Iraq-4,682 coalition deaths"This was not my Juno moment, where all of a sudden I bit my lower lip and recognized the “life” inside of me. If I could have I would have ripped the ******* thing out with my bear hands on the spot. It just freaked me out that it had a definitive shape. That maybe its size would make it harder to yank out. Or that my beautifully circular womb would get banged up in the process."
"A carbuncular high school girl kept my pace and told me “her group” had the funds to support my baby. I wanted to tell her that I hoped it was twins so I could doubly break her blessed heart."
"[Abortion is] gender's judicial flashpoint. If men got pregnant, reproductive choice would be in the Bill of Rights - if not a sacrament. Yet, we were are a vote or two shy of limiting or denying that choice. Women will see that threat as no man possibly can."
"Drexler may be correct that Sotomayor will help broaden the Court's perspective and make it more solicitous of women's concerns. Her view that society would be more solicitous of men's reproductive rights than women's is common in the pro-choice movement. However, if men could get pregnant, would abortion really be legal? Based on the relevant family law rulings and related legislation, the answer is probably "no."
Though abortion is controversial, few believe that women should be compelled to bear and be responsible for children who were conceived as a result of a criminal act, such as a sexual assault. Yet numerous courts have ruled that boys must be held responsible for the children they involuntarily fathered in their early teens as a result of a criminal act--statutory rape by an adult woman.
For example, in 2004 a Michigan appeals court ruled that a man who had conceived a child with an adult when he was 14 must pay her child support. Though the court acknowledged that the sex act which produced the child would have been a crime under state law, they decided that the case should be resolved "without regard to the fault of either of the parents."
Most people sympathize with women who have decided to terminate their pregnancies because they conceived as a result of being deceived into believing that their partners had vasectomies or were sterile. By contrast, courts have consistently failed to extend any consideration to men who have been deceived.
For example, in 2005 an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which a Chicago physician alleged that his ex-girlfriend had secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. The court stated that if the doctor's story is true, his ex-girlfriend "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy." Yet it hung the responsibility for the child on the doctor anyway, employing the pretzel logic that "when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift...There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Fetal protection laws also demonstrate courts' and lawmakers' concern for women's reproductive rights and disregard for men's; if mom doesn't want to be a parent, the unborn child is a meaningless fetus, yet if it is dad who doesn't want to be a parent, the fetus is considered a living human being. This double-standard was highlighted in 2005 in a case involving a Texas high school couple.
Erica Basoria testified that when she was four months into her twin pregnancy she regretted not getting an abortion, and asked Gerardo Flores, her boyfriend, to help her terminate it. Basoria then punched herself in the stomach while Flores stepped on her stomach, inducing a miscarriage.
Though both Flores and Basoria had committed exactly the same act for exactly the same reasons, Flores is now serving life in prison for murder. Basoria, who stood by Flores and cried when he was sentenced, could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to an abortion.
A million and a half American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by abortion, adoption, or abandonment. In more than 40 states, a mother can terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few days or weeks of birth. Similarly, women can give their babies up for adoption, generally with few legal complications.
By contrast, courts and laws refuse to recognize reproductive prerogatives for men, forbidding them to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy in even the most extreme circumstances. If men got pregnant, would they have abortion rights? There's little reason to think so."
Article
Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil this terrorist may drive other family members to alcoholism to drug addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members therefore are often misperceived as the family problem, and the hidden terrorist seen as the saintly woman who puts up with it.The Family Terrorist
A CAMPAIGNER is today spending his second day perched on the top of the Tyne Bridge to highlight the plight of dads denied access to their children.
Activist Simon Anderton, a member of Real Fathers for Justice, climbed 193ft to the top of the famous landmark just after 5am yesterday.
The 44-year-old unfurled a Happy Father’s Day banner and dangled a dummy of a hanged man under the arch, which is said to symbolise the many men who commit suicide as a result of being denied access to their children and prolonged family court proceedings.
A spokesman for the group said Mr Anderton, from Heaton, Newcastle, had enough supplies for a number of days and did not intend to come down.
Mike Kelly defended Mr Anderton’s actions and denied it was a tasteless stunt. “A lot of people who haven’t had the misfortunes of going through the family courts might think that,” he said. “The sad thing is that when you get married and you have children nobody expects that one day you are going to be denied contact with them. But the reality is that if your marriage or relationship goes wrong you might never ever see your children again.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Fathers' Resource Center, eighty-six percent of men have at least one child during their lifetimes. Using the 50% divorce rate figure, and knowing that fathers lose custody of their children about 80% of the time, it can be calculated that about 34% of American, English and Israel men will experience the loss of child custody sometime during their lives.
It is well-known that noncustodial fathers often experience high levels of psychological distress. Social scientists have made observations such as the following. Wallerstein noted that post divorce visits with children "can lead to depression and sorrow in men who love their children". Ross observed that many divorced fathers are "overwhelmed by feelings of failure and self-hatred," and as a result are "disengaging from a family that is no longer really theirs".
Umberson and Williams highlighted the sense of failure that these fathers experience. As a result, these men "exhibit substantially higher rates of psychological distress and alcohol consumption than do married men." Blankenhorn described non-custodial fathers in this way: "These men are very angry. Indeed, their white-hot sense of injustice can sometimes produce in them the phenomenon of pressured speech, in which emotional intensity derails normal conversational rhythms."
So given the frequency and gravity of the problem, it is not surprising that numerous anecdotes have appeared in the popular press detailing non-custodial fathers who have resorted to killing themselves. One very cruel irony - over the past 20 years, society has admonished fathers to become more attentive to their families. As more wives entered the workforce, this relieved some of the financial pressure on men, and has allowed fathers to devote more time to their children. And during that same period of time, a series of laws have been enacted that have enabled wives to obtain court orders to exclude fathers from the household, in the name of preventing domestic violence.
Once a precedent of paternal separation has been established, child custody is almost always awarded to the mother. Hence, these domestic violence edicts have made it more difficult for fathers to maintain meaningful involvement with their children. In some cases, their own children have come to view their loving fathers with suspicion and distrust. So noncustodial fathers have become increasingly frustrated and angered by the mixed messages that they are receiving. They find it incomprehensible that their basic human right to be a parent is being curtailed by a legal system that they perceive to be expensive, cloaked in secrecy, and unfair. Is it any wonder that some fathers crack under the pressure?
On Thursday, January 23, 2003, a BC father, Mark Edward Dexel, 42, took the only exit fathers are left with when dealing with the most corrupt justice system ever known in the history of Canada, he committed suicide. This latest tragedy has shocked many non-custodial parents among the local support group Parents of Broken Families and other non-custodial parents groups across the nation. It was a grim reminder of the same tragedy that led Darren White, another member a similar group, to take his own life back in early 2000.A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.
Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade - as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II. America, the UK and Israel are in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents.
Many recognize that the US is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered. Who is committing suicide? For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group. There are many risk factors for suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the loss of a job, and after a divorce.
Because our society strongly defines manhood as the ability to work and provide for one's loved ones, unemployed men often see themselves as failures and as burdens to their families. Thus it is not surprising that while there is no difference in the suicide rate of employed and unemployed women, the suicide rate of unemployed men is twice that of employed men. It is for this reason that economic crises generally lead to male suicide epidemics.
