Respectful relationships or 'boy-bashing'?

Medianet Release
05 Mar 2010 5:00 AM - Respectful relationships or 'boy-bashing'? Media release - for immediate release - Friday March 5th 2010 Respectful relationships or ‘boy-bashing’? Respect is a two-way street – but Wednesday’s announcement of Federal funding from the $9.3 million allocation to “respectful relationship” programs appears designed to target only boys as potential perpetrators of violence in relationships. Yet Australian research shows that girls are as likely to practice dating violence as boys – and that violence by girls towards boys is seen as more acceptable than is violence by boys against girls. University of Western Sydney researcher Micheal Woods said, “By appearing to focus upon gender as the cause of relationship violence and abuse, these programs ignore the internationally accepted evidence that other causes play a much larger part. The social determinants that can lead to abusive relationships include social disadvantage, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate conflict management and affect regulation skills.” “The approach behind this campaign is at odds with the Prime Minister’s preference for evidence-based policies – this roll-out of funding appears to support biased gender ideology, not social good. The denigration of boys as belonging to a “violent” gender – and the implicit approval for violence by girls against boys – undermines the intent of reducing violence in relationships,” said Mr Woods. Melbourne psychologist, Dr Elizabeth Celi, said, “Do we want our young girls thinking that slapping a male friend or boyfriend, throwing objects at him, kicking or scratching him with her nails is OK? Research clearly shows that females as well as males, at school and university age, are violent toward their partners and schoolmates. Why are we staying silent about this issue? Young women saying ‘Stop!’ to their girlfriends slapping or verbally abusing their male friends or boyfriends is just as important a message to teach our kids.” Anti-violence campaign One in Three spokesperson Greg Andresen said, “Respectful relationships education is an essential part of the school curriculum. However, conflating ‘respectful relationships’ and ‘violence against women’ implies that disrespect in relationships only leads to males abusing females. Why is the government ignoring the 50 per cent of relationships in which girls physically and psychologically abuse their boyfriends? We are concerned that these ‘respectful relationships’ programs are really just boy-bashing exercises in disguise.” Data released today by One in Three reveals that: 21 per cent of physical violence between dating partners of university age during 2005-6 in Australia was perpetrated by females only, 14 per cent by males only and 64.9 per cent was mutual violence (where both partners used violence against each other) [source] Young males and females aged 12 to 20 were equally likely to have experienced domestic violence or forced sex by a partner [source] Young people were just as likely to have seen Mum hit Dad as they were to have seen Dad hit Mum [source] 25 per cent of young people agreed with the statement “When a girl hits a guy it’s really not a big deal.” While males hitting females was seen by virtually all young people surveyed to be unacceptable, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy [source] Young males were more likely than young females to have experienced bullying, punch-ups between people at school/college, drunken fights in pubs/clubs and racial violence [source] Young females were more likely than young males to have experienced rape/sexual assault & ‘bitching’ [source]. The One in Three Campaign aims to raise public awareness of the existence and needs of male victims of family violence and abuse; to work with government and non-government services alike to provide assistance to male victims; and to reduce the incidence and impacts of family violence on Australian men, women and children. MEDIA CONTACTS Micheal Woods, Adjunct Fellow, University of Western Sydney, 0414 710 696 or m.woods@uws.edu.au Dr Elizabeth Celi, Psychologist and Author, 0413 338 237 or info@qualityliving.com.au Greg Andresen, One in Three spokesperson and Senior Researcher, 0403 813 925 or info@oneinthree.com.au Please see the following files attached: [One_in_Three_Media_Release_RR10.pdf] Distributed by AAP Medianet JN#:647965 E-G
Contact Us	© Australian Associated Press, 2008

Woman charged with killing husband is lobbyist for a Domestic Violence Group

Here's an interesting case of a lobbyist for a Domestic Violence group in Georgia, USA who was also a hit person and "whacked" her husband. These groups are hypocritical in the extreme and many just plain corrupt using mendacity to keep the tax dollars flowing. This is a new twist where an operative gets caught not only in a lie but for DV Homicide.MJM

By Rhonda Cook and Ty Tagami

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

5:25 p.m. Wednesday, March 3, 2010

A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence.

