Patschef


Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2006 January
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2004 May
2004 April

My Links
Patschef's Blog
Masculinisme
Masculinisme

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog
Old girl Network
07.30.05 (4:03 am)   [edit]
Harvard’s New Old-Girl Network
By Heather MacDonald
City Journal | July 29, 2005


Remember when radical feminists first burst on the scene, presenting themselves as virtuous outsiders untainted by old-boys-club politics? They’ve dropped the pose. Harvard’s feminists have now emerged as the ultimate insiders, doling out sinecures to themselves with a shamelessness that even Boss Tweed could admire.


Earlier this year, Harvard created a Task Force on Women Faculty in order to “affirm the University’s commitment” to women. The move was part of President Lawrence Summers’s penance for tentatively suggesting that women may have different innate mathematical skills than men. In May, the Task Force called for the creation of a powerful new administrative position—the Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development. From her large and heavily staffed office (the Task Force report had specified the size and staffing of the office as well as the gender of its occupant), the new Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development would police every faculty appointment and promotion, to ensure that Harvard was attaining “gender and racial equity.”


And now Harvard has revealed the identity of this privileged new bureaucrat: none other than a co-chair of the Task Force itself! The selection of Evelyn Hammonds, as the only black among the Task Force’s three female co-chairs, was—to borrow a favorite deconstructive usage—overdetermined. This professor of the history of science and of African and African American Studies has specialized in discerning bias against minority women in science and medicine. But in a burst of self-sacrifice, Hammonds has agreed to reduce her teaching and research responsibilities in order to pursue “gender equity [and] diversity” all the more zealously, she announced.


Something curious happened between the Task Force report and the crowning of the quota czarina, however. The report had called for a Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development. But Hammonds will be the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity. With this word-reversal, Harvard image-makers undoubtedly hope to snooker naïve observers into believing that the Senior VP for FD & D is about something more universal than bean-counting—making sure that all junior faculty, say, have the library resources they need to perfect their scholarship. Don’t be fooled. The only “faculty development” the new Senior VP for FD & D will engage in is the reengineering of every department’s gender and race ratios.


Harvard’s burgeoning feminist establishment was not about to be satisfied with just one new outpost of power. Their motto could be: Hit a man when he’s down—as many times as he’ll let you. Summers’s purgatory for his ill-considered reference to actual gender science—rather than to the usual gender ideology—was an opportunity to be exploited again and again. And so, beyond the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity post, the feminists have procured from the university six new diversity deanships at six Harvard schools.


The first appointment was just announced: a sterling member of the feminist hierarchy. Lisa L. Martin, Dillon Professor of International Affairs, has “long-standing ties to the women's community at Harvard,” reports the Harvard Crimson, including service on the Standing Committee on Women and on the Government Department's Committee on Sexual Harassment. Martin will act as special advisor on diversity to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. As an academic dean, she will commandeer her very own office in Harvard’s venerable University Hall, seat of many of Harvard’s top leaders. Martin will also assume the chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Women upon taking her post as special diversity advisor, showing that feminists understand how to secure power grids by building in redundancies.


Despite her occupancy of a prestigious endowed chair in the government department, Martin knows that Harvard’s “practices . . . have unintended negative effects on the careers of minorities and women," she told the Crimson. Harvard will be hearing a lot about those negative effects in the future. "My goal is to generate widespread awareness of . . . unconscious sources of bias," she added.


Remember, these metastasizing “diversity” posts are entirely empty of content, despite their preposterous designation as “academic” deanships or provostships. The administrative diversity function consists of counting the number of women and minorities and enforcing quotas. Computers already tally faculty ratios, and quota enforcement is easily accomplished by an incentive system that penalizes laggard departments and rewards eager diversity beavers. You don’t need a special academic dean to figure out at the end of the year which departments have decreased their proportion of white and Asian males. Moreover, every elite college in the country has for decades searched frantically for qualified women and minority hires, and does so to this day. The chance of discovering an unknown diamond in the rough is negligible. No wonder the history of gender and race preferences is littered with defunct bureaucratic titles—Harvard’s new “special diversity deans,” for example, merely replicate a moribund post of “associate dean for affirmative action.”


