, do you?  You can’t be that dumb, can you?  Yes, you can.

11-09-2006 11:25 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
One thing is certain. Pelosi represents an idealogy. That idealogy is subsidize Victimhood. Low income Illegals will be given Amnesty, a Low Income Earned Credit, all kinds of Government Assistance. A dependency Class, dependent on the largesse of the DNC. They are going to buy voters. And they are going to drive out capital and jobs. They attempted to do that in California and Small Business fled the State.

What many Gays don’t realize is that they are being exploited by the Democrats. The Gay Marriage is a Civil Right is a Red Herring. Trial Lawyers are looking to replace lost market share with New Gay customers. Gay Marriages=Gay Divorces and lots of legal fees and Firm income. They could care less about Gays, they do care about their income.

Pelosi will advance Socialism, Gender or Radical Feminism, more entitlement spending, capitulation to Islamic Radicals in exchange for Safety and Security. I believe it will take a Breslan or an American Hiroshima to wake up the US populace. The Republicans are the party of Say and Articulate Principles and do something else. They articulated controlling spending, and spent like a Drunken Sailor in a house of ill repute. They articluated shrinking the size of Government, and grew if faster than the Democrats. They articulated ethics, and promoted Sleaze, payoffs by Lobbyists, sexual harrassment of Senate Pages etc. They did the opposite of what they claimed to believe in. They deserved to lose. And will continue to lose until a Leader arises who has the courage to follow their principles.

11-09-2006 03:08 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

No, she represents the majority.  She wasn’t found with a House Page.  She isn’t corrupt and hasn’t taken money from Abramhoff.  She didn’t lie about WMD’s.  I voted for bush the 1st time hoping cheney and powell would be balancing force but when bush proved he was ammoral, unethical, destroying our constitution, committing high crimes and misdemeanors the majority of people in the country wanted checks and balances that would balance power.  You have no clue about anything.  You are just another frustrated angry man in a dirty wifebeater with sh*tstained shorts howling at the moon.

11-10-2006 10:49 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Lets get something straight you knuckle dragging, slack jawed, mouth breathing white trash.  Bush is the most incompetent president ever to serve.  He is the dumbest man ever to sit in the oval office.  He is a war criminal and a liar.  His cabal of *sswipes were defeated for very good reasons, having nothing to do with feminism and the majority of the voting public wanted change.   Are you that incredibly stupid?  Do you have that much time on your hands as you drink hamms beer, belch, scratch your fat gut through a filthy wife beater in your sh*t stained underwear?  I am a graduate of the US Air Force Academy and unlike the pres. served as a pilot in combat.  Take your pills and keep drinking the koolaid.  You seem to take to it rather well.

11-10-2006 10:59 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
MoneyNeverSleeps whats up with the continuing insults? And the Straw Man arguements? And where does Bush come into this? Bush is just the latest in a long line of Presidents offerred to us. I don’t build my life around who is in the White House. Do you? In the Grand Scheme of things Bush will be out of office in Two years, unless Conyers and Company decides to remove him by Impeachment. Then we will have Grid Lock for two years. And the Democrats will get the blame.

Pelosi represents Feminists. She has received large amounts of money from Emily’s List. And she is openly hostile towards any changes in public policy that go against Feminist dogma. Republicans in this last election lost the vote of Men. For very good reasons, Corruption, out of control Government spending, refusal to control our borders, Congressmen taking Bribes, Pedophiles protected by GOP Leadership.

If you noted the Democrats articulated almost no policies whatsoever. We are against Bush, and the War in Iraq. That was their message. You have some anger issues. Deal with them.

11-11-2006 09:42 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Talk about straw man arguments.  Christ you are stupid.  Rummy, cheney and bush routinely use straw man arguments as do the self-loathing ken mehlman.  Again you demonstrate how deluded and out of touch you are.  I merely point out the obvious.  You, on the other hand, are a dittohead for comedian rush limbaugh.

11-11-2006 01:19 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
You tell me the Demicommies aren’t really in love with taxing the working and giving to the non working for votes.

Otherwise the bank account you have is blinding you from reality!!!
MNS!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-11-2006 01:35 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Unlike you, I make real money and, unlike you, I am actually aware of public policy and how it affects the working classs.  Unemployment is up.  If these pathetic old men and their policies were working they would still be in public office now.   Now they are marginalized due to their stupidity and disregard for most of the country.   Ken Mehlman, being the self-loathing gay man he is attacks non-issues like gay marriage to distract morons like you from real issues.  Nobody cares if gay people get married.  So what.  It is a non-issue.  We have plenty of real issues to address and the majority decided it was time.  Pull your head from a dark place.  This is not a feminist issue.  This is correcting policy that has set us back 25-40 years in some areas.  I support stem cell research, as a person with a scientific background.  I want women to have the right to have an abortion.  It is their right to do so and won’t change.   Sorry, try some real issues.  You will have problems with any woman who isn’t hideous due to your ignorance.

11-12-2006 11:06 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
conservative
Visitor
conservative

“I want women to have the right to have an abortion.  It is their right to do so and won’t change.   ”

Dont talk nonsense .How is the murder of a living being a right for somebody else?

Just because the woman was careless/stupid/drunk enough to not have any form of protection while whoring herself doesnt give her the right to kill another human being .

If she finds raising a child , too much of a headache , then send the child to an adoption agency .Simple as that .

Sex is not something to play with – it has consequences which is why most laws prohibit minors from engaging in it .If the woman has the maturity of a minor while indulging in it , she would be better off not having sex .Cant go about killing a child just because she was careless.

There are cases where the woman in question is raped in which case having an abortion seems fair on the woman .But due to the large number of feminists whoring themselves all over the place and getting pregnant due to their carelessness/stupidity, what happens is that people take a stance against abortion  which is unfair on women who get raped .

I

11-12-2006 04:50 PM

Short response…
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

shove it up your *ss.  Try being a Goldwater conservative rather than a big government fool and attempting to legistlate every bit of minutia that you possibly can.  Grow up.

11-12-2006 10:15 PM

Re: Short response…
conservative
Visitor
conservative

Hmm that looks like the typical response of a feminist .Angry and immature .

11-13-2006 09:52 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
There are cases where the woman in question is raped in which case having an abortion seems fair on the woman,
I actually think the worst thing she could do to herself at that moment would be to have an abortion. She wil have to live the rest of her life with blood on her hands and look in the mirror and know that in a moment of desperation and emotional weakness she did a horrbile thing.

Of course it is extremely rare that rape leads to pregnancy in the first place. But even then, it’s never the child’s fault.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-13-200612:45 PM

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-13-200612:45 PM

11-13-2006 11:00 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

* Speak for yourself.  Most women who obtain abortions do so after careful thought and consideration and make the right choice.  This is old news.

11-13-2006 12:33 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
conservative
Visitor
conservative

Wonder why the women couldnt be careful just before having sex!!! Women who abort due to a rape constitute a very very small percentage of women who actually go for abortions .

So in most cases , it is nothing but the carelessness/stupidity of the woman .Since when does a woman have the right to killl anothe rhuman being?

11-13-2006 01:22 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Empirically and scientifically, a fetus at the time of conception and for the first few months thereafter IS NOT a viable human.  Read James Dawnkins new book and become educated.

11-13-2006 01:59 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
conservative
Visitor
conservative

bawahaha

You are telling me to buy some book by some  trash author and educate myself .Nice joke.

So tell me something .What do you call the fetus inside the womb? Is it a living thing? Or is it non-living?Does this living thing grow on to become a human?

11-13-2006 02:22 PM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Well, first of all, a baby is not technically a fetus until 12-14 weeks of gestation. It’s an embrio. Fetuses are not usually viable (without lots of intervention) until around 36 weeks gestation. Newborn babies are entirely dependent on others to survive even if they are born full term. Many elderly people are also dependent on others for their well being. So, if a person’s life is only valuable once they are ‘independent’ it looks like a lot of people would be on the chopping block.

We all know babies in utero are dependent on their mothers for life. The fact that a baby of a certain gestation would not survive outside the womb does not give anyone the moral authority to kill that baby.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-13-200602:29 PM

11-13-2006 02:29 PM

Actually the author is a tenured Professor at Oxford
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

with specialties in Ethology, Zoology and Evolution.  Unlike you he has an education and uses rational, intelligent arguments to substantiate scientific positions rather than fairy tales.   The arguments you advance are the same type of logic used by idiots like Ted Haggard who state he didn’t sleep with that guy, or use drugs, etc.

11-13-2006 02:37 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?

Re: Actually the author is a tenured Professor at Oxford
conservative
Visitor
conservative

yeah i know .A degree in zoology would go a long way in analyzing whether the fetus in the woman’s body is human or not .

Where do you get off posting such nonsense?

11-13-2006 02:54 PM

Re: Actually the author is a tenured Professor at Oxford
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You really can’t be that incredibly stupid, can you?  Yes, white trash can, congratulations on being an utter dolt.

11-13-2006 07:13 PM

Re: Actually the author is a tenured Professor at Oxford
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

moneyneversleep wrote:
You really can’t be that incredibly stupid, can you?  Yes, white trash can, congratulations on being an utter dolt.

Maybe your mother should have aborted you. Its not like you had a right to grow and live or anything when you were still developing in the womb.

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

11-15-2006 12:52 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Inflation kills us pal. MNS why don’t you figure out a way to make our currency for the we the people and not we the bankers!!! WE would all be fine if the Banking Cartel would split the profits of Our Nations currency with us!!! But no, that is not the case!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-15-2006 02:10 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
So because a woman is raped and gets knocked up, she should commit murder on a perfectly fine Human being??? That is an utter travesty, immoral, and selfish!!!

How about feminists leaving the family intact so fathers can instruct and discipline their children and Violent Criminals activity would fall by 900%!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-15-2006 02:13 AM

Re: Is A Speaker Pelosi A Victory for Women?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Another complete idiot opens his piehole and spews bile about imaginary conspiracys or cabals of banks getting together, or the Rothschilds, or UFO’s in Nevada.   Grow up.

11-15-2006 10:34 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

“bright future …for the current generation of American women”


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – “bright future …for the current generation of American women”

“bright future …for the current generation of American women”
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

The Smart Women Myth
Christine Whelan, 11.13.06

Forget what you’ve been reading. Successful women are doing fine in the love-and-kids department.If you’ve been reading Forbes.com lately, or Newsweek, or, for that matter, feminist Maureen Dowd’s latest book, you probably think that high-achieving women have about as much chance of building a happy family as Carly Fiorina has of getting reappointed as Hewlett-Packard (nyse: HPQ – news – people )’s chief executive officer.

I have good news for career women: The theory that they can’t succeed as well with their families is hogwash. It is based on outdated information and misinterpreted statistics. The truth is that smart, successful women marry at the same rates as all other women, and once married, they have children at the same rates as well.

Look at data in the 2006 Current Population Survey, a nationally representative survey of 50,000 households commissioned yearly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. Among 35- to 39-year-old women living in medium-size cities, who earn more than $75,000 a year and have a master’s degree, 92% are married. By contrast, among less-educated, lower-earning women–women of the same age, in the same size city, who earn $30,000 to $35,000 a year and have attended some college–87% are married.

According to the same data, among married women who earn more than $60,000 per year or have a graduate degree, 84% have kids under 18 at home by age 40 to 44. That’s a higher percentage than their lower-earning married sisters (70%). It’s important to note that high-achieving women are less likely to have children outside of wedlock, so the overall fertility rate among these women is lower. But those who bemoan the fate of childless female executives miss the mark for this generation.

Why the persistent ignorance? It may be that conventional wisdom is simply stuck in the past. As recently as the 1980 census educated, successful women were less likely to marry and much less likely to have children. A woman of 40 to 44 who had 19 years of education–college plus graduate school–had a 66% chance of being married, compared with a woman with 12 years of education, who had an 83% likelihood of being married at that age. And women with professional or doctoral qualifications were twice as likely to be childless at age 40 as women with some college.

Just after the 2000 census the tide began to turn. Prediction: By the 2010 census we’ll have even more proof that smart men marry smart women.

Why the change? Men and women are studying and working side by side at ever-increasing rates. Women make up more than half of college graduates and are reaching parity in most professional schools as well. And this generation of men is thrilled with the idea that they can share financial responsibilities with equally capable women.

There’s another piece to this picture that’s getting increasing scrutiny as women become more successful earners. What happens to marriages where the woman makes more money than the man? I commissioned a nationally representative 2006 study with the polling company Harris Interactive (nasdaq: HPOL – news – people ) and found that 82% of single high-achieving women–women who have a graduate degree or are in the top 10% of earners for their age group ($50,000 for women 25 to 35 years old)–say they are open to marrying a man who earns less money than they do, and 61% of that same group report that they would be comfortable being the primary breadwinner in their family.

Men welcome this new partnership: 71% of men who earn in the top 10% for their age group or hold graduate degrees say a woman’s career or educational success makes her more desirable as a wife; 68% report that smart women make better mothers; and 90% say they want to marry, or are already married to, a woman who is at least as intelligent as they are.

The bottom line: There’s increasingly encouraging data to suggest a bright future, happy marriages and a balanced concept of career and family life for the current generation of American women, and for their daughters.

Subscribe to Forbes and Save. Click Here.

11-07-2006 09:46 PM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Look at data in the 2006 Current Population Survey, a nationally representative survey of 50,000 households commissioned yearly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. Among 35- to 39-year-old women living in medium-size cities, who earn more than $75,000 a year and have a master’s degree, 92% are married.

What of women in large cities, like the women Forbes editor Noer would encounter?  What about women in large cities, who would represent a larger percentage of the U.S. Population?  What about women 18-34?  39-44?  45-49?  Women who earn less than $75k and have less education?  This sample is too selective, which leads me to believe the author has an agenda, rather than look at a broad array of sources like Noer did.

Look at data in the 2006 Current Population Survey, a nationally representative survey of 50,000 households commissioned yearly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau.

One source?  One!?!  You use one source to rebute Noer’s 15?  This is tragically pathetic.

According to the same data, among married women who earn more than $60,000 per year or have a graduate degree, 84% have kids under 18 at home by age 40 to 44.

Maybe because they waited so long to have children, compared to:

…their lower-earning married sisters (70%)…

whom if they had children at ages 18-24 would not be as likely to have anyone under 18 in the house when they are 40-44.  Not having children around when you are 44 is a sign you made the right decision and had kids early when your body could quickly recover.

It’s important to note that high-achieving women are less likely to have children outside of wedlock, so the overall fertility rate among these women is lower. But those who bemoan the fate of childless female executives miss the mark for this generation.

This statement has nothing to do with the previous sentences in the paragraph.  Nor does this refute the fact that women who earn more, have careers, and wait until later in life to have children, have fewer children.  They do.

These women don’t have a lower fertility rate because they are less likely to have children out of wedlock, they have a lower fertility rate because they wait too long to have children, and their careers, education and income are a large part of why they wait too long.

Your cagey implication that the previous sentences support the following just doesn’t work anymore.  You make one or two statements, then a conclusion that appears to be based upon those previous statements.  Men are on to this lying, dissemblement, propaganda and misleading journalism.

Try something else.

I commissioned a nationally representative 2006 study with the polling company Harris Interactive (nasdaq: HPOL – news – people ) and found that 82% of single high-achieving women–women who have a graduate degree or are in the top 10% of earners for their age group ($50,000 for women 25 to 35 years old)–say they are open to marrying a man who earns less money than they do, and 61% of that same group report that they would be comfortable being the primary breadwinner in their family.

Men have known for years that what women SAY, what women THINK, and what they actually DO are three entirely separate and often contradictory concepts.

Saying something does not make it so.  Provide the study that shows that single high-achieving women–women who have a graduate degree or are in the top 10% of earners for their age group ($50,000 for women 25 to 35 years old–ARE marrying men who earn less.

Also being the primary breadwinner in their family would include being a single mom, yes?

Not SAY they will, or AGREE with the idea.  But that they ARE actually doing so.

Talk is cheap.  Show me some action and facts and a study to prove it.

And please, do a better job next time.  Your motives, biases and attempts at propaganda spin are transparent.

We are on to you.

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 11-08-200603:56 PM

11-07-2006 10:47 PM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Get rid of Alimony, child support, and women taking their ex’s house, and you will find alot more happy marriages which are not headed to divorce.

Socialist Democrats have constructed a system where the none working are being supported by the working, this has got to end!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-07-2006 10:54 PM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Advocacy Research. One source of data sited. Not 15 as with Noer’s article. Medium Sized Cities. This is putting Lip Stick on a Pig. And trying to sell it to Men. Or is it an attempt to get Women back to Forbes? The fact is that Men are fed up with our current status with American Women. Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, British Men feel the same. Feminism has changed the balance of power in relationships. When Men say “I Do”, they lose all power and become Cuckholds to their Wives. With no Rights only Obligations and Responsibilities. One sided relationships do not endure. This study is meaningless.

It is not changing how Men view Marriage and its Liabilities.

11-08-2006 10:10 AM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

This piece of self-serving propagandistic journalism reminds me of the notorious statement by Joseph Stalin
“If the facts are against us, then it is so much the worse for the facts”.

A set of selective truths decorated with “wymyns’ studies” statistics, really. I wonder if they’ve gagged Michael Noer for good or they are going, as before, to run “a rebuttal”?

11-09-2006 12:53 AM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
And why do I read elsewhere that unmarried households outnumber married ones ?

11-09-2006 09:22 AM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
These contentious women are probably on their 5th marriages!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-11-2006 01:41 PM

Re: “bright future …for the current generation of American women”
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
Another point of interest… are these first marriages or second marriages?

Men aren’t going to take the gamble of marriage just so that some woman can be subsidized by him when she decides to move on to marriage number 2.

Do these women already have some guy’s alimony and child support payments already rolling in by the time they are 35? That is an eternity.

(Men usually look for younger, more fertile younger women anyway, not some old milf has-been.)

FemiNasties need to try harder.

11-12-2006 08:12 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The breakdown in family life that threatens us all


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The breakdown in family life that threatens us all

The breakdown in family life that threatens us all
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Richard Morrison
I am in shock. I have just read two books that expose Britain’s teenagers as vicious, lawless, contemptuous of authority, alienated from family and society, fixated on drugs, drink, crime and lethal weapons, and wrapped up in a gang culture that leads nowhere except incarceration or an early grave.

Yes, the youth of 1938, when Graham Greene wrote Brighton Rock, must have been a ghastly lot. Surpassed, perhaps, only by the young thugs of 1962, as portrayed in Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange — though the author said that he based that novel’s most violent scene on a horrific attack on his wife in the 1940s.

Returning last weekend to these novels, regarded in their era as incendiary, gave me a much-needed sense of perspective after all the apocalyptic talk about Britain’s teenagers in the past week. What both books remind us is that disruptive and dangerous kids have been part of British life for generations. True, the scale of the problem is bigger today. And maybe (as the Institute of Public Policy Research suggests) we do have the drunkest, randiest, most socially retarded teenagers in Europe. But the causes remain the same as ever. So do the remedies. No ostentatious head-scratching about either is needed. The question is only whether we have the guts to put matters right.

On which point, I have been astonished by the complacency exhibited by many pundits and politicians. With respect to the Tory leader, “all they need is love” is about as convincing a policy for dealing with Britain’s out-of-control youth as an aspirin is for gangrene. And with respect to all those columnists who loftily declare that teenagers have “always needed to rebel”, and that adults should stop interfering because the kids “turn out OK in the end”, the fact is that our prisons are overflowing with young men who are so far from “turning out OK” that quite a number of them decide that suicide is their best career option.

As for The Times leader-writer who believes that teenagers “are our future . . . and the future is measurably bright” — well, that rosy view would be greeted with a guffaw in Moss Side or Tottenham. If the nightly stabbings, muggings and overdoses by feral teenagers suggest a “measurably bright” future, I wouldn’t like to be around if life ever became a little overcast.

That’s the first cause of the problem: the class divide. People in Westminster, Whitehall and the media village don’t see the depth of this tragedy — the insidious wasting of teenage lives by the hundred thousand — because it isn’t their kids, it isn’t in their kids’ schools, and it doesn’t happen on their streets. There is no political will to tackle the issue of disaffected youths (aside from chucking useless ASBOs round like confetti) because people with power have insulated themselves from all the trouble.

Then there’s the albatross round the neck of the baby-boomers running the world: a lingering nostalgia for the permissive Sixties. Because many of them did (and do) soft drugs, they squirm away from condemnation of the substance abuse that destroys teenage lives. The signal they attempt to send is that mild dope is OK, but not the stuff peddled on inner-city streets. But that’s a hopelessly compromised moral stance. And the kids on the estates know it.

Next, look at schools. Why are millions of pupils — and I mean millions — bored out of their skulls? Why do so many teachers feel stifled by diktats and a narrowly prescriptive curriculum? What is there at most schools to hold the interest of non-academic children when the staff are so focused on cramming kids for meaningless exams? And why do thousands drop out of learning, and out of society, before they are 14?

And lastly (though this should be first) you have to point the finger at British family life — or, rather, the colossal breakdown of it. Again, middle-class commentators completely misunderstand the problem. This isn’t about yummy Islington mummies moaning that their teenage kids are never in for family meals. It’s about kids who haven’t seen their father in months, who aren’t welcome in their own home because their mum’s new bloke hates the sight of them, who could disappear for days before anyone would raise the alarm, and who haven’t an adult in the world to whom they could turn if they get into trouble.

That is what I mean by the breakdown of family life — and I defy you to find a single high-rise estate in Britain that doesn’t have a dozen kids in that predicament. But nothing will improve while people who bring children into the world feel under no obligation — neither social, financial, legal or moral — to devote the time and effort needed to raise their offspring decently.

All this can be summed up in three words: abdication of responsibility. That applies not only to parents who don’t nurture their children, but also to the influential and powerful middle class that doesn’t want to accept responsibility for sorting out the gross social squalor afflicting those lower down the pile. Such selfishness is so short-sighted. Donne said that no man is an island. Equally, no sink estate is an island. The seeds of bitterness being sown there will tear apart our country if we don’t wake up. The future is not measurably bright; it’s potentially appalling.

Why we should still take note of Elgar

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, is an enthusiastic music-lover. I know that, because he once invited me to lunch to tell me about the new work that he had commissioned for the London Symphony Orchestra, using his own money and dosh prised from the wallets of City chums. I also hazard a wild guess (because I haven’t the foggiest notion what the Bank of England does, except push up my mortgage payment every month) that he is a busy chap. So I assume that it is **bleep**-up, not conspiracy, that has led him to order the removal of Edward Elgar’s visage from £20 notes in 2007 — the year that happens to be the 150th anniversary of the composer’s birth.

The decision must be reversed. England has produced few enough great composers — five in five centuries, by my reckoning (Tallis, Byrd, Purcell, Elgar and Britten, if you want to argue). Yet we accord none of them the reverence that we lavish on Shakespeare. Putting Elgar on a banknote was a rare nod by the British Establishment in the direction of musical genius. Let the old boy stay there for his big one-five-o at least.

Cold comfort

Thanks to all those “old wives”, some of them male, who responded to my plea for meteorological guidance. I wanted to know whether the profuson of berries on bushes this autumn really does signal a “long ’ard winter”, or whether I should give my winter overcoat to the Oxfam shop because I haven’t needed to wear it once in four years. The consensus? That if I do give my coat away I will absolutely guarantee a long ’ard winter. As always, the Law of Sod takes precedence over all other calculations.

11-07-2006 05:49 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Female teacher’s sex charge is unusual


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Female teacher’s sex charge is unusual

Female teacher’s sex charge is unusual
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Marti Maguire and Todd Silberman, Staff Writers
When former Johnston County teacher Rebecca Withrow was charged this month with having sex with an 11-year-old male student, the news stunned parents who knew her as a talented teacher, devoted parent and PTA president.

Withrow’s case is distinguished in part by the fact that she is female. By most accounts, more than 90 percent of charges nationally involve male teachers.

In North Carolina, from 2000 to 2005, 160 school employees were charged with sexual improprieties with a student. Of those, 147 — 92 percent — were male.

Those involving female teachers often draw more attention though.

The case of Mary Kay Letourneau in Seattle, for example, made national news several times. She served three years for having sex with a 12-year-old and had his child while in jail. She then resumed their relationship after her release and had his second child during a second, seven-year sentence. The two are now married.

The time Letourneau spent incarcerated is notable because women often face less severe punishments than male teachers charged with sexual improprieties.

Former Florida middle school teacher Debra Lafave served only house arrest for having sex with a 14-year-old boy at school, at her home and once in a vehicle driven by the boy’s 15-year-old cousin. One of her lawyer’s arguments: His client was too pretty for jail.

“We just take it almost as a given that men who do wrong should be dealt with in a very firm fashion,” said Fred Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University. “Historically, it’s such a sexual conquest for a younger male to sleep with an older woman that it’s not considered a crime.”

Withrow, 30, faces three charges related to allegations that she had sex with a student repeatedly over four months in 2003. She surrendered to police Oct. 13, two days after resigning from Johnston County schools, where she had taught fifth grade for five years. She remains in jail in lieu of $750,000 bail.

Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said Withrow also had an affair with the boy’s father.

Researchers and advocates believe that most child sex abuse cases go unreported, and boys are less likely than girls to report abuse.

In a 2004 report to the U.S. Department of Education, researchers found nearly 10 percent of students are targets of sexual suggestions or contact by teachers at some point in their school career.

Only 4 percent of educators who were investigated for sexual misconduct were females, the report said. But students surveyed said 43 percent of inappropriate behavior came from female teachers.