Arelisha Bridges was ordered held without bond in the Fulton County Jail. She is scheduled for a preliminary hearing later this month on charges of felony murder, murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Officials said Bridges claimed she was unemployed. But records show she is a lobbyist for an organization called the National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order; its Web site says the group is pushing legislation to create a database of those convicted of sex crimes or domestic abuse.

Usually an accused felon will appear at a preliminary hearing a day later, but Bridges' hearing was within hours of the shooting death of Anthony Rankins. Officials said the court appearance was moved up because of the unusual circumstances around the crime.

Witnesses told police that Bridges was wearing a nightgown and a shower cap as she argued with Rankins on the sidewalk on North Avenue near West Peachtree Street around 10:45 p.m. Monday.

And moments later, witnesses said, they heard shots. They said she then "calmly walked away."
A MARTA police officer stopped her as she was getting into her car, perhaps to return to her home nearby on Centennial Olympic Park Drive.

According to Atlanta police, Bridges told investigators that she and Rankins had been dating for a few months and were just married on Feb. 24.

Bridges' group isn't among the prominent domestic violence lobbying groups in Georgia, said Kirsten Rambo, the executive director of the Georgia Commission on Family Violence.
 
"This is the first I've heard about that organization," Rambo said. "I certainly couldn't say if they were legitimate or not," she said, adding, "It's certainly a new name to me."

Bridges has filed sparse lobbying expenses, according to State Ethics Commission records. So far this year, she's reported spending $20 -- for parking while lobbying for the abuse database.

-- Staff writer Mike Morris contributed to this article.

Find this article at:

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/woman-charged-with-killing-344266.html

Barbara Kay: How patriarchy ran into its own iceberg

A very good article on the nature of men, masculinity and how feminism is constantly striving to slay the evil maleness. My comments left on site, and below,  precede the article by Ms. Kay

Barbara:

Your analogies are very good. Men are both hard wired and socialized to protect those weaker. That is typically women and children but it also applies to other men. If you study men in battle, they will literally risk life and limb to rescue a wounded brother and they will die with dignity and honour while trying.

If you watched carefully on 9/11, you will have noticed a broad selection of burly men, young and middle aged, some nearing retirement no doubt racing into the World Trade Towers to save people. Many knew as they looked way up at the carnage before entering they would not likely get out alive. Yet they raced up 90 plus flights of stairs and started guiding people down.  One man stayed with another who was in a wheelchair knowing full well he was going to die because of it. Four hundred and eleven (411) first responders perished trying to save others. The vast majority, if not all, were men.  Our generation saw all of that unfold on TV and in movies but yet men are still vilified.

Feminists would ridicule this masculine trait until it was they trapped in falling debris and burning steel hoping a strong man would race through all of that chaos to find her, throw her over his shoulders and carry her to safety or die trying.

A columnist in the Irish Independent with whom I share a worldview  coined the term Lifeboat Feminism.  The sinking ship is a classic example of this tribe of victim oriented feminists (not unlike ambrose 99)  who seek entitlements, brand men as abusers, believe the Patriarchy still rules their very lives and they have no control or choice, but view themselves as more than equals.  In terms of things like parenthood, teaching, multi-tasking (which is a fiction but we humour them) they view themselves as superiors. When the ship is sinking they are the first to jump in the lifeboats with the children. They are the types who want all the privileges of equality but not the responsibilities, accountability or consequences.

Masculinity takes a beating, even from feminized men, who do not completely understand it. Many do, or did not have, good male role models, as dads are marginalized by social engineers called family court judges.

Masculinity has discovered the earth, the oceans, the atmosphere, the mountains, rivers and underground. It has discovered space and the cosmos and developed the tools to explore them.  It has invented almost everything useful known to human kind but if you believe the feminists like good old ambrose99 we are evil abusers and mass killers.

We are not.

 

Posted: March 03, 2010, 4:00 AM by NP Editor 

The Titanic sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg. Of the 2,200 people on board, 1,517 died. The Lusitania sank in 1915, victim to a German U-boat torpedo. Of the nearly 2,000 people on board, 1,200 died. In addition to carrying about the same numbers of passengers, the demographic composition of the two ships - adults, children, men, women, old, young - was also similar.