However vacuous the role, a diversity portfolio is a wonderful way to boost a bureaucratic resume, expediting the ascent up the university pyramid. And Harvard’s new diversity commissars will be certain to look busy. Senior VP for FD & D Hammonds, for example, will be implementing university-wide “diversity education programs,” a delicious prospect for anyone eager to see the academic elite pay for its passive complicity in higher education’s demise.


The feminists’ lust for power is crystal-clear. And apparently Harvard’s cowardly administration is going to simply hand it to them.



 
Restraining orders
07.25.05 (5:36 am)   [edit]
Study Wars: The Fathers Strike Back
New research shows bias in restraining orders

July 25, 2005



by Mark Charalambous



As Congress prepares to reauthorize VAWA, they might do well to listen to the law’s critics. According to syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, VAWA is “a special law just for women —funded by taxpayers—that institutionalized female victimhood and cemented the image of man as predator.” A full-page advertisement, endorsed by a variety of sympathetic advocacy groups is about to be launched in a media campaign. VAWA-linked “abuse prevention” laws that provide for the criminalization of men under the flimsiest of legal underpinnings operate in a quasi civil-criminal domain. Legal protections offered real criminals such as the presumption of innocence, the right to legal counsel and trial by jury, are all denied men accused of domestic abuse. A study of how one court in Massachusetts applies its abuse prevention statute (ch.209A) as measured by the issuance of “209A restraining orders” has just been published in the June issue of Journal of Family Violence, an academic journal on domestic violence issues. “A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection,” by the Fatherhood Coalition’s Steve Basile, examined the 209A restraining orders issued in Gardner District Court in 1997. When the attributes of the litigants and their relationships are compared to measure their impact on court response, sex is by far the greatest predictor of whether or not a 209A restraining order is issued and of the severity of the restrictions imposed on the defendant. The study also looked at the parenting status of the litigants and whether or not they lived together.






Table 1. Litigant population seeking 209A restraining orders in Gardner District Court in 1997.

The study found that women were 38% more likely than men to be granted a protection order at an ex parte hearing, where only the victim is present and the alleged abuser is unaware of the proceedings. Conversely, men were 240% more likely than women to be denied the immediate protection of an emergency restraining order at ex parte hearings. Similarly, the study found that women were 32% more likely than men to be granted a permanent restraining order, usually for a year, when a temporary order was pursued at the followup 10-day hearing. Men, however, were 383% more likely to be denied protection when they sought an extended or new restraining order at the 10-day hearing. One of the more striking findings was that at 10-day hearings, if no emergency order had been granted at the ex parte hearing (the decision was deferred), 19% of the men requesting permanent orders were denied, but women’s requests for permanent orders were denied only 2% of the time. For these cases, men were thus 850% more likely to have their request for protection denied. The report is the second part of what was originally conceived as a three-pronged analysis of all the restraining orders issued in 1997 in the Gardner courthouse. The first phase of the study was published in the Journal in February, 2004. That report provided a qualitative analysis of all the 382 non-impounded 209A restraining orders issued in the courthouse, examining the type and degree of abuses categorized by the sex and relationship of the litigants. Fierce opposition to research critical of domestic violence jurisprudence Typical of controversial work that threatens political correctness, the back story of Basile’s research is perhaps more enlightening than the actual results of the study. The planned third phase of the study would interview as many of the litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) as could be found who would be willing to participate in a survey about their reactions to the entire process in hindsight. But events beyond Basile’s control forced an abrupt termination of the survey phase, and the scant data is insufficient to draw any valid statistical inferences.




