Erik Rush
08.29.05 (5:06 am) [edit]The Feminist Infection
August 29, 2005
by Erik Rush
Of all the movements that sprang from the Civil Rights era, the feminist movement has probably been the single most damaging to our nation. While it is clear that certain issues of parity where women were concerned – such as in the workplace – proved to be as necessary as dismantling Jim Crow laws, it has also become clear that those who drove this movement were less concerned with women’s rights than expanding socialist policies in America. This is old hat to many of us by now.
But why such an unequivocal statement as “the single most damaging”? I say this because while the issues and subsequent “remedies” respecting interest groups during that period of time primarily affected those groups directly and impacted society as a whole to a somewhat lesser degree, the feminist movement primarily affected women – more than half our population – in very fundamental ways. The effect on the remainder of the population – namely males, and thus society as a whole – was, and will likely remain, incalculable.
Starting in the late 1960s, socialists in politics and the media characteristically targeted women as another dissatisfied minority who would be brought into the fold as advocates for the social engineering necessary to bring about a socialist revolution in the United States. Again, legitimate parity issues aside, the number of women who were dissatisfied – read “future feminists” – was very small indeed. However, using such well-spoken and high-profile trolls as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and other predominantly East Coast libertines, Marxists were able to articulate their message very effectively.
As with minorities, gays, the handicapped, and other special interests, the promise was “we’ll look out for you”; to the rest of us, the unspoken mantra: “who wouldn’t want equality for these folks?” So, while the Neandertals – mostly fly-over state people – protested, most of us shut up while such wisdom as “it’s OK for women to be promiscuous if it’s OK for men”, and “fathers and mothers are interchangeable” became mainstream.
More women entered the workforce, less out of desire than out of the necessity generated by those the Left insinuated into legislative and regulatory areas of government, which eventually taxed and regulated business into subsistence mode. But enter the workforce they did, and as time went on, domesticity became a scarlet letter rather than a badge of honor. Women who thought they were doing the right thing evolved into lousy wives and mothers.
Not that men were blameless, of course. Leaving aside those males who were architects within the movement, many males - particularly young, ignorant ones such as I was back in the day – were more than willing to oblige the crop of “enlightened” women who now were perfectly willing to engage in sex within fifteen minutes of meeting a fellow. This of course led to all sorts of emotional malaise on both sides, shallow, doomed marriages and depressed, maladjusted children. It bears mentioning here that this was all part of the plan.
What also bears mentioning is that this “new wisdom” made for handy extrapolations regarding the Gay Rights agenda: If moms and dads are interchangeable, then two moms or two dads ought to be as good as one of each, and other such groundless propaganda. We’re admonished that homosexuals now have the right to their own social experiment, dismal and destructive though it promises to be.
Women continue to be propagandized and confused with inference that they ought to be able to have it all at the same time. With their innate drives supplanted by even more unreasonable cultural demands than prior to the Sexual Revolution, stress and yet more dissatisfaction results. In a relationship, they are instructed that sex is a weapon to be wielded, lest their men control them completely.
Men, as hard-wired to provide and protect as women are to nurture, balk inwardly at the prospect of emotionally becoming, well, women. They feel neglected, and at a deep emotional level, rightly so - but God help the husband so rash as to interfere with his wife’s pursuit of her inner Oprah. Their roles ridiculed and usurped, they displace their emotional needs through work or less healthy social outlets, or they leave, finding yet another female as confused as their mate, but without the familiar, tiresome baggage. If there are children, the stage has been set for the cycle to begin anew.
Previously indoctrinated low-income and minority groups proved the easiest to corrupt. With direct financial infusion into communities and households being weaned off of religion and traditional values and into the culture of victimization, substance abuse, and sensualism, women became self-hating, undereducated baby machines and men became shiftless purveyors of sperm. As with the rest of the males in society, what they need the most – to be needed – has become nearly unattainable, so why stay in a marriage or bother to raise one’s spawn?
So, here we are in the 21 st century. All of the arguments feminists made thirty years ago have been exploded, yet they (and now the sexual orientation movement) are still making them, even more vociferously. The legacy of a promiscuous populace has given us sexually-transmitted diseases we didn’t even know existed in the late ‘Sixties – yet the Left still asserts people have a right to their promiscuity. We’ve experienced the dysfunction that arises in families when either parent is physically or emotionally absent, yet we’re still told that either will do. In a “perfect” socialist state, of course, both are expendable.
Where does it end? You tell me? Like the addict, perhaps we will have to reach a level of demoralization and misery so profound that there will be no room left for the denial that a fundamental perversion of human society can somehow work. Or, like the addict who goes on denying to the bitter end, we will, as a society, die.
Erik Rush is a black conservative columnist, author and sometime radio host. Visit his website at erikrush.com.
sex differences
08.27.05 (6:35 am) [edit]EXTRAITS :
The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly
the media's fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of
knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up
research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors
their jobs.
Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences
between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The
assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social
policy. That assumption is wrong.
It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the
right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is
also wrong.
The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in
science and the arts is not open to argument.
In a large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times
as many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT
mathematics test.
It has been known for years that, even after adjusting for body size, men
have larger brains than women. One hypothesis for explaining this paradox
is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity.
In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract
items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract
domains of accomplishment.
In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophyâ and no woman has
been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great
philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is
mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is
approximately two.
Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being
female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby.
The women with careers were four-and-a-half times more likely than men to say they preferred to work fewer than 40 hours per week.The most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of
accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more
aggressive than women.24
<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...; The word Testosterone may come to mind, and appropriately. Much technical literature documents the hormonal basis of personality differences that bear on sex differences in extreme and venturesome effort, and hence in extremes of accomplishment.Men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...
COMMENTARY <http://www.commentarymagazine.com" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...;
Article HERE
sex differences
08.27.05 (6:29 am) [edit]EXTRAITS :
The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly
the media's fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of
knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up
research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors
their jobs.
Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences
between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The
assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social
policy. That assumption is wrong.
It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the
right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is
also wrong.
The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in
science and the arts is not open to argument.
In a large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times
as many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT
mathematics test.