Berlin explains perceptions of male sex-abuse victims by mentioning a movie, “Summer of ’42,” in which a boy has a tryst with a woman in her 20s. “I can’t imagine a film in which a woman is fondly recollecting having sex when she was 15 with an older man,” he said.

But Berlin said boys face the same long-term effects as girls who are victims of sexual abuse: early and inappropriate sexual behavior; problems building relationships later in life; a tendency to either remain a victim or become an abuser themselves.

While boys are less likely to confide in adults, they are more likely to tell their peers about the experience, which is one way many such cases come to light, said Monika Johnson Hostler, director of the N.C. Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

In Withrow’s case, it’s not clear what prompted the boy’s mother to contact police three years after her son was in Withrow’s class.

Withrow’s ex-husband, Scott Withrow, left her the spring Johnston authorities allege she abused the boy. He declined to comment except to say that the two children he had with Rebecca Withrow are safe.

The boy’s parents, reached at their workplaces, declined to comment. Withrow and her attorney could not be reached for comment.

Sheriff Bizzell, who is up for re-election next month, said Withrow was assigned to tutor the child she is accused of raping, and that most of these encounters happened during school hours.

Harry Wilson, a staff attorney for the State Board of Education, travels to school districts across the state to speak with administrators and principals about sexual misconduct by teachers and other school staff.

Wilson said schools must establish and communicate clear expectations, such as training teachers to report their suspicions. Principals must also be sensitive to the warning signs that a teacher might be behaving inappropriately, from a simple locked door to rumors among students.

“Be attuned to what kids are saying,” Wilson said. “They seem to know before the adults.”

(Staff writer Mandy Locke and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.)
Staff writer Marti Maguire can be reached at 829-4841 or mmaguire@newsobserver.com.
Staff writer Mandy Locke and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.

11-06-2006 07:07 AM

Re: Female teacher’s sex charge is unusual
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Women will never respect the rule of law if they keep getting off the hook!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:15 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Mankind to be wiped out by language police


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Mankind to be wiped out by language police

Mankind to be wiped out by language police
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Sun 22 Oct 2006
Mankind to be wiped out by language police
EDDIE BARNES POLITICAL EDITOR (ebarnes@scotlandonsunday.com)

TO THE man on the street, the man on the street has never been much of a problem.

But the language police of Scotland’s largest council have decreed otherwise. The man on the street and the girls in the office are now officially wrong.

Glasgow city councillors of a less politically correct ilk are scratching their heads. Dr Chris Mason, a Lib Dem member, declared: “Politeness, courtesy and respect – all these things are important. But a book of rules about what you can and cannot say? B*******.”

But Glasgow City Council, whose senior figures include Lady Provost Liz Cameron and leisure director and First Minister’s wife Bridget McConnell, is clear about the problem of oppressed women in its ranks.

The issue is laid out in “Language Matters: A Guide for Good Practice”, which has been circulated to the council’s staff and elected officials.

“Sexism continues to disadvantage women both as service users and employees. The use of sexist language, whether spoken or written, reinforces this discrimination,” it declares. All staff, it orders, should now stop their sexist ways.

The guide offers a full list of the most shameful examples of sexist-speak. Top of the list are endearments.

“Don’t assume it is acceptable to address women by endearments such as ‘dear’, ‘pet’ and ‘love’ when you would not address men in such a way,” the guide instructs. “Don’t refer to women as ‘girls’, for example, ‘the girls in the office’.”

It adds: “The term ‘ladies’ should only be used in situations where the parallel term ‘gentlemen’ is used.”

All references to a person’s gender should be avoided, the guide goes on. “A person’s gender is rarely relevant to the job they do, so don’t use ‘lady’ or ‘woman’ to highlight gender inappropriately, for example ‘woman driver’, ‘lady curator’, ‘lady councillor’, ‘woman director’. Similarly don’t add ‘ess’ to the end of job titles as in ‘manageress’ or ‘stewardess’.”

“Some words and phrases such as ‘manpower’ and ‘man the office’ exclude or ignore women. Use inclusive terms like ‘staff’ and ‘workers’ and ‘staff the office’.”

With communication dealt with, the guide moves on to terms of address. The old custom of referring to a married couple as Mr and Mrs John Smith is completely barred, the guide declares. “Women have names too!” it exclaims.

Equally, the requirement for women to reveal their marital status through the term ‘Mrs’ or ‘Miss’ is condemned. “If the woman does not offer her preferred title, assume Ms”, the guide instructs.

The suffix ‘man’ is completely out. Job titles like storeman and clerkess should be replaced with ‘storeperson’ and ‘clerical officer’.

And then there is the man on the street. “The word ‘man’ is often used as a general term when it is actually intended to mean ‘people’. ‘Human beings’ or the ‘human race’ is preferable to ‘mankind’ and the ‘ordinary person’ replaces the ‘man in the street’.”

Despite the aim of lifting women out of the pit of prejudice, some were not impressed.

Entrepreneur Michelle Mone said: “Councils and government are making it impossible to run businesses and then they come out with nonsense like this.

These people with their sandals and their flowery dresses – they need to get a life and stop wasting people’s time. If someone doesn’t like being called ‘love’ in a workforce then the door is open. Go and work somewhere else.”

Richard Cook, director of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, added: “Now that this document is in print as a guide to staff it could be used by more zealous managers looking for an excuse to discipline employees.”

However, Elaine Smith, who sits on Holyrood’s equal opportunities committee, said: “People should think more about the kind of language that they use. If Glasgow is raising awareness and it stops women being demeaned at their work, then that is a good thing.”

A council spokesman said any male in the council who was caught saying words like ‘mankind’ or ‘stewardess’ – or worse, ‘Mrs’ – would not be punished. “This is a relatively mild reminder that council staff should think about what they say so as not to inadvertently cause offence. It is not a prohibition on types of speech.”

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1563412006

11-06-2006 07:05 AM

Re: Mankind to be wiped out by language police
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
We all know liberated women are good tax payers and are 60% more likely to abort their fetuses to keep working!!! Good little slaves!! They are far more oppressed outside the home than in it!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:25 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Is Misandry Protecting Mothers Who Murder And Maim?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is Misandry Protecting Mothers Who Murder And Maim?

Is Misandry Protecting Mothers Who Murder And Maim?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Teri Stoddard

I’m a woman and I used to believe what the media said about men. Now I know better.

The media constantly exposes us to inaccurate, negative impressions of and statements about men. In looking for the root of the problem I found a network of people who benefit from misandry. Many of these people work for or with the family courts or domestic violence services, often both. I wonder if the Violence Against Women Act funds misandry. As I wrote in It’s Not Your Mother’s Fathers Movement Anymore, I watched as representatives from domestic violence and feminist organizations slandered fathers to defeat California’s 2005 Shared Parenting bill:

“Fathers who seek custody, they’re not all great fathers.” That was the truth according to Mira Fox, who runs Child Abuse Solutions, Inc…Fox said, “Children are often given into the custody of abusive fathers”…

Fox’s organization, by her own testimony that day, trains people in the family court system how to litigate and adjudicate child sexual abuse cases. Is Fox guilty of misandry or ignorance? The January 2005 Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment states:

…fathers are, “less likely than other male perpetrators to be involved in sexual abuse.”

The Administration for Children and Families says:

In 2004, 45.6% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone or with other and only 19.5 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone or with other.

2004 child abuse

Last week I came across a pamplet by the California Women’s Law Center called Teen Dating Violence. Teen dating violence is indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Is it acceptable that their brochure is only about males who abuse and female victims? Is this misandry? Studies show not only are female teens increasingly violent, girls are more likely to victimize their partner than boys are.

Today I read an opinion piece called Murderously self-pitying fathers by India Knight, where she laid out the horrifying details of four fathers who murdered their families, yet writes nothing of murderous moms. She starts by suggesting she reads about murderous fathers weekly:

Another week, another horrifying story about men’s frequent and calamitous inability to cope with crisis. Gavin Hall, 33, was jailed for life last week after drugging then suffocating his three-year-old daughter Millie as “revenge” for his wife’s infidelity…Stories such as these crop up with depressing regularity:

To come up with the four stories she had to go back three years. Is Knight guilty of misandry or just ignorance?
According to this graph by the Administration for Children and Families:

In 2004 “Mother Only and Mother and Other” was reported as perpetrator for 40.6 percent of child deaths and “Father Only and Father and Father and Other” accounted for only 15.6 percent.

2004 child abuse deaths

Is misandry protecting moms who murder and maim?

11-06-2006 07:03 AM

Re: Is Misandry Protecting Mothers Who Murder And Maim?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
If you don’t think women are murderous, just examine abortion!! They would kill and slander us all if they could!! There is no truth in these women!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-11-2006 01:51 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Evangelical feminism a new path to liberalism, book says


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Evangelical feminism a new path to liberalism, book says

Evangelical feminism a new path to liberalism, book says
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Evangelical feminism a new path to liberalism, book says

Nov 1, 2006
By Erin Roach
Baptist Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Evangelical feminism, a movement that disregards unique leadership roles for men in marriage and in the church, is now one of the greatest threats to the survival of true evangelical Christianity, Wayne Grudem writes in a new book, “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?”

Grudem, author of numerous books and co-founder and former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. In his new book, he discusses 25 patterns of argument employed by evangelical feminists and shows how each one dismisses the authority of Scripture.

“A work like Evangelical Feminism has been desperately needed, and Grudem’s new book arrives just in time,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in an Oct. 23 commentary on albertmohler.com. “A new generation of younger evangelicals is facing the challenge of evangelical feminism just as the current and the larger culture are moving even more against biblical authority.”

Mohler says Grudem’s goal is to demonstrate that the methods of interpreting the Bible necessary to justify the ordination of women to the pastorate undermine biblical authority and “open the door for a complete reshaping of Christianity.”

One of the most important sections of the book, Mohler noted, is the examination of “trajectory hermeneutics” now gaining popularity among some evangelicals. People who subscribe to such interpretations argue that the church should not limit itself to a first-century understanding of the Bible concerning gender issues but must consider Scripture from a modern-day standpoint.

“This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority,” Grudem writes. “Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the direction the New Testament was heading but never quite reached.”

Mohler raises the question, “If the New Testament is to be superseded by a later reality based in a more modern understanding, how can the church justify relativizing some texts without relativizing others?”

Grudem argues that the hermeneutic, or method of interpreting Scripture, used to advocate evangelical feminism leads to the normalization of homosexuality as well. And the approval of homosexuality, Grudem writes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.”

Mohler described Evangelical Feminism as “truly a tract for the times — a manifesto that should serve to awaken complacent evangelicals to the true nature of the egalitarian challenge. Furthermore, the book provides an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal.

“Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy,” Mohler added. “Evangelicals no longer have the luxury of believing that this controversy is nothing more than a dispute among scholars. Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? has arrived just in time. Get this book quickly — and read it with care.”

11-06-2006 07:02 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women declare jihad


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women declare jihad

Women declare jihad
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Muslim women from around the world gather in Barcelona today to issue a call to a battle for equal footing in the Islamic world – one aimed at fighting against polygamy, domestic violence and a “macho” interpretation of Muslim Sharia laws. The three-day international congress underscores a new reality: even as religious intensity is growing in parts of the Muslim world, ‘Islamic feminism’ – the name of the Barcelona meeting – is gaining a tenuous foothold.

“We realised that a number of Muslim women’s groups have been created in recent years to fight against discrimination and defend (their rights) within an Islamic context – such as in Malaysia, Nigeria and Pakistan,” said Abdennur Prado, a leading organiser of the Barcelona forum, first launched last year. The advocates – mostly well-educated, urban women versed in the Koran – argue Islam must not be a pretext for cultural practices denigrating women, dictated by men with a monopoly on interpreting the Muslim holy book.

The meeting must “contribute to consolidating Islamic feminism as a transnational movement by putting in place a network of grassroots organisations working on the question of women’s rights in Islam,” Prado said. Professors, Islamic experts, members of non-governmental organisations and Spanish feminists are among some 400 participants expected to attend the conference, organised by a local Muslim organisation, La Junta Islamica Catalana.

“I’m going to see how feminists work within different contexts and what strategies they adopt to change sexist and discriminatory national laws and to play a role against extremist Islam,” said Iranian participant Nayereh Tohidi, an expert on feminism and Islam in her country. But like other Muslim feminists, Tohidi fears the struggle for greater rights will take time within a Muslim world of 29 nations and nearly one billion inhabitants. Tohidi’s native Iran is a case in point. “As in many other Muslim countries, women in Iran are faced with challenges and problems, particularly economic difficulties and unemployment that affect a growing number of qualified women,” she said.

11-06-2006 07:01 AM

Re: Women declare jihad
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
One thing I like about Muslim men, they stand their ground with these infidel women.

Gaining a foothold is much like what they wanted to do here in the US. The country is powerful enough to take the laws these women dreamt up very seriously. The funny thing is these days that women will not stop until they attempt to become our gods. They want to control our reproduction, kill all the straight men only having gay ones to reproduce. They want abortion in 90% of live births. These women are satanic witches as far as I can tell. Good women in the West need to stand up to them and not a second to late!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:20 AM

Re: Women declare jihad
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

one aimed at fighting against polygamy, domestic violence and a “macho” interpretation of Muslim Sharia laws.

And they will stop there I suppose? Didn’t think so.

“I’m going to see how feminists work within different contexts and what strategies they adopt to change sexist and discriminatory national laws and to play a role against extremist Islam,”

It’s really quite simple. Nagging.

Make claims that they are being oppressed unless they are combative.

Make claims that men are acting out oppressive roles unless they are passive.

Attempt to make any single female want or need a “right”.

Put elaborate systems in place to prevent men from violating those “rights” and punish severely those that do.

We should send an open letter from the men of America to the men of the muslim world: “Don’t take feminism seriously”.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 11-07-200612:23 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-07-2006 12:21 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Data theft 2nd loss this year


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Data theft 2nd loss this year

Data theft 2nd loss this year
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Credit card numbers lost earlier at airport

By April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News
November 3, 2006
The theft of a desktop computer that exposed thousands of Coloradans to identity theft marks the second time the private contractor has lost control of personal information on Coloradans in its care.

Earlier this year, a backup data tape was stolen from Affiliated Computer Services Inc., compromising credit card numbers used in transactions at Denver International Airport.

Dallas-based ACS, one of the largest outsourcing companies in the nation, processes child support payments for the Colorado Department of Human Services for $5.5 million a year.

The Colorado incidents are among several security breaches at ACS in the past year.

In one case in August, personal information on about 32,000 student loan recipients was exposed to other users of a federal Web site because of ACS software glitch. And last May, two computers containing personal information on Motorola employees were stolen from ACS’s Chicago office.

The problems have one lawmaker questioning the company’s ability to protect sensitive information.

“This is clearly problematic,” said Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver. “If a company can’t protect sensitive information in its care, the state needs to seriously look at whether we should be doing the business with this contractor. The answer is no.”

But Kevin Lightfoot, an ACS spokesman, said the company takes the protection of private information seriously.

The Oct. 13 theft from a Denver office of a desktop computer containing child support data has no connection with the DIA incident or others elsewhere, he said.

The office where the theft occurred has surveillance cameras, and entry to the facility required the use of a password.

“We don’t consider these incidents breaches in security,” Lightfood said. “These are criminal acts of theft. A breach is when someone has hacked into your system.

The company has sent letters to at least 500,000 people involved in Colorado child support cases to let them know they may be exposed to identity theft.

The company also is notifying residents who were listed on Colorado’s new-hires registry, which is operated in conjunction with child support-related cases.

Steve Synder, a DIA spokesman, said there has been no indication that anyone’s credit card information was compromised in the theft of the backup data tape.

The airport put tighter security controls in place since then and ACS is no longer allowed to store credit card information on any systems at DIA, Snyder said.

Liz McDonough, of the Department of Human Services, said the theft of ACS’s computer marks the first breach in security by the company since it was hired in 1999.

ACS (NYSE)

11-06-2006 06:59 AM

And this has what to do with this section?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Are you insane or just the cut and paste king?

11-07-2006 10:07 AM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Can you fashion a rational and coherent arguement, not based upon insults? What are you contributing to this Thread? Other than to try to stir the Pot? Nothing from what I have seen. Wow you can use juvenile insults to attack others on the board. Is this the beginning of an attempt to get this board’s thread closed? It is doing harm to the Feminist cause? Is it an open wound that will not close.

I am here as a venue to bring more Men to the reality of our collective Status in US Culture. Here’s a dirty little secret for you. Its Conservatives who fund the Feminists. US Corporations are funding Feminism and its leaders are mostly Conservatives. Oprah’s sponsors are US Corporations. I consistently call Conservatives, and Religious Values Voters on their BS as well. Try again.

11-07-2006 03:25 PM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Lets get something straight, sh*tstain.  You cut and paste rubbish having nothing to do with this section all because you are still a virgin.  Well, go buy it if you can’t convince even the oldest and most unattractive woman to sleep with you and the local retirement home.  You have no life.  You are obviously poorly educated, ignorant, frustrated, and trash.

11-09-2006 11:28 AM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Clearly you have some issues. I guess my questions are hitting a sore spot. You are making a number of assumptions that are incorrect. I have no problems with my personal intimate life. Am Married, have five children, Six Grandsons. And an Education with an Advanced Degree. I have lived overseas and am fluent in another language. I am learning an Asian Language.

Thank you for noticing my contributions.

11-09-2006 04:13 PM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

procreation is only proof that you can sleep with your cousin.  The funny thing is that actually believe the sh*t you are spouting.  You are pathetic.  How long ago did your wife toss your *ss aside?   How much did you pay?

11-10-2006 10:51 AM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
conservative
Visitor
conservative

This board has had some objective discussions going on .Some of the best threads ever .Why are you coming to every thread and talking nonsense? Are your ‘feminist’ insecurities taking a toll when it has been clearly proved by each thread that feminists are nothing but a nuisance to the current society.

11-13-2006 10:11 AM

Re: Data theft 2nd loss this year
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

The current threads have nothing to do with the original intent.  It has digressed to a bunch of idiots circle jerking and snapping towels on each other, complaining about conspiracy theories, pushing religion, angry with family law court, angry at the women who dumped them, etc.  Try being rational instead of a child.

11-15-2006 11:27 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

School Board candidate pays $5,000 toward child support


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – School Board candidate pays $5,000 toward child support

School Board candidate pays $5,000 toward child support
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Miami-Dade School Board candidate Darryl Reaves paid a $5,000 deposit on child support payments, setting aside a warrant for his arrest.
BY ELINOR J. BRECHER
ebrecher@MiamiHerald.com

Miami-Dade School Board candidate Darryl Reaves last week made a deposit on a five-figure child-support arrearage, setting aside a warrant that had been issued for his arrest.

Reaves, 45, brought $5,000, ”the amount of bond on the [long] outstanding warrant,” to the courthouse Thursday, according to Ed Griffth, spokesman for the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office.

His total arrearage: $28,000.

Reaves, a lawyer and former state legislator who is challenging incumbent Solomon Stinson for the District 2 seat, declined to comment.

”My lawyer is handling all that,” he said.

The attorney, A.J. Barranco, said Reaves ”came to see me and said he had an inquiry about a warrant, and could I find out what it was about. We ascertained there was a warrant out,” and arranged for him to make a payment “rather than have him arrested.”

One of his associates ”went with him to the courthouse and he paid the $5,000 order,” Barranco said. “He’s looking into taking care of the rest of it. . . . He’s a responsible guy.”

Niki T. Reaves, Reaves’ former wife and mother of his daughter, declined to comment.

This is only the latest of Reaves’ financial troubles. In September, he paid Rose Poster Printing of Hialeah $2,129.30 to cover a bounced check for 250 campaign signs.

He still owes nearly $60,000 in fines to the Florida Election Commission from previous races. In this race, he owes $1,300 in fines for tardy campaign finance reports.

”I really don’t want to get involved,” Niki Reaves said.

Herald reporter Tania deLuzuriaga contributed to this report.

11-06-2006 06:57 AM

Re: School Board candidate pays $5,000 toward child support
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
I say if no man pays, they can’t throw us all in prison for child support. Think about, there are 50 million men paying child support! They should all go on strike demanding more child visitation, and less money to be paid to our supposed equals!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:37 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Shattering Video Evidence of Female Violence


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Shattering Video Evidence of Female Violence

Shattering Video Evidence of Female Violence
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
http://antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters

Have any of you guys managed to get hold of the free Bull Busters video going around? It’s called Violent Women and it is very powerful.

It is doing the rounds on the street. The other day I was aksed if I had seen it. When I said no, a guy ran home and made me a copy and brought it back to me. It is very powerful. It has the words, “Watch me. Copy me. Pass me on” written in felt tip pen on the CD. I have done just that. Anyone who would like a copy should mail me at address@removed.com I will send it on. If you are outside of the UK you have to send me postage and packaging costs (sorry).

The video shows women beating men, each other and children and makes the point that we have been brainwashed to accept female violence as part of the attempt to feminise men. It says that there has been a media conspiracy to keep the evidence from the people.

It’s excellent and very strong.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-05-2006 11:00 PM

Re: Shattering Video Evidence of Female Violence
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Available streamed from youtube.com:

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-05-2006 11:03 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

US university president poses with ‘suicide bomber’


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – US university president poses with ‘suicide bomber’

US university president poses with ‘suicide bomber’
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
xxhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378324729
&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

MICHAEL FREUND Jerusalem Post correspondent, THE JERUSALEM POST

The president of one of the leading universities in the United States last week posed for photographs with a student dressed as a suicide bomber, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

In copies of photos obtained by the Post, University of Pennsylvania president Dr. Amy Gutmann is seen standing with engineering student Saad Saadi at the annual Halloween costume party held at the president’s home.

Saadi is seen with a keffiyeh around his head, a toy Kalashnikov rifle in hand and six plastic sticks of dynamite strapped to his chest. Gutmann beams alongside him, dressed as Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, a character from L. Frank Baum’s novel The Wizard of Oz.

Gutmann, who is herself Jewish, was inaugurated as university president in 2004. Her father, Kurt, fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1934.

In other photos taken at Gutmann’s party that evening, Saadi can be seen carrying out a series of mock hostage executions, evoking images reminiscent of the series of abductions and murders of Westerners in Iraq in 2004.

In one instance, Saadi stands over a fellow student crouched on the ground, and points a gun at her head while reciting verses from the Koran.

In another image, Saadi poses with an unidentified child as he points Saadi’s toy gun at the camera.

The day after the party, Saadi was quoted in the Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, as saying that he attended Gutmann’s affair dressed as a “freedom martyr.”

Founded in 1751 by Benjamin Franklin, the University of Pennsylvania is based in Philadelphia and has over 23,000 students, including a large percentage of Jews. It consistently ranks among the top 10 schools of higher education in the country, and is a member of the prestigious Ivy League.

11-05-2006 05:18 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Part 2


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Part 2

Part 2
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
While there are many feminists out there who are most definitely not in step with the radical anti-male, anti-homemaking elements of the movement, they still need to understand that when they continue to use the word “feminism” to describe their beliefs, they are bringing along the historical and legal baggage that comes with the term. They should not be surprised when perfectly sane, intelligent women choose to reject feminism (even in its noblest forms). Yes, feminists have, indeed, pointed out real ills in the past (drunkenness, abuse, abandonment–particularly at the beginnings of the movement in the 19th century), but that does not mean the feminists of the 1960s or today have the cure for the disease. Asking a radical feminist to help put a stop to divorce laws that trample innocent women and children would be a little like asking an arsonist to help put out a raging house fire. Yes, there might be token “buckets of water” in the form of platitudes like, “We’re not against women choosing to stay at home; we just want to be allowed to choose careers if we want” — but that does nothing to alter the fact that the feminist movement (on the whole — again, we aren’t painting all feminists with the same brush) has harmed women, especially those who would prefer to remain at home as the primary caregivers for their children or even as help mates to their husbands when there are no children.

Today any woman who claims to oppose feminism is quickly stereotyped as narrow-minded, uneducated, and backwards. Feminists do not all wish to be lumped together, yet it seems to be kosher to force all non-career women into a suffocating “Stepford Wife” stereotype. Once again, Carolyn Graglia hits the nail on the head:

“Those who would defend anti-feminist traditionalism today are like heretics fighting a regnant Inquisition. To become a homemaker, a woman may need the courage of a heretic. This is one reason that the defense of traditional women is often grounded in religious teachings, for the heretic’s courage usually rests on faith. The source of courage I offer is the conviction, based upon my own experience, that contemporary feminism’s stereotypical caricature of the housewife did not reflect reality when Frieden popularized it, does not reflect reality today, and need not govern reality. Feminists claimed a woman can find identity and fulfillment only in a career; they are wrong. They claimed a woman can, in that popular expression, ‘have it all’; they are wrong–she can have only some. The experience of being a mother at home is a different experience from being a full-time market producer who is also a mother. A woman can have one or the other experience, but not both at the same time. Combining a career with motherhood requires a woman to compromise by diminishing her commitment and exertions with respect to one role or the other, or usually, to both. Rarely, if ever, can a woman adequately perform in a full-time career if she diminishes her commitment to it sufficiently to replicate the experience of being a mother at home.” (Domestic Tranquility, pp. 369-370)

Christopher Lasch has noted that, if the feminist movement was truly fair to all women and open-minded about the choices they make, it would not seek to marginalize wives and mothers: “A feminist movement that respected the achievements of women in the past would not disparage housework, motherhood or unpaid civic and neighborly services. It would not make a paycheck the only symbol of accomplishment…. It would insist that people need self-respecting honorable callings, not glamorous careers that carry high salaries but take them away from their families” (quoted in Forced Labor, p. 33). Our materialistic society today is so focused upon how much we are “worth” in terms of a paycheck that we have lost sight of what we are worth as human beings. Ironically, this is exactly what many early feminists wanted society to acknowledge: that women are just as important and just as vital to the human race as men. This is no breakthrough epiphany; it is a simple statement of fact: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Both male and female together make up the image of God. Humanity is not complete without one or the other. Both are needed to display the full-orbed beauty of God’s design. “He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created” (Gen. 5:2). It’s that simple. “Mankind” is male and female. You don’t have to be a feminist to affirm this. To then proclaim that man and woman were designed for complementary roles–not competing roles or overlapping roles–is not to say that one role is less important than or inferior to the other. We aren’t talking about “yin and yang” here — opposites locked in an eternal struggle. We are talking about mankind, male and female working in a beautiful union and communion that creates nourishing families, hospitable homes, genuine care for the poor, help for the widow and the orphan, justice for the truly oppressed. We cannot achieve this if we build upon socialistic foundations that insist all human beings must be treated the same no matter what. That kind of “equality” always tramples underfoot those who cannot keep up and ends up supporting the very tyrants who claim to want the best for the rest of us.