During the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, for example, the suicide rate of male farmers tripled. A sharp increase in male suicide occurred after the destruction of Flint, Michigan's 70 year-old auto industry, as documented in the disturbing 1989 film "Roger and Me." Some suicide experts fear a rise in suicide related to our current economic downturn. The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.
According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts."
According to Sociology Professor Augustine Kposow of the University of California at Riverside, "The link between men and their children is often severed because the woman is usually awarded custody. A man may not get to see his children , even with visitation rights. As far as the man is concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead to depression and suicide."
There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations , committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.
Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father."Fathers' rights groups contend court bias plays a direct role. One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men.
"None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions - a certain percentage are going to crack."Women's groups and government officials doubt that courtroom bias is the cause for most of these destructive outbursts; some experts say divorced men simply experience more isolation after divorce than women. But Jaks is convinced of his position. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem."
Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California-Riverside, has conducted studies concluding that suicide rates among divorced men are much higher than for divorced women or married men. He attributes the difference to what happens in family courts. "Decades ago, the pendulum swung in favor of the men, but clearly in the past two decades the system is stacking up against men," Kposowa said in a telephone interview. "The man loses his marriage, then he loses a second time when child custody is granted to the woman," he said. "Unless something is done, by examining family laws and having new policies to aid men, the situation is bound to get worse."
Extrapolating from Kposowa's research, fathers' rights activist David Roberts contends that child-support orders - part of what he calls "the war on fathers" - contribute to the suicides of more than 5,000 divorced fathers each year. Roberts, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, concedes that his estimate is un-provable and that suicides often may stem more from personality factors than legal bias. But he is bitter at what he perceives as unwillingness by politicians and most academics to take the suicide and violence phenomenon seriously.
Outside the fathers' rights ranks, government officials and leaders of women's groups acknowledge that divorce and custody procedures are often imperfect. Joey Binard of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges said states are shifting away from the traditional presumption that mothers should get post-divorce custody of children. Many states now say preference should go to the parent most involved with the children, she said, "but that still leaves men on the short end of the stick, because most are not primary caretakers."Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, stressed repeatedly in an interview that divorced men who commit violence are "the rare exception." However, Horn said men commonly experience depression or other mental health problems after a divorce. And he suggested that some family courts may still give "subtle preference" to mothers in custodial hearings. "Even if, objectively, there is no bias, if the man perceives it as such, it's a source of stress," Horn said.
Horn predicted that court procedures would become more evenhanded. "There's greater recognition that it's important to keep dads actively involved in a child's life, that child support should be more than just going after dad's wallet," he said. National suicide statistics do not provide a comprehensive look at marital details -for example, whether a male suicide victim was a divorced father who lost custody of his children. However, psychiatrist David Clark, a suicide expert at RusPresbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, said fathers facing loss of custody are at above-average risk of suicide. "You go through the open-wound agony of the divorce, you go through the agony of losing day-in, day-out contact with your children - and if you add either clinical depression or increased drinking - that's a combination that gives us gray hair," Clark said.
It's time that we, as a community, speak out in support of these emotionally abused fathers and children. It's is you, the reader, who bears the blame by your silence. For if you do not act, do not expect the US Congress, the English Parliament or the Israel Knesset to shed one single tear for the next grave to be danced upon by an angry, disturbed mother.
Indeed.
That said, let us not bear the blame with our silence but, instead, let us add our voices; voices of disgust and outrage, voices that demand not only recognition and validation but action.
I'm including a list of links to U.K. newspapers and other mediums (hat tip to TFB from antimisandry for acquiring the majority of them).
ChronicleLive
Editor: Paul Robertson Tel: 0191 201 6231
News Desk: ec.news@ncjmedia.co.uk Tel: 0191 201 6446
The Journal.
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/contact-subscribe/
Sunday Sun.
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/contact-us/
Metro. This one is the local free paper which is part of a national chain. The group seems to be run centrally from London where most of the contact details direct to. Below is the only local link I could find.
But this page contains a list of general contacts based in London.
http://www.metro.co.uk/contact
BBC Look North. The local BBC news channel. It invites us to “Tell us what you want to see on the programme ”, here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthnecumbria/content/articles/2007/10/09/ln_contact_form.shtml
I'm asking everyone to contact as many news mediums as possible, encouraging them to cover the trial along with the reason Mr. Anderton felt compelled to climb that bridge in the first place; the tragic loss of life that occurs as a result of men being forced out of their homes and kept away from their children.
Mr. Simon Anderton will go to trial on April 27th in Newcastle. He spent 63 hours on the Tyne Bridge with little shelter on a fathers day protest in June last year, to highlight the suicides caused by broken Contact Orders.
He protested for every child deliberately and callously denied access to and losing a Father.
His action was selfless and courageous and in the Best interests of Children and their Fathers everywhere.
Over a hundred men die annually from suicide due to Family Court Injustices. It is equal to the famous feminist claim that 2 women die each week from domestic violence. This DV claim has been highlighted by the BBC in the past.
Simon’s ‘crime’ was to draw men's devastation to public attention.
Now he faces the fury of the Law. Why should the Law be used against a fine man doing the difficult task of bringing awareness of the manifest Injustice of the Family Courts?
His prosecutors ought to be named and shamed.
I am hopeful that the BBC will cover this Trial free from misandry.
It would be encouraging to Truth if you took a pro-father stance on this issue. It would certainly be a change.
Yours Sincerely
Once again, we see government pushing people to relinquish their rights as parents, handing all authority and decision making powers over to the state.....all in the best interests of the children....of course.ON CAPITOL HILL
Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?
Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 29, 2009
6:52 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing......
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
If the U.S. were to ratify the UNCRC (and let's keep in mind that the Clinton administration was in favor of doing so....any guesses where the current administration is likely to stand on the subject?) the ability of parents to raise their children would cease to exist. Your child could reasonably take you to court for teaching them any beliefs they didn't agree with under the pretense that it was in violation of their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The state could charge you for violating your child's rights by teaching them your religion and values.
This is just one more nail in the coffin of the family....one more attempt to break essential familial ties and cede all authority over to the government. Undoubtedly, those in support of UNCRC will argue it's a good thing....after all, what kind of person doesn't want to protect innocent children from hideous abuses. THIS is a tactic used to play upon our emotions, all while disguising the true agenda.....expansion of government and consequential loss of God given rights.
Garak has provided the number for the Congressman's Washington D.C. office, (202) 225-4401, so people can call him and express their support for an amendment to protect parental rights. I would also encourage everyone to contact your state's congressional representatives, as their votes that will determine whether or not this amendment will pass."In all this world there is no substitute for personal integrity. It includes honor. It includes performance. It includes keeping one's word. It includes doing what is right regardless of the circumstances" -Gordon B. Hinckley
I’ve chosen to focus on Integrity next for a couple of reasons, one being that it is what I consider to be an attribute above all else….the mother of all values, if you will. It is also an attribute that is severely lacking in today’s society. Doing what’s right is seldom given much fanfare…especially when it’s done for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do….but ultimately, this is the only reason to do what’s right.
Integrity denotes an adherence to an uncompromising moral code and it walks hand in hand with honesty, along with every other virtue I plan on addressing here. It is defining for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and then refusing to sway from those convictions. Without integrity any concept of a code of behavior is lost because it becomes merely words without meaning or corresponding actions.