It has been known for years that, even after adjusting for body size, men
have larger brains than women. One hypothesis for explaining this paradox
is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity.
In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract
items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract
domains of accomplishment.
In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophyâ and no woman has
been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great
philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is
mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is
approximately two.
Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being
female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby.
The women with careers were four-and-a-half times more likely than men to say they preferred to work fewer than 40 hours per week.The most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of
accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more
aggressive than women.24
<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...; The word Testosterone may come to mind, and appropriately. Much technical literature documents the hormonal basis of personality differences that bear on sex differences in extreme and venturesome effort, and hence in extremes of accomplishment.Men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murr ay0905.html" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...
COMMENTARY <http://www.commentarymagazine.com" title="http://www.commentarymagazine.com" target="_blank"http://www.commentarymagazine...;
Article HERE
Times online
08.27.05 (12:58 am) [edit]
Future perfect: how to be a 'real' man again
Carol Midgley
Women rule says Michael Buerk, and feminism is triumphant at home, at work, even in TV ads. The woman who coined the word 'metrosexual' explains how men can reclaim their masculinity, and we publish an extract from her new book WHO’D be one of you, eh chaps? Let’s be honest, your CV these days is hardly enviable. Outperformed by girls at school, emasculated by women at home and at work, shockingly dislocated from your emotions and the hapless joke figure in endless TV commercials and sitcoms whose message is that females rule and men are fools.
Well wise up, because apparently it’s time to say enough is enough; the ridicule of men must stop. The pendulum of power has swung too far into the female corner and you must stand up and assert your right to masculinity. Stop apologising for it, be comfortable with it, but while you’re at it try to embrace a few female traits such as compromise....
read article here
washington times
08.21.05 (7:16 am) [edit]Forum: Foibles of feminism
Published August 21, 2005Driving home from a high school mentoring luncheon held by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, I contemplated my discussion with the girls at my table.
T hey were troubled by the information at the weekend conference. It seemed a few considered themselves feminists. Luce Policy Institute President Michelle Easton's speech -- aptly titled "The Failures of Feminism" -- worried them.
N ow a junior at Drake University, I couldn't help but think of my own high school days. For all I knew, I was a feminist. Packing up my belongings for that all-important first year of college, I never bothered to categorize myself as a Democrat or a Republican or even a liberal or a conservative. I was 17 and in the middle of that angst/rebellion stage, meaning I no longer went to church with my parents and had purposefully chosen a college 500 miles from home.
S urprisingly, my otherwise mediocre public high school employed a teacher passionate about American history. Come to think of it, the man is the most objective instructor I ever had. My younger sister's revelation the teacher was a Kerry supporter came as quite a blow. Nevertheless, he taught my Advanced Placement U.S. History class and he did so fairly. We spent a good deal of time on the suffragettes at Seneca Falls, and I grew to respect the women who fought for equal rights.
T hus, my view of feminism was neutral, if anything. There was a general appreciation -- "isn't it nice women have the right to work and vote." I didn't see modern feminism directly affecting me. Equal pay for equal work? Sounded logical. I was OK with claims that women should seek fulfillment outside the home.
N aively assuming Women's Studies would be a thorough analysis of the obstacles women had overcome and, perhaps, a comparison of the rights American women have versus the rights of women in other countries, I followed my orientation counselor's advice and enrolled in Women's Studies 101. Call me gullible, but alongside courses titled Marxist Principles of Economics, Intro to Women's Studies looked harmless.
" Harmless" is perhaps the perfect description of how feminist activity seems to those, like my high school lunch companions, who have yet to experience the hateful wrath of the actual movement. This movement is often glamorous and fashionable present but still ever-present in some shape or form on every American college campus.
F or three hours a week during my first semester of college, my tuition dollars were spent studying that oppressive beast, the white male. I don't exactly specialize in staying quiet, so for 12 long weeks I was known as the enemy by my Women's Studies professor and classmates.
S oon after leaving home, I had an "Aha" moment. I stopped hating my mother for her selfless devotion to her children and began looking forward to having children of my own. I voiced this desire in class, in response to a question about any justification of heterosexuality, and it was not well received.
I f you haven't been in a Women's Studies classroom, just imagine a situation where open-mindedness is touted so long as everyone shares the same liberal ideology. Then multiply it by one woman with a Marxist agenda equally fond of saying "America entered Iraq unpre[expletive deleted]pared" and "King George II," to 30 impressionable and self-conscious peers.
C ombine that with assorted readings and film clips shining a positive light on self-centered, lesbian, anti-male existence, and you might see the feminist movement for what it really is: Anything but harmless.
M ost despicable in my view is the movement claim to represent all women equally. My professor could not get her mind around anyone disagreeing with her. Her open-mindedness simply did not extend to someone with pro-family convictions.
T he Women's Awareness Coalition at my school certainly does raise awareness -- the question is: of what? Trying to explain to a feminist that feminism furthers a leftist agenda, not the rights of all women, is something I think I'll have earned a minor in if I survive the second half of my college career.
A fter the mentoring lunch, a ninth-grader wrote to me, "I learned that most feminists are very confused." I couldn't have put it better myself.
D ANIELLE STURGIS
M iss Sturgis is the recipient of the Phillips Foundation Clare Boothe Luce Journalism Award at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. She is a junior at Drake University in Iowa.
Rachef Alexander
08.21.05 (5:42 am) [edit]Child custody has emerged as an area where men run into a glass ceiling. "It's awful to take a child away from its mother!" Sound familiar? That is because it is the message that has been repeatedly hammered at society by feminists, as well as from some conservatives. But you won't hear the equivalent, "It's awful to take a child away from its father," because the feminists aren't pushing equivalent respect for fathers. Instead, you are more likely to hear this mantra about fathers, "there's so many deadbeat dads." The feminists have successfully changed the law, the courts, and societal attitudes when it comes to the custody and care of children from split homes. Instead of looking at fathers' capabilities and indiscretions individually, the law makes sweeping assumptions and treats all fathers as second class. Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don't work, or don't work much, you'll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all I offer for advice to you is this: if you have children, you'd better pray that you remain a couple.