Table 2. Court response to request for emergency ex parte emergency 209A restraining order – defendant not present.
Because of the sensitive nature of the survey—and being cognizant of the opposition from the “other side” that would surely manifest itself—Basile took careful precautions to make the survey as unthreatening and defensible as possible. He only elicited women to be the interviewers. The process had barely begun before the full force of the opposition from the domestic violence industry made its presence known. Articles appeared in the Boston Globe claiming that the Fatherhood Coalition was attempting to “re-victimize” domestic violence victims. Acting in uncharacteristic speed, the Massachusetts legislature passed legislation amending the state’s version of the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly prohibiting access to restraining order information to any agencies outside of the established domestic violence industry. The legislation was a combined effort of two feminist state senators, Cheryl Jacques (of gay rights fame) and Therese Murray as well as Attorney General Thomas Reilly. The preliminary results of the survey were tantalizing. Thirty litigants responded before the survey was stopped. Fourteen female and three male victims and 13 male defendants were interviewed (no female defendants). Half of the women said that they would not, in hindsight, seek the 209A order. A third said it escalated tensions and had a negative impact on their family. Two-thirds said it protected them. In cases where actual violence was present, 36% of the victims said they, alone, initiated the violence. Fifty-four percent said they were “mostly” responsible for the violence. Is it any wonder that forces in the domestic violence community reacted so quickly to prevent these explosive results from seeing the light of day?

Politicization of domestic violence

After several decades of feminist-driven social and behavioral research, it is by now a cliché to say that domestic violence research has been hopelessly politicized. Research on domestic violence is not conducted to discover truth, but rather to promulgate an established doctrine on male-female relationships, namely, that they are driven by male power and control, rather than love and reciprocity. As Churchill famously remarked, there are “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Feminist researches have employed every technique to produce the desired results, and invented new ones to boot. The simplest method for manipulating research to guarantee desired results is a carefully groomed selection of the study population (“selective sampling”). A recent Harvard study (which was in turn a rehash of a November, 2002 Wellesley study: “ Speak Out: a Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts”) that purported to show that mothers are denied their human and civil rights by family courts which are ostensibly biased in favor of fathers, employed “snowball sampling” to build its population sample. This methodology produces a population from referrals by disgruntled women of other disgruntled women within their circles. The integrity of any study can in no small part be judged by how willing the authors are to release the underlying data. In her book “Who Stole Feminism?,” Christina Hoff Sommers painstakingly catalogued the lengths to which feminist researchers went to deny access to their data—even to her, a fellow female professor in the social sciences. Needless to say, Basile’s repeated requests for the data underlying the Harvard/Wellesley study were similarly frustrated. Eventually he received a terse letter from the chief legal counsel of Harvard’s President Summers, warning him to cease his efforts. Such is the nature of academic freedom in the brave new post-feminist world, as President Summers is himself now rather painfully aware. Basile’s research is honest, accurate, and statistically sound. He examined every available restraining order docket for one entire year, to mitigate against any seasonal abnormalities or any accusations of selective sampling. And Basile makes his data openly available. Typically, domestic violence research explicitly excludes male victims of female domestic violence. A domestic violence criminologist and author once publicly admitted that federal funding would not be granted for any proposed study that included male victims of female domestic violence. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Basile’s study should be criticized by the domestic violence sisterhood. Here are the comments of feminist blogger Trish Wilson, with apparent ties to the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee, reporting on testimony given in May of this year at a Statehouse legislative hearing on proposed abuse protection reform and shared custody legislation:

“I heard from one of the members of Massachusetts' House of Representatives about one of my e-mails. Fathers' rights activists were promoting a ‘study’ conducted by one of their members about restraining orders. I recall when this man had initially begun his ‘research.’ He had violated victim's privacy by accessing their records, and had contacting (sic) them in person without their permission. This wasn't a professor or a valid researcher contacting victims. This was just some stranger off the street. Because of what he had done, restraining orders in Massachusetts are now closed to public scrutiny. This man has neither the educational nor professional background to conduct any kind of study. I'm going to respond to that House member's e-mail on Monday. That House member thanked me for the heads-up about the story behind that ‘study.’”