Feminism isn’t the answer. It never was. Occasionally it has pointed out real evils. Every now and again it has done noble things. But, on the whole, it is built upon a foundation of radicalism that hurts the very women it claims to want to help. This doesn’t mean every feminist is an evil man-hater. We’ve never painted feminists with that broad brush. But it would behoove those who want to claim the title of “feminist” to look carefully into the history of a movement that has done real damage to women and families in the name of “equality.” It also wouldn’t hurt to consider that the woman who chooses to reject feminism and remain at home is not a mindless doormat who has been robbed of her “core of self.” I’ll close with a quote from Jennifer Roback-Morse:

“Some women assume that child care is mind-numbing, spirit-killing drudgery, and that only work outside the home is fulfilling. These are not necessarily statements that women would come up with spontaneously, in the absence of feminist tutoring….It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that my two children needed me at home more than they needed anything my income would buy for them. It took even longer for me to realize that placing my intellect at the service of my family was a greater challenge than my ordinary life as a university professor. I had accepted far more feminist premises than I had realized.” (“Why the Market Can’t Raise Our Children for Us,” The American Enterprise, May/June 1998)

11-05-2006 01:41 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

“You Don’t Know Feminism”


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – “You Don’t Know Feminism”

“You Don’t Know Feminism”
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Mrs. Chancey
Jan 23, 2004, 15:27

As a woman, I do not understand how you can form a website based on such a disgraceful idea. Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion lacks intelligence and is solely based on ignorance. Feminism is not about shunning the idea of being a housewife, etc. In fact it has nothing to do with that. It is simply a choice. For whoever wrote the article I was reading, how can you say that feminists basically look down on women who are housewives? I have never in my research, schooling, etc. heard such a ridiculous comment and criticism of feminism. I suggest that your website educate itself more on what feminism is all about before you contain ignorant articles on your website.

The quote above comes from one of many “Scorching Rhetoric” notes we’ve received here at LAF. One complaint we often hear is that we know nothing about feminism and that what we claim feminism stands for (or has stood for in the past) is not true. As will be obvious to anyone who takes the time to carefully read this site (particularly our Theme Articles), we do not seek to lump all those who call themselves feminists into the same category. Even feminists disagree about what feminism means (see “What Is Feminism?”. You can no more stereotype feminists than you can stereotype all women. Just as there is no consensus within the Church about what constitutes a homemaker (sadly enough), there is no consensus within the feminist movement about what constitutes a true feminist. This can make it extremely difficult to nail down just what feminism is about and where the movement desires to take women and society in the future. But we can learn about the various objectives it has promoted and claimed as its own down through the decades.

Those who read widely and who have studied the feminist movement from its earliest roots to the present know that some of the most prominent women (and men) involved in the movement have been rabidly anti-homemaker. In fact, the more radical feminists of the 19th and 20th centuries wholeheartedly embraced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which called for women to be pushed out of the home and into factories, since the labor of men and women must be made “equal” while capitalism and private property were abolished. Engels wrote, “The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children” (The Origin of the Family, 1884). This view of the woman at home as some poor slave “reduced to servitude” and “a mere instrument for the production of children” is echoed over and over again in the writings of feminists who are now enshrined as patron saints of the women’s movement. Let’s allow them to speak for themselves:

“[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.” ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

“Housewives [are] an endless array of ‘horse-leech’s’ daughters, crying Give! Give! — [a] parasite mate devouring even when she should most feed [and who has] the aspirations of an affectionate guinea pig.” ~ Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relations Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution, 1898.

“A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife’s] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

“[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.” ~ Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.

“[The husband’s work] provides for greater challenges and opportunities for growth than are available to his wife, [whose] horizons are inevitably limited by her relegation to domestic duties. [This] programs her for mediocrity and dulls her brain…. [Motherhood] can only be a temporary detour.” ~ Nena O’Neill and George O’Neill, Open Marriage: A New Lifestyle for Couples, 1972.

“Women owe Frieden an incalculable debt for The Feminine Mystique…. Domesticity was not a satisfactory story of an intelligent woman’s life.” ~ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, 1996.

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” ~ Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981.

“[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.” ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.

“[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

“Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women’s movement…. [I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…. If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.

All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the “family wage,” the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of “no-fault” divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard (quoted above), remarked that the “very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women” (The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so. Carolyn Graglia explains this in her book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (Spence Publishing, 1998):

“A primary factor contributing to the feminization of poverty has been the change to a system of no-fault divorce under which divorce is easily obtained, even when opposed by one of the parties, and men are often able to terminate marriages without providing adequate alimony or child support. The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and, often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women. The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interests of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the Project was concerned” (p. 295).

So, in the name of “all women,” the feminist movement cavalierly did away with the very rights that guaranteed the wife peace of mind in her choice to remain at home and bring up her own children. Mary Ann Glendon, writing in Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987) states, “Divorce law in practice seems to be saying to parents, especially to mothers, that it is not safe to devote oneself primarily or exclusively to raising children.” We don’t need to recite long lists of statistics here, I trust, though they are readily available from the Census Bureau and other government entities, but in the past thirty years, divorce and abandonment have skyrocketed, leaving women the victims of poverty in far greater numbers than men. Instead of admitting culpability, feminists have moved on to push for taxpayer-funded daycare and greater welfare benefits for those mothers left in the lurch. Again, Carolyn Graglia:

“[F]eminists nevertheless often try to disclaim responsibility for no-fault’s results. Liberationists of the 1970s blathered mindlessly about the oppressiveness of the family, exhorting women to break the chains of their confinement, to cease being parasites in their suburban havens, to cease holding husbands in marriages the men no longer wanted, and to set out on the road to true fulfillment and equality by finding some rewarding career. Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country and with the divorce revolution accomplished, feminists seek to absolve themselves of blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them. No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of the home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single parents by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating” (Domestic Tranquility, p. 296).

Now we live in a culture where the term “trophy wife” isn’t just a joke and where men can abandon their wives and children as easily as they shuck off their dress shoes at the end of the day. Instead of deploring this development, women have been urged to become just as promiscuous and irresponsible as the men. Somehow, if we all descend to the lowest common denominator, we’ll find happiness in the mess we’ve created. “There isn’t a venerable history of women celebrating promiscuity;” writes columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green. “[I]f anything, women’s wisdom over the ages taught that emotional security was the precondition for sex being fun, and a wedding ring was the best aphrodisiac. But again, what did stupid old housewives know? Men called them prudish, so that’s what they were. Thirty years later women are still going morosely out into the night in dutiful pursuit of fun. And if it’s not fun, she presumes, it must be because something is wrong with her.” So now those of us who reject the doctrines of the sexual revolution (which had their roots in the “free love” movement of Marxism in the 1840s and in Margaret Sanger’s writings in the early 20th century) are expected to just go along with the “brave new world” the radical feminists created in the name of all women. We are not supposed to protest when tax laws are changed to favor double-income households that use state-funded daycare or when laws protecting widows and orphans are obliterated in the name of “gender equality” and “fairness.”

Brian Robertson, in his book Forced Labor: What’s Wrong with Balancing Work and Family (Spence Publishing, 2002), notes, “Here it is that the fallacy of ‘neutrality’ in the tax system and providing women with a ‘free choice about taking jobs’ is laid bare. If government decides that it will no longer [through tax deductions] defray the cost entailed for families raising children, this does not so much allow mothers more freedom of choice in the matter of work as it compels them to seek paid employment outside the home to supplement insufficient family income” (p. 128). The feminists cannot have it both ways. They cannot with one hand sweep away the very protections that have guarded wives, mothers, widows, and orphans for centuries while at the same time insisting verbally that they are not against women making the choice to stay at home instead of getting into the career track. The “choice” to remain at home has now become a financially painful one for many families. But women hurt by the “advances” of feminism are told to sit down and shut their mouths, because, without feminism, we’d (supposedly) go back to some kind of Dark Age where husbands chain women to the house and treat their wives like parasitic slaves and sexual objects.

While feminists can claim women were “objectified” and “used” prior to the women’s movement, we have only to look at the rampant pornography and astronomical rise in rape and abuse over the past forty years to see that something doesn’t ring true here. Take a walk down the “Women’s Studies” aisle at any bookstore today, and the contradictions will leap out at you in bold print. Titles like Whores and Other Feminists (which praises porn stars for their “liberation” share shelf space with The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. The feminist movement of today is splintered and schizophrenic. It includes conservative pro-lifers and lesbian goddess worshipers. This is precisely why we at LAF have been careful to define exactly what it is about feminism that we oppose (again, see “What Is Feminism?”. It must also be pointed out that not everything that is slapped with the “feminism” label belongs exclusively to the feminists. This leads us to yet another complaint we regularly receive from visitors. Here is one example:

“If you say that you are not a feminist than [sic] by saying that you mean that you dissagree [sic] with the three things mentions [sic] previously [education for women, financial equality, and laws against wife abuse]. And if you dissagree [sic] with those, than [sic] god help you. Are you saying that you would love to work in the same job as a man and gladly receive a lower salery [sic]? Are you saying that it is socially acceptable to rape, beat, sexually abuse women, or any person? Are you saying that not all humans should have equal rights?”

This is an unfortunate case of illogical argumentation run amok. The logical fallacy goes like this: “If Jane Doe is a feminist, then she is against wife abuse. Jane Doe is not a feminist, therefore she is not against wife abuse.” In classical terms, this is called “denying the antecedent.” We should be able to see at first glance that this line of argumentation will not hold water. We could just as foolishly argue, “If Jane Doe is a Christian, then she will give to the poor. Jane Doe is not a Christian, therefore she does not give to the poor.” There are many fine people all over the world who give generously to the poor but who do not call themselves Christians. In the same vein, there are many of us out here who are most definitely against wife abuse, the sexual exploitation of women, and child abandonment (to name just a few causes) who are not feminists. Some folks who write us claim, “You are feminists and just won’t admit it.” But this is also illogical and doesn’t bear under the scrutiny of history and common sense. Feminism has tried to plant territorial flags on “discoveries” it did not make. Being opposed to spouse abuse did not start with the feminists. Being in favor of fair inheritance and property ownership laws for women did not start with the feminists. Being opposed to rape and incest did not start with the feminists. As we’ve pointed out in our FAQs, the Bible was already there (see “Myths of Feminism Exploded”.

11-05-2006 01:41 PM

Re: “You Don’t Know Feminism”
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Ohhh yeah this one was good.

That “You don’t know feminism” argument is about as common as their frequent citing of anecdotal evidence to challenge statistics.

It’s great to see someone debunking this in detail, Ladies Against Feminism no less.

I’m going to be further disseminating this one

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-05-2006 07:58 PM

Re: “You Don’t Know Feminism”
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Once again, nice work my man!!!

I’ll have to mine a few of those quotes for my own, and start using them!!!

I love how feminist cried wolf over female housewives in the home not getting paid. That women should go find fulfillment in a career and compete with men in the workforce. Yet upon divorce, who is the first one in their ex husbands pockets? Demanding he shower her with the same standard of living that she experienced while living under his command! This idea that the 50’s woman was a sponge living off her husbands hard work! Now they do the same thing through child support and alimony! Look ladies I agree that a few months of support wouldn’t kill a man for awhile. Women get alimony until they die!!! That is a travesty! Now if women were not taking our jobs, perhaps I could understand that. AS the divorce rate would be 10% like it was before the Progressives started increasing in number with their immorality.

Through child support and alimony women are still sponges living off of men!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 02:25 AM

Re: “You Don’t Know Feminism”
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

Articles like this lay out in fine detail the exact reasons why I disagree with ‘feminism’. Obviously, these women either did not care to run this past the women they were “protecting”, or they simply lied to them and told them it was “for the best”. Wow.

Must go look up LAF.

01-11-2007 03:37 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Single Sex Doesn’t Mean Segregation


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Single Sex Doesn’t Mean Segregation

Single Sex Doesn’t Mean Segregation
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
by Carrie L. Lukas
Posted Nov 03, 2006

Few words invoke more anger than “segregation.” Segregation recalls the abhorrent practice of separating the races, particularly in our public school system. Segregation’s premise was that the races were different, specifically, that blacks were inferior and deserved fewer resources.

Blacks had no choice but to attend schools that provided less opportunity to learn than the schools serving their white peers. Americans overwhelmingly recoil at the concept of segregation today and are ashamed of this dark chapter in our history.

Is giving parents the option of choosing a single-sex classroom for their child akin to segregation? Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, thinks so. In reaction to the Bush Administration’s release of rules that make it easier for public school systems to offer parents single-sex options, Gandy said, “‘Separate but equal’ has never really been equal for girls, and that has been true of recent experiments with single-sex schools. Segregation was wrong in the past, and it’s wrong now.”

Yet most Americans recognize that offering single-sex classrooms is nothing like forced segregation: there are legitimate reasons why some parents may feel that their sons or daughters will learn better in a single-sex environment. The presence of the other sex can be distracting for students. Some parents may find their daughters more concerned with their looks than with their school work or their sons attempting to impress their female peers, not through academic achievement, but by acting up. These parents may decide that their children will do better and learn more in a single-sex classroom.

The real question is, who is in the best position to know what’s best for any individual child? The Department of Education’s decision is based on a belief that parents should be trusted to decide if a single-sex classroom is right for their child. The new regulations specify that no child can be required to attend a single-sex public school; parents must voluntarily choose this option.

Single-sex classrooms have always been an option for parents who can afford to pay private school tuition. Private schools often cater exclusively to one sex or offer “brother” and “sister” schools that intermingle the sexes for some activities, but not others. Some of the most prestigious private schools in the nation—St. Albans School and the National Cathedral School in Washington DC; Collegiate School and The Chapin School in New York City—enroll only one sex. Our nation boasts (and feminists tend to celebrate) prestigious women’s colleges, such as Mt. Holyoke, Wellesley, and Smith. If Kim Gandy truly believes that single-sex education is an unmitigated evil, why doesn’t she push for these schools to change their enrollment policies?

Parental choice—not single-sex education—is what the National Organization for Women really opposes. NOW has fought numerous measures, from single-sex public options to school vouchers and education tax credits that give parents greater ability to decide how their children are educated.

NOW is on the wrong side of history. Increasingly, policymakers and parents recognize that all parents deserve to have control over where their children go to school. Wealthy parents have always enjoyed this freedom: they can choose private school or purchase expensive homes in exclusive areas with the best public schools. Lower income parents don’t have such luxuries. For decades, the disadvantaged have had no option but to send their children to their (often failing) neighborhood public school. But increasingly states and localities are creating new options to give all parents the opportunity to choose the best learning environment for their children.

Allowing voluntary single-sex instruction in American public schools is another important step forward for greater parental choice in education. Families who believe their child would learn best in a single-sex classroom may now have that chance. The National Organization of Women’s attempt to tarnish this new option as modern segregation is simply wrong.

Ms. Lukas is the director of policy at the Independent Women’s Forum. She is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism” (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

11-05-2006 12:52 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Leykis Gets Murder Confession


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Leykis Gets Murder Confession

Leykis Gets Murder Confession
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
November 04, 2006
by Marc Rudov

Unless you haven’t heard by now, a girl named Sue called into The Tom Leykis Show last night from Ahwatukee, Arizona, to confess and BRAG about murdering the father of her child.

As I wrote in my article, “Why Women Hate Tom Leykis,” Sue began her bizarre tale by reminding all men that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. It turns out that, after a one-night stand, she got preggers and had a **bleep** child at the age of 19. Why not — doesn’t Hollywood teach that this is the cool thing to do?

Sue, a nurse, and the baby’s father both worked at the same hospital. The father refused to pay child support, so she had family court garnish his hospital wages. He didn’t like that, so he quit his job. Sue approached him privately for “under the table” money. He refused to pay her that, too. What else could she do but take his 9mm pistol and shoot him in the heart (she bragged about knowing exactly where in the heart to shoot because of her nursing background).

When the police arrived, Sue gave them the standard VAWA-speak: “He was beating and threatening me. He was drunk. He shot himself.” Of course, the police AUTOMATICALLY believed her. Why? She’s a woman. (Read “Will She Call 911 on You?”) That’s right: No hearing; no trial. VAWA rules! Had the situation been reversed, and the police arrived to see a living man and dead woman, do you think the investigating officer would have believed a male’s version of this story? Don’t bust a gut laughing.

Sue, the hubristic, moronic man-hater, decided to confess, on international radio, to killing a man. She didn’t realize that, when calling an 800 number, her caller ID is revealed — even if unlisted. When Leykis, incredulous as we all were, reminded her about the consequences of her public confession, Sue waxed indifference, feeling untouchable, saying that the body had been cremated and that she was using her friend’s phone.

Tom Leykis, who was doing his show as a live listener event in “Porkland,” Oregon (his nickname for the city of fat women), immediately had his sidekicks contact the Phoenix media and the Ahwatukee police. Then, the throng of Leykis men began chanting, “Fry that **bleep**. Fry that **bleep**.” This is an adaptation of Tom’s oft-repeated chant, “Dump that **bleep**,” which he uses when admonishing men for hanging onto incompatible, abusive women.

Shortly after the confession, one female caller expressed happiness that a man died over child support. Wow! Another was scared for her 14-year-old athlete son, who could become prey for cheerleaders. Said she: “Women are mean. I know; I am one! Tell all your guys to be careful.” Then, Tom announced on the air that he would pay $5K in cash to anyone who helps lead to Sue’s capture and conviction. It was the most-amazing segment of radio I had ever heard.

I urge you to be careful with women. Because they have most of the civil rights, thanks to VAWA, they can be dangerous. While “pumping and dumping” them may seem appealing and expeditious, it can backfire. Police will always presume men guilty and women innocent. Sue’s story, once again, proves it. It also proves, as I wrote in “Playing Abortion Chess,” that women care more about child support than abortion — even to the point of killing for it.

11-04-2006 06:56 PM

Re: Leykis Gets Murder Confession
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
How much longer are we going to allow this type of BS!!! Half of women are unmarriable contentious bitches! Who are angry with men!!

Talk about population control!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 11:10 PM

Re: Leykis Gets Murder Confession
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
This article is great.

Anti-Feminists are now solving murders?

Tom Leykis should be up for some sort of reward for his law enforcement efforts methinks.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-05-2006 10:39 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

A Dating Study that involves, among many other things, professional career women


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A Dating Study that involves, among many other things, professional career women

A Dating Study that involves, among many other things, professional career women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

http://www.find-a-sweetheart.com/blog/item/internet_dating_as_studied_by_mit/

We really know that Internet dating has made it solidly when
academics start studying it. What could be more impressive that
MIT’s Sloan School of Management? Gunter J. Hitsch, Ali
Hortacsu, and Dan Ariely have written “What Makes You Click? —
Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating,” a
working paper on their study.

The authors used data supplied by an Internet dating company for
22,000 users in the Boston and San Diego area. While they did
not have access to the actual identities of the users, the
researchers did have just about everything else: Profiles,
photos, and preference data, as well as records of who browsed
who, when and if contact was made and reciprocated or not, and if
a meeting was requested or planned. Yikes.

Here are some of the conclusions they reached from their well-
massaged data:
Education and occupations: Women seem to prefer men with similar
educational backgrounds. They also preferred lawyers, fire
fighters, military, and health related professions. Women’s
occupations and education had little influence on first email
results. In fact, most women’s professions did not do as well as
students.
Income: Income strongly effects the dating success of men, while
only having a slight effect for women. In general, the higher a
man’s income, the more first emails he got.

….

11-04-2006 05:29 PM

Re: A Dating Study that involves, among many other things, professional career women
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Kind of tangentally related is the fact that Consumer Reports did a review od dating websites this month. Also, I saw on CNN a few months back where a guy was suing one of these sites for fraud because they were setting up fake dates. He went out with a woman and discovered somehow that she just dated guys so they would think someone was interested and they would keep their profiles active(I think she got paid to date guys whose profile was about to expire).

I really appreciate the Jewish (and other cultures) custom of matching making for your loved ones with someone you think will work for them when I read about this stuff. It is a really wierd world we live in now.

11-06-2006 10:52 AM

Re: A Dating Study that involves, among many other things, professional career women
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

i came across that same lawsuit article awhile back.  in the online world, it seems as though match making is done by wiley coyote but hey, if it works..  then may the couple blast off on an acme rocket.

Message Edited by Halladay on 11-06-200608:50 PM

11-06-2006 08:48 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Don’t Always Believe the Victim


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Don’t Always Believe the Victim

Don’t Always Believe the Victim
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
on Wednesday 01 November 2006
by Wendy McElroy

Two recent news stories differ in significant details but share a common message: false accusations of sexual abuse kill innocent people and devastate lives. The stories reveal the terrible human cost imposed by the often heard demand, ‘always believe the victim’. In these cases, the accuser should have been asked for more evidence.

Item One: A sailor kidnapped and killed a Marine corporal because a woman in whom he was romantically interested implicated the Marine in a gang rape that never happened.

Item Two: After learning from his wife that their 2-year-old daughter had been molested by a neighbor, a father stabbed the accused man to death. Police later determined no sexual assault had occurred.

Both men have been arrested for murder. The sailor has pleaded ‘guilty’; the father, whom police found covered by the dead man’s blood with the murder weapon nearby, has pleaded ‘not guilty’.

The stories differ in significant ways. For example, the sailor’s girlfriend admits to inventing the rape. Despite questions about whether a 2-year-old could coherently make the accusation, the girl’s mother insists that her daughter said the neighbor “put it” on her belly and her nose…”He comes to me in the starry nights.”

In short, the first woman lied; the second may have been mistaken. Lies and mistakes are common causes of false accusations. But even if the causal factor differs, both stories highlight the need for accusations to be weighed and investigated by an unbiased third party before they are acted upon.

The stories share other common elements. Two innocent men are dead. The lives of two others are destroyed. No charges have been brought against the women although police are examining the possibility that the mother knowingly filed a false police report.

Those who committed the murders properly bear the brunt of legal and moral responsibility. But anyone who spreads a false or mistaken accusation must assume some responsibility for its fall-out, if only on a moral level. And society should realize that the death of two innocent men is the logical and predictable consequence of the demand to always believe the ‘victim.’

It is natural for a man to believe his girlfriend and vice versa; it is natural for parents to believe a child. But acting to punish another person solely on the basis of belief literally kills innocent people.

For ten years, I have argued that both the law and society have embraced a fundamentally wrong approach to accusations of sexual abuse. The approach reverses the presumption of innocence and assumes that an accused is guilty until proven innocent. It also includes giving false accusers a ‘free pass’; that is, until recently, it was rare for those who filed false reports to be punished by law.

The issue of false accusations is often debated in terms of statistics and studies with ad hominem attacks punctuating the exchange.

When a sympathetic face emerges, it is usually that of the ‘victim’ or of a hypothetical future victim who ‘will be discouraged from speaking out’ if society demands evidence before rendering belief. Only now, in debacles like the Duke rape case, have people started to look instead into the faces of those being destroyed by accusations.

No one wants real victims to suffer one moment longer or to repeat their stories one time more than justice requires. But real victims are not threatened by a demand for evidence. And, as difficult as it may be for lovers and parents who believe accusations, they must realize that acting on a mistaken belief has life-and-death consequences.

Two responses I commonly receive when asking for evidence before believing an accusation of sexual assault are: “you are only concerned with men’s rights” – men being the presumed perpetrators; and, “you don’t care if victims are discouraged from speaking out.” (As a woman who has been raped, the latter has a bitter irony.)

The first charge is easily dispelled. Consider the two preceding stories. The name of the Marine who was murdered was Justin L. Huff, age 23. He was the husband of Rebecca Huff and the father of five-month-old Justin, who carries the name of a dad he will never see. The last text message on murdered Huff’s cell phone came from Rebecca: “I love you and I miss you very much.”

The name of the neighbor who was stabbed to death in his own bed was Barry James. James’ 87-year-old blind mother, for whom he cared, found the blood-soaked body of her son.

Those who demand automatic acceptance of accusations may harden their hearts against a murdered father and loving son. But they are also turning away from Rebecca Huff and James’ mother. Are they not women?

The second charge is that punishing faux victims will discourage real ones from speaking. That’s an odd loop of logic. It is equivalent to saying that exposing lies discourages the truth or stamping out fraud reduces honesty.

The opposite is true. Women (and men) are brutally victimized every day. If victims get a reputation as being liars or careless about evidence, then instead of receiving automatic belief, they will be automatically dismissed.

Both responses are wrong. Accusations are deadly serious and they destroy lives. There is a necessary line between ‘believing a victim’ and acting against the perpetrator. Those who argue for believing accusations without hard evidence are helping to erase that line. In doing so, they do not defend victims. They create them.