Sad as it sounds, this is where the law is at. When a couple that has mutual children splits up, the courts examine just a few factors to determine custody, known as the "best interests of the child." These factors make it very likely that the woman will get custody of the children and hence child support money. Two of the most important factors include who is better able to "take care" of the child and whether there has been domestic violence by one of the parents. Well, these factors "sound" good, but in reality, they have been specifically selected for their heavy bias against fathers. There are numerous other factors that address equally as serious issues, that could affect mothers for the worse, or at least equally affect both parents, such as drug abuse, but these factors are conveniently not found in the "best interests of the child" statutes (there must be an actual drug conviction - which is absurd - one drug-addict mother was able to take custody away from the father even though she snorted meth every single day - the courts had no knowledge of her drug habit!). "Take care" of the child has little to do with being able to financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who split up with the fathers aren't very ambitious and sit around the house watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as "taking care" of the children, instead of earning money. Since most fathers work full-time, they lose here.
"Domestic violence" is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police anytime their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and abusing this taxpayer funded "helpline" at an increasingly alarming rate. Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, reported that at least 30 studies of domestic violence, including some he had conducted, found that women were as equally culpable of domestic violence as men. Yet this information is not widely publicized, and is downplayed by both police officers and the courts. Women are also abusing restraining orders. A recent article in Human Events cited a government study that found that fewer than half of all restraining orders contained even an allegation of physical violence. Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are taking the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their "tattling" every time they take up the time of a police officer or court. Of course, many times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to end up in the court's minute entry. Men are laughed at if they are the victims of domestic violence. One young father attempted to seek free legal help from a domestic violence law clinic after his ex-wife continued to hit him, and the clinic turned him away in amusement. Another young father had the domestic violence of an ex-girlfriend, who had hit him, used against him in order to justify taking away his child.
It is easy for mothers to obtain free legal aid in pursuing custody of their children. There are flyers everywhere - in women's restrooms, in doctors' offices, and in government buildings, offering free legal resources for women to use. The Legal Aid clinics help out so many mothers with custody disputes and divorces that recently they have had to limit their representation of custody cases to cases alleging abuse. Domestic violence legal clinics are at many of the law schools now, and give women free legal help with divorces, custody disputes, and restraining orders. If there are low-income requirements, they are rarely verified; any woman can come in and say she makes very little money, and on her word alone she will receive free legal help (just like at Planned Parenthood).
The child support laws are crafted not just to provide for the cost of raising a child, but to bring the parent receiving the support to the level she would have been at if she were still with the father! The absurdity of this situation can be seen in this all too common example: A woman cheats on her husband and then files for no-fault divorce. She gets custody of their children, AND the benefit of his salary and payraises until their child turns 18 (25 in Massachusetts) - all the money benefits as if they were still married (and she may even get alimony on top of that, but that is a different issue for another column, and at least with alimony, once the mother remarries, the alimony goes away)! Why should an ex-wife be guaranteed, years after having been married, the same living standard of her husband? Absent unhealthy circumstances, why shouldn't the parent with the BETTER living standards be considered the one better prepared to take care of the child? That way, one parent isn't stuck paying for the ex-spouse too. Currently, though, most child custody laws do not consider financial responsibility of the parent as one of the "best interests of the child."
Child support is widely touted by governmental agencies as one of the most important things government does, and the duty of it is glorified almost nazilike to the level of a moral authority. Yet what exactly does child support do? The charts for child support award way too much money to the custodial parent - does anyone really believe that it costs $800/month to raise a child? In most situations, the mother has custody and makes considerably less money than the father. According to fairly standard child support guidelines, if the mother makes $20,000/yr and the father makes $40,000/yr, and there is one child, the father should pay $535/month in child support (the formula adds both parents' salaries together, then comes up with a random number of how much they think that child costs - here it was $800 - then has the non-custodial parent pay the percentage his salary is - here it is 66%). Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who resort to going to court to collect child support are the types of mothers who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another $265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is older than 5 and in school)? There is no monitoring of that money, and it is very difficult to get a court to order any type of accounting by the mother. One such mother of a 6-year old has stated that she is saving the money for breast implants.
Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for working harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job would reduce the amount of free money they receive from the other parent. It is akin to welfare - if you work hard, you aren't eligible for it. And it is a double penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial parent for working harder. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the more money is taken out of his paycheck to go to the residential parent.
Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the fathers, essentially giving "reward" money to women who have sex, instead of letting them suffer the consequences? Everyone knows that sex without true commitment leads to broken down homes and emotional trauma, particularly for any children involved. Everyone also knows that when you have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways, child support is merely a disguised form of prostitution - women are encouraged to have sex and receive money from any man who succeeds in impregnating them. After sex, the man then has no other contact with the woman except to give her money for the child, and any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. Women realize they can have gratuitous sex without suffering any consequences, because the safety net of a man's pocketbook will always be there for them, thanks to the long arm of the moral authoritarian government child support agency that reassures them that they are right.
And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many "deadbeat dads" are simply fathers who are going through a hard time economically; they may have lost a job, or simply are having a difficult time paying $800/month in child support. Sure there are some fathers who have completely rejected any responsibility towards their children, but that doesn't mean all fathers should be treated like criminals and rounded up by Sheriff's Offices and taken into jail. Why are the fathers held accountable while the mothers aren't?
Why this bias against fathers has been allowed to develop may be the result of conservatives' neglect of this area of the law. Conservatives have avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in this area because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their old-fashioned view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. Consequently, liberal feminists have had free reign here. What is interesting however, is the flavor of feminism which has prevailed - it is not the version that encourages men to be more sensitive, but instead the version that accepts prostitution and rampant sexual promiscuousness as a component of womens' equality.
The feminists' efforts in this area are no doubt driven by both their beliefs that mothers are better nurturers of children, and their resentment towards men who use women for sex and then leave them. But punishing all men equally fails to take into account certain things. First of all, those men eventually remarry and move on with their lives. The courts consider the new spouse's salary when computing child support! So punishing the father also results in punishing another completely innocent woman. Secondly, child support creates resentment and additional fighting between the parents, since the paying parent resents the other parent and will try to change the situation. This clogs up the family courts.