For the record, Steve Basile is a software engineer with a masters in mathematics from U. Lowell—“off the street,” perhaps, in comparison to the social science “professionals” who produce the junk science that is dutifully taught in SOC101 courses and swallowed whole by the mainstream media. It’s a sad commentary that it takes someone “off the street” to conduct bona fide social science research.


Among my favorite examples of the bankruptcy of standards in feminist research is this abstract from a presentation given by Ann Goetting from Western Kentucky University at a domestic violence conference held in San Diego:


“As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher with specializations in family studies and criminology in general and domestic abuse specifically, expert witness work on behalf of battered women has evolved naturally from my research, teaching and community work related to families, crime, and domestic abuse. I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence. It is creative applied sociology.” (emphasis added)


The inbreeding within these academic circles is such that “researchers” like Goetting fail to see a necessity to mount even a pretense of scientific authenticity.


However, it would be dishonest to suggest that the results of Basile’s study were not expected. Everyone who has any involvement in the issue knows that there is a double standard in the application of domestic violence laws. VAWA establishes this by its name alone! However, in matters legal, especially in the courtroom, it is not enough, for example, to say that it is day outside by merely observing sunlight through the window. One needs an expert witness to testify to the fact. The need for unbiased, valid domestic violence research data to counteract the existing propaganda is abundantly clear.


Basile knew that the data would speak for itself. No massaging was necessary. As studies go, the data and methodology are unimpeachable, and the results are clear.


Study reveals clear double standard in law’s application


While the results of the first phase confirmed that women disproportionately seek legal protection from domestic violence, the qualitative examination of the data in the dockets, which includes the victim’s affidavit, showed that the nature of the abuse claimed was roughly similar between men and women.


However, the newly published second phase reveals the clear double standard in the court response to the victims. In each of the benchmarks, women plaintiffs (victims) were treated more favorably than men, and likewise, male defendants were treated more harshly than their female counterparts.


For the second phase, only the 358 dockets of male-female and female-male relationships were examined. In some of these, the plaintiffs were requesting protection for someone other than themselves, such as a minor child. Of this remaining population, 238 were from women requesting protection orders for themselves against men, and 44 were from men seeking protection for themselves from women. Eight percent of the cases involved only female litigants and 5% involved only male litigants.







Table 3. Court response to request for new or continued 209A restraining order at follow-up 10-day hearing.


Most often restraining orders are initially granted at ex parte emergency hearings, where only the alleged victim (plaintiff) is present; the accused is usually completely unaware of the proceedings. At ex parte hearings, three options are available to the judge. The request can be granted and a temporary restraining (209A) order issued; the request can be denied; or the request can be deferred until a later hearing to be held within10 days.


The study found that at ex parte hearings, the restraining order is granted to women 91% of the time. In comparison, orders for protection to male victims are granted 66% of the time. Requests for protection are denied to men outright 11% of the time, but requests from women are denied only 5% of the time. Judgments are deferred to a 10-day hearing 23% of the time to male petitioners but only 5% of the time to women. Thus men are 120% more likely to be denied outright and 360% more likely to have a decision on their case deferred until the 10-day hearing.


At the10-day hearing, the judge has several options. The case (and protective order) can be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to appear. When both parties appear, the emergency order issued at the ex parte hearing can be vacated (“judge vacated”) and the matter closed; or if the case was deferred at the ex parte hearing, the request can be denied, or a new, “permanent” order can be granted, typically for one year’s duration. Occasionally the victim specifically requests ending the order.