We’re often presented with the image of women as whimsical creatures who are apt (and entitled) to changing their minds at the drop of the hat. This characteristic is portrayed as somewhat cute and endearing. I suppose if we’re talking about a penchant for rearranging the furniture this might hold true but it tends to extend into all aspects of our lives to the extent of frequently compromising our integrity and calling into question our ability to commit and be trusted.
Women tend to expect to be excluded from honoring their commitments and obligations because, as women, they reserve the right to change their mind. How many men are given the unattested option to change their mind to the detriment on others? Can they walk away from the wives they marry, the children they help create, the obligations they’ve taken on free from judgment or negative consequences simply because they’ve changed their minds?
Of course not, and they shouldn’t be able to either….but neither should we. Personally, I would rather die than compromise my integrity. There’s only so much that I have sole ownership of and complete control over. My integrity is one of these things. It is what defines me and I refuse to ever give that up.
That being said, how do we wish to define ourselves? Do we want to be fickle in nature? Do we surrender our integrity for the ability to avoid being someone who can be depended on simply to reserve the right to change our minds?
Growing up, I was often told the story of a young man who went in his father’s stead to conduct a business transaction. When the discussion came to matters of payment, he was told not to worry, for it was well known that his father’s word was as good as his bond. This is who we should be. This above all is what is important….that we be the kind of people who encompass trustworthiness, honesty and accountability.
A quote I’m quite fond of is “Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching”. When we have integrity we do what is right simply because it’s who we are and how we choose to define ourselves. We desire to do what’s right and we don’t accept anything less from ourselves, regardless of the circumstances. We don’t fall into the trap that we as women have made for ourselves….our selective morality where we’re able to rationalize away responsibility for our commitments. We stand up and say this is who we are, this is who we’ve decided to be….women of integrity and, as such, we cannot be anything less.
The truth is the only thing worth having, and, in a civilized life, like ours, where so many risks are removed, facing it is almost the only courageous thing left to do. ~E.V. Lucas
When the chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation board, Peg Yorkin, and I met Barack Obama, he immediately offered "I am a feminist." And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women's rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform's principle author, ensured women's rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.Get ready America.......get ready.
15 Ways to Please your Husband
By Barbara Rainey
Romans 15:2-3 tells us, "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself . . ."
Who is your closest neighbor?
Your husband.
How can you edify (build, improve) your mate and thereby enhance his self-worth? By discovering—and doing—what pleases him.
If you are creative, pleasing your mate may be a natural part of your personality. But a less creative person may need some coaching in becoming a partner pleaser. And all of us need an occasional cue card to remind us to
reach out.Here are a few ideas:
1. Write him a letter and send it to his office, or put a love note in his lunchbox or briefcase.
2. Prepare his favorite meal.
3. Arrange an evening out for just the two of you.
4. Wear his favorite dress with your hair done the way he likes it.
5. Purchase something small and frivolous for him that he won't buy himself.
6. Give him a nicely framed picture of yourself, or of you and the children, for his office.
7. Surprise him with an all-expense-paid trip to do something he likes, such as golf, fishing, or hunting trip.
8. Put the children to bed early and prepare a candlelight dinner.
9. Do something that especially pleased him when you were dating.
10. Read Scriptures and pray with him regularly.
11. Take walks together.
12. Keep your junk out of the garage.
13. Greet your husband warmly after work.
14. Wear his favorite negligee or buy a new nightgown to add sizzle to your evening attire.
15. Clean out the car for him.
Sometimes the smallest gestures can make the biggest difference in your marriage.
Pick out something you haven't tried before; don't give complacency a foothold in your marriage relationship.
The Papua New Guinea jungle has given up one of its darkest secrets - the systematic slaughter of every male baby born in two villages to prevent future tribal clashes.
By virtually wiping out the 'male stock', tribal women hope they can avoid deadly bow-and-arrow wars between the villages in the future.
'Babies grow into men and men turn into warriors,' said Rona Luke, a village wife who is attending a special 'peace and reconciliation' meeting in the mountain village of Goroka.
Slaughter: The Papua New Guinea Eastern Highlands where it has been claimed women in two villages killed all their male children for a decade to prevent tribal warfare
'It's because of the terrible fights that have brought death and destruction to our villages for the past 20 years that all the womenfolk have agreed to have all new-born male babies killed,' said Mrs Luke.
'The women have had enough of men engaging in tribal conflicts and bringing misery to them.'
The sensational claims recall the Biblical story of the Old Testament pharaoh who ordered all midwives to kill Israelite baby boys because he wanted to ensure there were never enough young men to fight in an army against the Egyptians.
Mrs Luke said that the village women agreed that if they stopped producing males, allowing only female babies to survive, their tribe's stock of boys would go down and there would be no men in future to fight.
A resident of Agibu village, Mrs Luke said she did not know how many male babies were killed by being smothered, but it had happened to all males over a 10 year period - and she suggested it was still happening.
Needless to say, my reaction to this has been one of complete and utter horror. It's a normal response; a response that I would expect each and every one of us to have......unfortunately, that is just not the case.
Here are some comments from women who have responded to this repellent act of evil.
From the link I posted above,
*In any conflict, it's always the women and children who suffer through no doing of their own. And when everything has been ruined, and the men killed, they have to pick up the pieces and restore everything. They must have really had enough to kill their own children like that
*To feel that a group of humans had to go to these lengths is unimaginable
*It's so sad that the women from both villages had to come to this terrible arrangement. I hope peace comes to them before any more lives are lost.
*The men have a great time, it seems, being men and fighting other men most of the time. I'd bet they are as happy as Larry and feel great.
Sounds like Red Bull heaven.
As usual, the poor wives and female relatives bear the burden and aftermath of boys being boys
*These women are losing their sons either way. In war, they raise them for many years only to see thelm slaughtered. While I don’t approve of infanticide, I can see how their desperation would make it seem as if they must shock their society with their decision to stop the suffering at birth. How else can they get the attention of their leaders and the men who insist on warfare as a way of life?
*How sad to get to a point as a society that you believe that the only way to stop the warring factions is to deprive them of the warriors. Perhaps they might want to swap the Chinese for the girls.
*Women are not perfect as we all know but war is a by product of men and their pride, testosterone, etc. I have long said if you want peace in the middle east men must be taught their place which would be to sit down, follow 3 steps behind their women and keep their big traps shut.
Two things stand out quite clearly from the comments of these women....A) It is, unsurprisingly, all the fault of men that the women of Papua New Guinea have been engaging in male infanticide for the last ten years and B) the REAL victims here are not the untold numbers of innocent baby boys who have been slaughtered, but the poor women who have apparently been forced to take such extreme measures.
I'm sickened beyond words that there are actually people who would attempt to justify such evil. There are times when I read things so horrible that I actually find myself wishing that I could somehow excise myself from humanity.....this would be one of those occassions.
Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
Men work more weeks per year than women.
Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.
Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she took all of the desks out of the classroom.
The kids came into first period, they walked in, there were no desks. They obviously looked around and said, "Ms. Cothren, where's our desks?" And she said, "You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn them."
They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior."
And she told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so they came and went in the first period, still no desks in the classroom. Second period, same thing. Third period. By early afternoon television news crews had gathered in Ms. Cothren's class to find out about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of the classroom.
The last period of the day, Martha Cothren gathered her class. They were at this time sitting on the floor around the sides of the room. And she says, "Throughout the day no one has really understood how you earn the desks that sit in this classroom ordinarily." She said, "Now I'm going to tell you."
Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it, and as she did 27 U.S. veterans , wearing their uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. And they placed those school desks in rows, and then they stood along the wall. And by the time they had finished placing those desks, those kids for the first time I think perhaps in their lives understood how they earned those desks.
Martha said, "You don't have to earn those desks. These guys did it for you. They put them out there for you, but it's up to you to sit here responsibly to learn, to be good students and good citizens, because they paid a price for you to have that desk, and don't ever forget it."
This year 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer, and federal spending on breast cancer research outpaces prostate cancer spending by a ratio of nearly two to one.
The National Prostate Cancer Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, released the report, titled "The Prostate Cancer Gap: A Crisis in Men's Health." It examines what the group calls "glaring disparities"
in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research between prostate and breast cancer, even though prostate cancer is the second-deadliest cancer in men after lung cancer. "Year after year, the prostate cancer community has received less attention and less funding than many other diseases," says Dr. Richard Adkins, chief executive office and vice-chairman of the prostate cancer coalition.'
"We think this girl has endured enough and that this is going to be something for her and her family to work through."The following exchange between Greg and Remi Spencer, a female guest on Red Eye, came next.
Greg: "So suddenly, she's the victim?"First of all, the comment by the Republican representative is just unbelievable. She's suffered enough? How so? Because she got caught in her lie? Is that sufficient reparations for making false allegations? As Greg so aptly pointed out......Now she's the victim?
Remi: "She needs help, she needs a psychological evaluation and treatment, perhaps hospitalization."
Greg: "But if guys do this, they never say they need psychological help, it's always girls, right Harrison? Girls are always saying like, oh they've got some kind of emotional trouble, right?"
"Yeah, what better way to get child support from the poor b*******?......IfVery nice.
he really is that stupid that he's going to do it without a prenuptial agreement
then she deserves it."
'He seduced you': Married housewife who had sex with boy, 14, walks free from court after judge's extraordinary ruling
By Paul SimsLast updated at 3:43 AM on 14th October 2008
Sharon Edwards pleaded guilty to four charges of sexual activity with a child and offering to supply Class A drugs
A judge caused outrage yesterday after he refused to jail a woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy and instead told her: 'He seduced you.'
Sharon Edwards, 40, bombarded the boy with as many as 50 text messages and emails a day, offered to buy him cocaine and regularly lured him into her bed.
Yet she walked free from court yesterday after Judge Peter Fox QC said the married housewife was an unhappy woman who was unable to resist the advances of a child.
'You had been a very unhappy lady for a very considerable period of time when this 14-year-old boy seduced you, and not you him, both so far as sexual matters and drugs are concerned,' he said.
Her eight-year marriage to a luxury car sales tycoon was falling apart, she felt trapped and lonely and was flattered by the attention the boy was paying her, Teesside Crown Court heard.
But last night the boy's mother attacked the judge's decision. She said: 'He's still a child. If this had been a man he would almost certainly have been jailed but instead she gets to walk free and pick up her life.
'She still lives round here and can now do whatever she wants and go wherever she wants. It's outrageous. I can't believe what's happened.'
Edwards, a mother of two, admitted having sex with the boy on four separate occasions between September last year and January and yesterday was given a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years.
She also pleaded guilty to offering to supply the teenager a Class A drug. The boy, who cannot be named, was a pupil at the same school her two sons attend when the relationship began.
They stayed in contact through text messages and emails and on one occasion Edwards took him to her sister's empty home for a night of sex.
But in January her suspicious husband, Mark, 43, discovered scores of emails she had sent to and received from the boy.
He confronted her at their £500,000 home in Stockton, Teesside, before contacting the youngster's mother.
Judge Fox: 'Exceptional case'
Tina Dempster, prosecuting, said the boy later broke down in tears when his mother asked him if the allegations were true. She then called the police.
'He was crying,' said Miss Dempster. 'He told her he was sorry but he did not know how to stop it. He was extremely distressed, saying that his life was over and he might as well die now.
'The next day he was interviewed by the police and he confirmed that he had had a crush on her and that they had sexual intercourse the previous night.'
Miss Dempster said that Mr Edwards first became suspicious in October last year after discovering that his wife was sending and receiving up to 50 text messages a day from the same number. Despite a blossoming property empire and a successful car sales business, their marriage was struggling to survive.
They had decided to make a go of it but by the end of October Mr Edwards was convinced his wife was having an affair. He confronted her about his suspicions but she denied it.
On January 18 he accessed his wife's MSN messaging programme and changed the settings so that all the sent messages would be saved.
'The next morning he checked the messages and he realised that the person with whom she was having a sexual relationship was the boy,' said Miss Dempster.
In one of the messages the boy asked her to buy some cocaine. She agreed and then said he would not need to pay her.
Deborah Sherwin, defending Edwards, said her client had pleaded guilty because she did not want her young victim to have to give evidence in court.
She added: 'She was a sad and lonely housewife, she was not working, her parents had moved abroad, she was stuck at home, her marriage was failing and this boy paid her attention and she was flattered by it.'
Judge Fox QC described the case as ' exceptional' before telling Edwards he would not be sending her to jail because the boy had seduced her, and not the other way round. 'Of course, you have responsibility as an adult to reject his advances in both regards,' he added.
Last night Claude Knights, director of children's charity Kidscape, said: 'This sentence sets an awful precedent. The judge seems to be suggesting that in some way this is all down to the victim.
'But how on earth can he be regarded as responsible for what happened? He is just a child. He may look mature and he may even be sexually active but he is still a child and this is still abuse.'
Diana Sutton, head of policy at the NSPCC, said: 'It is unacceptable to describe the child victim in this case as the seducer. This gives out completely the wrong message - that sex abuse is the fault of the child, when in reality it never is.'
Edwards was ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.
Feminist Tarantulas
A Rural Male Reflects On Feminist Incivility, While Calculating Windage
Maybe I'm just a country boy at heart, and lack sophistication, and don't see things the way I should. But when I watch one of those radical-feminist women heave onto a podium, like the forehaunches of an under-nourished giraffe but with more hair on her lip, and start hollering and carrying on about what slugs and bandits men are, I start thinking of the curative powers of a shotgun full of rock salt.
I recommend a 12-gauge duck gun.
It's the incivility of these feminist people that gets to me. Most of them seem to have the manners of a guard dog , but without the utility. (I know, I know, I'm going to get angry letters. From guard dogs.) For pure bile, you can't beat a radical feminist. The average specimen can turn out bad temper for hours on end, like lumber from a sawmill, and any of it sounds like all the rest. The following, which gives the flavor, is from Andrea Dworkin, who I gather is a sort of museum-piece siege howitzer for feminism.
It's pretty much how they all talk. Listen:
"Men use the night to erase us...The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality, and so the night is the sacred time of male sexual celebration, because it is dark and in the dark it is easier not to see: not to see who she is. Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild, hunt down random victims, use the dark for cover, find in the dark solace, sanctuary, cover."
I do?
How does a man respond to such a broadside? The prose could use some lubrication, of course, and maybe a new set of plug wires, but I'm talking about the content. My first impulse is to reassure the poor woman: "There, there, Andrea, you're safe, nights just don't get dark enough." My second impulse is to wonder just how much radical feminists know about male sexuality, and what book they read it in.