So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child support between parents who both want custody of their children? If someone really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends meet. It just doesn't cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine. The message we should be sending is, if you can't afford a child, then abstain from sex! Foster parents receive around $300/month per child. This isn't very much money. Nobody seems to complain about those children not receiving $800/month. Why not let the parent who wants to care for the child, and is more financially capable, have the custody, or at the very least cut out the child support? That way, no parent is stuck supporting the other parent. This would also send a message to parents that they should be ambitious and set good work ethics for their children, instead of the current message which encourages parents to be lazy and earn less. If the mother has to work during the day, and the father works evenings, let the father take care of the children during the day instead of putting them in daycare. There are better workable solutions than giving the children to the mother just because she is lazy and stays at home, utilizing the father only as a money funnel. One mother sat around the house getting high on her days off, yet still put her child in daycare, using the father's money!
Finally, "domestic violence," which has been abused by women, should be looked at more closely by the courts if it is to be a factor in determining child custody. There may be more to "domestic violence" than appears in a brief minute entry or police report. For example, the mother may have been racked out on drugs at the time she called the police, as well as every day of her life, yet this is not taken into consideration as part of the "best interests of the child" unless there is an actual drug conviction. The courts should also examine whether the mother is the type to move from abuser to abuser, which ultimately creates an unstable upbringing for the child. Is it really better that a child stay with a mother who cycles through violent or volatile relationships, or is it better that the child live with the father whose only "history of domestic violence" occurred when the mother obtained dubious restraining orders against him when she was having affairs on him? Unfortunately, the laws do not currently take these circumstances into consideration when considering the "best interests of the child." Unless a father has an excellent attorney who is able to get ahold of hard evidence proving these types of circumstances, and has success persuading a judge to give these factors some weight even though they are not in the law, a father is simply out of luck. He has reached the glass ceiling for fathers in child custody.
Rachel Alexander has done work with a domestic violence law clinic and has studied this area of the law in law school. She cannot respond to every email she receives about child custody, so she apologizes in advance if she does not respond to your email. If you need one of the best attorneys for child custody/support and you live in Arizona, she recommends Susanne Sternberg. She is inexpensive, aggressive, but nice. For male attorneys, we recommend Bernard (Phil) Lopez who can be reached at 602.253.4643
. Both attorneys are affordable, Susanne practices criminal law as well and Phil practices almost all types of law. Also visit Arizona Fathers' Rights (even if you're not from Arizona, they have a very helpful links page).
women's whining
08.19.05 (4:25 pm) [edit]."Women and men look at their life, and women say, 'What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?' And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives, men should be learning from women."
Women choose more time because men are giving them money...That's because men endure relantlessly since the beginning of times women's whining.
Sailing with women
08.19.05 (4:13 pm) [edit]On Sailing with Women
August 19, 2005
by Tom Purcell
I had a bad feeling as soon as I got onto the boat.
It was a small rented sailboat that was piloted by two women. They women had taken a few sailing lessons and wanted to try out their nautical prowess on the Potomac River. I and two other fellows went along for the ride.
And what a ride it was. Shortly after we boarded, one of the women, a lawyer, began lecturing us on sailing techniques. She told us about the jib, the small sail up front, and how to move it from one side to another by releasing one jib rope and pulling the other.
She explained what it meant to “tack,” or shift the sails from one side to another to catch the wind and change direction. She lectured us with a seriousness you’d encounter at a sexual-harassment seminar.
No sooner did her lecture conclude than the winds whipped up and grabbed the sails. We were yanked out to the great unknown at the neck-snapping speed of two miles per hour.
“Let go of the jib!” she shouted to one of the men, who, being a man, felt the need to do something, so he grabbed the jib rope. I later learned he was her ex-husband and they still lived together.
“But if I pull the jib tighter, it will catch more wind,” he speculated. Men speculate, you see. A lack of actual knowledge never interferes with our perpetual quest to resolve problems.
“Release the jib now!”
“But if I --”
“I said let go of the damn jib!”
He let go of the damn jib. His surrender, and the embarrassment we felt for him, set the tone for the rest of the torturous outing.
No matter where you sit on a sailboat piloted by women, you are in the way. Your head is perpetually getting struck by ropes, pulleys and sail rods. If you attempt to do nothing, the women yell at you to pull the damn jib. If you pull the damn jib, they demand you release it. If you release it, they demand you pull it tighter.
I got to thinking about this episode after reading about Women’s Equality Day, to be celebrated Friday, August 26th. Congress established it in 1971 to spotlight women’s efforts at achieving equality. It is celebrated on August 26th, because that’s the day women won the right to vote back in 1920.
Things sure have changed since then.
It used to be that women were held back in this country. They had few options but to marry and become mothers, and they were then expected to stay home while the men went off to run the country.
Today, the potential of women has been unleashed and we’re all better off. Women are excelling in every profession. More women than men are enrolling in college and more are earning advanced degrees. Nearly 40% of all businesses in America are owned by women.
It’s true that women have not yet achieved parity at the top levels of corporate America. It’s also true that women earn 75% of what men do, though doesn’t this have more to do with the choices women can now make than discrimination?
Women can stay single and climb the corporate ladder. They can marry, have a family and hire a nanny to watch the kids. They can suspend their career, which will reduce their earning potential later when they return to work, to stay home with the kids. There are a million choices available and women are choosing every variation under the sun.
And they’re piloting sailboats.
It used to be that when five people got onto a sailboat, it was the men who sat in the back barking orders. They’d soon get to bickering and turn an otherwise delightful outing into a miserable affair.
Now it’s the women who are doing that. While they focus intensely on their piloting duties, it’s the men who are adrift at sea.
Men who aren’t sure whether they should pull or release the damn jib.
IWF
08.17.05 (5:32 am) [edit]And You Wonder Why There’s a "Glass Ceiling"
"Women who send flirtatious e-mail, wear short skirts or massage a man’s shoulders at work win fewer pay raises and promotions, according to a Tulane University study to be presented Monday at the Academy of Management annual meeting in Honolulu."