Two stark differences distinguish the tragedies. One was the fact that the Lusitania sank very swiftly, only minutes after it was struck, while it took four hours for the Titanic to go under the waves. The other is that on the Titanic, most of the survivors were women and children: 75% of women and almost all the children were saved as against 20% of the men, while on the Lusitania, of the 639 who escaped, it was a question of sauve qui peut. The fittest amongst both men and women aged 16-35 were likeliest to survive.


According to a new study  in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the altruism of the Titanic and the length of time it took for the ship to sink are causally linked. Benno Torgler, study author and economics professor at Queensland University of Technology in Australia explains that circumstances dictate levels of altruism. According to the study, since the Titanic passengers had a few hours to consider their options, "there was time for socially determined behavioural patterns to re-emerge."


The time factor in determining selfish or unselfish behaviour strikes one as a reasonable insight. Panic arouses atavistic instincts of blind flight; more time to consider allows the intellect, the emotions and one's sense of -- call it what you will: duty, honour, morality -- to surface and in some cases overwhelm terror.

But now let us consider these "socially determined behavioural patterns" that allowed so many women and children on the Titanic to live.


The sinking of the Titanic occurred in 1912, well before the emancipation of women. Indeed, 1912, before the "lights [had] gone out in Europe" with World War One, may be said to be the last moment when the patriarchy held fairly complete sway over the lives of women. After the war, a dearth of men, coupled with women's adventures in autonomy in the work force and taking charge of their domestic domains, along with the extinction of "honour" as a viable ideal after an honour-based war's senseless horrors, the patriarchy was on its way out, gender equality on its way in.


So these heroes who willingly sacrificed their lives for women and children had been brought up in the very heart of the same robust patriarchy that feminists today use as a shibboleth to frighten young girls with. According to the feminist mystique, these men should have been controlling, egocentric, self-serving bullies, for whom women were nothing more than sexual and domestic conveniences, little better than slaves. They should all have been candidates for anger management, not a chivalry so breathtakingly selfless that they almost to a man went to watery graves in stoic humility so that total strangers might live, simply because of their sex.


It is precisely in a crisis that we often learn a great deal about what our values actually are. So this example of male heroism in as indisputably existential situation as imagination can conceive, and ideally placed to consider their deepest convictions before acting should, it seems to me, remain in the forefront of our collective consciousness. For these men were the product of a particular culture, one that perceived chivalry and honour and duty as the highest values. And the highest expression of those highest values was the privileging of women and children's lives over their own. And they acted on that perception.


Yes, women were infantilized in many ways in the patriarchy, which a cynic might say was the driving impulse behind the chivalry of the Titanic's men. But so what? At the moment when it mattered most, the notion that men should above all act as protectors of the vulnerable in times of danger to all committed them to death in the service of others. Was there ever a more noble or selfless act?

The study reminds us that the heroism of the Titanic was a willed phenomenon, and one that feminists do not wish to discuss (I have tried).

Instead of fetishizing the victimhood of women at men's hands and the deviance from our cultural norm that Marc Lepine represented with man-bashing dirges across the land every December 6, would it not make more sense - and would it not be more ethically fitting and socially unifying - to celebrate the more representative  manliness of men every April 15, the date of the Titanic's sinking? Still six weeks left to plan it.
National Post

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/02/barbara-kay-how-patriarchy-ran-into-its-own-iceberg.aspx#ixzz0hAGg2JMB
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Mar 02 2010
11:19 PM

Didn't this all lead to Ms.Kay having a column in the newspaper instead of using her brain to concentrate on her knitting?
by ZeeBC

Mar 02 2010
11:24 PM

Not a chance of it happening. Men won't do it so it would be up to women to push for it.
Too few of the willing but a Facebook effort may rack up some numbers.
by Denis Pakkala