11-04-2006 01:34 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Manly no more


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Manly no more

Manly no more
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Ilana Mercer
? 2006

I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats ? one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation ? legal and cultural ? have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

(Column continues below)

“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines ? they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty of plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads.”

The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as “The Dangerous Book for Boys” proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again ? the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun ? or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more likely to divorce (and get custody), never marry or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with “Kiddie Cocaine.” Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia and death. Writing for the PBS’s “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite 60 years of stimulant use with children ? some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon have replaced deep-voiced, macho men. Tom Brokaw, for example. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking …

11-04-2006 01:30 PM

Re: Manly no more
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Hmmm. Just wondering how a health-conscious man or a man who takes his kids to the grocery store (hey, at least it means the woman didn’t steal custody, right?) have somehow lost masculinity. And didn’t the Marlboro Man die of lung cancer? Is emphysema healthy, manly, or sexy? Not so much.

Women do need to be concerned about their health, too. That’s one reason I work out – because starting at 25 (my age, eek) women start losing muscle and bone density if they don’t keep everything working.

I also don’t see a thing wrong with boys playing like boys. I had a cap gun as a kid and I played with the boys. I had Barbies and a fisher-price kitchen I played with more, though. And my little ponies. Loved those. I’d certainly love for my sons – if I have them – to be interested in nature and astronomy and knot-tying and educational things that can be fun. And they definitely need male mentors. Definitely.

And ritalin….ugh. While some kids do need it, normal children are difficult, and “difficult” does not mean that they need to be drugged. It means that parents need to work harder and give them an outlet for all that energy.

11-04-2006 09:23 PM

Re: Manly no more
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Women do need to be concerned about their health, too. That’s one reason I work out – because starting at 25 (my age, eek) women start losing muscle and bone density if they don’t keep everything working.”

that’s one reason i went to the gym and worked out most days last year.. so i could look at women and show them my concern for their health

11-05-2006 01:29 AM

Re: Manly no more
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
When ive been to America I did not see exactly feminin figures, neithier on a man nor a woman. Here is a hint, I know refill is great, buy you do not really need a gallon of coke to eat your large meal.

11-14-2006 10:35 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting

Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Tony Aiello
Reporting

(CBS) WAPPINGERS FALLS, N.Y. You can lift, strain, crunch and sweat all you want at the Planet Fitness in the Dutchess County village. But whatever you do, do not grunt.

Yep, “no grunting.” It says so, in black and white, on a sign posted at the gym. One former member learned the new rule the hard way.

“This is really absurd, especially the part about the grunting,” said Al Argibay, a corrections officer who learned first-hand “no grunting” means exactly that.

Argibay, a former competitive bodybuilder, joined the gym in September because it was affordable and convenient.

Planet Fitness is also somewhat picky, with a long list of dos-and-don’ts posted right inside the door.

“No grunting or screaming” is listed, along with “no bandanas or do-rags.”

“We’re creating an atmosphere that’s not intimidating,” said Carol Palazzolo, the gym manager, who yanked Argibay’s membership on Monday.

Argibay said he was at a multi-press station, getting ready to squat about 500 pounds when the forbidden sin happened. “I let out a grunt, squatted down, back up, grunt again. That’s it,” explained Argibay. “Basically, grunt, grunt, basic breathing in heavy, and breathing out.”

Grunting is commonplace at most gyms, but not Planet Fitness, which discourages so-called “musclehead behavior.”

There’s even a flashing light and siren on the wall, labeled a “lunk alarm,” which sounds if someone grunts or drops weights on the floor.

Is it ok to grunt while working out?

Palazzolo admits she called the cops on Argibay. The Wappingers Falls police report said officers were asked to “escort a member out of the club for grunting while working out…which is not conforming with the rules of the establishment.”

But Palazzolo said that’s only part of the story.

“He did grunt, and when I told him he wasn’t allowed to grunt, he got irate at me, he swore, and he yelled at me,” Palazzolo said. “I asked him not to [grunt), he got irate and nasty, and I can’t have him in my facility if he’s gonna do those kind of things.”

Argibay denied he yelled, cursed, or acted inappropriately. He demanded an apology from the gym and its manager.

“It’s an attack on my character, and it’s very embarrasing, and an insult,” Argibay said. “At the end of the day, after serving your community as a corrections officer, the last thing I want is to be escorted out of the gym by the local authorities.”

Palazzolo is standing her ground.

“I’m not out to hurt anybody,” she said. “If he feels I hurt his feelings, I apologize for that, but I do not apologize for the way I handled the situation and I am not apologizing for our etiquette at Planet Fitness.”

It’s not personal, she said, it’s policy. Grunters should go elsewhere.

11-04-2006 01:28 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

it is a private establishment and they can do what they want.  It is the same as “no shirt, no shoes, no service” in restaurants.  They can have their own rules and enforce them.  So what?    Quit snapping towels and manage the other CPA’s in Colorado.

11-04-2006 03:04 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
But still MNS, you can obviously tell that women were offended, and nobody else.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 04:11 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Who cares?  Nobody.  It is a private establishment and the owners set the rules.  This is part of good private enterprise.  If it doesn’t work, it financially fails, end of story.  If this is best you have to complain about you need a life and to get some s*x.  The sooner the better.

11-05-2006 02:22 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Last week it was revealed that Male Testosterone levels have declined 1% a year 15% in the last 20 years. What makes Men Manly is in decline. And what I assert and have watched in the last 4 decades is an assult on Straight Men, and Heterosexual Masculinity. We are estimated to be drugging up to 20% of our Minor Males. And Ritalin is like Cocaine for children. It has prolonged and dangerous sometimes permanent changes to brain chemistry.

Norway is removing stand up urinals from the Schools. And forcing their minor males to Urinate sitting down. This is just another attempt to emasculate Western Males. Virtually all Gyms are now Coed. There are virtually no Males only Gyms around anymore. Yet there are Women only Gyms. MNS what planet have you been living on? Are you not aware of these realities? Two years ago I took a refresher course in Financial Accounting. At a local community college. In the Men’s Restrooms in the urinals signs were placed. They read “The solution to rape is in your hands”. Sorry I thought it was my Brain where Sex originated from. My Bad. Yet this is the attitude of our Feminized culture.

11-07-2006 03:36 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

So what?  Jesus, are you that addled?

11-08-2006 09:23 AM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Is there a real question there Asshat? Since your return to this Board you have done nothing but insult people? Is there a valid point you are attempting to make? Your comments and ad hominem attacks indicate you are seeking attention but adding nothing to the dialog. Where’s the Beef?

11-10-2006 08:52 AM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Reading bile spewed from the pieholes of desperate little men with no lives like you makes me happy to be me and to have something going on.   Whenever I hear religion being trotted out or hear about some complete white trash fool such as you running around in a batman outfit protesting family law conditions I laugh because you were dumb enough to get yourself into trouble and then act like Don Quixote cutting and pasting useless sh*t everywhere you can.  Quite frankly you are the *sshat and you keep drinking the Koolaid, wingnut.

11-10-2006 10:34 AM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Have not had a chance to read this site today as I have had business meetings. I have an Executive Position within the Financial Services Industry, and have several people who report to me. I have never been a member of F4J and have never worn a Batman Suit, nor been to a protest.

Quite frankly I am too busy with my business commitments to engage in such activities. And my question remains. What is your valid, coherent, rational arguement. So far there is nothing but insults being hurled my way. Obviously the content has you bothered. Too Bad. I will continue to post here, just to agravate you. The fact is that the Web offers an open forum and your side no longer controls the flow of information. Deal with it.

11-10-2006 05:37 PM

Re: Man Escorted From Planet Fitness Gym For Grunting
Lirisokatoh
Contributor
Lirisokatoh

I read this. It was just plain WIERD. It’s a **bleep** gym. People grunt in gyms.

01-11-2007 03:59 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

On Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – On Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians

On Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
November 04, 2006
Vox Populi

By David R. Usher

The firing of WRKO-AM announcer John DePetro, for calling Massachusetts gubernatorial contender Grace Ross a “fat lesbian”, is a grossly inappropriate response by the station. However, I do agree that DePetro’s point could have been more intelligently stated, and his apology to Mr. Ross should have been sufficient.

DePetro’s comment was not inaccurate (although what critical mass has to do with one’s politics is certainly up for discussion).

The personal has been the political for years (if one happens to be a man). Male candidates are called every name in the book by the media, and for every scurrilous reason. Everything they ever breathed is called out for microscopic inspection or ridicule.

Feminist Carol Hanisch invented the idea that the “personal is the political” in 1970. It was quickly adopted by feminists and perfected into today’s accusatory terrorism of male politicians – most often founded on imagery more than reality. It is only fair that feminists now be held to a similar standard of review – so long as it is accurate.

If we fired every writer and radio announcer who ever made a Coulteresque remark about a politician, the airwaves would have nothing left to play except commercials. (This might well be better than suffering through groveling cootchie-snorter interviews the WRKO management expects).

Those brave enough to cruise Grace Ross’s web site will find a treasure trove of laughable idiocy. Its a Green-Rainbow party (Whoopie!) ticket featuring an inseparable pair of lesbian-activists propelled by iron-age feminist-socialist ideology.

The dynamic duette is “running” on abolishment of poverty and free health care (for single mothers and lesbians at the expense of working men). They promise to “take back the night” (from gangs of mass rapists pillaging the state of Massachusetts, which for political purposes has been temporarily relocated to Sudan). They promise to “respect” illegal immigrants. Their pitch closes with the classic feminist-hippie slogan — “peace and love”. Is this a joke, or is it Memorex?

I cannot imagine any non-lobotomized host being able to conduct a serious interview with Ross. It would take an interviewer carved from solid granite not to die of laughter (which is more permanent than getting fired, but at least you don’t feel the pain).

DePetro is to be commended for not laying down before lesbians who expect to be treated as virgin queens while dicing out every stripe of political insanity and perversion.

Lesbians, at the helm of government, would be a very serious threat to America (even more dangerous than John Kerry). Politicized lesbianism has no use for men in home, family, and society. A reign of pink multiculturalism in Massachusetts (or anywhere else) would be devastating.

There is nothing wrong with ridiculing lesbian politicians, who upon entering the political forum, will find that the personal is, indeed, inseparable from their politics.

Mr. DePetro has a bright career before him. He should have no difficulty finding a radio station looking for the ad revenues that always follow a host capable of telling it like it is. Ask Air America. They know.

11-04-2006 09:58 AM

Re: On Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Lesbians in office are the enemy of the Common White Man. No wonder Terroists want democrats in office! These women are weak, and the enemy of the terroists enemy!!!

Weak democrats will open the borders and destroy our country!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 04:21 PM

Re: On Radio Announcers and Fat Lesbians
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
here is the link to their Web site. The delusional nonsense the Fat Lesbians are promoting.

http://www.graceandmartina.org/

* Abolish poverty: Create universal health care & real affordable housing
* Decrease global warming, Increase environmental justice
* No one is expendable: End racial discrimination
* Support labor struggles, living wages & guaranteed income for all
* Take back the night, Rekindle the fight for women’s rights
* Equal rights for all residents, including marriage equality
* Bring Massachusetts troops home, Stop contributing to perpetual war
* Stop taxing poverty, stop corporate welfare, make taxes progressive
* Our vote is our voice. Voting rights for all people not monied interests
* Free education centered on each one’s greatest potential
Grace Ross has been a life-long activist working with diverse, low-income leaders to abolish poverty and on progressive causes from nonviolence, the environment, and international solidarity to anti-racist struggles, women’s rights, union organizing and gay/lesbian civil rights. She grew up in New York, came to Harvard for college and graduate work and found her home in the streets and primarily low-income communities’ struggle for survival and justice. She is a white lesbian living in Worcester.

“In this time when so many of us have been made to feel despair and disempowered, our campaign is a call of renewal in the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot wait for leaders elected through our present corporate-driven system to fight for these ideals. We will fight for our dreams as we call on the people of this Commonwealth to fight for theirs. We must show our faith in ourselves and begin the process of building the road to a new beloved Commonwealth.”

11-04-2006 06:49 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminist Nut Jobs…


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminist Nut Jobs…

Feminist Nut Jobs…
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Do women feminists notice that between 30-40 percenten of gays commit domestic violence with their partners?

Domestic violence against gays:

http://www.rainbowdomesticviolence.itgo.com/

I think these women only watch the news when female news producers show the violent crimes men do, 85% of which are products of single mother households.

Women are just as violent!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C226937%2C00.html

Here is a list of female rapists!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52044

Baby killing Lesbian females have the biggest mouths!!!

Message Edited by PatriarchVerlch on 11-04-200604:00 AM

Message Edited by PatriarchVerlch on 11-04-200604:04 AM

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 03:48 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Men are smarter than women


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Men are smarter than women

Men are smarter than women
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Ben Clerkin and Fiona Macrae
September 18, 2006 12:00

IT’S a debate that has raged for centuries but controversial research on intelligence is guaranteed to delight men – and infuriate the women in their lives.

A recent study claims men really are cleverer than women.

The research – carried out by a man – concludes men’s IQs are almost four points higher than women’s.

British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who was once criticised for suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace. He claims the “glass ceiling” phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after analysing university aptitude tests of 100,000 students aged 17 and 18.

A focus on factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity – some of the key ingredients of intelligence – revealed the male teenagers had IQs 3.63 points higher on average.

“These are unpopular conclusions . . . (but) we have the right to find the truth,” Professor Rushton said.

The findings overturn a 100-year consensus that men and women average the same in general mental ability. They also conflict with evidence girls do better in school exams than boys.

But Professor Rushton argues the quick maturing of girls leads them to beat boys in the classroom.

And since almost all previous data showing an absence of difference between the sexes was gathered on schoolchildren, the gender difference could easily have been missed.

Although experts have accepted men and women differ mentally, it was assumed the differences averaged out. Professor Rushton believes the differences link to brain size, with studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women.

It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking more intelligent men to pass on the best genes to their children.

Other scientists are unmoved. Anthropologist Simon Underdown, of Oxford Brookes University, said: “Statistics can prove almost anything.”

And Dr Gill Samuels, Greenfield Report on women in science co-author, said: “Success depends on a number of factors, IQ is just one of them.”

However Professor Rushton’s work, published in the journal Intelligence, appears to confirm other research showing men have bigger brains and higher IQs than women.

An study of more than 20,000 reasoning tests from university students around the world revealed women’s IQs are up to five points lower than men’s.

But women needn’t feel despondent, with scientists saying they can achieve just as much as men – as long as they work harder.

11-03-2006 06:09 PM

Re: Men are smarter than women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
The standard deviation for IQ is 15 points. 3.63 points is trivial.

11-03-2006 06:41 PM

Re: Men are smarter than women
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

hahah moron as usual.

Th standard deviation in IQ tests is “around” 15. Know what that means? They measure IQ in around 15 point groups because that’s as specific as “standard” IQ tests get.

Now do you understand what an average is?

IQ is measured in INTEGERS, therefore the standard deviation is 1, or we’d divide everyone’s IQ by 15 and go with that.

Women like you are pathetic fatbat.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 11-04-200612:28 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-04-2006 12:27 AM

Re: Men are smarter than women
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
That explains why civilization has come from the minds of men. We would still be living in highly organized glass huts if men were not motivated to build bridges, roads, wires, all over the kingdoms. Men are men for a reason.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 02:34 AM

Re: Men are smarter than women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Happy_Bullet wrote:
hahah moron as usual.
Th standard deviation in IQ tests is “around” 15. Know what that means? They measure IQ in around 15 point groups because that’s as specific as “standard” IQ tests get.
Now do you understand what an average is?
IQ is measured in INTEGERS, therefore the standard deviation is 1, or we’d divide everyone’s IQ by 15 and go with that.
Women like you are pathetic fatbat.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 11-04-200612:28 AM

Standard deviation has nothing to do with dividing. Why would you ever divide test results by the sd??

The standard deviation in IQ tests IS 15 because the mean is always 100. Why did you bold TESTS? An IQ test is the only way to possibly measure an IQ. They do not measure in around 15 point groups, or else everyone’s IQ would be 60, 85, 100, 115, or 130 exactly. That is not the case. It is measured in integers, as your second theory states. (Couldn’t make up your mind?)

The standard deviation does not change. It cannot go from 15 to 1. One is the integer that is used on the scale, but it cannot be the SD. The rule is that 68% of scores are within one SD of the mean, 95% are within two, and 99.7% are within three. By your logic, 99.7% of the population would have an IQ of 97-103.

11-04-2006 12:29 PM

Re: Men are smarter than women
jimp
Contributor
jimp
phatkat811,

You’re totally clueless, which is what one would expect from a woman. The standard deviation of 1 IQ test is 15. If you take a mean of 50,000 test scores, the standard deviation of the MEAN is 15 / squared root of 50,000 or 15/224 = 0.06, so the difference 4 I.Q. points is about 60 standard deviations.

11-05-2006 01:52 PM

Re: Men are smarter than women
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
HAHA

It will have to be explained to her like ten times before it dawns on her.

Fatbat, just read the posts again ten times, or until you understand it.

Statistical evidence followed by empirical evidence.

LOL…

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-06-2006 01:18 AM

Re: Men are smarter than women
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
What, because you guys are redefining math terms??

There is no such thing as a mean of 50,000 because the mean is THE AVERAGE OF ALL THE SCORES. The mean will always be 100.

Although according to your buddy (I notice Happy, you’re done providing evidence and you’re back to being a cheerleader/towel-snapper), my IQ would actually be 480 standard deviations from the norm, which would put me in what, the top .0000000000000000000000000000001% of the population? While I’m flattered, I’ve never thought myself to be on that level.

11-06-2006 06:11 AM

Re: Men are smarter than women
jimp
Contributor
jimp

phatkat811 wrote:
What, because you guys are redefining math terms??

There is no such thing as a mean of 50,000 because the mean is THE AVERAGE OF ALL THE SCORES. The mean will always be 100.

Although according to your buddy (I notice Happy, you’re done providing evidence and you’re back to being a cheerleader/towel-snapper), my IQ would actually be 480 standard deviations from the norm, which would put me in what, the top .0000000000000000000000000000001% of the population? While I’m flattered, I’ve never thought myself to be on that level.

You’re not even wrong, you’re just completely clueless.

The standard deviation of 15 you’re talking about refers to the fact that the test is normalized in such a way that if you take 100,000 test scores, and compute the standard deviation of those scores, you’ll get about 15 (and the mean will be very close to 100).

Therefore, 15 is the standard deviation of an INDIVIDUAL TEST SCORE. If you take the AVERAGE of say 100 test scores, the standard deviation of that AVERAGE TEST SCORE will be 15 / sqrt(100), or 1.5. In other words, if you take your 100,000 people that took the test, and break them up into 1000 groups of 100 people each, then compute the average IQ test score FOR EACH GROUP, the standard deviation of those 1000 group averages will be about 1.5.

Therefore, if you break up the 100,000 people into roughly equal groups of men and women, if men and women were actually equally smart, there is simply no way you would see a difference of 3.6 IQ points.

11-06-2006 08:43 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Rev. Ted Haggard


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Rev. Ted Haggard

Rev. Ted Haggard
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Congratulations on finding out your real self, your inner child while pummeling a gay escort.  Like most judgmental, religious, moronic wingnuts (see:  Paul Crouch of TBN, another wingnut who seems to have a fascination with men’s units and paying off male escorts) we see the emperor has no clothes.  Quit snapping towels and make decisions rather than worrying about everyone else.

11-03-2006 12:04 PM

Re: Rev. Ted Haggard
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
– plato.

This case is worse as indifference is to be ruled by evil women.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-04-2006 12:39 AM

Re: Rev. Ted Haggard
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
you can read what I think about it over here http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

If Jesus Christ of Nazerth was here, what would he do:

John 8:3-11
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayst thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Nobody is perfect, I can atest to that!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 02:36 AM

Re: Rev. Ted Haggard
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Sorry you cannot lay this one at my feet. I am a Nichiren Buddhist. As for a Religious Scandal, Ministers are Human Beings. That is reality. Will there be some Ministers who violate their Ministerial standards? Of course there will be. To say all Christians are hypocrites is Christian Bashing. Funny though Muslim, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Jews are not being held to the same standards. Go sell your bigotry elsewhere. I am not buying it.

11-04-2006 10:01 AM

Re: Rev. Ted Haggard
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

No, jack*ss I am not a bigot.  Do you see wiccans, buddhists, etc. taking cash and hitting the airwaves pushing their bigotry?  No, you don’t.  There doesn’t exist a pastor or priest, who is taking money, who is not corrupt to the core.  Funny how many of them like to suck men’s c*cks and yet are quite willing to push their special form of hatred.  Quit snapping towels you jerks.

11-04-2006 01:01 PM

Re: Rev. Ted Haggard
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Actually there are plenty of Wiccan baby killers!!! Killing their children, or even partially birthing it so the head crowns and then driving a stick right through its brains. Some of these women were violently opposed to abortion as well.

Gays do violent crimes, yet there is almost a media blackout when that occurs. The only crimes that get published around the world, are ones men commit, and potential Christians really get published for their sins.

In their attempt to control reproduction they are trying to portray 100% of men in a bad light. As we know the voting patterns of women, they will vote for bigger government to feel safe from bad men real or imagined. Women are big government voters, they ignore the reasons for big government by stripping men of their children, and raising their offspring as best friends, with no real authority. Bitching, yelling and nagging isn’t authority.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 04:18 PM

Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Abortion is legal, period, and will not change.  You are dissembling, which is what every idiot does when has no defensible position.   There are no such thing as pastors or priests who aren’t in it for the power and money, to force people to believe in a manner which would make them easier to manipulate and control.  I thought your bible spoke of tolerance of living a pious and simple life when spreading the word of your bible, etc?  What a bunch of bullsh*t.

Here are some examples of the hypocrisy:

Paul & Jan Crouch:  Reported personal income $800,000 annually, spreading their version of old tim religion.  Paul likes to have his c*ck sucked by men and to indulge in gay sex.  They are the founders of TBN.  They reside in  $6 Million home in my neighborhood of Newport Coast.

Benny Hinn:  Here’s a real catch.  Reports income of over $60 Million annually.  Also resides in Newport Coast, CA.  Home worth over $7 Million.

Same for Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and the rest of these phonies.   They are laughing all the way to the bank with the money that white trash like you send to them.  I love it.  Take that and “Jesus Camp” and put in your crack pipe and smoke it.

This is your version of christianity.

11-05-2006 02:19 PM

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
You are right MNS. They will have their day on Judgment day, as will I. We Christians are taught to let God sort out all of the injustices.

Jesus Christ gave a solemn warning in Matthew 7:21-23

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

See, but the good they are doing, is they are forced to preach the word, and people are giving their hearts to Christ right around any wicked preacher. Men are being baptized, and getting their souls right with God to appear on Judgement day.

We live a wicked world my friend, and I am certain you can testify to that!

PATRIARCH VERLCH? Not much, it just means I am a Patriarch. I wholeheartedly Believe in the bible. I believe in the empowering of Men as their rightful roles are the Head of the Family. Biblically this is supported, and that is my goal of making men the head of their families unquestionably. Another goal is to quash feminism, to expose the lies feminism has taught, and to reunite men with their own flesh and blood alienated by the greed of selfishness. To connect them with their sons and daughters which feminism has ripped from them under the pretense of piously caring for humanity.

I believe you would like to feel safe in your own home. MNS? Well driving down divorce and increasing the presence of men in their children’s lives will impact you and you’re life. Remember that 85% of criminals, both men and women, are products of single mother households. Some of the most violent serial killers can from sexually perverted women, who were overtly domineering, and created the monsters we read about throughout the history of the last few years.

Getting rid of feminism will increase the likelihood that you will be united with you’re precious money you seem to care so much about!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 02:49 AM

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Take your judgment day and choke on another fairy tale.

11-06-2006 10:58 AM

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
If somebody could warn you that you were going to die tomorrow would you chang your course of action?

We wouldn’t be doing our job if at least we didn’t tell you about it.

Here is a movie for you, if you can sit through that, you will see our point.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:29 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Rev. Ted Haggard

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Try science.   Religions are fairy tales designed for manipulation.  What, in your pinhead, makes you feel christianity is better than all those that preceded you such as mithrasian, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, etc.

11-06-2006 12:10 PM

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
The same can be said for you. You don’t want any morality, so you invent a way around it so you can feel good about it!

Man invented evolution. He thinks he has become god in the process!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:48 PM

Re: Hey wingnut, partriarchverich (what does that absurd nickname mean anyway?)
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Hey, SFB, evolution is a scientific fact, just as gravity and the other major equations of physics.  Ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics.  What an idiot you are.

11-09-2006 12:17 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

You moronic wingnuts


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – You moronic wingnuts

You moronic wingnuts
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Guys, you still snapping towels on each others *sses.  Don’t you have lives outside of listening to comedian rush limbaugh or pedophile sean hannity?

11-02-2006 01:39 PM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

It’s in your interests that we do it man so I don’t know what you’re complaining about.