The analysis of the results of the 10-day hearing show a stark difference in the treatment of men and women seeking to extend protection. Male plaintiffs are denied a new order 16% of the time, but women were denied in only 1% of the cases. Taking all possible outcomes into consideration, the data show that women acquired restraining orders 94% of the time when they pursued their requests at the 10-day hearing, whereas men who pursued their requests acquired protection only 71% of the time.


It is interesting to note that at the 10-day hearings, fully 29% of female plaintiff requests were dismissed either because they failed to show up or because they requested that the order be dropped. The meaning of this result is certainly open to interpretation, but it suggests that a large number of emergency ex parte orders may be without any foundation (the corresponding number is 19% for male plaintiffs).


209A abuse protection orders grant the “victim” enormous power over their alleged abusers. Provisions include removal from one’s own home, granting of immediate custody of minor children to the alleged victim with a consequent assignment of child support, and the threat of 2 ½ years in jail and $10,000 fine for any violation of the order, including the no-contact provisions. It’s important to understand that a 209A order taken against a father, besides removing all legal and physical custodial rights to his children, also extends the no-contact provisions to those children. Any contact he may have with his children, direct or third-party or even unintentional, holds him criminally accountable to the same punishments as mentioned above. This is why a 209A restraining order is referred to as the nuclear first-strike in the commencement of a divorce action.


The study also analyzed court response with respect to granting of custody of minor children when the litigants are parents. Mothers were 288% more likely than fathers to receive custody of children as a direct provision of the 209A order. However, in the few cases where fathers received custody, which was only at ex parte hearings, none of the fathers secured long-term custody of their children at follow-up hearings.


The message couldn’t be clearer. If you are a father suffering domestic violence from your wife (or otherwise mother of your children) do not try to use the legal system to gain protection for yourself and/or your children—there is a high risk you will lose your children regardless of the circumstances of the abuse in the household.


The study shows that female defendants living with the plaintiff with a common child were evicted from their homes 40% of the time. In comparison, fathers were evicted fully 84% of the time. Overall, with and without children in common, male defendants were 29% more likely to be evicted than women and 110% more likely to be evicted if they shared a common child.


In summary, the statistical analysis of the data reveals that a plaintiff’s sex is by far the greatest predictor of whether or not the court will grant a 209A order. This is not surprising to Fathers Rights advocates, but it is repeatedly denied by all in “the system,” including Chief Justice of the Gardner Court, Patrick Fox, who indignantly asserted in a Sept. 2002 Telegram & Gazette article on the study: “The suggestion we favor one gender over another is something I'd categorically deny.”


Naturally, Jane Doe and Battered Women's, Inc. also objected to the study: “[The results] fly in the face of national studies,” said an unidentified spokesman in the same article.


An old adage says “The law is an ass,” meaning the law is a blunt instrument that can and often does produce absurd results when blindly applied. Law cannot be perfectly crafted to account for every possible situation that may arise. However, the injustices that result from Massachusetts 209A are not the exception—they are the rule. It is an obscene understatement to claim that 209A is merely “poorly crafted,” and just requires a little tweaking here and there.


If we wish the state to intervene in family relationships where violence may occur, we need to be very clear to distinguish between real violence and family conflict. The present law treats a phone call to one’s children outside of a specified time carved out of the ‘no-contact’ provisions of a 209A restraining order no different than a defendant bashing his or her way into their home and beating their estranged partner to within an inch of their life.


For the Statehouse to refuse to recognize such an absurdity cannot be explained by mere ignorance alone. No one can be that stupid. And this is but one of the many glaring absurdities and flagrantly unconstitutional provisions of 209A.


Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in 209A is the flimsy threshold under which an order can be granted. Under the present wording a “victim” need only claim to be “in fear of” abuse to justify their request for a protection order. Massachusetts courts have Victim Witness Advocates on hand to counsel women seeking 209A orders before they go in front of the judge. Furthermore, judges in Massachusetts are trained to ask leading questions if the “victims” do not on their own articulate the correct code words. It is a staple of 209A hearings to hear a judge continue to question a woman until she utters the magic “fear” word.