I should think so. But according to the above report from USA Today (hat tip to Glib and Superficial via our libertarian Catholic friend Kathy Shaidle), nearly half the women in America who hold MBA degrees believe that telling your boss that he looks "hot" (or engaging in similar behavior) is the way to succeed in business without really trying. Yup, the Tulane researchers report that a full 49 percent of the 164 female MBA-holders ranging in age from their mid-20s to 60s whom they surveyed ’fessed to having engaged in at least one of the following 10 on-the-job sexual behaviors in order to snag that promotion:
"I wear a skirt or something more revealing than usual around clients or supervisors to get attention.
"I flirt with people at work.
"I draw attention to my legs by crossing them provocatively when in meetings or sitting with a group of men at work.
"I hint or imply that I am attracted to a man (men) at work even if I am not.
"I purposely let men sneak a look down my shirt when I lean over a table.
"I massage a man’s shoulders or back while at work.
"I sent flirty or risqué e-mails to male co-workers.
"I tell male co-workers or clients they look sexy or ’hot.’
"I allow men to linger at certain places of my body while hugging them.
"I emphasize my sexuality while at work by the way I dress, speak, and act."
The good news is that such behavior gets you nowhere, indicating both that acting like a lady at work--that is, like a professional among professionals--pays off and that men on the job aren’t the drooling chauvinists or sex-obsessed fools that feminist ideologues paint them to be. As USA Today reports:
"The other half said they never engaged in such activity, and those women have earned an average of three promotions, vs. two for the group that had employed sexuality. Those who said they never used sexuality were, on average, in the $75,000-$100,000 income range; the others fell, on average, in the next-lowest range, $50,000 to $75,000."
Glib and Superficial comments:
"The perpetrators of the study conclude that this means that such provocative behavior is ineffective in getting ahead.
"It seems to us that there is a far simpler explanation. First, the study has divided these professional women into two groups: One group not only thinks this sort of thing is necessary or appropriate, but is willing to admit it to someone taking a survey. Let’s call this group ’idiots.’
"The second group behaves like intelligent grownups. We’ll call this group ’not idiots.’
"We think the study suggests that -- on average -- people who are not idiots get paid more than people who are idiots."
I’m still reeling, however, at the fact that the "idiots" category includes nearly one out of every two women who graduate from biz school. It’s something to think about the next time you hear a gal complaining about the "glass ceiling."
IWF
Glenn Sacks
08.14.05 (3:50 pm) [edit]New Study Finds Myths, Misrepresentations In Women's Studies Textbooks
by Glenn J. Sacks
A new study by the Independent Women's Forum has concluded that Women's Studies textbooks "ignore facts in favor of myths," "mistake ideology for scholarship," and encourage students to "embrace aggrievement, not knowledge." The study, Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students, examined the five most popular Women Studies' textbooks in the United States.
The study's author, scholar Christine Stolba, used the textbooks because she sought to examine academic feminism's mainstream, instead of its oft-criticized fringe. She divided her study into three main categories, "Errors of Interpretation," "Errors of Fact," and "Sins of Omission."
The "Errors of Interpretation" occur in large part because the textbooks construe every study, statistic, or piece of evidence to mean that women are miserable and oppressed, and that men are privileged oppressors. Among the "truths" that the textbooks tell us are: women are under siege from virtually all sectors of society; little has changed for women in the past three decades; believing that women have achieved equality is "modern sexism"; and most women are not naturally attracted to men but are the victims of "compulsory heterosexuality" maintained through (male) "social control."
The textbooks also depict motherhood as a "burden for women, something to be overcome" and portray women who choose to remain home with their young children as dupes who buy into oppressive traditional female roles. In addition, bad fathers are described as the rule rather than the exception, the prevalence of sexual abuse and molestation are wildly exaggerated, and students are told that fathers represent a "foreign male element" that mothers and daughters must often unite against.
Among the many "Errors of Fact" Stolba cites are the belief that the government has ignored women's health needs at the expense of men's, and that the gender wage gap is a direct result of discrimination.
The women's health claim was made famous in 1990 by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who generated national headlines when she cited the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and labeled it "blatant discrimination." However, only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was (and is) addressed to health issues affecting both sexes. Since 1990 the disparity favoring female-specific NIH research has grown even wider.
The claim that men are paid more than women for the same job has been refuted by studies by liberal, dissident feminist, and conservative organizations, all of whom have found that single men do not earn more than single women. The gender wage gap is caused by the career sacrifices that mothers make for their children, and the personal sacrifices fathers make (longer work weeks, more consecutive years of service, more hazardous jobs, etc.) in order to earn the money to support those children. Surveys which take these factors into consideration have shown that, for the same job, women earn within 2% of what men do.
In "Sins of Omission" Stolba notes that the textbooks airbrush all heroines to remove their flaws. For example, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is extolled, but her well-documented racism is not mentioned. Similarly, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is praised uncritically without noting her administration's corruption.
Powerful or heroic women who happened to hold conservative beliefs, such as Florence Nightingale, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher, are either ignored or are portrayed as sellouts who "turned from other women." The power wielded by first ladies is praised in the wives of Democratic presidents and ignored in the wives of Republican presidents. Feminist dissidents, an increasingly numerous and vocal group, are dismissed briefly, if they are mentioned at all.
Alice Graves, a UCLA graduate familiar with Women's Studies, agrees with Stolba's depiction. She says:
"Much of what is taught in Women's Studies panders to us and insults our intelligence. I want to learn the truth about both women and men, the good and the bad. I want all women's voices to be heard, not just those who toe the party line. Do my professors believe that I can't be trusted to think for myself?"
Glenn J. Sacks
Glenn J. Sacks is the only regularly published male columnist in the US who writes about gender issues from a perspective unapologetically sympathetic to men. His columns have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Salt Lake City Tribune, the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennJSacks.com
Jail men
08.11.05 (6:47 pm) [edit]Canadian Feminazis Shock Plan To Jail Men For Questioning Feminism
Continuing abolition of human rights for males a worrying trend
by Steven Stevenson
A recent report from Status of Women Canada, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for Masculinist Discourse, has created a "national tempest," according to one of the many websites which incites hatred against males.
Surprisingly, they got that almost right. The report has created an international storm, which may last for years.
The 150 page government-funded thinly-veiled attack against the feminist authors' political opponents, mens' rights advocates, has been criticized in the Canadian parliament and by many journalists in both the mainstream and alternative press.