Mar 02 2010
11:51 PM

Thank you for another great article.
Grant Brown used the same analogy of the sinking of the Titanic to explain the innate social behavior of alpha-males in deferring to women interests.  Feminism has a natural ally in traditionally chivalrous men who continue to support discriminatory social policies.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST
www.westernstandard.ca/.../article.php
“Feminism has enjoyed remarkable success, in an historically short period of time, reshaping society to eliminate the disadvantages suffered by women under traditional gender norms. This success has been possible only because feminism preys on a powerful, natural inclination of deference to women that is bred into both men and women alike. If women feel passionately about wanting something, it just isn't manly or prudent for men, individually or collectively, to deny it to them. In the ideological battle of the sexes, it is of the first importance to understand the origins and power of this innate inclination of deference to women. “
Traditionally, women have always had the power to influence men and men have always acted to provide for women what they want and need.  It is important to pay proper respect for men’s historical role in society, but let’s not mourn the passing of simpler times when gender roles were more defined.  Feminism has won and now we must deal with the repercussions that this has on men’s equality and men’s place in society.
Men’s place in present society is explained very well in this series of videos:
LIVING IN A FEMINIST, MAN-HATING MATRIARCHY
www.youtube.com/watch
Equality is a double-edged sword and chivalry is dead!
by Skulldug

Mar 03 2010
12:12 AM

From a Gentleman to a Lady, thank you for this article Barbara.
I've often been accused of being old fashioned in the ways that I treat women. I hold open doors, walk on the outside of the sidewalk offer my coat on a chilly night and perform all sorts of other antiquated gestures. Much of the time this is still appreciated but there have been occasions where I've been accused of sexism or of having some dark ulterior motive for my actions.
The truth is, I respect women and I would like to think that had I been on the ill-fated Titanic that I would have done my utmost to ensure the survival of as many women and children as I could.
Maybe these days that just makes me stupid, but I know my Grandma would be proud.
by Denis Pakkala

Mar 03 2010
12:16 AM

Mel,
Ms. Kay is actually writing a positive article about men, rather than the typical misandry found in the liberal MSM.
Do you have anything intelligent to add?
by Ambrose99

Mar 03 2010
12:24 AM

The remembrance services on December 6 are meant to honour the lives of the women Mark Lepine cut short in a typically male act of barbarism. For Ms Kay to suggest that these events are just an excuse for man bashing shows once again that she will lose no opportunity to ingratiate herself to men.
  In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen has Caroline Bingley say (falsely) of Elizabeth Bennett that she is the type of woman who denigrates her own sex to get the attention of men. I think that shoe fits Barbara Kay quite nicely.
by Sassylassie

Mar 03 2010
12:28 AM

Sadly Mrs. Kay  male heros and gentlemen are scorned these days.  They shall be dearly missed. Mel that insult was below the belt why do you dislike women so much Mel, the mail order bride didn't show up that Ma ordered for ya?
Skull you aren't old fashioned you have manners and grace, never abandoned those positive traits.
by trajan

Mar 03 2010
1:06 AM

Excuse me while I go out and shoot up some women and children in a typically male act of barbarism.  Men come and join me.
by jimshort19

Mar 03 2010
1:10 AM

Good article, and generally positive, yet there is a definite sense of "The sinking of the Titanic occurred... before the emancipation of women... the last moment when the patriarchy held ... sway over the lives of women...the extinction of "honour"..." Lacking is a more modern tragedy to provide evidence toward this notion. There are none so tragic among passenger vessels after WWI so you seem excused, but to say that honour is dead is to say that love is dead. Yet you still are not in favour of man bashing. Just how low do I have to go to get your goat?
by Richard V

Mar 03 2010
1:14 AM

Mel said: "Didn't this all lead to Ms.Kay having a column in the newspaper instead of using her brain to concentrate on her knitting?"
===
No doubt. Let's all follow Kay! Up with the patriarchy, so we won't have to read her garbage any longer! (But we might be able to enjoy her sweaters and baked goods).
by edd333ed