209A Reform Bill


There is a bill sitting in the Judiciary Committee that addresses eleven of the law’s most serious flaws, including the “fear of” clause in the definition of “abuse.” The so-called “209A Reform Bill” is not really the answer to the problem, but merely a band-aid. Abuse protection law needs to be scrapped, rethought and re-drafted from the ground up. The starting point will be to distinguish between actual violence and family conflict.


The Basile study exposes the mechanism by which the law is abused. There is no real argument to be made that Gardner District Court is an especially anti-male environment any different from any other jurisdiction. Anti-male bias is not just a feature of domestic violence jurisprudence in Gardner, it is by and large part of the present national cultural climate of male hatred and demonization. Writing in Human Events in June this year, Phyllis Schlafly, another woman who is not afraid to attack the sisterhood, writes a scathing criticism of VAWA:


“… the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. This created a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers’ money, known as feminist pork, that empowers pro-divorce, anti-male activism… Billions of dollars have flowed from VAWA to the states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the training of judges, prosecutors and police. This tax-funded network is, of course, staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of father guilt.”


Enough is enough. In Washington, it’s time for Congress to end this boondoggle that wreaks so much harm to fatherhood across the nation. In Massachusetts, it’s way past time the Statehouse addressed the repugnant Ch.209A “abuse prevention” statute.


Mark Charalambous
 
MND
07.11.05 (5:40 pm)   [edit]

The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Public Health in Baltimore, have found that female drivers are involved in slightly more crashes than men per mile driven. Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 per cent more miles per year than women. There is much speculation about the female sense of orientation. Studies show that women, being right-brained, have overall poorer spatial perception, making them less able to judge distances and angles for parallel parking.

While insurance companies are pretty much unanimous in saying young, overconfident men in their teens and early 20s are the most dangerous drivers, the gender imbalance reverses above the age of 37, after which men are considered safer drivers with lower annual premiums. Performance Direct marketing director Matthew Collett says: "These figures underline what a great many men already believe. We were keen to reveal the true facts to a motoring public that is constantly barraged with insurance advertising indicating that insurance companies only want to cover women because they are better risks. This is not the case. Driving experience is the key factor in this debate. Once men have enough experience and have rid themselves of their youthful bravura, they are, according to the statistics and all things being equal, better insurance risks."
The dramatic difference between men and women in hand/eye coordination is well established. Women pilots have a crash rate four times higher than men pilots.Women truckers have a crash rate five times higher than men truckers. Women drivers have a 33% to 56% higher probability of having an accident than men drivers.
_________________
In our (current) culture, men have responsibilities; women have choices.


....furthermore; The results of the National Personal Transportation Survey, which are in a pdf file located at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1983/vol1pt1.pdf" title="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1983/vol1pt1.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/...
point out that women drive only 30% of all miles, and men drive 70%, which changes the ratios considerably. This would mean that women are 56% more likely per mile than men to have an accident rather than only 33%. This means that if only men drove that there would be 2.22 accidents per million miles, which is 21.8% lower than the current rate of 2.84 crashes per million miles, which would save 9,159 lives per year. This is also 8.3% lower than men's current crash rate of 2.42, which means that 8.3% or 200,760 of the accidents which men currently have are caused by women drivers. If only women drove, the accident rate would be 4.46 accidents per million miles, which is 57% higher than the current total crash rate and 18% higher than women's current crash rate of 3.78, which would increase the number of traffic fatalities by 23,893 per year. Over the next thirty years, based on the current population growth projection of 1.1% per year, there would be 336,000 fewer traffic fatalities if only men drove. Conversely, there would be 877,000 more traffic fatalities if only women drove. Per mile driven, women have one third more fatal or injury crashes than men, 3.3 vs. 2.5 per one million miles driven, and 17% more property damage only accidents, 5.86 vs. 5.02.
_________________
August 1986
Office of the Secretary
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Urban Mass Transportation Administration


if it wasn't for male adventurism you wouldn't even have planes to fly (washing machines, cars, computers, packaging, etc - all products of "macho" maleness in one form or another).