Anyway:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-03-2006 12:17 AM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

No, it’s not.  It’s in my best interest not to make stupid choices.  It’s not in my best interest to get married and, if I did, it is in my best interest to require a prenuptial agreement (among other things).  It’s in my best interest to be coldy pragmatic and practical in my decision making.  It’s in my best interest to not believe in fairy tales or act like Don Quixote fighting against lost causes.  It is in my best interest not to save idiots who self destruct due to bad choices (thanks to Charles Darwin and Evolution, survival of the fittest).  It is in my best interest NOT to act, speak and look like some moronic wingnut who believes all the **bleep** spouted by limbaugh, hannity, olielly and to recognize that the truth usually lies somewhere between the 2 extremes, in most instances.  Only an idiot dresses up as batman and robin to bring attention to the disparity of divorce, custody, etc.   Just make good choices, prepare for the possibility of failure, etc.  Anyone with an ounce of sense already knows and understands that.  Only a fool fights a losing battle and does things which are inherently NOT in their best interest.  Make good decisions and choices and you don’t have to worry about these issues.  Only the idiots keep snapping towels on each other’s *sses and cheering each other, futiley, on.  Why do it?  Nobody cares.

11-03-2006 11:55 AM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

hey .. could you be a little more vague?

i suggest using more terms like “stuff” and “kinda” and “whatever”.. or “do what you gotta do”…or “you should do what’s right for you”… in case you need a little help.

11-03-2006 02:11 PM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
What MNS, having trouble finding talking monkey’s? Or fish which are sprouting arms, legs, and other reproductive units, all completely by accident, random and without design? I’ve seen trillions of missing links, or transitional fossils, haven’t you MNS?

I do love the story about Oxygen forming from tiny microscopic bugs which no longer exist, or have ever been observed producing oxygen, and then plants and trees learning how to create said gas so all of mammals could then evolve in piece. Yeah, evolving so quickly that millions of years worth of supposedly fossil bearing rock couldn’t pick up any. 550 million years worth of supposed fossil bearing rock.

God wasn’t invented by man, evolution was so you could kill your conscience, and not have to listen to Gods’ rules until Judgement day. In the fullest sense of the term, you could then be your own god. Which you have done, and the peril of your soul!!! If dead men could talk, takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it my friend!!!

Are you bored of staring at all your money you are going to take with you when you die? Just make sure the worms and the rust don’t destroy your wealth there pal!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 02:47 AM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
A gay epidemic was the beginning of the end for Rome. Bath houses anyone!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 02:49 AM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Go ahead believe in fairy tales, at least they don’t cr*ap like creationism in science class.

11-04-2006 01:15 PM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
What Gays fail to realize is several things. The Legal Profession could give a **bleep** about them. Truth is with fewer Straights Marrying their marketshare is declining. Fewer Suckers to pick their pockets and rob in Divorce. So they are setting out to rip off Gays. A lucrative and affulent demographic to exploit. They want your money and could care less about you as a human being.

Gay Custody battles, property settlement, Probate issues. Alot of new Case Law to be created and cases to be argued. As for the war with Islam Gays will be treated brutally and tortured before execution. As the Shia are doing in Iraq & Iran. Who is being delusional know???

11-07-2006 03:21 PM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

what are you talking to yourself about now?  Nobody does crazy better than you.

11-09-2006 12:19 PM

Re: You moronic wingnuts
BoyTheo
Visitor
BoyTheo
“Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!”

It’s almost 50 years now. We are closer to 2010 than 2000.

1960+50=2010. so… women have been proving us righgt for 50 years!

04-22-2007 01:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Where are the Yahoo boards?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Where are the Yahoo boards?

Where are the Yahoo boards?
ticktock
Visitor
ticktock
Some of you have mentioned Yahoo boards that have similar discussions. Do you have a URL?

11-02-2006 01:17 PM

Re: Where are the Yahoo boards?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety

It’s about an article concerning the recent US census report that married couples are now outnumbered.

Click ‘discuss’.

Cassius and I have been pimping the hell out of it, especially in the last couple of days. It’s time to get some attention paid to the real issues behind this situation. The feminists there are even dumber than they were here, if you can believe that.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 11-03-200601:42 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

11-03-2006 12:16 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate….


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate….

The torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate….
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate….

Why are women never unmasked?

Author’s Introduction

Esther Vilar

This was written in 1972 at a time when the torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate.

Over twenty-five years have passed since the publication of my book The Manipulated Man – a pamphlet written in great anger against the women’s movement’s worldwide monopoly of opinion. The determination with which those women portrayed us as victims of men not only seemed humiliating but also unrealistic. If someone should want to change the destiny of our sex – a wish I had then as I have today – then that someone should attempt to do so with more honesty. And possibly also with a little humour. I would like to take the opportunity presented by the re-issue of my book to answer two questions which I am asked again and again in this context.

People often ask me if I would write this book again. Well, I find it right and proper to have done so. But seen from today’s perspective, my courage in those days may only be attributable to a lack of imagination. Despite all I wrote, I could not really imagine the power I was up against. It seemed that one is only allowed to criticise women on the quiet – especially as a woman – and could only expect agreement behind closed doors.

As we women have, thanks to our relatively stress-free life, a higher life-expectancy than men and consequently make up the majority of voters in Western industrial nations, no politician could afford to offend us. And the media is not interested in discussing the issues involved either. Their products are financed through the advertising of consumer goods, and should we women decide to stop reading a certain newspaper or magazine as its editorial policy displeases us, then the advertisements targeted at us also disappear.

After all, it is well established that women make the majority of purchasing decisions. However, I had also underestimated men’s fear of re-evaluating their position. Yet the more sovereignty they are losing in their professional lives – the more automatic their work, the more controlled by computers they become, the more that increasing unemployment forces them to adopt obsequious behaviour towards customers and superiors – then the more they have to be afraid of a recognition of their predicament. And the more essential it becomes to maintain their illusion that it is not they who are the slaves but those on whose behalf they subject themselves to such an existence.

As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this “men’s society”, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life – violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy – who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden – necessarily had to become a “misogynist”, even a “reactionary” and “fascist” in the eyes of the public.

Had not Karl Marx determined once and for all that in an industrial society it is us, the women, who are the most oppressed? It goes without saying, doesn’t it, that someone who did not want to take part in the canonisation of her own sex is also opposed to equal wages and equal opportunities? In other words, if I had known then what I know today, I probably wouldn’t have written this book. And that is precisely the reason why I am so glad to have written it. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the handful of people who have stood up for me and my work. Typically, most of them were women.

The second question I am often asked is about the topicality of the opinions I expressed then. To what extend is what I described over twenty-five years ago still relevant to the “new woman” and the “new man”?

Here is a list of issues which I recognised in the original book to be men’s most significant disadvantages compared to women.

1. Men are conscripted; women are not.

2. Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.

3. Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).

4. Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion – they can only get the children women want them to have).

5. Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.

6. Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.

7. Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.

8. Men only “borrow” their children; woman can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation – with the reasoning that they have to work).

As one can see, if anything, the female position of power has only consolidated. Today a career in the military is also open to women in many countries – but without conscription for all.

Many achieved for themselves the right to practice their job for the same number of years as their male colleagues – however, the retirement age was not increased for all of us. And now as before, it does not occur to the underprivileged to fight against this grotesque state of affairs. Only as far as the sixth point is concerned, has there been a significant change. In the more entertaining spheres of work, there are more and more women who happily and willingly work and still keep their jobs despite having the children they nevertheless desire. But only a few of these women would be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the children’s fathers, supported by their often substantial salaries; and fewer would further be prepared, in case of a separation, to give up their home and offspring and support the next admirer with what is left of her income.

Also, men would not like it: emancipation may be fine, but to be “kept” by a woman is still not acceptable – housekeeping and raising children is not worthy of a “real” man. Sadly, women’s manipulation of men is as topical today in the UK as it was back then, but so are the measures which could be used to end it – to the benefit of both sexes.

In the meantime, however, there are already a few feminists who are talking also about men as human beings, so the continuation of this discussion may not have to be conducted quite so loudly.

Esther Vilar, August 1998

And now here’s …

Chapter One

The Slave’s Happiness

The lemon-coloured MG skids across the road and the woman driver brings it to a somewhat uncertain halt. She gets out and finds her left front tyre flat. Without wasting a moment she prepares to fix it: she looks towards the passing cars as if expecting someone. Recognising this standard international sign of woman in distress (“weak female let down my by male technology”, a station wagon draws up. The driver sees what is wrong at a glance and says comfortingly, “Don’t worry. We’ll fix that in a jiffy.”

To prove his determination, he asks for her jack. He does not ask if she is capable of changing the tyre herself because he knows – she is about thirty, smartly dressed and made-up – that she is not.

Since she cannot find a jack, he fetches his own, together with his other tools. Five minutes later the job is done and the punctured tyre properly stowed. His hands are covered with grease. She offers him an embroidered handkerchief, which he politely refuses. He has a rag for such occasions in his tool box.

The woman thanks him profusely, apologising for her “typically feminine” helplessness. She might have been there till dusk, she says, had he not stopped. He makes no reply and, as she gets back into the car, gallantly shuts the door for her. Through the wound-down window he advises her to have her tyre patched at once and she promises to get her petrol station attendant to see to it that very evening. Then she drives off.

As the man collects his tools and goes back to his own car, he wishes he could wash his hands. His shoes – he has been standing in the mud while changing the tyre – are not as clean as they should be (he is a salesman). What is more he will have to hurry to keep his next appointment. As he starts the engine he thinks, “Women! One’s more stupid than the next”. He wonders what she would have done if he had not been there to help. He puts his foot on the accelerator and drives off – faster than usual. There is the delay to make up. After a while he starts to hum to himself.

In a way, he is happy.

Almost any man would have behaved in the same way – and so would most women. Without thinking, simply because men are men and women are so different from them, a woman will make use of a man whenever there is the opportunity. What else could the woman have done when her car broke down? She has been taught to get a man help. Thanks to his knowledge, he was able to change the tyre quickly – and at no cost to herself. True, he ruined his clothes, put his business in jeopardy and endangered his own life by driving too fast afterwards. Had he found something else wrong with her car, however, he would have repaired that, too. That is what his knowledge of cars is for! Why should a woman learn to change a flat tyre when the opposite sex (half the world’s population) is able and willing to do it for her?

Women let men work for them, think for them and take on their responsibilities – in fact, they exploit them.

Since men are strong, intelligent and imaginative, while women are weak, unimaginative and stupid, why isn’t it men who exploit women?

Could it be that strength, intelligence and imagination are not prerequisites for power but merely qualifications for slavery?

Could it be that the world is not being ruled by experts but by beings who are not fit for anything else – by women?

And if this is so, how do women manage it so that their victims do not feel themselves cheated and humiliated, but rather believe to be themselves what they are least of all – masters of the universe?

How do women manage to instill in men this sense of pride and superiority that inspires them to ever greater achievements?

Why are women never unmasked?

11-02-2006 08:11 AM

Re: The torrent of hatred being heaped upon men was escalating at a dramatic rate….
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
very nice article!!! Child support, alimony, palimony and just about every other financial reward package for women, from their ex’s has hurt the relationship between the sexes. Men cannot afford to get married to a woman who will run off with the children, and the house at top speed. Leaving the man in the dusk to brush himself off!!!

I believe the government accepted and expanded the feminist agenda to not only put women to work, but to drive down wages, and to basically empower the weakest amongst us. When the government takes our guns, what will they fear then? A bunch of menstruating feminists who can’t change a flat? Or can’t run faster than a poodle in most cases? For the majority of feline women, lifting a 25lb object is a strain.

I believe nothing happens by accident. Empowering men hurts the oligarchy. Open borders, and feminism unchecked destroyed our high wage base.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-04-2006 03:06 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Why Am I Upset About the Yates Verdict? by Tammy Bruce


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Am I Upset About the Yates Verdict? by Tammy Bruce

Why Am I Upset About the Yates Verdict? by Tammy Bruce
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Maynard grasps for the fundamental problem

Okay, there’s the obvious sense that, yet again, justice hasn’t been done. A woman murders five children in cold blood and evades responsibility. That’s the symptom we all witnessed, but let’s move beyond that and consider the underlying disease.

The core problem is that there’s always a price to be paid for evil, and the ideal of justice is that the perpetrator pays that price. When a perpetrator walks away, somebody else is going to pay. The price will be a subsequent loss of freedom for all of us. We live with more fear, and look with greater suspicion upon neighbors. We isolate ourselves from strangers. The politicians blame the tools, and make it harder to acquire anything that can be used as a weapon, such as a firearm or maybe (in Andrea’s case) a bathtub. Society becomes more hostile and intrusive and bureaucratic.

In a word, when we fail to administer individual punishment when it’s practical and appropriate to do so, we end up administering collective punishment upon ourselves.

I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t want to be overly regulated and scrutinized. I’d rather to live in a relatively free society where I’m allowed to get on with my life. I admit that it’s often a struggle to make the right choice. We’re all tested one way or another. When the test comes, it’s the knowledge that there will be consequences that helps keep us on the straight and narrow. If we’re not 100% good people in our hearts and minds (and we’re certainly not), then we’re motivated to fake it in our words and deeds.

And that’s what civilization is, boys and girls: A collection of people who agree to fake it as we deal with each other. We’re walking wounded, every one of us. We’re hurt and angry and ready to fly into a rage, and it’s a chore to remain civil and civilized. And if we want civilization and freedom to persist, then we’ve got to find some motivation to control our base natures. A big part of this motivation comes from a knowledge of consequences, either earthly or (for those who are religious) Divine.

The bottom line is this: Freedom and responsibility are linked. Responsibility implies consequences. If we fail to enforce responsibility, then we’ve got to curtail freedom. Is that the world we’re deciding to live in? Let’s hope not.

These are the things I think of when I witness the triumph of Andrea Yates.

10-31-2006 06:13 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Denise Richards Lesson, Women choose Bad Boys and then complain.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Denise Richards Lesson, Women choose Bad Boys and then complain.

The Denise Richards Lesson, Women choose Bad Boys and then complain.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
For all the women out there who marry perverts, don’t be shocked to find out you married a pervert. Then you get pregnant, realize he’s still a freak and leave him. But then you go back to him (because he’s changed again?) and get pregnant again and then, after bringing two children into the world and saddling them with this man for the rest of their lives, you realize he’s such a pervert you don’t even want him around those children without security being present.

Lovely. While Charlie Sheen is apparently even creepier than any of us imagined, Denise Richards should also be ordered into some sort of therapy so she can overcome whatever compulsion she had to marry Sheen in the first place.

Here’s one teeny tiny snippet in the beginning of her petition for a restraining order as she seemingly recognizes that marrying an apparent prostitute addict, gambling, drug and alcohol abuser deserves some sort of (lame) explanation:

I met the Respondent in June of 2000. I started dating him in 2001. When I started dating him I knew that the Respondent had a history of abusing drugs, cocaine and alcohol, and was also known to hire prostitutes. The Respondent assured me that he was sober and that he had never been with prostitutes sober; and further reassured me that what occurred was in his past and that is where it would stay. The Respondent stated that he continued to be a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. The Respondent continued to have a sponsor. I believed him at that time when he said he changed. Unfortunately, I was wrong to believe him.

Fool her once, shame on Charlie. But fool her twice? Once you read the thing you’ll see how really creepy the whole affair is, especially the part where she goes back to him and gets pregnant again when it was obvious the guy was a weird mess. While it’s clear a super majority of the blame here belongs to Sheen (blech!), I just wish some women would get their act together when it comes to losers like this. What is that that after it’s obvious he lied to her in the first place she goes back to him and has another child with that freak?

Jeezo-peezo.

10-31-2006 06:03 PM

Re: The Denise Richards Lesson, Women choose Bad Boys and then complain.
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
I think sheen was what she was looking for. He is rich (I think) and messed up enough to dive into condomless sex with his girlfriend. How come she got pregnant twise, because she did not use the pill, because she wants the juicy child support somone like him can pay, but does not want him to be around.

11-02-2006 10:32 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Iraqi Women’s Leader Assassinated in Baghdad


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Iraqi Women’s Leader Assassinated in Baghdad

Iraqi Women’s Leader Assassinated in Baghdad
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The American Feminist Elite abandoned the women of Iraq and the Middle East in general because their leftist political agenda simply is more important to them than actually helping women.

Their silence about the dynamic importance if liberating Iraq has been obscene. And now, an Iraqi women’s leader has been assassinated by Islamist savages. The same Islamists we’ve been at war with for 3 years in Iraq; a war that NOW and other pseudo-feminist organizations have condemned from the beginning. In 2003, I detailed the rank hypocrisy of NOW and the Feminist Majority about the war in Iraq with my column “For Um Haydar’s Children.” Unfortunately, it is still painfully relevant today.

Woman’s leader shot dead in Baghdad

…Maysoon al-Hashemi, 60, who headed the Iraqi Islamic Party’s women’s department, died when her vehicle was attacked by gunmen in a speeding BMW shortly after she left home in Baghdad. Her driver was also killed.

Her murder underlined the deadly risks run by those taking part in Iraqi politics.

The threat is especially great for Sunnis like her brother, Tareq al-Hashemi, who have defied warnings from the Sunni-based insurgency not to join what it sees as US-backed puppets.

Iraqis like Ms. al-Hashemi put their lives on the line for freedom and democracy. She and her family represent the kind of courage that will change Iraqi lives forever. She was the sort of woman who would do what was right even when it was dangerous.

The American Feminist Elite should be ashamed of themselves, as they do nothing but complain and whine about Iraq. Instead, they should be looking at the astounding possibilities for women and supporting the Iraqi women who remain on the frontline, willing to die to further the progress Iraq has already made.

Eleanor Smeal, Kathy Spillar, Peg Yorkin, and Mavis Leno, as they sit in their “Feminist Majority” Beverly Hills suites ruminating about how to work against George W. Bush, obsessing about Christians and conservatives, don’t even deserve to breathe the same air as Maysoon al-Hashemi. She and women like her do dangerous work to improve their lives as Muslim women, exposing and shaming the ‘feminist’ poseurs in our midst.

If groups like the Feminist Majority and NOW were truly serious about improving women’s lives around the globe, and in the Middle East particularly, they should donate their entire year’s budget to those who have done more for women and children around the world in the last 4 years than any American “feminist” ever has–the United States Marines

God bless Maysoon al-Hashemi, may she rest in peace, and may the Iraqi women continue to be brave as they build their new Iraq.

10-31-2006 06:01 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

In Turkey, The Depravity of the Islamist World Manifest


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – In Turkey, The Depravity of the Islamist World Manifest

In Turkey, The Depravity of the Islamist World Manifest
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Many people, when trying to counter the argument that Islamist nations (theocratic or not) fail, point to Turkey as an example of how fair and wonderful life can be in an Islamist society.

Women suffering under Islamist rule would disagree. Yes, even those in Turkey. (HT Talkin Horse)

‘Virgin suicides’ save Turks’ ‘honor’

BATMAN, Turkey For 17-year- old Derya, a waif-like woman, the order to kill herself came from an uncle and was delivered in a text message to her cellphone. “You have blackened our name,” it read. “Kill yourself and clean our shame or we will kill you first.”

Derya said her crime was to fall for a boy she met at school. She knew the risks: Her aunt had been killed by her grandfather for seeing a boy. But after being cloistered and veiled for most of her life, she said, she felt free for the first time and wanted to express her independence.

Unfortunately the price for that in the Islamic world is death. The Turkish government, while it says it “tried” to stop fundamentalist Islamist practices, has no real influence. When any religion is recognized as powerful enough to direct government or legislation, those reliant on that power will always rely on extremes to maintain power.

Through all this, Muslim women’s groups are alone, abandoned by the leftist American groups which masquerade as “feminist.” Still, there has not been one word of support from the American “feminist” estabishment for Bush’s adminstration’s policy of Middle Eastern liberation. Nor is there action supporting the continued American effort (and now hopefully Israel’s) to free everyone, including women, from oppressive Islamist rule around the world.

It is the civilized world’s moral duty to stop this genocide in the name of Muhammad. We failed the Jews in the last century. Our generation has a duty to not let fascists prevail again.

10-31-2006 05:59 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Avoidance Strategy,What about marriage in the Netherlands?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Avoidance Strategy,What about marriage in the Netherlands?

Avoidance Strategy,What about marriage in the Netherlands?
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Stanley Kurtz

On multiple occasions, I’ve rebutted claims by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale that European marriage is flourishing under the impact of same-sex unions. (See especially “No Nordic Bliss.”)

Now Spedale and Eskridge have repeated their basic line in an October 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, “The Hitch,” yet have done so with a telling omission. Remarkably, Spedale and Eskridge have nothing whatever to say about marriage in the Netherlands, the country that has had formal same-sex marriage longer than any other place in the world. Spedale and Eskridge treat Scandinavian registered partnerships as the only case worth talking about, supposedly because we’ve had full gay marriage in the Netherlands for only five years. Yet we’ve had registered partnerships in the Netherlands for nearly a decade, and full gay marriage for about half that time. It’s absurd to rule a decade’s worth of data from the Netherlands out of court, especially when much of that time includes the world’s first and longest experiment in formal same-sex marriage. This straining to completely omit data from the Netherlands is the surest sign that Spedale and Eskridge are on shaky ground.

Given the fact that marriage has deteriorated more rapidly in the Netherlands than in any West European country over the last decade, the reluctance of Spedale and Eskridge to talk about the Dutch case makes sense. Yet they do treat the issue in their book. I’ve discussed the Netherlands extensively (see, for example, “Standing Out”), arguing that all signs point to same-sex unions as a key factor in the decline of Dutch marriage. In “Smoking Gun,” I offered a detailed rebuttal of Eskridge and Spedale’s treatment of The Netherlands. And I’ve had a direct exchange with the authors on this issue. (See my Corner post, “Eskridge-Spedale.”) Given all that, I think it’s telling that Spedale and Eskridge have now decided to avoid talking about the Netherlands altogether.

Another remarkable omission in the Spedale-Eskridge op-ed comes on the subject of multiple-partner marriage. In their book, Eskridge and Spedale flatly deny that anyone in Scandinavia has called for multi-partner marriage. Yet, as I showed in “Fanatical Swedish Feminists” there has already been a move to abolish marriage in Sweden and replace it with a “gender neutral” partnership system that would recognize multiple unions. (See, for example, “Feminists call for abolition of marriage”
from Sweden’s English-language news source, The Local.) It’s remarkable that Spedale and Eskridge would repeat their claims about the absence of such calls, when evidence to the contrary so clearly exists.

As for the rest of their case, Spedale and Eskridge continue to repeat the same statistical sound bites about marriage rates, without answering repeated criticisms. From the start, I’ve noted that Scandinavian marriage statistics are notoriously misleading. (See “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.”) Scandinavian marriage rates are inflated by remarriage among the large number of divorced, and also by a phenomenon called “catching up,” in which older couples who have long delayed marriage (even after having had a child out of wedlock) eventually get married (if they haven’t broken up first, which unmarried parents are far more likely to do). “Catching up” by older Scandinavian couples means that Scandinavian marriage rates tend to statistically disguise the growth of unmarried parenthood in the younger generation. This is particularly true in Denmark, where recent changes in family-leave policy have caused an unusual spike in the “catching up” phenomenon. Yet Spedale and Eskridge continue to repeat seemingly rosy marriage-rate statistics without responding to criticisms about what they actually mean.

Spedale and Eskridge also note that rates of unmarried parenthood are increasing less swiftly now in Scandinavia. But as I’ve said on many occasions, that’s like comparing apples and oranges. The big early spikes in out-of-wedlock birthrates came when Scandinavians parents started treating the birth of the first child as a test of their relationship. Instead of marrying to become a parent, Scandinavians were becoming parents to see if they ought to get married. The post-same-sex partnership shifts in unmarried parenthood are slower, but they’re also far more dangerous, because they reflect a different and more radical phenomenon. Increasingly, Scandinavian parents have stopped getting married at all, even after two or three children. And this more radical abandonment of marriage is happening most visibly in the socially liberal, gay-marriage-friendly northern districts of Norway, in contrast to the socially conservative south. So since the advent of same-sex unions, Scandinavian marriage has weakened considerably. Whereas the initial spike in Scandinavian out-of-wedlock births reflected parents treating their first-born child as a test of whether to get married, the somewhat slower, yet far more dangerous continued rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates, especially in Sweden and Norway, indicates that many Scandinavian parents are now dispensing with marriage entirely.

But if you want to see a major spike in the out-of-wedlock birthrate after the institution of same-sex unions, go to the Netherlands, where we see a remarkably clear “before and after” case of marital decline following the advent of same-sex unions. No doubt this is why Spedale and Eskridge do not want to talk about the Netherlands. I’ve made all these points about both Scandinavia and the Netherlands repeatedly, but Spedale and Eskridge just go on repeating their sound bites.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

10-31-2006 05:54 PM

Re: Avoidance Strategy,What about marriage in the Netherlands?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Let’s curse the land!!

Soon our morally bankrupt nation will be financially bankrupt aswell. Then feminist laws at restricting freedom will be impossible to enforce!!! Those days should be interesting!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

11-06-2006 11:23 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

When the playboy feminists allow blinders


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When the playboy feminists allow blinders

When the playboy feminists allow blinders
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Mary Grabar
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

In Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel about a future where a Christian theocracy takes over the U.S. and renames it Gilead, women, who have become the property of men, are covered wrist to ankle in long flowing dresses and wear large blinders on the sides of their faces, called “wings.”

One does not need the study notes that abound on this novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, which has become a staple in the high school and college classroom. The symbolism is not very subtle, but Atwood has enjoyed widespread fame and financial success. Atwood’s novel still gets appreciative reviews and comments about its ‘prophetic’ message regarding the current U.S. administration from Amazon readers.

Yet, in 2006, cities in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are filled with women who are dressed in even more restrictive clothing than those in Atwood’s fictional land of Gilead. They are covered with yards and yards of black cloth. Some have only slits for their eyes. Some are literally hooded with screens to peer through. Many have been sexually mutilated through female “circumcision.”

