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 Your stats that females are disportionately the victims of domestic violence are outdated.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