Extreme femininity man-haters in Canada have reached a new nadir, not surprising considering how Political Correctness rarely goes unchecked these days, and that Canada is one of the most feminist countries in the world.
For instance, Ontario's Bill 117, enacted in the year 2000, requires that if a woman merely *claims* that her partner has been violent to her, he is ejected from their home, his assets are frozen, and he is jailed. It doesn't matter whether she manufactured the allegation, as is frequent with many angry partners on the verge of splitting. It doesn't matter if she has a history of frequent lying and if there is no evidence of violence from him. It doesn't even matter if she feels guilty about lying and withdraws the accusation. The man is automatically assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, forcibly removed, financially disempowered and jailed for the evening. He can wake to find his partner has applied for an intervention order, that he now owns nothing and has no place to go. He is not asked for his side of the story, because he is male.
A similar domestic violence law is being planned right now for Victoria, Australia. (link, and link)
It will probably end up being enacted since so few people here have as yet woken up to the totalitarian nature of the man haters, who have over the last few decades manipulated themselves into positions of taxpayer-funded power in a large number of government organizations in Western countries. It is not long after one group of them accomplishes another excess before it is duplicated in other parts of the world.
Such is the case with the report in question, produced by a self-described feminist and her two assistants with $75,000 of citizens' money. Only a fraction of the report addresses the material suggested by the title (females receiving a better education than males, and why that's good according to feminists, and how their should be more of it). The body of the report involves examining male-positive newspaper and web articles from a feminist point of view.
Any criticism of feminist revisionist philosophy at all, these extremists believe, supposedly oppresses all women (even proudly non-feminist women). This brings us to the real reason for this report. The authors manufacture some 'solutions' to the 'unacceptable' use of free speech, typically misandrous (man hating) in tone but shocking in their totalitarian extremity.
The removal men's basic right to justice is, if Canadian feminists have their way, to now be followed by the removal of our rights to free speech and association.
"We make a number of general recommendations for protecting the gains that women have made... there is [a] need to ensure closer monitoring of hate-mongering [sic] sites to determine whether legal action should be taken." - report excerpt
The feminists want feminists to monitor all men's rights activist sites, using government money to record, feministly analyze and report on all points of view expressed by individuals and groups which are non-feminist. We men's right advocates are categorized before it's even started as 'hate mongering.' This is so that existing Canadian hate crime legislation can be used to silence the man-haters political opponents.
The fact that we want only equality for men is irrelevant -- to extreme feminists any increase in men's rights before &*all* women get *complete* equality is 'discriminatory.' They have been trained by taxpayer-funded feminists Women's' Studies classes to believe this, and it is not in their interests to learn or admit the real truth. They are paid to oppress men and boys, who feminist lore has it, are responsible for every evil throughout history (a word that by the way was recently banned on campus at England's Stockport College. 'Herstory,' which isn't in the dictionary, is allowed. Nothing at all to do with etymology. Merely that extreme feminists hate all things male).
The small injustices against women which used to exist have been almost entirely abolished, and inertia will do the rest in a very few years. Of course, there will always be small pockets of discrimination against women, for instance most women are not aggressive enough pigs to make it to corporate boardrooms. The feminazi solution? A fairer social system to cater for the majority of men and women who have less than the few at the top? No, rather keep on discriminating against men, in every possible way, while *any* injustice against *any* woman persists, in other words forever.
That's feminist 'reality.' The real reality is that males in Western societies are severely and increasingly discriminated against in many areas, such as the school system, although masculist arguments receive of course only pooh-poohing in this anti-male compendium (some arguments about which reams have been written are not even discussed in the report but instead categorized under 'type of mistake').
Boys from the age of zero receive a barrage of matriarchal messages from TV programs, advertisements (when was the last time you remember seeing a male in an ad who didn't act like a fool?), and an education system tailored to the needs of females. More women enter universities and more women graduate, but it is not Politically Correct to suggest that too many feminist-initiated rules are the cause, so the problems are never addressed.
Statistics show increasing numbers of men being driven to suicide, a multiple of the female suicide rate. Even men dying of 'natural' causes these days live shorter lives than women. In many cities there are a multitude of women's health services, but no men's health services. Why? Because the latter help only males.
"In light of the growing use of the Internet by masculinist groups to develop misogynist sites inciting violence and the growing number of discussion groups used to promote hatred of women, we suggest that a monitoring organization be established, similar to Hate Watch, but focused solely on gender social relations. It would also be useful to maintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups." - - report excerpt
So contact details for all those with political views different to the report's authors will be 'disseminated' to feminist groups to enable easy harassment of us. But this will not be necessary for long:
"We have made a number of recommendations regarding monitoring of Internet sites. We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code... Discussions should also be held with access providers to suggest a conduct protocol." - the report
After defining us masculists as 'misogynists' and 'hate criminals' (our opinion on these is irrelevant, being already 'prejudiced criminals') we would obviously be prosecuted by our government-employed feminist enemies, our Internet access would be removed (websites and e-lists abolished), protesters would be arrested, and those who persist in the unapproved speech would of course be jailed.
The report's misandrous authors have initiated this witch-hunt by listing the names of around 100 men's and fathers right associations and pro-male individuals (including health professionals) in a special appendix to the report. This clearly has nothing to do with "School Success by Gender" but everything to do with harassing political opponents using manipulative tactics.
How long before the 'final solution' one feminist I know of is already practicing privately becomes the norm - aborting all male fetuses in the womb. Does this sound extreme and paranoid? Is removal of both the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and of freedom of political speech extreme? Is being very concerned about this paranoid?
Millions of Jews were tortured and murdered by the Nazis in World War II. This didn't happen in one day. The Jews had all their rights removed, one at a time, smaller ones first, because they were presumed to be inferior to those in power, and a danger to 'good' people. They eventually lost the 'right' to life itself. Western men are the new Jews. Our minor rights have already been abolished, and now the major ones are being removed. Hence the term 'feminazi.'