And while in Atlanta a man is being tried for “circumcising” his two-year-old daughter with kitchen scissors, NOW and other feminist groups are silent.

But this is not surprising when you consider what the left really espouses.

Take a look through any left-leaning publication and see who is advertising to the readership. Ads for plastic surgeons, laser hair removal systems, and Botox treatments galore grace the pages of alternative weeklies and lifestyle magazines. Listen also to the “sponsors” of National Public Radio and you will hear announcements for plastic surgeons in those oh-so-sophisticated even tones.

One of the “rights” promoted by the left is the right to do with one’s body what one wishes. Among the ever increasingly popular tummy tucks and eyelid lifts are genital reconstructions for women, often for cosmetic reasons. A subset of feminist scholarship in the last couple decades has involved the analysis of how we supposedly “construct” “gender” (as opposed to being born male or female). As I did research for my dissertation I came across numerous articles on the freedom and empowerment represented by sex workers who choose to alter their bodies through numerous surgeries.

The idea of “choice” even in the arena of one’s body has paradoxically resulted in pain and mutilation of women’s bodies. All around us in the media is the pressure to undergo painful procedures of surgery and injections in order to look young.

So how does the leftist mantra of “choice” really impact women?

The Atwood-feminist contingent is stuck between pressures for female advocacy and cultural sensitivity. After all, it’s a cultural choice to circumcise females. It’s a cultural choice to submit one’s body to the knife in order to be sexually appealing to men.

Do you see the connection yet? Or do I have to remind you that that national pimp, Hugh Hefner, had much to do with women wanting to look like the unnaturally buxom naked women he features through his Playboy media outlets, and that he and men like him claim to be feminists, and that they support abortion rights organizations, and yet these “feminists” are silent on the oppression of Muslim women in our very midst. But the Hefner-NOW-NARAL complex has managed to twist women into doing their bidding, making themselves over through surgery, posing naked, and aborting their children—all the while convincing them that these are signs of their liberation. Among the reasons women give for undergoing cosmetic genital reconstructive surgery is the influence of pornography, which they watch with their partners. They can thank Hefner, Larry Flynt, and the A.C.L.U. that defends them.

The conservative Christians, those whom Margaret Atwood and her ilk excoriated, are the same people, by the way, who also raise their voices against pornography. And they are the ones daring to criticize the way Muslim women are being treated. They are not the ones calling for the surgical alteration of the female body. Nor do they ask women to hide their real faces, whether by veil or surgery.

But, given today’s climate of death threats against any negative artistic depiction of Islam, I doubt anyone would publish a novel that dares to present a future U.S. renamed Babylon, where women are covered by cloth and have their vision and mobility restricted by headgear.

10-31-2006 05:50 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Youthful man gets 508 years for sex assaults, his Mother Helped.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Youthful man gets 508 years for sex assaults, his Mother Helped.

Youthful man gets 508 years for sex assaults, his Mother Helped.
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Appearance helped 32-year-old befriend teens; mother accused of helping
The Associated Press

Updated: 8:14 p.m. CT Oct 30, 2006
CENTENNIAL, Colo. – A 32-year-old man convicted of using his youthful looks to befriend and sexually assault teens was sentenced to 508 years in prison Monday.

Authorities said Zuri-Kye McGhee targeted 18 boys and one girl between ages 13 and 15. His 54-year-old mother is accused of helping him in some cases by introducing him to families with young children, and she is scheduled to stand trial in February.

He was convicted in August of 63 counts, including sexual assault on a child with a pattern of abuse. McGhee’s attorney, deputy public defender James O’Connor, did not immediately return a call.

“The district attorney’s office is very pleased with this sentence, as our goal was to keep Mr. McGhee away from children for the rest of his life,” district attorney’s spokeswoman Kathleen Walsh said.

Walsh said the judge also ordered McGhee, who lived in the Denver suburb of Aurora, to pay $9,556 in restitution and designated him a sexually violent predator.

In 1998, Zuri-Kye McGhee was charged with 23 counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor. He served 321 days in jail after pleading guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

10-31-2006 07:34 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

….


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – ….

….
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
No man would write like that!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-31-2006 03:22 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Give Women and Men an Inch….


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Give Women and Men an Inch….

Give Women and Men an Inch….
kazoil
Newbie
kazoil

That old adage rings true in so many ways with Women and Men.

I have been married for 13 years and always was the most flexible when it came down to any decision. The end result is only escalation to mountainous peaks, and still not enough.

Life is not a quest with a Holy Grail or tremendous award or certificate program in the end.

The sad truth is just based on time The partnership should still have checks and balances during the path of togetherness so one partner doesn’t end up feeling like their life was short shifted.

What do you think about that?

10-30-2006 12:25 PM

Re: Give Women and Men an Inch….
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I think with skewed anti-male divorce and domestic violence laws one sex is going to have more checks than another. A lot more.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-30-2006 08:52 PM

Re: Give Women and Men an Inch….
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

All the more reason to be pragmatic, logical and practical and to pull your head from your *ss.  Don’t make bad decisions.  Don’t get married without a prenuptial agreement, if you even get married.  With proper planning and execution most of these issues can be avoided.

11-03-2006 11:58 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Purchase Power of Women …


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Purchase Power of Women …

Purchase Power of Women …
ticktock
Visitor
ticktock

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/business/yourmoney/29women.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=a910b6f60ffb3ed2&ex=1162357200

10-30-2006 10:16 AM

Re: Purchase Power of Women …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Great, you go girls! The Elite love Empowered women, as they are no threat to the Oligarchy! 100 million empowered men are. Seal your fate ladies, and your offspring! Enjoy the Communist, socialist Utopia you are allowing to be created!

Women are the fasted group who trades freedom for security. A crying shame!

With all this girl power, perhaps Alimony and child support will be a thing of the past. Then we can end financial prison for many men!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-30-2006 02:48 PM

Re: Purchase Power of Women …
ticktock
Visitor
ticktock

“Women are the fasted group who trades freedom for security”

what does that mean?

10-30-2006 04:10 PM

Re: Purchase Power of Women …
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

In August, it started a “Selling to Women” educational series to help its agents understand women’s expectations and needs. “When it comes to financial advisers, women will share the most intimate details of their lives,” said Susan W. Sweetser, second vice president of the women’s markets department at MassMutual. “Women don’t just buy based on information; they buy based on emotions, coupled with the facts.”

“Being more gullible than men, women are easier to sell to.”

This is just more evidence that you tell a woman -insert consumer item- is empowering and they’ll buy it.

Ms. Fedewa said the research produced unusually honest and forthcoming results. In a more formal focus group held in a controlled setting, women might say, for example, that they kept only healthy foods in the cupboard for after-school snacks. But in Girlfriend Groups’ research, conducted at a woman’s house, friends would never let a woman get away with fibbing about what’s in the cupboard, Ms. Fedewa said.

“Women are liars”

Yeah we knew.

“Despite what people think, we don’t really pamper ourselves that much. When we do, we’re really happy, and men appreciate that.”

Oh dear god. Here we go. Women are greater consumers than men because they have no end to the amount of hedonism they can indulge in and still think they are not hedonistic.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-30-2006 09:11 PM

Re: Purchase Power of Women …
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Stupid, poorly educated, right wing, religious wingnut.  Grow up.

11-03-2006 12:00 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women can’t refuse


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women can’t refuse

Women can’t refuse
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
AN Islamic group praised by the Howard Government as preaching moderation has advised its followers that a woman cannot refuse to have sex with her husband.

The advice was posted on the website of the Darulfatwa organisation, in response to questions posed by readers.

One asked: “Is it haram [forbidden] for a lady to say no if her male partner wants to make love with her?”

The Islamic scholars replied: “In this case she should not refrain from such a legitimate right of marriage, but she could Islamically request for a place of living from her husband.”

Darulfatwa spokesman Mohammad Mehio said Islamic teaching was that a wife could not refuse sex unless she had a good excuse such as being ill, tired or depressed.

After The Sun-Herald questioned Mr Mehio about the answers on the website, he said they posted a “clarification”.

The answer to the sex-in-marriage question was changed to: “In this case she has the right to refuse.”
Source: The Sun-Herald

10-30-2006 06:38 AM

Re: Women can’t refuse
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Same as christian marriage. No problem so far. Troubel is the wife here can refuse sex period, the man eithier accepts it or cheats untill the wife finds out and takes him to the cleaners. So why marry ? You can be in another form of relationship or better yet, none at all. Now women could end up in the same situation, beeing threatend by divorce laws. But all those college women flatout refuse to marry a “lesser” male, so feminism isnt really working out, except for thinning out the population. Works like a charm in Germany.

10-30-2006 03:54 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

David’s father: I’ll never escape stigma of Madonna’s AIDS ‘lie’


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – David’s father: I’ll never escape stigma of Madonna’s AIDS ‘lie’

David’s father: I’ll never escape stigma of Madonna’s AIDS ‘lie’
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By STEPHEN BEVAN, Mail on Sunday Last updated at 22:03pm on 28th October 2006

The father of Madonna’s adopted orphan has dismissed as a lie the singer’s claim on TV that his wife and other children died of AIDS.

Yohane Banda, 32, whose wife died aged 25 after giving birth to 13-month-old David, says he will now have to live with the stigma.

The African peasant farmer also denied the superstar’s allegation that he had never visited his son at the orphanage, to which he was entrusted at the age of two weeks.

Speaking on the Oprah Winfrey Show last week, Madonna, 48, said when she met David at the orphanage in Malawi she was told his mother and three siblings had died of AIDS, while his father’s whereabouts were unknown.

But Mr Banda, who lives in the village of Lipunga, close to the border with Zambia, said: “She never went for an HIV test and she died in Zambia at her parents’ house, so how could anyone know if that is what she died of?”

The clinic she attended when she became ill during pregnancy had diagnosed anaemia, he added.

Later, when she was admitted to hospital in Malawi, he was told she had a physical condition that made childbirth very risky.

Mr Banda insisted he had two other children – not three as Madonna was told – one of whom had died of malaria, while the other died suddenly at 18 months from an unknown cause. Neither was HIV positive as far as he knew.

Mr Banda said he was worried that if people believed Madonna’s claims, they would stigmatise him.

In the TV interview, Madonna said David had been abandoned by his family. “No one from his extended family had visited him since he arrived,” she told Oprah. But Mr Banda insisted this was also “a lie”, adding: “I visited David many times, too many to count.”

The baby was also visited by his grandmother, while Mr Banda’s brother, Profera, “saw him almost every day, sometimes twice a day”.

Despite his anger at the slurs, Mr Banda refused to blame Madonna and instead accused the orphanage of giving her “false information”.

However, an official at the Home of Hope Orphan Care Centre insisted: “We gave her no such information,” and instead pointed the finger at Malawi’s Ministry of Gender and Child Welfare.

Meanwhile, although David has been in the UK for less than two weeks, Madonna has introduced him to her Kabbalah faith.

The move is likely to upset Mr Banda, who was told his son was going to “a very nice Christian lady”. Madonna took the toddler to the Friday night Shabat ceremony at the Central London Kabbalah Centre, and invited other children to “come and play with baby David”.

The boy even wore the Kabbalah red string bracelet, believed by followers to ward off evil spirits.

10-30-2006 06:37 AM

Re: David’s father: I’ll never escape stigma of Madonna’s AIDS ‘lie’
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Once she discovered the child’s father was alive and unable to afford to care for him, the only right thing for her to do would have been to pay the father enough to keep the boy with him and feed and educate his child himself. She should have never considered adopting a child with a living but poor parent herself, especially since she has more than enough money to provide for him, if he really cared. There is no way that is in the child’s best interest.

11-03-2006 10:57 AM

Re: David’s father: I’ll never escape stigma of Madonna’s AIDS ‘lie’
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad
“Madonna has fought back at criticism she should have adopted a Malawi orphan instead of a boy with a father, insisting she offered to pay for David’s father Yohane Banda to rear the child.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=10469

11-13-2006 12:47 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Deciding Which Is Which
by Fred Reed

August 17, 2006

I found myself some time ago under social circumstances in a group that included an angry radical feminist, which is to say a radical feminist. Out of nowhere that I remember, she announced, “Men are sexist pigs.” Such assertions are par for the species.

It was not easy to know how to respond. She was clearly attacking. You don’t insult a group some of whose members are present unless you mean to offend. While I may have doubts about, say, the legitimacy of psychotherapy, I do not say while dining with a practitioner, “Therapists are swinish frauds.” While “sexist” might be regarded with sufficient straining as a political category, “pig” is a schoolyard insult. The comment was simply ill-bred. So are feminists.

I could have responded, “Women are useless bitches.” The problem is that I don’t think that women are either useless or bitches. A few are, yes. A few men are sexist pigs, and I don’t like them either. True, I don’t care for some of the attitudes that seem to characterize a lot of American women. This is far thinking that women are pigs or bitches.

Why do feminists go out of their way to be disagreeable? Much of human behavior is templated. Certain kinds of personality do certain things. They can’t help it. Common templates are the True Believer, the Hater, and the Victim. The salient point is that the template comes first, the content second and sometimes almost as an afterthought. They are like empty forms waiting to be filled in.

The True Believer needs to believe in something truly and, really, doesn’t much care what: Christianity, evolution, Islam, Marxism or market forces. He needs the certitude. He doesn’t need to hate anyone, however. For example, evolutionists do not.

The Hater does need to hate something. Sometimes the choice is obvious, as when a black in the slums comes to hate Whitey. Sometimes the choice is less explicable, as when a man who has suffered no direct or clear damage at the hands of Jews becomes virulently anti-Semitic. A defining characteristic of the Hater is that maintaining the grounds of his (or, most assuredly, her) hatred is far more important than truth, reason, or kindness. The hatred is an end in itself, an identity, the core of his (or her) being. All thought and balance vanish in the insistence on painting the hated in as bad a light as possible.

The Victim believes that all of his miseries and failures are the fault of others. Victims are often Haters as well. Feminists combine the two.

The need to hate is different from the possession of an opinion. A reasonable person might believe, for example, that Jews exert too much influence over American foreign policy and various domestic policies, but also grant without demur that Jews had contributed much to the economy, the sciences, and the arts. The details could be debated, but the position is not that of a Hater. The Hater in anti-Semitic form cannot go for ten minutes in private conversation without adverting with hostility to various crimes and conspiracies which he attributes to Jews, and can never concede that Jews every, however inadvertently, have done anything good. He is obsessive about it.

So are feminists.

A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.

Haters seldom know much about those they hate. It doesn’t matter to them, and just gets in the way. As anti-Semites are clueless about Jews, so feminists are clueless about men. Anti-Semites know that Jews rub their hands and say “heheheh” and want to destroy Western civilization. Feminists know that men don’t have feelings and want to oppress women, and hurt them, and degrade them. Yet they (both) think they know the hated enemy. They both pour forth half-truths, thudding clichés, carefully selected facts, and abject foolishness, and both are blankly unable to see the other side’s point of view or to concede it any virtue at all.

I have known only a few such feminists well, though I have read many. They have struck me, without exception that comes to mind, as fitting a peculiar mold: bright, very hostile and combative, but physically timid and pampered, hothouse flowers really, usually from fairly moneyed families and often Ivy or semi-Ivy schools. Often they have done little outside of feminism and would be helpless out of an urban setting. They have no idea how anything around them works—what a cam lobe is, how a refrigerator makes things cold, or how a file-allocation table might be arranged. Their degrees run to ideologizable pseudosubjects such as sociology, psychology, or Women’s Studies. They seem isolated from most of life.

None of this is characteristic of women in general. I used to belong to a group called Capitol Divers, of Washington, DC. About a third of the members I’ll guess were women. We dove the deep wrecks off North Carolina, chartered the Belize Aggressor for a week near Central America, and so on. It wasn’t lightweight diving. Sometimes we were in the open Atlantic in seas a lot higher than recommended, or ninety feet down at night on a wreck or, I remember, at 135 in the Blue Hole of Belize. (Cap Divers was a bit of a cowboy outfit.)

The women were fine divers, treated as equals by the men because they in fact were equals. Nobody thought about it. In a lot of aggregate time with them over the years, I never heard a single, “Men are sexist pigs.” The pattern is one that I’ve noticed anecdotally but widely. Women who are good at things that men respect are respected by men, and they tend to like men because they have things in common. They are not templated neurotics. Feminists are.

If you do not believe that haters are all the same people, wrestling with internal demons rather than trying to solve real problems, make a point of talking to them or, failing that, reading them. Remember though that a hater is not someone who recognizes an unpleasant truth about a particular group. A woman who says that men are much more given to violence is stating an obvious fact. So is a white who recognizes that low academic achievement among blacks is a problem. Neither is a hater.

No. You want the ones with the grinding all-encompassing hostility. “The kikes are destroying America.” “The niggers are destroying America.” “Men are sexist pigs.” These people are fascinating. Talk to them. Care is needed, particularly with feminists, to keep them from exploding before you can conduct an examination. But do it. Note that many are well educated. They can be polished. But the fundamental difference between a radical feminist and a Jew baiter is…is….

Wait. I’m thinking.

10-30-2006 06:35 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Man still paying support to deceased wife


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Man still paying support to deceased wife

Man still paying support to deceased wife
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Waiting until January to learn if he can stop paying
By KENT MALLETT
Advocate Reporter

NEWARK — A proposal from the Licking County Prosecutor’s Office might put an end to an Upper Arlington man making child support payments to his ex-wife — even though she died in April, and he has custody of their three children.

Joe Randolph, 44, has been instructed by Licking County Child Support Enforcement Agency officials that he must continue the payments until a court tells him he can stop. Thus, he has been paying more than $1,300 per month to nobody in particular.

Sharon Buckingham, a Newark woman who had custody of the couple’s children, died April 25 at age 40.
“I ask the burning question, ‘Who are they going to send the money to?'” said Randolph’s attorney, Jerry Swank. “I think it’s just pure silliness. We have a court date in January. I hope it will be resolved before then.”

Assistant Prosecutor Ken Oswalt said Friday a proposal, if approved by Swank and Randolph, would end the child support payments and return to Randolph payments held in escrow.

“We might have a resolution early next week,” Oswalt said. “This proposal is something child support has signed off on already.”

Nancy Johnson, director of the Licking County CSEA, said the situation is unusual but can’t be resolved through an administrative order.

“When a custodial parent dies, we really don’t have the statutory authority to terminate child support,” Johnson said. “The CSEA doesn’t terminate child support; the court order does. It’s certainly a very unfortunate situation and something we’ve done everything we can to rectify.”

The case was set for court, but with 2,000 cases per year in Domestic Relations Court, the earliest date was six months away.

“I’m not sure they knew what to do,” Randolph said. “I got the impression that they were going to terminate the order and they had the authority to do that.”

Randolph said the combination of making the payments and having custody of the children seriously has stretched his finances.

“We’ve tried to make sure (the children) didn’t have to cut back in anything they do,” Randolph said. “We don’t have stores of cash to draw on. Month to month, we have to look at some other sources of cash, borrowing from relatives or home equity loans.”

Randolph said he’s also been forced to borrow from his ex-wife’s investment funds.

In the future, a parent in Randolph’s situation may not have to wait as long to get a resolution. The prosecutor’s office, as well as the Ohio General Assembly, are addressing such situations.

Oswalt said CSEA officials will notify the prosecutor’s office sooner if a similar situation arises, cutting the time before a possible resolution can be proposed.

Kim Newsom Bridges, director of the Ohio CSEA Director’s Association, said a bill sponsored by State Sen. Steve Stivers, R-Columbus, would prevent a repeat of the Randolph case.

The bill could provide two solutions: CSEA notifies the court immediately, a 60- to 90-day process; or CSEA takes care of it themselves without going to court, a 30- to 60-day process.

“We’ve been working with Sen. Stivers for quite a while,” Newsom Bridges said. “We’re exploring if there is a way to help counties clear up a situation like this as expeditiously as we can.”

“Child support agencies could notify the court of a custody change until a state law took that power away from the agencies about five years ago,” Newsom Bridges said. “Since the statute was revised, we’ve talked about it. We were not in favor of that language being removed.”

Kent Mallett can be reached at (740) 328-8545 or kmallett@newarkadvocate.com.

10-29-2006 10:58 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

A scary trend: sexy costumes for young girls


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A scary trend: sexy costumes for young girls

A scary trend: sexy costumes for young girls
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Sophia Lever and her 13-year-old daughter, Storm, were looking for a Halloween costume on Friday. It turned out to be a long day.

For example, when they walked into Halloween Headquarters on Market Street, the first thing they saw was a wall of costumes that looked like they’d fit in better at Victoria’s Secret than the Seven Hills School’s Halloween party in Walnut Creek, which was where Storm was going after shopping.

The choices included “Sponge Bath Betty,” a skimpy nurse’s costume; “Home Wrecker,” a construction-worker costume with a plunging neckline; and a “White Bunny” costume with a tiny skirt, white stockings and a garter belt.

Storm was asked how she would describe those outfits.

“Revealing,” she said.

“And that’s why we are still looking,” her mother said. “This is the fourth Halloween store we’ve been to.”

It isn’t as if the only Halloween costumes on sale for teenage girls and women feature tiny skirts and low-cut tops. But that’s the way it seems. Somewhere in the last couple of years, Halloween went from pumpkin to cheesecake.

“Last year the racy ones took off, and we weren’t quite prepared,” says Krys Nelson, manager of the Halloween Headquarters store on Market. “This year we ordered more, and we can’t get them out of the boxes fast enough.”

Of course, risqué outfits have always been a part of the holiday for some women. But there are two differences now. The tart look has gone mainstream — and the girls who are wearing it are much younger.

“We’re seeing 12-year-olds buying them,” says Sumanasa Jyoti, who manages a Halloween Headquarters store in Santa Cruz that is open year-round. “I’m amazed that they buy them, but they do. A lady came in the other day and bought a sexy ladybug costume for her 7- and 8-year-olds.”

Jyoti thinks we can blame the trend on trade shows. The costume industry and the lingerie industry often held their national conventions in the same city. The two groups got together and realized they might be after a common market. So a company like Leg Avenue, which used to do hosiery, now is a major player in the sexy costume market.

The result: When a woman wants to wear something a little titillating to the Halloween party, she doesn’t have to pull some lacy undies from the back of her closet. She can go to almost any costume store and buy something like “Shelley Pump Princess,” a revealing gas station attendant outfit, complete with a button that reads, “Full Service.”

And let’s don’t kid ourselves: These take more than a bit of courage to wear.

“Pretty much all of them, when they go into the dressing room, they go, ‘Wow, is this too short?’ ” said Nelson. “A lot of these outfits you can’t even bend over in.”

In fact, they are so brief that most stores now sell “bloomers,” ruffled pants about 2 inches longer than the skirt, in Jyoti’s estimation.

That’s not enough for some customers. Susan Ghest of San Francisco said she was sticking with an old-fashioned Alice in Wonderland costume for the party she and her husband were attending. Her reason was simple.

“I didn’t want to look like a hooker,” she said.

And that’s fine. Grown women can certainly make up their own minds. But what makes some parents uneasy is the way the racy outfits are targeting not only teenage girls but preteens, meaning girls 10 to 12 years old.

For example, “Sexy Army Lady” isn’t incredibly revealing, but it has a definite sexual vibe. And what about “Miss Teddy Bare,” another costume sized for younger girls?

“We have a French maid costume for a toddler,” Jyoti says. “It’s amazing.”

“I think there’s a pressure,” says Sophia Lever, the Walnut Creek mom. “It is like when you go into a store to buy a skirt and all you see are miniskirts. You keep looking and keep looking, and finally you say, ‘OK, we’ll buy a mini.’ ”

Storm said some of her friends purchased costumes on the Internet, only to find that the outfits were skimpier than they expected. They ended up either adding fabric to the skirt or wearing tights under the costume.

Of course, there are those who think we are making too much of this. Tonia Farinha, director of marketing for Spirit Halloween stores, which has 434 stores across the country, says she has noticed the trend in the last few years but would rather say that women are wearing “feminine” costumes, not sexy ones.

“Women want to look like women, not scary,” Farinha says. “Women don’t like to wear masks or a big green witch’s nose.”

Maybe so, but the Spirit Halloween Web site has a button to click for “sexy” costumes, and on Friday the top-selling women’s costume was “Queen of Hearts,” a French maid sort of outfit with high white stockings and a very short skirt.

Face it, says Jyoti: Sexy is the new scary.

“I was just saying to the guys who run the company that next year we need a sexier line,” she says, “if that’s what’s selling.”

However, that doesn’t mean that everyone has been converted. Asked what she was wearing for Halloween, Jyoti said she already has her costume.

“A ladybug,” she said. “But not a sexy ladybug.”

C.W. Nevius’ column appears regularly. His blog, C.W. Nevius.blog, and podcast, News Wrap, can be found at sfgate.com. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

10-29-2006 10:00 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/

http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Want to see what feminism has done for us?

http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/

Stop My Abortion!

I will abort my fetus on October 19th, 2006 unless I get forty thousand dollars in donations. Let’s see if pro-lifers will put their money where their big, fat mouths are–up my **bleep**! Otherwise, on October 20th, I will post pictures of my aborted fetus on this blog.

BE AWARE THAT IT IS NOW PAST OCT 20TH SO DO NOT GO TO THE PAGE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE DISTURBING IMAGERY

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-29-200609:56 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-29-2006 09:50 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Dear Ms. Skank,

Thank you for showing us what a Murdering irresponsible Whore you are. It really is an advertisement for the juvenile Idiots who are Feminists. Further reenforcing your Arrested Emotional Development with this stunt. Are you not an Adult? Are you not capable of using Birth Control? This was nothing more than Extortion and a sad testament to how low our Women have sunk. Rot in Hell where you belong. What’s next Human Sacrifice?