I like to picture myself on a Saturday-night date in high school, parking on a back road.
My date: "You're driving kind of funny. I reckon it was the beer."
Me: "Why, no, Sally. I'm drunk on my intrinsic contempt for all life."
Sally: "You're so silly. Come here."
Me: "Soon...soon. Do you mind staying here by yourself for a bit?"
Sally: "Huh?"
Me: "I need to, uh, you know, run wild for a few minutes. Hunt down a few random victims. Use the dark for cover. Guy stuff."
Sally: "You nuts or something?"
Me: "It's...night, Sally...the sacred time of male sexual celebration."
Sally: "You're gonna do it out there?"
OK, I understand that the radical feminist ladies are a few french fries short of a Happy Meal. They can't help themselves. What I can't figure is why more-or-less grown-up editors publish all this clucking and scratching as if it made sense. And I also don't understand how the rules got fixed so that a Dworkin can say anything at all about men and get away with it--but men can't say anything back.
Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)
I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.
What I say is, if you have pool-hall manners, you ought to expect to play by pool-hall rules. Any guy who doesn't work for the Washington Post knows this. Go into the wrong bar, and somebody will likely hit you over the head with a pool cue. Nothing wrong with that. But the assailant will grant you the right, while questioning your ability, to smack him on the head with your cue. Symmetry. Reciprocity. Conservation of parity.
Not those feminist people. They want to swing cues. They don't want to get swung at. I say let's treat'em equal.
It'll happen. Some day before long I'll be talking about something sensible, like a '57 Chevy with Carter AFBs and a three-quarter Isky and 17 coats of hand-rubbed Orchard Mist lacquer that looks like Chinese emerald carving if they'd done it right. Sure enough, some dog-biscuit feminist is going to sniff, "Ah, yes, boys and their toys. Boys will be boys. Intrinsic contempt for...."
And I'm going to say, "Mercy, lady, mercy. Yes, we males are a sorry lot, sinners all, and neck deep in iniquity. The shame of it bores into my soul. Now you go stand in the middle of Dupont Circle at high noon, with a pair of seven-by-fifty binoculars, and look real carefully all around, and point to one thing, with a moving part, that was invented by a radical feminist."
Then I'll go for my duck gun.
LAW OF THE LAND
Electronic cuffs planned for dads
'I don't see any safeguards. This presumes men guilty'
Posted: August 12, 200810:28 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Illinois has joined a growing contingent of states to adopt a law that will put electronic GPS tracking bracelets on men who have not been convicted of any crime, but might be involved in a messy divorce.
The plan, named in memory of Cindy Bischoff, who was attacked and murdered by a former boyfriend, was signed into law just days ago and is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.
And while its goal of protecting women and children from out-of-control husbands and fathers is good, it goes too far and violates the civil rights of innocent fathers, according to a lawyer for a group that will challenge it.
"Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation," said attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is a nationally known fathers' rights advocate, the author of "Fathers' Rights" and "Divorce Wars" and founder of DadsRights.com. "The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of any crime."
According to a website set up in memory of Cindy Bischoff, there are about a dozen states, including Washington, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Massachusetts, that now have similar provisions. The campaign's goal is to prevent what happened to Bischof from happening to others.
But Leving said there are major constitutional issues that need to be resolved.
"The law carries a presumption of guilt," Leving said, "without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty."
He said such restraining orders are not unusual.
A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California's Family Law Section said such orders "are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." And the Illinois Bar Journal has described them as part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce.
But Leving said the full impact of Illinois' new law is that judges can order anyone – mostly men and fathers – to wear a GPS tracking device if they simply are accused of violating an order of protection, with no court conviction or adjudication required.
In fact, he said, "such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself."
Such lack of information for the men can result in unknowing violations, Leving said.
"A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and
the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her. Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier-a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation," he said.
"Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection," he said.
"Unfortunately, the rush to protect the abused is so incredibly aggressive that the rights of the accused have been violated," Leving said. "I don't see any safeguard in this law. This law basically presumes in these situations [men] are guilty."
He said his organization will work with lawmakers to make them aware of the potential pitfalls of their new law and will watch cases as they develop to
pursue a court challenge to its constitutionality.
So, if you're a man getting divorced and things get a bit messy, and, let's face it....chances are they will get messy; your soon to be ex can make an accusation and you'll be wearing a GPS tracking bracelet.
Last I checked, there was still a fair amount of debate and uproar over the concept of forcing convicted pedophiles to wear tracking bracelets due to the violation of their rights......apparently men going through divorce don't deserve quite the same level of consideration.
Honestly, I don't really know why I'm surprised, it's only a hop skip and jump from what judges are already doing with restraining orders. Already a man can be criminalized, forced out of his home and from the lives of his children on nothing more solid than an accusation.
If that wasn't bad enough, now men can be treated like criminals and required to wear tracking bracelets; no evidence needed, no burden of proof, testimony of witnesses or even a trial required.....nothing more than an accusation.
I don't know about anyone else, but I find the amount of power and control a bit frightening. Women are being given the ability to do little more than point their finger and men can be treated like criminals who have relinquished their rights. Perhaps I've watched 'Gladiator' one too many times, but I get this unsettling mental image of roman emperors dealing out life and death through a simple thumbs up or down gesture. It's too much....too much power in one place with no corresponding accountability. Too many men who are being presumed guilty, their freedoms and rights being stripped away without sense, reason or even the right to due process.
Now I realize a lot of you are probably confused by that title. Chances are you're waiting for the punch line of some anti-male joke (Men are great AT...insert derogatory male stereotype here). Nope, that's it. There isn't any more to it. I figured with the enormous amount of time and energy devoted to pointing out all the flaws of man, it would be nice to devote a bit of time appreciating them...even if it is only a couple of paragraphs in my blog. There are certain pictures that make me cry every time I see them. I'm referring to pictures of men, great men, doing what great men have done since the beginning of time...sacrificing all for the greater good. I'm talking about pictures of soldiers, giving their lives to protect us, pictures of firefighters on 9-11, pushing their way UP into the towers, going to their doom in order to save lives. How many times have men faced death in protection of their countries, their homes, their families? How many men have worked at thankless jobs, never complaining, never questioning, in order to provide for their families? Now, I'm not implying that this is what men should be doing...sacrificing themselves. I'm saying that, right, wrong or otherwise, this is what men always have done and continue to do, and the very least we should do is recognize and show appreciation for that fact.To put it simply, I love men, and not in a 'I like to sleep around and men are great in that capacity' way, either. I love and celebrate all the wonderfully unique traits and characteristics that are distinctly male. Now, I could expand upon all the contributions men have made to the world, but I won't, I don't have enough room on my blog, or enough time. Suffice it to say that due to the minds and accomplishments of men, the world has benefitted more than can be conveyed. What I will take time to do is acknowledge some of the little things, the things that tend to be taken for granted and go unnoticed. I know for a fact that if anything gross, disgusting or dirty has to be done, my husband, no questions asked, is going to do it. There's never an argument over who's going to go outside and shovel the driveway or who's going to change the oil, or the tire. I can guarantee if anybody ever needed to kill anything or venture into a potentially spider infested crawl space, it wouldn't be me. Not because I'd refuse....I'd never have to. If there's anything repugnant to be done, my husband does it. I have at times volunteered, because I know he'd never ask me to, but he says no. Not because he want to do it, but because he takes care of and protects his wife and children, self-sacrificing in the way that man have done for ages. So I say "thank you" to all the men who quietly go about their lives, unappreciatedly sacrificing for those around them. Thank you for all that you are and all that you do. I want you to know that although your are grossly underappreciated, you're not completely unappreciated
Dear Kim,In case you're scratching your head in confusion wondering what one thing possibly has to do with the other, allow me to translate. Anon has taken something wonderful, the way my husband loves and cares for me and his family and twisted it into something ugly. My husband (or any husband) shoveling the driveway, killing the spiders, changing the oil.....gets perverted from what it really is, kindness and caring, into oppression and control.