Sure, men do lots of dubious things, and they are constantly vilified for them in our society; we've been hearing it since
the mid 1960's. Amazing how the inventiveness of men has however, not been commented on by these same anti-male bigots. As Camille Paglia noted;
"Men in teams - subordinated self-sacrificing, disposable got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements - a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean spirited to acknowledge."

Too bad so many of today's women don't think reality thru; instead they mimic anti-male feminism without fully considering the damage they do.
 
MND
07.11.05 (5:38 pm)   [edit]

The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Public Health in Baltimore, have found that female drivers are involved in slightly more crashes than men per mile driven. Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 per cent more miles per year than women. There is much speculation about the female sense of orientation. Studies show that women, being right-brained, have overall poorer spatial perception, making them less able to judge distances and angles for parallel parking.

While insurance companies are pretty much unanimous in saying young, overconfident men in their teens and early 20s are the most dangerous drivers, the gender imbalance reverses above the age of 37, after which men are considered safer drivers with lower annual premiums. Performance Direct marketing director Matthew Collett says: "These figures underline what a great many men already believe. We were keen to reveal the true facts to a motoring public that is constantly barraged with insurance advertising indicating that insurance companies only want to cover women because they are better risks. This is not the case. Driving experience is the key factor in this debate. Once men have enough experience and have rid themselves of their youthful bravura, they are, according to the statistics and all things being equal, better insurance risks."
The dramatic difference between men and women in hand/eye coordination is well established. Women pilots have a crash rate four times higher than men pilots.Women truckers have a crash rate five times higher than men truckers. Women drivers have a 33% to 56% higher probability of having an accident than men drivers.
_________________
In our (current) culture, men have responsibilities; women have choices.


....furthermore; The results of the National Personal Transportation Survey, which are in a pdf file located at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1983/vol1pt1.pdf" title="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1983/vol1pt1.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/...
point out that women drive only 30% of all miles, and men drive 70%, which changes the ratios considerably. This would mean that women are 56% more likely per mile than men to have an accident rather than only 33%. This means that if only men drove that there would be 2.22 accidents per million miles, which is 21.8% lower than the current rate of 2.84 crashes per million miles, which would save 9,159 lives per year. This is also 8.3% lower than men's current crash rate of 2.42, which means that 8.3% or 200,760 of the accidents which men currently have are caused by women drivers. If only women drove, the accident rate would be 4.46 accidents per million miles, which is 57% higher than the current total crash rate and 18% higher than women's current crash rate of 3.78, which would increase the number of traffic fatalities by 23,893 per year. Over the next thirty years, based on the current population growth projection of 1.1% per year, there would be 336,000 fewer traffic fatalities if only men drove. Conversely, there would be 877,000 more traffic fatalities if only women drove. Per mile driven, women have one third more fatal or injury crashes than men, 3.3 vs. 2.5 per one million miles driven, and 17% more property damage only accidents, 5.86 vs. 5.02.
_________________
August 1986
Office of the Secretary
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Urban Mass Transportation Administration


if it wasn't for male adventurism you wouldn't even have planes to fly (washing machines, cars, computers, packaging, etc - all products of "macho" maleness in one form or another).

Sure, men do lots of dubious things, and they are constantly vilified for them in our society; we've been hearing it since
the mid 1960's. Amazing how the inventiveness of men has however, not been commented on by these same anti-male bigots. As Camille Paglia noted;
"Men in teams - subordinated self-sacrificing, disposable got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements - a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean spirited to acknowledge."

Too bad so many of today's women don't think reality thru; instead they mimic anti-male feminism without fully considering the damage they do.