Mar 03 2010
1:41 AM

en.wikipedia.org/.../HMS_Birkenhead_(1845)
by Denis Pakkala

Mar 03 2010
2:03 AM

Ambrose,
Ms. Kay has wrote quite extensively about the rampant man-bashing in society by feminists elements.  Most people recognize this, although there are many who prefer to deny it.
Marc Lepine has been used by the women's shelter industry as a false symbol of female victimhood.
There is nothing "typical" about Marc Lepine and any suggestion of such is pure misandry and male-hate.
I can not recall any article where Ms. Kay has denigrated women, other than telling the simple truth.
Feminists are not necessarily women and they definitely do not represent all women.
by seekingtruth

Mar 03 2010
2:07 AM

hey ambrose; marc lepines real name was Gamil Gharbi a fascist muslim. this was not a typically male act but rather a typically islamo-fascist muslim act. yes I know you love the muslims and hate the Jews and hey Barb is a Jew. no coincidence there eh 99. and mel I see you managed to crawl out of your hole. your misogyny is showing and I'm sure a girly man like you can hardly afford that advertisement. being a women hater doesn't make you any tougher you dufus idiot.
by Ambrose99

Mar 03 2010
2:24 AM

trajan--it's not a joke. Only men commit mass murders, so that's why it's typical. Barbara Kay is a charlatan. She knows full well that the remembrances on Dec 6 are intended to honour the women killed. She chooses instead to depict them as male bashing.
  If the NP had any gumption, it would fire this woman. Her views are sickening, stupid and puerile.
by Denis Pakkala

Mar 03 2010
2:30 AM

This is representative of the hate groups that the Liberals and NDP rely on for support:
"the lives of the women Mark Lepine cut short in a typically male act of barbarism."
by Denis Pakkala

Mar 03 2010
2:33 AM

Marc lepine was a sociopath, he was not representative of anybody.
by Curmudgeon99

Mar 03 2010
2:52 AM

Very interesting insight.  I don't know whether the thesis would ultimately stand up to more academic scrutiny, but the thoughts expressed here certainly gave me some food for thought.  Thank you, Ms Kay.
by seekingtruth

Mar 03 2010
3:15 AM

gamil gharbi was a muslim. he was representative of muslim attitudes towards women whether you like it or not.
by MikeMurphy

Mar 03 2010
3:18 AM

Oh poor Ms. Ambrose, does killing 3 of your university colleagues, wounding 3, leaving pipe bombs, assaulting a mom and killing your brother meet your definition of mass murder.  That was just recently reported to have been done by one woman. www.reuters.com/.../idUSTRE61B59V20100213
Would you like a list of moms who have exterminated their children in the past week world wide.  They are by far more likely to kill their young that the dad.  How do you explain that?
You do live in the nether world of feminist fairy tales don't you.
You have the name of a sweet smelling herb but you don't seem to fit the bill with your man hating vitriol.  its folks like you who keep the gender wars burning brightly.
by EdNigma

Mar 03 2010
3:24 AM

And ambrose's self-loathing continues...
Try reading about the most recent female multiple murderer in the news, Amy Bishop.
network.nationalpost.com/.../profile-dr-amy-bishop-alleged-university-of-alabama-huntsville-shooter.aspx
Get help, ambrose.
by Toburk

Mar 03 2010
3:33 AM

In 1912, more than a thousand Western men traveling from Europe to North America gave their lives so women they never knew could survive.
In 1989, Marc Lepine, (born Gamil Gharbi) the son of an Algerian immigrant who was taught Taliban-like misogyny by his Muslim father, walked into the École Polytechnique de Montréal, and killed or injured 24 women and 4 men.
The conclusion of these two tragedies? Western men are monsters.  Great.
by MikeMurphy

Mar 03 2010
3:47 AM

Barbara:
Your analogies are very good. Men are both hard wired and socialized to protect those weaker. That is typically women and children but it also applies to other men. If you study men in battle they will literally risk life and limb to rescue a wounded brother and they will die with dignity and honour while trying.
If you watched carefully on 9/11 you will have noticed a broad selection of burly men, young and old racing into the World Trade Towers to save people. Many knew as they looked way up at the carnage before entering they would not likely get out alive. Yet they raced up 90 plus flights of stairs and started guiding people down.  One man stayed with another who was in a wheelchair knowing full well he was going to die because of it. Four hundred and eleven (411) first responders died trying to save others. The vast majority if not all were men.  Our generation saw all of that unfold on TV and in movies but yet men are still vilified.