If ever there was a 'hate crime,' government-funded feminists producing this report is it. Women have always been protected and nurtured by the huge majority of men. It is mostly men who die in wars. Men traditionally work the most dangerous jobs. Women were first off the Titanic, while men courageously died in their place. If the Canadian well-funded expertly manipulative bureaucratic bitches have their way, men will be effectively herded onto Titanic II and it will be forcibly sunk.
"We stress the urgency for women to 'take ownership' of the Internet." says the report. A search on Altavista shows vastly more "feminist" webpages (around 45,000) than "masculinist" sites (around 550). And a random selection indicates most pages in both categories to be pejorative against men (many of the hits on 'masculinist' resolve to hate sites by feminists).
Males and our female supporters receive zero dollars from government for promotion of the rights of men and boys. Feminist departments, organizations, individuals and projects receive many millions of dollars in total. Money and power corrupt, and the feminists in power are about as corrupt and misandrous as it's possible to get. It is time we in Western societies stopped paying them to promote their hatred and lies.
Here is a webpage by a men's right organization, which includes video of a parliamentary challenge about the report to a sneering government feminazi:
www.fathers.ca/the_status_of_women.htm
You may need to turn your browser text size down. Slightly amateurish hunh. Of course, men's rights advocates receive $0.00, not $75,000, for our research and its promulgation.
For those with a strong stomach, the misandrous report in question is here.
Please complain about it, and keep complaining until something is done. Men deserve freedom and justice too.
Steven Stevenson
beam.to/stevenstevenson
Why Men Earn More
08.10.05 (2:07 pm) [edit]Why Men Earn More
Thursday, February 24, 2005
By Wendy McElroy
Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It is Warren Farrell’s latest book, and a fascinating read.
It has stirred vigorous and predictable debate about what causes the "wage gap" (search) by which the average female employee is said to earn approximately 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man.
But what I view as Farrell’s most controversial point remains undiscussed. Namely, should women use affirmative action (search)--that is, government-mandated preferences-- to ‘correct’ the free market’s wage gap and make more money? Farrell, who is usually associated with male empowerment, says "yes."
He provides detailed advice on how to do so, for example through tax-funded tuition and other programs unavailable to men.
The first part of the book revolves around refuting feminism’s explanation of the wage gap: namely that it results from rampant discrimination against women in the workplace.
Many arguments surrounding the wage gap are not addressed, however.
For example, women’s lack of access to various well-paying blue collar jobs due to union policies and attitudes. But addressing such arguments is not the book’s purpose. Refuting the specific feminist claim of discrimination is. And Farrell ably accomplishes this goal on two levels.
First, he cites research and extensive government data to demonstrate that women who compete for the same job often earn more than men, not less.
In Table 6, Farrell compares the starting salaries for women and men with Bachelor’s Degrees in 26 categories of employment, from investment banker to dietician. Women are paid equally in one category; in every other category, their starting salaries exceed men’s. A female investment banker’s starting salary is 116 percent of a man’s. A female dietician’s is 130 percent; that is, $23,160 compared to $17,680.
Second, Farrell analyzes the data that does reflect a wage gap. But rather than seeing oppression in the data, he perceives free choice.
He argues: women commonly prefer jobs with shorter and more flexible hours to accommodate the demands of family. Compared to men, they generally favor jobs that involve little danger, no travel and good social skills. Such jobs generally pay less.
Farrell rejects the conclusion of ‘discrimination’ because it does not reflect the fact that female employees express different preferences than males.
Men’s rights advocate Carey Roberts identifies one such difference. "[T]he sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week."
Women’s lifestyle choices partly explain their absence from certain professions, especially dangerous ones. Roberts observes, "Men represent 92 percent of all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations -- fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining -- they have 96-98 percent male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Farrell believes that women can make the same salaries as men and enter "male professions" if they are willing to make the same employment choices. Accordingly, he offers practical advice to women, much of which is extremely useful.
Nevertheless, I balk whenever Farrell offers advice on how to maximize government privileges at the expense of men, who must compete at a disadvantage and pay taxes for programs that exclude them from benefits.
For example, under the heading "Get Hazard Pay Without the Hazards," Farrell tells women to enter dangerous occupations. There they can reap the same salary as men while avoiding comparable risk because employers who are compelled to hire women commonly shield them from risks.
Thus, Farrell explains, women get a "’death professions bonus’ with not much more physical risk than in everyday life."
Using the military as an example, Farrell argues that women "comprise approximately 15 percent of active-duty military personnel, and 10 percent of those deployed in Iraq." Yet women constitute approximately 2.6 percent of soldiers killed in Iraq; men constitute 97.4 percent. Indeed, "in the Marines and Air Force it’s a 100 percent chance of returning." That’s because a daughter is "much more likely to choose, or be chosen for, the military’s safer fields."
Farrell offers an explanation as to why women’s safety becomes a priority. "Whether…on an Alaskan fishing boat or in the American military, men’s protective instinct toward women, and women’s protective instinct toward themselves (and children) keeps men more disposable than women."
In short, men will assume greater risk to protect a woman co-worker. Farrell calls this male protective instinct "touching."
(Of course, many women don’t wish to be "shielded" from the job they signed on to do. Others find it offensive for policies to assume women can’t or shouldn’t work on an equal footing beside men. Such women do not wish to exploit those policies; they want to change them.)
But quite another factor underlies the situations that continue to make men "more disposable": government policy. Indeed, even private industry commonly implements preference for women’s safety out of fear of lawsuits for harms such as exposure to chemicals or other stress during pregnancy.
A government that discriminates on the basis of sex or race violates a basic principle of justice. The law must apply to every human being equally.
This is the core of my disagreement: Farrell believes in affirmative action and, so, advises women to ‘game the system’ in order to make money. I reject affirmative action and, so, seek to eliminate the system in order to make justice.
Nevertheless, "Why Men Earn More" goes on my reference shelf as a book I will quote and re-read despite disagreements.
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.
Liberal senators cut off debate on same-sex
08.10.05 (4:57 am) [edit]Good commentary on the removal of democracy in Canada -- including from Senator Cools.
Liberal senators cut off debate on same-sex
Tim Naumetz
CanWest News Service
National Post
OTTAWA - The government invoked closure in the Senate yesterday to limit debate on the same-sex marriage bill after only two hours of speeches from a handful of senators on both sides of the controversial issue.