I'm sorry there are things your husband won't let you do. Know in your heart that your capable of anything!
'I discovered that in brothels in Holland men must wear condoms, which makes sense, and girls are regularly tested for infection. This is very important, not just for the girl, but for the family of the man who has been to see her.'
julianreal said...My comment,
I think we all know what happened and is still happening to Indigenous people all over the planet: white men and our values, industries, and institutions are killing them, genocidally. And white men are also systematically raping Indigenous women. See this for more:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415046
What is your humanitarian response to these atrocities?
In what institutions, in what social venues, in what regions of North America, in your view, do "women rule over men"? I am eager to hear your answer.
As for where men get to speak like this: have you looked at the pornography industry in the last thirtyfive years; men have been putting down women there in every conceivable way, degrading women, raping women, pretending to rape women, cumming on women's faces, gang-banging women, treating women of color like sh*t in particularly
racist and misogynist ways. Often and routinely over these many years, the pornographers (I'm here I'm talking about the big fellas: the white corporate pimps, not someone at home alone or with a partner using their webcam) make feminists and feminism the targets of this scorn, contempt, and defamation: that's a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I ask this in earnestness: can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of radical feminists? Because I can't, and I've looked.
Practically every woman I know has been seriously harmed physically, emotionally, and sexually by a man or by several men, often within their own families of origin: I'm not a youngster, and this means dozens and dozens of women, just those women to whom I am personally connected. One woman friend was molested by three different men over one summer when she was nine years old. Another woman was raped by her father, older brothers, and male cousins when she was a girl. My female dental hygienist was murdered by her ex-boyfriend; he came to her home when she was alone and killed her.
I also know boys who have been raped or molested or assaulted by men: again, their numbers are in the dozens, but approximately half as large as the population of females harmed by men in these ways.
Do you know even five women who have been charged with rape, incest, child molestation, criminal battery, women who have detained boys or men in their basements as sexual slaves, women who have trafficked in boys and men for the purposes of sexual gratification, at the expense of the humanity of those so used and abused?
I see men treat one another like sh*t often, beating each other up outside of bars, shouting and threatening each other: white men threatening and discriminating against men of color; heterosexual men bullying and beating gay men. I'm curious why you don't see men as a significant population of man-haters.
I honestly (I'm being entirely serious here) know of not one single woman who hates men. Not one. I know women who fear men, based on past experiences; I know women who fight for justice for women, for women to be free from rapist culture, from pornographic culture, from a dominant culture in which Indigenous North American women can be raped by white men without any recourse. I can't "reverse" this phenomenon and match it to reality. Could you name the social experiences, on a large scale, that lead you to see the world this way?
Regarding your use of the term "feminazi": Given social-political reality, aren't white men "the Nazis," and women of all ethnicities more like "European Jews" than the other way around? In what sense do feminists in North America control the media, run state police forces, direct the military, and form an unfathomably inhumane dictatorship, as Hitler did? What sense does it make to call any feminists "Nazis"? Please explain this to me. (Thank you.)
How have you been harmed, personally, by women?
I look forward to your response. Thanks for engaging on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to keep the dialogue open.
Julian
July 24, 2008 11:13 AM
@Julianreal
While I agree that this is probably pointless, I can't help but respond to some of your assertions, in particular the ones concerning pornography.
I'm always curious how the kind of sex being performed in pornography becomes oppression of women by men. The women choose to work in the sex industry. They choose to participate in the manner of sex being performed within the films.
Undergo the unsavory experience of visiting a few blogs by women who are into humiliation and degradation. You'll find that many rape fantasy stories and sites have a large female following.
All most of your allegations prove is that there is a darker side to human nature.
For every man who has committed acts of rape or violence, there is a woman who has committed an equally despicable act. All human beings have a capacity for evil. It is a feminist fallacy that men hold a monopoly on that evil.
Under the current clime of female empowerment without corresponding accountability, I would argue that women are more and more frequently guilty of immoral and dishonest behavior. I would say the most distinctive difference between the evil committed by men and women is that women are largely allowed to commit it with impunity. The bad behavior of men is advertised and denounced by every availiable medium while the bad behavior of women is ignored, minimized or justified.
You may not know any women who will state that they hate men, but we live in an environment that embraces and promotes hatred of men, evidenced quite clearly by your post.
It's a very small percentage of men who are rapists, murderers or pedophiles, yet you would have us believe that society is rife with them and women are living in a state of terror waiting to be victimized by them.
I don't once hear you allude to the type of men I know, the type of men that most men are. There's no reference to husbands and fathers who devote their lives to their families. No mention of soldiers or firefighters who sacrifice themselves for the lives and freedoms of others. No mention of the men who quietly go about their lives trying to leave the world a better place than how they found it.
THESE are the type of men I know. The type of men who you malign and villify by collectively lumping them with rapists,murderers and pedophiles. The type of men whose sacrifices and goodness you discount and brush off as you quickly jump back to trying to show how inherently evil men are simply by virtue of their gender.
Emily would not have suffered the loss of her father for the last five years, or the vision in her right eye, if it weren’t for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) And people like Barbara Grieg of the U.S. State Department who see it as an excuse for misandry and a license for lawlessness.
Hindle, a U.K. citizen met and fell in love with American Sheila Fuith while in New York. When she moved to the U.K. in 2001 she hadn’t mentioned the husband and daughters she’d abandoned. Emily was born in the U.K. on March 1, 2002. At 5 months-old Emily was diagnosed with esotropia caused by amblyopia. She needed patching therapy, a patch worn a few hours each day, or she would lose sight in her right eye.
In February 2003 Fuith decided to leave Hindle and return to the U.S. She knew he would object to her taking Emily, so she did what many women in her position have done. She accused him of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. Thanks to VAWA, she needed only to speak the words.
Fuith was taken in by a battered women’s shelter, and given free legal aid by the U.S. government. With no evidence and no due process, Barbara Grieg authorized the illegal abduction. The U.S. Embassy in London issued a passport for Emily without her father’s signature as required by law. The forged signature was not notarized, and had the wrong date.
After arriving in the U.S. Fuith stopped Emily’s therapy. She then tried to give Emily away in a “baby switch.” She placed Emily with the family of Leslie Merriam, a three time convicted pedophile in Wisconsin. Karl learned of this and contacted local law enforcement.
Fuith needed only to claim Karl was harassing her, and the baby switch wasn’t investigated. A call to Grieg confirmed that Hindle was “dangerous.” Captain Alan Osowski never looked at Fuith’s phone when she told him numbers from “harassing calls from Hindle.” But he wrote he had in his report.
This was just the beginning of Hindle’s harrowing five-year journey to protect his daughter. Fuith has moved Emily dozens of times through several different states. She’s filed over 100 false police reports. And Hindle has received death threats.