It seems an Abortion Clinic decided to kill a Baby that was born alive. Charges are being filed. This is what the Right to Choose crowd is all about. Their power of life and death over others. Glad you kept your genes out of the gene pool.

10-29-2006 09:59 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I should probably clarify that I’m not the owner of the blog and am posting it to make the case for anti-feminism.

Personally I hope the biitch goes to jail. I’d actually help with the effort towards that..

Anyway we can sum up what feminism has done for this biitch as follows:

“Care about me or something I have control over because I don’t care for it myself. Give me as much as you possibly can to see it is cared for.”

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-29-2006 10:06 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
bilby
Newbie
bilby

Happy_Bullet wrote:
I should probably clarify that I’m not the owner of the blog and am posting it to make the case for anti-feminism.

Personally I hope the biitch goes to jail. I’d actually help with the effort towards that..

Anyway we can sum up what feminism has done for this biitch as follows:

“Care about me or something I have control over because I don’t care for it myself. Give me as much as you possibly can to see it is cared for.”

Good lord, you people are demented. Firstly, the “aborted baby” pictured on that blog is obviously a doll. Secondly, how do you know the person who owns that blog is a woman? Do you believe everything you read online? Next you’ll be telling me bonsai kittens exist…

Message Edited by bilby on 10-30-200607:17 AM

10-30-2006 07:16 AM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Another fine exampel why women need the supervision of a male adult 24/7.

Ms. Bilby why are you getting your panties wet ? Abortions are happening in the millions, greedy man and pro lifer hating feminist women are a reality so your comparison really does not fit. It is more comparabel to the nazis making lampshades out of human skin, they never did that, it was animal skin, but since in the same location patches of skin were found cut out of jews because of the tatoos ont it and eventually other things on that line, noone can really blame anyone for thinking they used their skin for other means as well.

10-30-2006 08:02 AM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Toomra
Regular Visitor
Toomra
It’s not real. An aborted fetus wouldn’t even look like that. It’s legs are too large and stiff looking. It looks closer to a 3 month old baby.

It was probably just a money making scam.

10-30-2006 10:22 AM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
It might have been, but that all of it could have been real is perfectly acceptabel to you ? Imagine if it wasnt abortion, but stoning. Donate or my cheating wife will end up stoned (and not the good stoned). Would you still be like oh its just a manekin, i guess stoning can stay then.

10-30-2006 03:42 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
You know I just tried to think of an analogy to this that a man would be legally sanctioned to do so I could ask that other skank how she’d feel and I realised I couldn’t.

Can one of the feminazis think of something that men are legally sanctioned to do that is considered morally reprehensible by a significant group of people?

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-30-2006 09:17 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Toomra
Regular Visitor
Toomra
“It might have been, but that all of it could have been real is perfectly acceptabel to you ?”

Nope, not at all. I was pretty sickened when I first read the first post of this thread.

“Would you still be like oh its just a manekin, i guess stoning can stay then.”

That wasn’t even my stance in the first place. I was just trying to point out that site wasn’t all that it seemed to be.

10-31-2006 06:18 PM

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
This is the argument that they always use that makes no sense: “If you are so aganist abortion then why not adopt all the unwanted babies?” This argument fails under any logical test because what I personally do has no bearing on whether another’s actions are moral or despicable.

That’s like saying “take care of my elderly parents or I’ll euthenize them because they are too much trouble for me.”

Further, its not for lack of willing, adoptive parents(there are millions of childless couples, hoping for a child to adopt) nor a financial network(welfare/foodstamps/child support) that women are killing inconveinent children. It is simply selfishness. They don’t want to give up forty weeks of drinking/partying/bikini wearing for the sake of anyone else’s well being.

Even if the photos are fake, I can’t look.

FYI, Peter Singer, ehtics prof at Princeton, said it should be legal for mothers to kill babies up to 3 months of age if they are too difficult tocare for. He also said people and pets should …you don’t want to know but you can imagine. Anyhow, notice the feminazis of academia do not want his head on a charger.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 11-03-200611:07 AM

11-03-2006 11:05 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/

Re: http://stopmyabortion.blogspot.com/
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
There you go, the crazies did never need much of a reason to go crazy. Why did the jews had to die again ? Because some of them contributed to bring WWI to an end ? How could they

11-14-2006 10:39 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Children in single parent households


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Children in single parent households

Children in single parent households
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
The traditional family—one mom, one dad and 2.3 children—is the cornerstone of our culture and it ought to disturb us that the traditional family is to a large degree becoming a thing of the past

Saturday, October 28, 2006
James Shott

The traditional American family, the foundation of our society, is under assault, and becoming increasingly less an influence on American culture. Many families are broken up through divorce or the death of one of the parents, while others never properly form, as people opt out of formal marriage in favor of cohabitation. Two factors—divorce and out-of-wedlock births—head the list of factors contributing to the demise of the traditional family. It is commonly said that roughly half the marriages entered into today will end in divorce and the rate of out-of-wedlock births has grown over the last few decades. The result of these two phenomena is an increasing number of single-parent families.

A University of Chicago study reported that from 1972 to 1998 the percentage of children living with their original two married parents fell from 73 percent to 52 percent; that children living with single parents went from 4.7 percent to 18.2 percent; and that whereas in 1972 the most common arrangement was married couples with children—45 percent—by 1998 only 26 percent of households reflected this arrangement.

Marriages fail for a number of reasons, including that many people enter into marriage without making a real commitment to the relationship; they don’t take the time to get to know each other, and the relationship has a weak foundation. Or, young people romanticize the concept of marriage, thinking it will be “neat” and “fun.” So, they get married, and then when things go less than perfectly, as nearly always happens, many people just bail out.

A further complication is that marriage has lost popularity in America. Not so long ago it was a natural and integral part of every young person’s future; getting married and raising a family was “what we did” as adults. But more and more these days people are not getting married, some because they don’t want the social restrictions associated with committing to another person—they want to be free to play the field—and some because they want to avoid the legal entanglements implicit in a formal marriage, which perhaps is aided by the fact that 40-50 percent of contemporary marriages will fail.

The traditional family—one mom, one dad and 2.3 children—is the cornerstone of our culture and it ought to disturb us that the traditional family is to a large degree becoming a thing of the past. Whatever the reasons for fewer successful long-term marriages and fewer stable two-parent families, the decline of the traditional family poses a significant challenge to our cultural stability. The effects of this cultural transformation have not yet fully materialized and are not yet fully known. However, we can now see what is happening to children in single parent homes, and that is downright scary.

Two Swedish researchers authored a population study that was published this year in the scientific periodical The Lancet that contains strong evidence that children brought up in single parent households are more likely than children brought up with both parents in the same household to suffer many types of problems. And it apparently does not matter whether the family was broken up through divorce or the death of a parent, or even when a single-parent household came about because of an out-of-wedlock birth or adoption of a child by a single individual; the risks to children in single-parent families are much higher than in two-parent families for a broad range of serious problems.

Children from single-parent homes are at three to four times greater risk of obesity, drug abuse or drug addiction, and alcoholism than children in a traditional two-parent family. Children with single parents showed increased risks of psychiatric disease, suicide or attempted suicide, or injury. These results stand even after adjustment for factors such as socioeconomic status and parents’ addiction or mental disease.

Studies also show problems in cognitive and academic ability, resulting in lower academic achievement, lower math scores, a greater failure rate, lower SAT scores, lower IQ scores, a higher dropout rate, and a lower college attendance rate. Children from single-parent homes also exhibit a higher degree of antisocial behavior, including higher rates of criminal behavior, greater delinquency for both girls and boys, and increased violent behavior in schools. They are also at greater risk of being physically and sexually abused.

The news that children in single-parent families are at such great risk for so many serious problems ought to get everyone’s attention, and it ought to be sufficient stimulus to cause us to examine what is happening to our culture due to some of the choices society has made. It should be sufficient to force us to change course to reduce or eliminate a completely controllable negative factor threatening not only our children, but also the very stability of our society. The last four decades have seen traditions upon which our nation was built attacked and beaten down. People long ago predicted that liberal attitudes about marriage, sex, and personal behavior were bound to effect society negatively, and the data on children in single-parent homes is only the latest evidence that they were right.

James Shott writes at Observations

10-29-2006 11:01 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

This just takes the cake :-)


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – This just takes the cake :-))

This just takes the cake :-))
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
First she says she is looking for Hitler but he gotta behave like a mother theresa. Craigslist again.


I’m looking for a partner in crime who is a bad ass (and knows it) but doesn’t flaunt it. You know, the kind of guy who is uber smart, handsome, and accomplished, yet is unpretentious, checks his ego at the door, flies under the radar, and is funny in a self deprecating way. At the end of the day, he’s a freakin’ bad ass, but doesn’t feel the need or desire to advertise.

Does this describe you? If so, read on!

On top of being Mr. Bad Ass Incognito, I would appreciate it if:

you are – intelligent, professional, sincere (in word and deed), well educated, outgoing, confident, kind, handsome, respectful, fun, courteous, curious, and easy going.

and you possess – an unfailing sense of humor, good hygiene, a cell phone, good manners, good genes, a 4 wheeled means of non-public transportation (not a bus), excellent spelling and grammar, and an appreciation for simple things.”

10-28-2006 09:15 AM

Re: This just takes the cake :-))
ZammoTheWeird
Contributor
ZammoTheWeird

Send her a free subscription to Cat Fancy magazine.

10-28-2006 03:25 PM

Re: This just takes the cake :-))
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
That one just screams of “My eggs are slowly dying”, please fertilize them!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-29-2006 03:55 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Stirring the caldron of radical feminism


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Stirring the caldron of radical feminism

Stirring the caldron of radical feminism
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Rebecca Hagelin
Thursday, August 31, 2006

It was parents’ orientation at my son’s new college when the young female co-ed introduced her academic pursuit as “Women’s Studies.” My son and I sat stone-faced, desperately trying to hold back the smirks we knew would reveal our thoughts about the absurdity of such an “intellectual, academic” pursuit.

“Where are the degrees in ‘Men’s Studies’?” I wanted to ask. Of course, there aren’t any. Only the pro-lesbian, ego-centric, sexually perverse “Women’s Studies” majors and minors are considered politically correct. The clear bigotry and plain ridiculousness of such classes, and the messages they send our college men and women, seemed lost on the poor young girl. The reality is that she and thousands of co-eds across the country are being steeped in nothing more than the bitter propaganda, indoctrination and hypocrisy that fill the caldron of radical feminism.

Classes required in the pseudo-discipline include “Race, Gender and Politics,” “Human Sexual Behavior,” “Sex and Gender in Contemporary Society” and “The Politics of Poverty.” Not one class offering even comes close to, say, “The Power of Mothering,” or “The Beauty and Benefits of Marriage” or “Why We Love Men.”

Among the biggest feminist lies infecting the minds of our young people is that feminism is about “choices.” Of course, the lie has been spread since the disease of modern radical feminism first reared its ugly head back in the 1960s. The tale is as follows: In the old days, women were largely excluded from the workplace and expected to marry and stay home to raise their children. Now, thanks to feminism, they are encouraged to freely choose whatever profession suits them.

Not exactly. As a new, growing campus group, the “Network of enlightened Women” (NeW), will tell you, reality offers an ironic twist: One profession — homemaker — is off limits. Feminist professors take it for granted that the young women in their charge will work full-time outside the home — and woe betide the female student who expresses a retrograde interest in putting her family first (if, that is, she’s foolish enough to have children at all).

Matters are no better when it comes to political philosophy. Radical feminists have yoked themselves to a brand of extreme liberalism that most people, men and women, find repugnant. They believe in big government, socialized medicine, pacifism and abortion on demand. On campuses nationwide, they exert heavy pressure on young female co-eds to get on board — or get lost.

Just about anyone can see this view is a serious betrayal of true feminism. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. There’s no question that women should be free to pursue the profession of their choice — and their menu of options should include the role of homemaker. And who’s to tell them they can’t be conservative? Modern feminists have become the very thing they profess to hate — leaders who limit women’s choices and dare to tell them they aren’t free to follow where their interests and talents take them.

That’s where NeW comes in. NeW bills itself as “the nation’s premier club for conservative university women.” It was started two years ago by Karin Agness of the University of Virginia as a book club. Today, NeW has 15 chapters at universities in states throughout the country, and, as its Web site notes, members meet regularly to discuss issues relating to politics, gender and conservative principles.

NeW held its first national conference on Capitol Hill last month and recognized four new chapters — from as far west as California and as far south as Texas. The goal is to “cultivate a community of conservative women and expand intellectual diversity on university campuses.”

And NeW is attracting some serious attention — from both sides of the political spectrum. Speakers at their July conference included conservative firebrand Ann Coulter and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. But Professor Ann Lane, a former director of UVA’s women and gender studies program, is no fan. “I’m not opposed to the group’s existence — I just don’t like it,” she told TIME magazine. “I particularly don’t accept their premise that men and women occupy such culturally different spaces.” As TIME’s reporter notes:

“As female college activist groups go, the Network of enlightened Women, or NeW, is a very different breed. They don’t distribute condoms on the Quad or march for a woman’s right to choose. Instead, they bake chocolate-chip cookies and protest campus productions of Eve Ensler’s The **bleep** Monologues, a controversial play about female sexuality that conservatives say degrades women and glorifies rape.”

The idea for NeW came after Agness spent a summer in Washington interning for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. “I loved being around other conservative women and wanted to find more women like that at UVA,” she says. “Unfortunately, all the women’s groups on campus were really liberal and biased. And when I asked a [women’s studies professor] if anybody would be interested in sponsoring a conservative women’s group, she just laughed at me.”

A UVA student magazine also found the idea humorous. Soon after the group started, it published an article about NeW with a cover illustration, Agness said, “of a woman dressed in a perfectly ironed pristine shirt with a checkered apron, connected to a machine with 12 babies popping out while stirring her batter and reading her recipe with the headline ‘Manifest Domesticity.’

“We were really portrayed as baby-making machines, and at that point I knew we were onto something. We were a threat.”

A threat to radical feminists, all right. But to conservative young women, NeW is a tonic — one that offers far more intellectual stimulation than modern liberalism. Here’s hoping it has another highly successful school year.

10-27-2006 02:25 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Fairness—Not men’s sports—is Title IX’s real casualty


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Fairness—Not men’s sports—is Title IX’s real casualty

Fairness—Not men’s sports—is Title IX’s real casualty
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Carrie Lukas
Friday, October 27, 2006

Fairness: it’s one of the most prized values in American society. In our education system, fairness requires that schools and universities judge students on their merits and offer equal opportunities to all students. Yet fairness becomes a different measuring stick when it’s applied to gender issues on campus: one that’s used to prod women toward greater achievement and whack men. James Madison University’s (JMU) recent decision to eliminate ten sports teams is the latest example of the bizarre world of gender fairness on campus.

For more than three decades, colleges across the country have struggled to comply with the federal statute, Title IX, which banned discrimination in athletics. The law’s purpose was to encourage schools and universities to ensure that women, like men, had the opportunity to participate in sports. That’s a goal that Americans whole-heartedly support. It’s only fair, after all, that women enjoy the many pleasures and benefits of athletic participation.

Yet, in practice, Title IX now does more to squelch men’s athletics than to encourage female athletes. Consider that JMU’s athletic roster was already 50 percent men and 50 percent women before the recent cuts that were designed to comply with Title IX. Equal numbers of men and women athletes certainly sound fair. The problem for JMU is that 61 percent of their student body is female. To meet Title IX’s proportionality test—the most incontrovertible standard and therefore the least likely to yield a lawsuit—requires that at least 6 in 10 student-athletes be female.

James Madison University plans to eliminate seven men’s teams (archery, cross country, indoor and outdoor track, gymnastics, swimming and wrestling) and three women’s teams (archery, fencing, and gymnastics) in July. Just six men’s teams and twelve women’s teams will remain and the combined athletic rosters will magically become 61 percent female.

Campus gender warriors would expect university women to celebrate. To the radical feminists who populate women’s studies programs around the country, this is the definition of women’s progress. There may be fewer female athletes next year, but men will be even worse off—a feminist victory!

Yet JMU coeds are reacting very differently. In an interview with the New York Times, Jennifer Chapman, a senior on the women’s cross country team, described members of the women’s team crying along with the men at learning the news of the men’s team’s elimination. Chapman helped organize a student protest that drew an estimated 400 participants. The New York Times article noted that JMU’s announcement had been followed by “a surprising number of female students denouncing Title IX.”

It should come as no surprise, however, that women are denouncing a law that has ended the sports careers of so many male athletes—their friends and teammates—not just at JMU, but at schools across the country. Earlier this year, Rutgers University cut five men’s teams (heavyweight and lightweight crew, fencing, swimming and tennis) along with women’s fencing. Last year, Fresno State eliminated men’s wrestling despite a pledge from alumni to completely fund the team. UCLA cut men’s swimming and gymnastics, teams that had produced more U.S. Olympians in their respective sports than any other school in the country. In recent years, more than ninety universities have eliminated men’s track and field, and more than twenty have cancelled wrestling.

This is not good news for women. It’s also not good news that women increasingly outnumber men on college campuses. It’s wonderful, of course that so many women are succeeding in education and earning degrees. But what about the men? Women and men alike should be concerned about how boys are falling behind in American education. Too many boys are disengaged from school, dropping out of high school, and forgoing college. Policymakers need to consider the causes of this disturbing trend and ways to make our education system work better for boys.

Defenders of the existing Title IX regime will claim that JMU’s dramatic actions weren’t necessary to comply with the law. There are other ways schools can demonstrate their commitment to gender equality. Yet JMU was certainly adhering to the spirit of what constitutes fairness on gender issues on college campuses today. This should serve as a wake up call that it’s past time to end these gender wars and to embrace a conception of fairness that doesn’t penalize men.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

10-27-2006 01:58 PM

Re: Fairness—Not men’s sports—is Title IX’s real casualty
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Empowered women do not challenge the government. They actually vote for a bigger government, and more social services, higher taxes, more police. Everything a Nanny State loves, they get in the physically weak female voter!!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-30-2006 03:30 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Testosterone Tumbling in American Males


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Testosterone Tumbling in American Males

Testosterone Tumbling in American Males
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
FRIDAY, Oct. 27 (HealthDay News) — The testosterone-fueled American male may be losing his punch.

Over the past two decades, levels of the sex hormone in U.S. men have been falling steadily, a new study finds.

For example, average total testosterone levels in men aged 65 to 69 fell from 503 nanograms/decileter (ng/dL) in 1988 to 423 ng/dL in 2003.

The reasons for this trend are unclear, said researchers at the New England Research Institutes in Waterdown, Mass. They noted that neither aging nor certain other health factors, such as smoking or obesity, can fully explain the decline.

“Male serum testosterone levels appear to vary by generation, even after age is taken into account,” study lead author Thomas G. Travison said in a prepared statement.

Testosterone is the primary male sex hormone and plays an important role in maintaining bone and muscle mass. Low testosterone levels have been linked to health problems, including lowered libido and diabetes.

It’s normal for men’s testosterone levels to peak in their late 20s and then start to gradually decline, experts say. But this study found that overall testosterone levels are lower than they were 20 years ago.

“In 1988, men who were 50 years and older had higher serum testosterone concentrations than did comparable 50-year-old men in 1996. This suggests that some factor other than age may be contributing to the observed declines in testosterone over time,” Travison said.

He and his colleagues analyzed blood samples — along with health and other information — from about 1,500 men in the greater Boston area who took part in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. That study collected data in 1987-89, 1995-97, and 2002-04.

“This analysis deals with men who were born between 1915 and 1945, but our baseline data were not obtained until the late 1980s, when the elder subjects were about 70 years old, and the youngest about 45,” Travison said.

“Events occurring in earlier decades could certainly help explain our results, if their effects persisted into recent years,” he noted.

The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

More information

The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about testosterone.

10-27-2006 01:56 PM

Re: Testosterone Tumbling in American Males
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
maybe they are putting female hormones in our water!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-28-2006 07:41 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Any of you want to post…


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Any of you want to post…

Any of you want to post…
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
on this …Article about how being a single American woman is so awesome despite the fact that the author went through great lengths to try to get married to an American man and failed/shunned her suitors and now has to live alone

10-27-2006 01:33 PM

Re: Any of you want to post…
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

Heh,

Posted. I prefer posting where the audience includes people who are apt to do something about the situation rather than just get momentarily depressed and hope they’ll get their cake and eat it too tommorrow somehow.

Doesn’t hurt to let them know what I think of them directly though

BTW last I checked you were kicking butt good on that yahoo board.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-27-2006 10:33 PM

Re: Any of you want to post…
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
I’ve finally accepted that most of them are somehow blind to those things they don’t want to see. I really didn’t want to believe it though maybe if I was just a bit clearer in my explanations…But no that would invovle them accepting part of the responsibility for this big fat mess and they refuse to even conceded a drop of that. Their lives would be a whole lot easier and happier that way.

it seems that there is a trend of them abandoning neutral (i.e. not fem controlled) boards such this and yahoo. It doesn’t look as if there can ever be a long running dialog(or hissy fit throwing and logical response to it)

10-27-2006 11:16 PM

Re: Any of you want to post…
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

I posted over there too.. the Jen character might not like what I had to say lol

10-27-2006 11:37 PM

Re: Any of you want to post…
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

The hope is in that we may not have to convince them. I always thought the best line would be to tell them about how their actions affect children, but that doesn’t seem to work either. The only thing that really seems to work is show them that there will be animosity towards them for expressing sentiments like that, thereby hopefully discouraging other women from doing the same and at least not becoming rampant hateful feminists, just narcissistic ones like sunnyweathergirl on yahoo (I haven’t yet mentioned to her that her nick is close to fairweatherfriend).

We can convince men and some women to come round and as long as most men are convinced the system will change. Some women being on team will help convince the men. At the moment most men only really have a vague idea of what is going on. It’s just a vague animosity towards blatant feminism, they have no idea of the impact it is having on our society.

Personally I just use the delusional idiots as a means to keep the debate going.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-28-2006 12:10 AM

Re: Any of you want to post…
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
Oh yeah, the leaders of the baby killers are at it again. The same ones spitting on GI’s coming back from vietnam. I guess it’s ok when women kill their babies in their own wombs before they see the light of day, its just not ok for some GI deep in the jungle, who has seen women kill their babies post womb with gernades and requst help from the local GI’s only to pull the pin when the men got to close. Makes sense! Stupid chicks.

How are we to take women seriously?

They want all this population control bs, mixed with race mixing for multiculterism bs! Crazy times.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-28-2006 07:34 AM

Re: Any of you want to post…
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
They prefer to be singel. After the past generation of women refused to be real women the current generation of men doesnt see a reason to act like a real man or does not know anything about it, having been risen exclusively by women at home in school or college. I guess a demanding bitch with a prince complex who does not care what a girl really wants is not that sexy. Soo it is just really feminism backfiering on women.

10-28-2006 07:37 AM

Re: Any of you want to post…
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
That is the perfect audience for Zammo’s list.

10-28-2006 10:01 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

American Feminists Scorned And Ignored


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – American Feminists Scorned And Ignored

American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
albert1962
Regular Visitor
albert1962

I have travelled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this well-known observation – American feminist women have a terrible reputation among men around the world. They are widely perceived as obese, selfish, spoiled, boorish and emotionally demanding. They are also viewed as rather overbearing and hysterical. It’s a well known fact amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are widely shunned by men outside of U.S.A.

On the contrary, decent and affluent American men (in general) are viewed as the “cream of the crop” – highly coveted and desirable…. These gentlemen enjoy a great reputation among foreign ladies who perceive them to be respectful, nurturing, responsible, well-educated and financially secure. In addition, these women believe that American men make great husbands, especially in contrast to native men, who are often disrespectful, abusive and unfaithful.

The problem in this country is that the “best in the world” are often paired up with the “worst in the world”…. a complete mismatch. It’s like a highschool Prom King dating an ugly, overbearing and boorish girl. It’s very unlikely that this type of relationship will work out. Sadly, this seems to be the case, as the marriages “made in America” have a much higher divorce rate (55 to 60 percent) than in the cross-cultural marriages (15 to 20 percent). So, why is risk of divorce so much lower when an American gentleman marries a “mail-order bride”? In a nutshell, it’s because our Prom King is marrying a Prom Queen, who is beautiful, intelligent, feminine, and devoted.

A growing number of affluent American men are rejecting American feminist women and going overseas to embrace loverly, young foreign brides. A nearly fourfold increase in foreign women entering the U.S. on fiance(e) visas (over the last 7 years) supports this contention. It’s no secret that by pursuing foreign women, men can find much younger, more attractive and devoted women than what’s available at home.

Take Tiger Woods, for example. This man has essentially rejected all American women who wants to be with him and instead, he went overseas and married a lovely Swedish woman. Tiger is a one very smart gentleman…. I bet he knows that marriage to a foreign lady would mean a lower risk of future divorce. smile.gif

Let me tell you about my relationship with my loverly Russian wife. Despite our 21 year age difference, our relationship is built upon mutual love and admiration…. our love is real and valid. Also, our bond is strengthened by our common interests, continual romance and mutual respect for each other. As with most Russian women, my wife is independent and has a strong will. Our relationship is a 50-50 equal partnership. There is no control and no domination. smile.gif

And why am I telling you this? It’s because my experience is very typical of most marriages to “mail-order brides” – in contrast to many marriages “made in America”, there are no bitchiness or nagging, no hysteria or drama and no belligerant or confrontational behavior…. only mutual love and admiration.