The move, which means the bill will be sent to the Senate's constitutional and legal affairs committee today, infuriated Conservatives and sparked a heated exchange after Tory Senator Anne Cools accused the government of turning Parliament into a "dictatorship."
Government Senate leader Jack Austin also made it clear yesterday a Conservative amendment attempting to give special recognition in the bill to heterosexual marriage is doomed and unlikely even to make it through the committee.
"The committee won't adopt the amendment," he said. "If the purpose of the amendment is to create a definition of marriage, it would be rejected by the Senate."
Conservative Senator Noel Kinsella, a human-rights expert who said he was proposing the amendment to help heal deep divisions across the country, claimed the government had no intention of allowing amendments or extended debate even though the Senate allotted two weeks of additional sittings.
"They are obviously under orders to ram this thing through," said Sen. Kinsella, whose amendment would leave the bill intact while adding a clause saying Parliament continues to recognize traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
The bill is expected to clear the constitutional and legal affairs committee in five days of public hearings, meaning it could become law before the end of next week, thus making Canada one of only four countries, with Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, to give gays and lesbians access to civil marriage.
But, while speedy passage will be welcomed by those who support the historic legislation, church groups and coalitions opposed to the bill were angered that the government invoked closure in the Senate after using the same tactic to get the bill, C-38, through the Commons last week.
"The reason for that is they know they do not have a mandate from the people," said Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition. "The only way they were able to pass C-38 was through threats and coercions, essentially against Cabinet ministers, but also against backbench MPs."
Thirty-two Liberal MPs voted against the bill when it passed in the House last week, but all 36 of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Cabinet ministers in the Commons were under orders to support it. Former Northern Ontario minister Joe Comuzzi resigned to vote against the bill, which passed by a margin of 158-133.
To ease fears the new law might result in churches being compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages, the Commons amended it to strengthen freedom of religion guarantees under the Charter of Rights and also amended the Income Tax Act to protect the charitable tax status of churches that refuse gay marriages.
A string of Conservative senators denounced the use of closure, saying the rush to pass the bill will further damage the Senate's public image.
"So much for democracy, when after one day, we invoke closure," Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain shouted at the Liberals. "You're out to lunch."
Shortly before the Liberal majority passed the closure motion, government officials said the Conservatives made it clear they intended to stall the bill by adjourning debate twice and putting up no speakers early yesterday before moving the second adjournment motion.
The 22 Tory senators stand no chance of overcoming the 63 Liberal senators to defeat the bill, even though Sen. Austin said he expects a "small number" of Liberals to oppose it. There are five Progressive Conservative senators, one NDP, nine vacancies and five Independents.
double standart
08.03.05 (7:00 am) [edit]Greetings!
Young Boy Raped by Older Woman Must Pay Child Support
A 15-year-old California boy was seduced by a 34- year-old woman. The California Court of Appeals found that he is required to pay child support to the woman who raped him.
The Court of Appeals was swayed by the boy’s admission that he participated willingly in the sexual intercourse. This “reasoning” is bizarre, since the whole idea of statutory rape is that children are unable to give meaningful consent to sexual intercourse. Just as a 15-year-old girl may not fully understand the consequences for her, such as pregnancy, a 15-year-old boy certainly cannot fully comprehend the possible consequences for him, such as child support.
I guess we’ve gone back to Original Sin – he had sex. Worst of all, he enjoyed it, so he must pay.
Courts in other states have made similar decisions, including Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota and New York State. So far, we do not know of any states that have found the opposite.
The lunatic “Pay No Matter What” child support mentality gallops onward. The fuzzy thinkers will cry, “What about the child?” I ask, “Which child?”
************************* ***************
BTW, one of the most important things that you can do as a member of this e-list is get other people to join. If you think of anyone who would enjoy or benefit from receiving our e-mails, please click on the link below that says "forward email."
Best Regards,
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Fathers & Families
Carey Roberts
08.03.05 (4:56 am) [edit]Another Scandal Brewing at the U.N.
August 3, 2005
by Carey Roberts
In a long-awaited decision, President Bush finally named tough-talking John Bolton as
The problems at the United Nations are legion: the Oil-for-Food scandal, the sexual escapades of the U.N. peacekeepers, the laughingstock that the Human Rights Commission has become, the U.N.’s utter failure to stem the AIDS epidemic, and many others.
But there’s another scandal that people are trying to keep under wraps -- the fact that dozens of agencies and offices sprinkled throughout the vast U.N bureaucracy have become base camps for ideological feminism.
Feminists view every human issue through the lens of gender and power. So whatever the problem -- poverty, disease, or a shortage of parking spaces – the standard refrain of the Sisterhood is “Down with the patriarchy!”
At the U.N., benign male-bashing has become distant memory. What now passes as normal feminist discourse at the United Nations ranges from outright gender prejudice to high-octane bigotry that resembles an Andrea Dworkin rant.
The bias begins at the top. At a 2003 International Women’s Day observance, Louise Frechette issued this categorical imperative: “all our work for development
-- from agriculture to health....must focus on the needs and priorities of women.” But not men or children?
Ms. Frechette, by the way, is Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and reports directly to Kofi Annan.
Carol Bellamy, former UNICEF director, once made a similar plea for
Last December the UNAIDS published its report, Women and AIDS. It is not possible to describe the gender vilification that oozes from this document, but suffice it say that it reads like a master’s thesis from a Women’s Studies program.
The U.N. refugee program issued the following plea on its website: “The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees...One million women and children...homeless, hungry, helpless...Their only help is you.”
Does that mean men are never homeless, hungry, and helpless? Or that their plight simply deserves less sympathy?
When it comes to domestic violence, the U.N. subjects men to the most pernicious stereotypes. It has been shown that women are fully the equal of men when it comes to partner aggression. But the WHO report Violence and Health dismisses that fact with this disingenuous remark: “Where violence by women occurs, it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense.”
More disturbing is the casual way that the U.N. regards the lives of men.
In years past, the rallying cry for the World Health Organization was “Health for All.” But now, the WHO’s goals have become somewhat more modest: “Make Every Mother and Child Count.”
Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.