Two police investigations in the UK and three in the U.S. cleared Hindle of all
allegations. Fuith was found guilty of coaching Emily and making false allegations. Hindle was given court-ordered reunification with Emily.
Hindle said, “Emily met her elder brother (Max) and sister (Elizabeth) for the first time in almost 3 years…as we walked into the resort hotel, Emily asked me ‘Is this my family ?‘“
They enjoyed these visits, evidenced by these photographs, until Fuith made another false allegation and disappeared. Emily was then listed as missing and endangered.
Knowing all of this, Grieg didn’t just harbor Fuith all these years. She interfered whenever Hindle needed a visa to attend custody hearings, arranged his improper arrest, imprisonment and deportation by the immigration department, and tried to set him up to be arrested for violence. She had officers hiding in bushes while her cronies harassed Hindle. And all the while, during her many lawless and reprehensible actions, she allowed Emily to go blind.
Fuith is still enjoying VAWA-funded legal representation. Recently there was a conference call between Fuith, Hindle, their attorneys and the State Department. During the call Fuith recanted every allegation she has made against Hindle. Even hearing this, the State Department refused to budge. The reason? The allegations the mother has made.
Sheila Fuith is clearly guilty, yet has not received any punishment. Karl Hindle is completely innocent, yet has not been able to see Emily or get custody. Now the State Department wants to send him back to London to apply for a new visa.
Hindle said recently, “I’ve been here for 5 weeks, yet Emily and I have not seen each other. The judge will not enforce his orders, and the mother maintains visitation must take place in Panama City, 350 miles away. Emily and I last saw each other on May 28th, 2006!” Hindle is now on his way back to the UK without seeing Emily.
******************************************
If you’d like to send a letter or make a phone call to to Barbara Grieg, here is her contact info:
Barbara Grieg
US Central Authority,
US Department of State
2201 C Street,
N.W. SA-29, 4thFloor
WASHINGTON, DC 20520-2818
United States of America
Direct Tel: 202-736-9142
Email: greigbj@state.gov
"[Hillary Clinton] is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical nagging -- [screeching]. You know what I mean?"---Glenn Beck
"[T]here's just something about [Hillary Clinton] that feels castrating,overbearing, and scary."---Tucker Carlson
"[Hillary Clinton] is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one." ---Marc Rudov
"The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote - after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras - provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?"---Andrew Sullivan
Catching Wild Pigs ...
A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fightingcommunists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do yo u know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops(CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
Firstly, to Mary's "most women are so heavily invested in the concept of "some good men" that they are willing to entirely distort their perspective of what is the far greater violation of women, namely, rape." Thank you, Mary, I am guilty as charged, even sitting here as a rape survivor, and a woman who works to raise awareness of rape; but I am learning, and getting better at not "distorting my perspective", thanks in the main to amazing women like you.
And JusticeWalks, well, I'm speechless. One day I hope I have the bravery and the lucidity to write like that.
I would just like to add here, despite how unhelpful anyone may think it is, and how many women and men alike will argue no, it doesn't mean that, it means some men, or all men have the potential, that it is my firm believe, and if I'm going to be brutally honest, which I might as well be, has been my firm belief for a number of years, that All Men ARE Rapists. I mean that, just as it stands; no qualification, no, oh, except this special man, he isn't; I mean it. All Men Are Rapists. I'm going to say it again:
ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.
My first question, of course, as you are so comfortable in stating (and repeating) that all men are rapists, what proof do you offer to substantiate such a gross generalization? I happen to know that my husband has never raped anyone and is, in fact, a man, so are we to assume that you have (in the form of radfems before you) chosen to label all heterosexual sex as rape? This must come as quite a shock to all the women in the world who are under the impression they're willingly and consensually engaging in sexual congress.
Men do rape, just as women do make false rape accusations. I'll assume, as it's already been established that you're comfortable with blanket stereotypes and collective accountability that you therefore must label all women as lying, vindictive bitches. Of course, I know that I'm not and I know other women who aren't, but for the sake of equality, you must hold women to the same standard of collective guilt as you do men.
I am sorry that you were a victim of rape but it does not vindicate your villifying and maligning an entire gender. You have the right to malign the man who harmed you, but not to spread hatred of all men because of the actions of one, or a few. I would hope you would show the wisdom and maturity to recognize that people should be judged, not be their gender, religion or skin color, but by their actions and deeds.
I am outraged by your comments on behalf of the many, many great men that I know; men who personify qualities such as honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness; men who've devoted their lives to their families and communities. These wonderful men, would never unfairly judge you, even as you have judged them; which makes them far, far better people than you are....regardless of their gender.
If even one man's life was destroyed because of a lie, we should be outraged, but, as Wendy succinctly stated, "false rape accusations are not rare. They are common."
If feminsts are truly concerned for women as they claim to be then they should spend a little less time worrying about whether or not an advertisement or road sign could possibly be construed as "sexist" and a little more time figuring out why it is that some women have little enough conscience and empathy to be able to ruin a man's life with a false rape claim; whether telling women it was all about them and their happiness (regardless of the impact upon the lives of others) was really such a good idea after all.Scary isn't it? Scary that such a woman was responsible for dealing out "justice" since she became assistant D.A. in 1978. Prior to this evening, I could only imagine the worst, most rabid of man-hating feminists spouting such misandry, yet here we have a woman, a former judge, someone who's ran for the United States Senate, saying it on national television.In 1989 Jeffery Deskovic was convicted in the murder of 15-year-old fellow student Angela Correa. He proclaimed his innocence on several occasions, but was denied a reopening of the case by then-DA Pirro. In 2006, the current DA authorized a DNA test which led to Deskovic's exoneration. Had Pirro agreed to a relatively simple test, Deskovic would have been freed years before his actual exoneration. Instead, she maintained that the test wasn't necessary, and Deskovic spent 16 years in a prison for a crime he did not commit.
I appologize for not clarifying this point. The father has attempted to obtain a copy of the birth certificate through vital records and has been refused. Their explanation being that he doesn't have custody and was never married to the mother. Of course, I find it interesting that his proof of parentage is sufficient to obligate him to pay child support and to be taken to court over failure to pay, but insufficient to obtain the birth certificate that would enable him to provide support.
He has had to hire a lawyer in an attempt to obtain the birth certificate.
Sheriff: Spring girl lied about rape that led to student's
stabbing
11:27 AM CDT on Saturday, May 31, 2008
KHOU.com staff report
SPRING, Texas -- The Harris County Sheriff’s Office said Friday that a
Spring teen’s accusations that she had been raped by a classmate that led to a
boy’s stabbing was a lie.
Last month, 17-year-old Joshua Chapa was stabbed
near the lobby of Wunsche High School in Spring ISD by the father of the girl
who claimed she had been raped. Ruben-Cuellar Roma faces charges related to that
stabbing.
Roma’s daughter claimed that she had been raped while at a house
party in late April. The father was at the school the following Monday to talk
to school administrators about the alleged sexual assault when Chapa was
stabbed.
Sheriff’s investigators said the girl retracted the story this week
saying that she lied about the rape to avoid getting in trouble for going to the
party.
There was no word if investigators would pursue charges against the
teen for making a false report.