When a decent and well-off American gentleman marries a young, loverly foreign bride, what’s created is truely, a match made in heaven – the best matched with the best….

IMBRA is really a scornful feminist response to this growing international romance.
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?

10-27-2006 12:59 PM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

EXCELLENT website my man.

Very interesting statistics you quoted. I’m not too familiar with the IMBRA debate myself, but I’ve been looking for some statistics on marriages to foreign women for a while..

You mentioned a 15-20% divorce rate as opposed to the 55-60% divorce rate.

The main argument against ODR is that the women are more likely to be abused. This is often followed by some horror stories. Do you have an official source for those statistics (so I can cite it)?

One question:

Are those statistics based on foreign women immigrating to the US, rather than the husband immigrating?

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-27-2006 10:41 PM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
American girls that go to foreign nations have a hard time getting men to pay attention to them. Or so I have heard. Russian men do not like American women either, and I don’t blame them!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-28-2006 07:26 AM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
I meant to say feminist acting American women.

The divorce rate is 10% if you do not let your foreign bride befreind American women who, like bad apples, with try and ruin the rest of the bushel with the same backbiting, gossip, and tearing down of their own marriages with their own hands, on women who were raised to value family and children!

Personally I would discourge her from going to work around American women, as American women will poison her!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-28-2006 07:29 AM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
/Agreed.

In East Asia, FemiNasty American girls simply can’t compete with well dressed and feminine Asian women.

I’ve personally observed American men break off relationships with their former American gals, and pursue Asian women like the Devil himself be after them.

FemiNasties need to understand that in the global marketplace of love, they are price takers, not price setters.

While its true that American women can attract a man temporarily for sex, or get in his head with messed up mind games, its also true that if a foreign woman with class and decency comes his way, the American woman will find herself unable to measure up.

Sad but true… but too many FemiNasty American girls won’t listen to reason until they are 35, single, childless, and desperate.

http://www.mamonaku187.blogspot.com

10-29-2006 09:34 PM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
It aint Americans, it is the feminist attitude and their in your face hate that is scorned, not only by Europeans but by any normal person. I guess if you happen to be one of the 5 good looking females in Utah you can get away with about anything though.

10-30-2006 08:21 AM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
albert1962
Regular Visitor
albert1962

Here is one source that suggests a much lower rate of divorce in inter-cultural marriages.
http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/MarriageLongevityRates.html

Another source is  Professor Robert Scholes’ report to Congress (1999), “The Mail Order Bride Industry”.  You may be able to find a copy of this report in the Internet.

11-01-2006 07:24 PM

Re: American Feminists Scorned And Ignored
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

“Or so I have heard. Russian men do not like American women either, and I don’t blame them! ”

I lived there for a while and can only confirm that most US female expats in Russia  (teachers of English mostly) seem to have no value in the local men’s eyes at all. Not only they are fat and ugly….. As a rule, Russians don’t give a **bleep** about political correctness and have no problem with saying unpleasant truths right in your face. A big put down for lots of US “entitled princesses” ..

11-02-2006 01:44 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

When it pays to stay single


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When it pays to stay single

When it pays to stay single
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
Though being married offers a number of financial advantages, being single also has some clear-cut benefits. Learn how it affects taxes, credit, debt and other key issues.
By Bankrate.com

Every married person who has argued with a spouse about money has longed to be single again and in total financial control.

That wish usually subsides — how quickly depends in part on the dollar amount in dispute. But that fleeting thought raises an interesting question.

Is there a time when being single is more financially desirable?

Sure, marriage has many economic advantages, such as pooled income, shared health-insurance coverage, although more companies now also offer this benefit to unmarried couples, and Social Security survivor benefits. Even the marriage tax penalty has been eased in recent years.

But in some instances, it’s more practical to remain unhitched.

“One thing to keep in mind is that it’s always a mix of financial and emotional decisions,” says Scott Farber, a wealth management adviser based in Natick, Mass. “It’s difficult to look at a relationship from a strictly financial standpoint.”

“However, there are some general instances when it might be better not to be married.”

That’s how Sheryl Garrett, a certified financial planner with Garrett Planning Network in Shawnee Mission, Kan., sees it, too.

“There are definitely way more advantages on (the married) side of the fence,” says Garrett. “But there are some clear ones on the unmarried side, too.”

While there’s no “typical couple” that should consider living together without official legal status, there are some typical issues. Basically, says Garrett, staying legally unattached could be financially beneficial for one or both partners when these five issues come into play:

* Liability
* Credit and debt concerns
* Survivor’s benefits
* Taxes
* Children

Liability for married and unmarried
One of the great things about marriage is you get to share everything. That’s also one of the worst things about marriage, especially when it comes to liability issues. You could be financially responsible for judgments against your spouse, such as personal lawsuits or Internal Revenue Service liens and all types of legal actions in between.

Janice K. Hobbs, owner of Jan Hobbs Financial Group in Orange, Calif., says this is a concern of many of her clients who primarily are high-income individuals.

“We have a lot of doctors as clients, both partners are physicians, which is a high-liability profession,” says Hobbs. If one of the doctors is sued, the other person’s assets are just as liable — if they are married. By staying single, Hobbs says, only the one physician’s income and assets would be at risk.

The liability issue doesn’t just worry still-working people who are making a good living.

Garrett says a book buyer raised similar concerns at a signing for her book, “Money without Matrimony,” that she co-wrote with Debra Neiman.

The woman, in her late 50s, had a new man in her life and they were considering another go at marriage. She was in a good financial position, but a combination of previous marital and business problems had left him dealing with the aftermath of a divorce, bankruptcy and some lingering financial issues.

“He hadn’t had much of a chance to recover financially, although he had moved on emotionally, and he had a terrible credit score. He was a great guy with completely understandable credit problems,” says Garrett.

“Her question was, ‘If we did get married, would that be a bad idea?’ My answer was that if they keep things separately, depending on the state (of residence), his debts in his name and her assets in her name, you’re fine. But if he gets sued. …

“She said, ‘Stop. I think we’re going to wait.'”
Commingled credit and debt
That cautious woman’s remarriage query also raised the issue of shared credit, which Garrett says can go hand in hand with liability worries.

The credit-reporting business has evolved so now each person has an individual credit score. So unless you borrow money together, getting married doesn’t automatically hurt you from a credit standpoint, says Garrett.

Debt is a slightly different matter. That’s because in some states, when you marry you also marry your spouse’s debt, especially if post-marriage payments come out of a joint account.

“If you have a situation where one partner is heavily in debt, especially if the one in debt has fewer assets, marriage could potentially expose the nondebtor’s assets,” says Farber.

Where you live also could affect your debt status. In community-property jurisdictions — Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin or Puerto Rico — community property includes the earnings of both partners while married, as well as everything purchased with that money. If separate property is commingled with community property during a marriage, it could be viewed as community property. Similarly, all debts incurred during marriage, unless specifically noted as separate, become community-property debts.

It’s easier to avoid responsibility for a spendthrift partner’s debts when you simply live together. Just be sure you don’t inadvertently invalidate this unmarried advantage. Don’t take on joint transactions, such as helping your financially struggling partner pay an overdue loan, or it could show up on your record, too.
Securing survivor’s benefits
When it comes to federal retirement benefits, marriage is advantageous for many couples. A surviving spouse gets to choose between his or her own benefits or those of the deceased spouse, whichever is greater. (This usually happens more often with women, says Garrett, though some men receive such benefits.)

There’s no comparable survivorship payment for partners who just live together. But this benefit could interfere with the decision of a widow or widower who wants to remarry.

“Say there’s a woman who’s a widow and involved with another man,” says Garrett. “She has her deceased husband’s benefits and the man has his own. Together they have enough to live on comfortably.

“But if they get married, her Social Security goes away and she would qualify for half of her new husband’s benefits. That could be several hundred dollars less a month, and that amount could make a big difference.”

Hobbs agrees. “If your new spouse doesn’t have the same work history as your old spouse, you may have traded off a good benefit,” she says.

Contact your local Social Security Administration office and have them run some numbers for your personal situation. The calculations could help you decide whether you want to walk down the aisle.

Garrett also warns couples not to forget about how tying the knot could affect private-sector benefits.

“Fewer people get traditional pensions nowadays, but folks who are now retired historically had a pension. There are a lot of widows out there who have their husbands’ pensions. If they remarry, they would lose that pension income. Most seniors know this, but what they don’t think about is health coverage, a big issue now. If you’re getting health benefits from a deceased spouse’s coverage, you could lose that, too.

“I really hate that people would choose not to get married if they really want to because of financial issues,” says Garrett, “but at least know what you’re getting into.”

Older couples, who are depending primarily on federal medical coverage, also need to assess their marital or nonmarital situation carefully.

“One of the reasons to get married is to share benefits if you’re older,” says Farber. “But the flip side is that you’ll then be subject to the Medicare claims thereafter.”

For example, say you have a house in your name only. If you’re married and your spouse goes into a nursing home, Medicare will want to tap your home, assuming there are no other assets to pay for nursing-home costs, to recoup its expenses, says Farber. “If you’re not married, you remove the house from that exposure.

“When you have one spouse that’s going to be on Medicare and the non-Medicare spouse is the homeowner, it makes sense to not be married at that point,” she says. “I’ve heard of situations where people even get divorced to prevent exposure of assets they acquired together as a married couple from being subject to claims in this situation.”
Taxes and the unmarried couple
By now, almost every taxpayer knows about the marriage tax penalty. This tax-rate quirk generally affects a couple when both earn roughly the same amount.

“The marriage penalty has been minimized greatly from what it used to be,” says Garrett, “but it still exists, especially for people who both make a lot of money.”

And unless Congress takes action to extend the marriage tax relief, the penalty will return in full force in 2011. Meanwhile, even with the temporary tax relief for married couples, there are other tax situations where being single is more fiscally rewarding.

The tax code is fraught with phase-outs and restrictions. “For example, the Roth IRA contribution limit for married couples is higher but not double that of two singles,” says Farber. “If you’re single and make between $95,000 and $110,000, you can contribute to an account. If you’re married, you can contribute if you make between $150,000 and $160,000.

“If each individual earns $90,000, each can contribute up to the limit unless they are married. By being married, their joint income will be taken into account and neither can contribute to a Roth because it exceeds the limit.”

Married couples also could face higher tax costs than living-together counterparts if they own rental real estate.

“Write-offs from rental real estate can be used to offset ordinary income unless your adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000,” says Hobbs. “And that limit is the same, whether you’re married or single.

“Say you had an unmarried couple and each partner kept an old condo and rented it out. They each would have a $3,000 to $4,000 write-off each year. But a married couple with $200,000 adjusted gross income cannot take any of those losses against ordinary income.”

A $100,000-per-year income level is not that unusual for investors looking to get into today’s escalating real-estate market, says Hobbs. That means married rental-unit owners in her Southern California location often lose out on expected tax benefits.
Taking care of the kids
Then there are the kids. Both minor children living at home and adult offspring who are long gone can muddle the married-versus-living-together equation.

When it comes to obtaining federal financial aid for college, being unmarried offers an advantage, albeit one that many parents might not be comfortable taking.

“If there’s a child where one adult is the legal parent and the other isn’t, by law you don’t have to report the income of the nonparent, but there are ethical considerations,” says Garrett. “The FAFSA form literally asks for the information on the father and mother. If there’s no legal mother or father, you’re answering it correctly. But if the partner is helping or will help pay for the schooling, that’s something you probably should consider in answering.” (For more on college funding, read “How to find free money for college.”

A more emotional issue for many unmarried couples is grown kids from previous relationships.

“One of the biggest reasons that some older people choose not to remarry is because of the family dynamics, whiplash or backlash from adult children,” says Garrett. “This new person in a parent’s life might be really charming and attentive, but might just be after Mom or Dad’s money, ‘our inheritance.'”

In such cases, Garrett has some unequivocal advice for the kids: “Get your noses out of your parents’ business and let them get on with their lives.”

Farber agrees that emotional issues “are almost always going to take the front seat.” But, he says, “financial issues you can deal with; you can come up with solutions.” One of the easiest solutions: basic estate planning.

“You have to have a will or trust in place to direct where your assets will go, regardless of whether you’re married or just living together,” says Garrett. “If you’re married, you can say where you don’t want them to go. If you’re not married, you can determine where they will go.”

This explicit distribution direction is necessary because without it, the state decides. If you stay unmarried and have no will or trust, all your assets will go by default to your next of kin, your children. Your partner will get nothing. Conversely, if you marry and don’t have a will or trust, your new spouse will get it all, leaving your kids without an inheritance. (For articles on wills and estate planning, see “Estate planning for everyone.”

“Put in place a living trust that spells out that my partner will get this and my kids will get this,” says Garrett. “Put all that in print so that it’s not left open.”

By Kay Bell, Bankrate.com

10-26-2006 07:54 AM

Re: When it pays to stay single
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

For men, it nearly always pays off to be single especially if the only other alternative available is a WW. As long as he can look after himself and keep the house clean – which is not very hard with all our technology, coupled with a bit of time management – the legal contract of having a nice-looking parasite living off you financially or a career biitch who drains you emotionally and bosses you around the house is no longer necessary.

10-27-2006 05:36 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Older mothers more likely to have infertile daughters


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Older mothers more likely to have infertile daughters

Older mothers more likely to have infertile daughters
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
The trend to delay childbirth by women seeking to build careers before starting a family could provoke a fertility crisis in the next generation, research suggests.

For the first time, scientists have shown ageing not only reduces a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant – it may also reduce her daughter’s chances.

A study of women attending an infertility clinic found that those who failed to become pregnant had older mothers than those for whom treatment was successful and led to the birth of a baby.

Peter Nagy, the head of Reproductive Biology Associates, a fertility clinic in Atlanta, who led the study, said: “What is frightening is our parents mostly were young [when they had children]. But today society is changing and a lot of women are delaying childbirth. What we will see in 20 to 30 years’ time will be completely different. It means [delay] is a problem not only for the woman, but for her daughter. It will add to pressure on women.”

Dr Nagy added that it was the first time research had indicated that a woman’s age at the time she gave birth could influence the chances of reproduction in the next generation.

“We all know the age of a woman is very strongly correlated with her chance of a healthy pregnancy and of having a baby. If a woman is 25 her chances of getting pregnant are perhaps 90 per cent, and if she is 40 her chances may be 10 per cent. That is because her ovaries and eggs are ageing and fertility declines with age.

“The scientific question is: if a 40-year-old gets pregnant and has a baby [daughter], will that baby, when she grows up, have exactly the same chance of getting pregnant as if her mother had been 25?” he said.

To answer the question, the researchers asked 74 women going for fertility treatment at the clinic what age their mother was when they were born. The results showed that the mothers of those who achieved a pregnancy after treatment were 2.5 years younger when they had their daughters (average age 25.7 years) than the mothers of daughters who failed to become pregnant (average age 28.2 years).

A much more marked difference was observed when the researchers looked at the biological age of the mothers – calculated from the age at which they reached menopause. That showed that mothers of the successfully treated daughters gave birth to them on average almost five years earlier – 24.7 years before they reached the menopause – than the mothers of those whose treatment was unsuccessful (19.6 years).

Dr Nagy said: “The pregnant group were born five years younger in terms of ovary age. The results demonstrate maternal age at childbirth – relative to the menopause – is an important reproductive factor.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1927126.ece

——————————-

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

10-25-2006 09:05 AM

Re: Older mothers more likely to have infertile daughters
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
So there is a reason beyong machoism to rebuke old hags. Who would have guessed that. It only makes sense what reason is there for a woman who is all out of eggs to attract a male.

10-25-2006 02:04 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)

Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/advertorial/advertorial228.asp

Serial bullies …Women who make life hell at work

Think bullying only happens in the playground? Nuh-uh. The workplace she-bully is alive, well and raising hell. By Sarah Marinos

Sally*, 27, manages a women’s clothing store in Melbourne — with military discipline. Her staff don’t stay long. She screams at her all-female workforce, ridicules them and expects them to work through their lunch hour or stay late to attend meetings where she usually criticises their work.

If Sally isn’t criticising, she’s giving a worker the silent treatment. She sweeps into the store and says hello to everyone but her victim. The victim is left out of shop gossip and Sally might even begin a vicious rumour about them.

“One of my previous staff members was such a lazy cow. I constantly had to tell her how to do her job. Eventually I took her out the back of the store and let her have it,” says Sally.

“I said that if she wanted to succeed in life she had to be smarter. I also told her she was too fat. She was a size 16, for god’s sake. I’m sure she put off customers when they came into the store. Who wants to be served by someone wearing a potato sack? I know what I said sounds harsh, but I was telling her for her own good.”

Last year, Sally slapped a 17-year-old Saturday girl who dared to answer back when Sally accused her of taking five minutes extra for her lunch.

“I know she was five minutes late because every time staff leave the store they have to ask me first and I note down the time,” says Sally. “I told her she’d have to stay back after work and she said no. I saw red. Her smug little 17-year-old know-it-all face pissed me right off, so I slapped her. She looked pretty shocked and left the following week.

“There was nobody around when I slapped her, so if she complained it would be my word against hers, and I’ve been with the company for eight years. Who are the bosses going to believe? Me, who runs one of the company’s most profitable stores, or some 17-year-old airhead?”

Bullying: the hidden torment

Sadly, Sally’s staff aren’t the only victims. New research has found that 70 percent of Australians are being bullied in the workplace, or have been bullied in the past. And don’t think it’s just about the young male apprentice who gets his head flushed down the toilet. Bullying happens in all industries, at all levels and it’s not an all-male affair. Women are just as likely as men to bully at work. Studies by Job Watch, an employment legal advisory service in Melbourne, has found the retail, health and hospitality industries are riddled with she-bullies like Sally. In the past year, the organisation received more than 1000 complaints of workplace bullying — two-thirds of the calls came from women victims aged between 25 and 34 — and many of those were victims of a she-bully.

“There are a lot of women suffering in silence at the hands of other women,” says Zana Bytheway, executive director of Job Watch. “In some cases, bullying happens because people love the sense of power it gives them. It’s about ego. In other cases, I think bullying happens because people are under so much pressure. They have to do more in less time and with less staff. Productivity, profits, pressure. It’s a potent mix.

“We spend the bulk of our time at work and work plays a huge part in how we see ourselves and how we value ourselves. I’ve seen women give up their careers, develop stress and anxiety problems, lose their confidence, lose their relationship and even become suicidal because they are bullied by another woman at work. It’s a very serious, sinister and under-estimated problem.”

Amanda*, 35, is a senior manager in a small company in Adelaide. She’s been in her current job for just over three years and has been bullied for most of that time by another senior manager, a woman 10 years older than her.

“She’s always been volatile and aggressive, but when I won an award for my work, she spat at me and said ‘That’s outrageous’,” recalls Amanda. “Then she began a whispering campaign. She suggested to my superiors and colleagues that I wasn’t capable of doing my job. Behind my back she grabbed every opportunity to run me down. She deliberately failed to pass on information I needed to do my job so I looked like an idiot at meetings; I wouldn’t have a clue what everyone was talking about.

Amanda would tremble whenever she received an e-mail or phone call from her she-bully. The bully played with her nerves by alternating between nice and nasty. Amanda drove to work never knowing what to expect next.

“It was like domestic violence. One day she screamed and told me how hopeless I was. The next day she talked to me in a cutesy voice and asked for my help,” says Amanda. This year, Amanda saw a psychologist because the bullying pushed her to breaking point. “I thought I was going to crack. I was physically and emotionally exhausted.

“My psychologist helped me develop skills to cope with her. Now when she rages, I don’t react. Because she doesn’t get a reaction, it’s not as much fun for her. I’ve also stood up for myself more. I’ve told her I’m aware of the things she says behind my back and I’ve told my bosses what’s been going on. They haven’t done anything to stop her, though, and I did think about leaving my job but why should I go? Then she wins.”

So, what’s the appeal?

New research has also found that there’s not just one kind of workplace bully. According to Keryl Egan, a Sydney-based clinical psychologist, bullies fall into three main categories: accidental, destructive and serial. The accidental bully is aggressive, intelligent, confident and successful and expects a lot of the people working around them. They don’t listen to others, always feel they’re right and, when the pressure is on, they lose their temper — but have no idea how their behaviour hurts the people around them. In other words, their bullying is not premeditated. “The destructive bully is narcissistic. They see any competition or threat as a serious assault and they go into a rage,” says Egan. “They feel entitled to positions of power.” So they bully because they can.

However, the most worrying workplace bully is the serial, or psychopathic, bully — and it seems women are particularly effective at this kind of behaviour. They intentionally hurt colleagues and revel in the pain they cause. “The psychopathic bully is very good at showing one face to the boss and another face to the people below them,” explains Egan. Her research says it can take two years for a psychopathic workplace bully to be exposed.

“They isolate their target so that person doesn’t have a support network. They manipulate the victim’s workload and working conditions and make unrealistic demands and unpredictable decisions. One minute they praise, and the next minute they criticise. They isolate or ignore their victim and the bullying is systematic and relentless. They have a complete lack of empathy.”

Egan says most people become psychopathic bullies because of a damaged childhood. They’ve usually been bullied themselves by uncaring parents or been emotionally neglected. They’re incapable of having compassion for anyone else because they didn’t receive love and care themselves.

Sally says whenever she’s been generous in life people have taken advantage of her. “Sometimes I feel bad when I see the girls at work in tears. I see how they look at me when I arrive at work — they’re afraid — but if they’re afraid of me, they’re not going to take advantage of me. Being soft doesn’t get you anywhere.”
*Names have been changed.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-24-200603:26 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-24-2006 03:08 AM

Re: Serial Bullies …Women Who Make Life Hell At Work
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Nothing new here of course.

Women are merely substituting their husbands for employers and work colleagues.

Female bullying in schools is well documented in books like “Queen Bees And Wannabes” and very little is done about it (thankyou feminists), so why wouldn’t it continue into the workplace?

Men are the abusive ones my arse.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-24-2006 03:12 AM

Re: Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

There’s an article in the Daily Mail today called:

Record numbers of women being bullied at work by men.
http://tinyurl.com/yk7nzr

In the article we find:

“Helen Green, 36, was tormented by a gang of four women in the ‘department from hell”

Gang of four women???

and

“Lyn Witheridge, chief executive of the anti-workplace bullying charity, The Andrea Adams Trust, said bullying is a major problem for men too. Investigations into bullying regularly reveal that women are most likely to suffer, but this is largely because men do not dare speak out. She said: “More women will complain about bullying which is why statistics show that they are the biggest victims. Men just don’t dare say anything.”

and

“Other examples include a woman saying to another woman: ‘What sort of perfume are you wearing? It smells cheap to me.”

And yet the title of the article soley blames MEN as the bullies!!! Any one want to bet that the author (Becky Barrow) is a feminist twisting the truth to maximise female victimhood?

10-24-2006 12:15 PM

Re: Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)
CosTas
Contributor
CosTas

It all depends on your definition of bullying, doesn’t it? I have seen many a time male bosses just being scared of giving any criticism to their female workers whose working standards were as low as the Dead Sea. Who wants to face a possibilty of legal action for constructive criticism, ehh, sorry, – bullying? Yeah.

To say that a female worker is unproductive or a bad team player or whatever is too often just asking for trouble. To say nothing about the “women are victims” national brainwashing machine working at full swing…

10-25-2006 02:46 AM

Re: Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

May I remind everyone that this is an article in CLEO!! It’s 87.5% B.S. and that only because they don’t have the brains to be completely full of it!!

NOTE TO ALL, managers are useless! if one should bother you during the course of your day simply reply: I’m so glad the privet sector has found a rock for your incompetence to hide under, as should life had required you to do something practical to earn your keep I just know id be funding subsistence on my tax dollar. but since your here now I’ve decided I need a lift so lets take this debate in front of everybody so we can calmly discuss all the ways in which I’m better than you.

Workplace bullies curl up in the spot light like a paper cup in a bomb fire, especially the women.  If you want to expose her in a fun way try the “ways the useless tart will screw up again today betting board” have about five of her failures listed and place odds next to them. When the boss asks what’s going on say well I need the extra money and don’t mind betting on a sure thing. Then follow with hey I’ve just realized you don’t mind losing money on her every week, want to place a wager?? Make sure you gather sufficient evidence so that when the boss questions you, you can explain in full detail, i.e. if it’s verbal abuse bring in a tape recorder. Office gossip can be nasty but I’m sure you creative people can think of something.

10-25-2006 10:17 AM

Re: Serial Bullies… Women Who Make Life Hell At Work (More Proof Career Women Suck)
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch
She bullies are usually women who are afraid that other women will take their position. We all know the majority of women suffer from lack of creativity and male know how. So their victims are other females.

How companies stay in business hiring females, I will never know!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-25-2006 08:48 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Bad Behaviour of Single Mothers Again Extends To Murder (And Getting Away With It)


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Bad Behaviour of Single Mothers Again Extends To Murder (And Getting Away With It)

Bad Behaviour of Single Mothers Again Extends To Murder (And Getting Away With It)
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/6076112.stm

Mother spared jail for baby death

A mother who started a fire in which her four-month-old son died has been spared jail at Newcastle Crown Court.

Danielle Wails, 22, had claimed she was tied up by intruders who set the fire at her Newcastle home in August 2005.

She denied the murder of Alexander Gallon but her guilty plea to infanticide was accepted.

An independent review into Alexander’s death concluded that his mother’s behaviour was unpredictable and his death could not have been prevented.

However, the report’s author – social care expert Catherine Weightman – found a series of shortcomings by the agencies involved with the family and has made a number of recommendations which must be implemented.

Wails was given a three-year community order with a period of supervision.

Consultant psychiatr