How much more of a wake up call do we need? This young woman was willing to sacrifice the life of a young man so she wouldn't get in trouble for going to a party. She was willing to ruin a life and a future in order to avoid getting grounded. Am I the only one who finds this very, very frightening? The lack of conscience and empathy is extremely disturbing. If this were, perhaps, an isolated incidence, I would be disgusted but understand that there are bad people in the world who do bad things. Unfortunately, this is just one of many incidences which suggest that the problem is much greater, much more insidious than I'd like to believe.
This chilling lack of concern for the welfare of others, this lack of empathy, we see in a disturbing number of young women today is a result. It's the result of insulating and protecting girls from the slightest discomfort, including any unfavorable results which may occur from their own bad behaviour.
Did we really think we were 'empowering' our girls when we took away accountability for their actions? Did we really think there would not be reprecussions for raising a generation of young women who have been told that they can do anything, be anything they want, act any way they want....without having to face the consequences for their actions? What did we envision the results would be of teaching young girls that merely through the conditions of their birth, they are entitled to everything and anything they want?
There is no word yet on whether or not charges will be filed against the young woman who lied and caused these horrendous events. My guess is no. We can hope, but history would suggest that charges will not be filed, thus further ingraining the message to this and other young women that there are no consequences for their actions; that the lives of others are of very little significance when compared to a little discomfort or unhappiness on their part.
Perhaps most frightening of all is that these young women, with no concern for the lives of others, are tomorrow's mothers. They will be the ones raising our next generation. Should it come as any surprise when they abandon their marriages because married life isn't exactly what they'd hoped and dreamed it would be? Or when they neglect or ignore the needs of their children when those needs come in competition with their own wants and needs?
While there is evidence that more and more people are appropriately disgusted upon hearing stories such as we see above; that there are those in society who are finally waking up to the ugly reality of feminism....one has to wonder how long it will be before we realize the full damage and just how vast and far reaching that damage will be.
.
H. Con. Res. 241: Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more...
Bill Status
Introduced: Oct 25, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Status: Introduced
Go to Bill Status Page
You are viewing the following version of this bill:
Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.
Text of Legislation
HCON 241 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 241
Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 25, 2007
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives.
Whereas, in approximately 84 percent of the cases where a parent is absent, that parent is the father;
Whereas if current trends continue, half of all children born today will live apart from one of their parents, usually their father, at some point before they turn 18 years old;
Whereas when families (whether intact or with a parent absent) are living in poverty, a significant factor is the father's lack of job skills;
Whereas committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes to the development of emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills;
Whereas an estimated 19,400,000 children (27 percent) live apart from their biological fathers;
Whereas 40 percent of the children under age 18 not living with their biological fathers had not seen their fathers even once in the past 12 months, according to national survey data;
Whereas single parents are to be commended for the tremendous job that they do with their children;
Whereas the United States needs to encourage responsible parenting, by both fathers and mothers whenever possible;
Whereas the United States needs to encourage both parents (and extended families) to be actively involved in children's lives;
Whereas a way to do that is to encourage joint custody so that parents share children;
Whereas the American Bar Association found in 1997 that 19 States plus the District of Columbia had some form of presumption for joint custody, either legal, physical, or both, and since then, 13 additional States have added some form of presumption, bringing the current total to 32 States plus the District of Columbia;
Whereas Census Bureau data shows a correlation between joint custody and a higher payment of financial child support;
Whereas social science literature shows that children are generally well adjusted in an intact family with 2 parents in the home, and research also shows that for children of divorced, separated, and never-married parents, joint custody is strongly associated with positive outcomes for children on important measures of adjustment and well-being;
Whereas research by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that the States with the highest amount of joint custody subsequently had the lowest divorce rate; and
Whereas parents with joint custody pay 50 percent more in child support than parents with visitation only or no contact with the child: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress expresses support of the States passing joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefit of having a father and a mother in their lives, careful to protect victims of domestic violence, abuse, neglect, children from potential kidnapping by a parent.
Whereas 40 percent of the children under age 18 not living with their
biological fathers had not seen their fathers even once in the past 12 months,
according to national survey data;
Women and War: Gendered Politics
In the so called developed world, the position of women in public sphere remains static and insipid with any issue relating to them considered innocuous. Time and again women are looked upon as mandated individuals ordained only with duties pertaining to the defined territories of their houses and are predominantly seen as stupefied objects of pleasure, use and abuse.
Sexual violence, vulnerability, fear and parochial outlook is what women all over the world are experiencing, whether in their households or at workplace.
The situation worsens when a woman leaves her nationality for serving in an insurgency and war afflicted area like Iraq. This situation seems reminiscent of the US women who serve in the Iraq war either as contractors or soldiers in the army. Abuses relating to women are either shoved away, negated and are usually jettisoned. And women raising voice especially against sexual abuse find themselves helpless in face of the obdurate administration of men of the higher authorities.
Such cases are frequent in Iraq war where US women are frequently becoming victims of war, facing explicit sexual exploitation and abuse. KBR Company, formerly known as Kellogg, Brown and Root, which provided logistical support to the US armed forces, has turned a deaf ear to these cases and the women employees are increasingly facing violence such as rapes and assaults. But the firm does not intend to formulate any laws and preventive actions against these crimes which have become a regular feature. Raising these issues entail a threat to the employment and bearing them becomes a crisis in turn for these women.
The main criticism signals to the Bush administrative policies in these areas which have amounted to a serious neglect of issues concerning safety and protection for women employed in Iraq. What seemed to be progressive developed nation has failed to protect its women from the clutches of exploitation and violence, and where testifying for the crimes inflicted has also become a sheer impossibility.
Natasa Feb 20 2008That's right folks. Women are the worst victims of war. Apparently dying, which is what the men do in wars, is neither here nor there compared to what women experience. Oh and the children, you know, the innocent victims who are unable to fend for themselves...well, they also come in second...because the greatest suffering only happens when it happens to women.
Women are the worst victims of war followed by children. This is a fact. I know.
What always comes to my mind when I read these pieces of mythology is why they continue to write them...why, in the western world, where women are the opposite of oppressed, do they strive so hard to continue furthering the fallacy. My best answer.....I suppose it's nicer to believe oneself a victim and a martyr then selfish, spoiled and unappreciative.
Now, I like to consider myself a reasonably intelligent person....but I can only suggest that SURELY I must be missing something, because the slightest amount of common sense suggests that this is ridiculous.
The judge has acknowledged that the mother has falsely accused the father; he's described her influence in the life of their child as "vicious", "scandalous", "corrupting".....BUT, he's upholding the mother's custody because the court is compelled to act in the best interest of the child.
Again I ask you...what am I missing? Surely it's a flaw in my skills of comprehension because TO ME, mere logic would dictate that the "best interest of the child" would be removal from this "vicious", "corrupting", "venomous" environment.
This is how ridiculous the court system has become. It was bad enough when they relegated fathers to a secondary position that considered them little more than a paycheck. It was bad enough when they said that a mother was more important than a father. Now, apparently, keeping a child in a toxic environment with a bad mother while denying a good father access is in the child's best interest.
The court system should clarify for us all what exactly their definition of "best interest" is. I was always under the impression that the best interest of the child was the most stable environment possible and the benefit of the positive influence of both a mother and father....apparently the term has undergone a vast revision.
Marriage Savers is a Proven Way to Increase the Success of Marriage, Reduce Divorce Rates, and Provide a Better Environment for Children to Thrive.