This is a masculine trait that feminism would ridicule because testosterone is involved until it was they trapped in falling debris and burning steel hoping a strong man would race through all of that chaos to find her, throw her over his shoulders and carry her to safety or die trying.

An columnist in the Irish Independent who I share a world view with coined the term Lifeboat Feminism.  The sinking ship is a classic example of this tribe of victim oriented feminists (not unlike ambrose 99)  who seek entitlements, brand men as abusers, believe the Patriarchy still rules their very lives and they have no control or choice, but view themselves as more than equals.  In terms of things like parenthood, teaching, multi-tasking (which is a fiction but we humour them) they view themselves as superiors When the ship is sinking they are the first to jump in the lifeboats with the children. They are the types who want all the privileges of equality but not the consequences.

Masculinity takes a beating, even from feminized men, who don't completely understand it. Many do not have good male role models as dads are marginalized by social engineers called family court judges.
Masculinity has discovered the earth, the oceans, the atmosphere, the mountains, rivers and under ground. It has discovered space and the cosmos and developed the tools to explore them.  It has invented almost everything useful know to human kind but if you believe the feminists like good old ambrose99 we are evil abusers and mass killers.

We are not.
by Ascalepius

Mar 03 2010
3:59 AM

Well stated Mike.
by MikeMurphy

Mar 03 2010
4:21 AM

by Mel from Calgary Mar 02 2010 11:19 PM
Didn't this all lead to Ms.Kay having a column in the newspaper instead of using her brain to concentrate on her knitting?
___________________________
I really don't know how you are able to get through life from day to day.
You don't get it at all - do you!  Are you sure you are a man or are you faking it?
by golfergirl

Mar 03 2010
5:35 AM

Hard to make the point Barbara, when you are talking to the "me" generation.
They are all hard done by and victimized, these are the same people that look the other way when someone screams for help.... for them it is dog eat dog and all is fair in a me first world...really it is all mute, todays generation would have made the damage to the iceberg the number one casualty.
Honour, integrity, morality, they went out the door when the beacon of freedom and democracy...the US of A, said it was okay to, and proceeded to, renague on the secured creditors of GM..........nothing makes sense anymore, unless you believe in anarchy.
by themirroralwayslies

Mar 03 2010
6:38 AM

BK, Denis, Mike et al
How's a Mirror supposed to get any sleep when you boys and girls keep turning the Light on??? LOL
trick question!
Sorry I can't articulate how much I appreciate how well you talk about this vital subject. Keep up the good work.
by 6ame

Mar 03 2010
8:12 AM

A great article, but a day to celebrate the bravery and honour of men will never happen, for evidence of this, look no further than these comments, the story is clearly about the men's behaviour during the Titanic disaster, yet a feminist has crashed the party and turned it into a discussion about Marc Lepine, I'm aware you mentioned him once in your article, but in typical feminist style, they have ensured that the discussion will be about what they want to talk about, and we all know that certainly isn't going to be men's honour, not when they can change the subject into how women suffer in some way.
Sadly, this is what the people who make decisions have to put up with too, so if any politician ever tries to be pro-male, they'll immediately be bombarded with the problems women face and be told to sort them first.
by From the farm

Mar 03 2010
9:21 AM

"If the NP had any gumption, it would fire this woman. Her views are sickening, stupid and puerile."
Really? Then by the same standard, it would also censor your rabid ravings against writers such as Kay.
Just like the TorStar censors most of the comments from those who show dissent with its hard-core, leftist views.
So who, really, is it that tolerates freedom of speech? Certainly not the left-wingers like ambrose and mel.
Barbara - Thank you for bravely shining a bit of light onto a subject of which few are even aware and most can certainly not articulate.
by rightofway

Mar 03 2010
12:49 PM

  @    Mel from Calgary
 Hey clown,if all you can do is make realy stupid comments like that.Do everyone a favour, SCRAM !
by Tossed Salad

Mar 03 2010
12:56 PM

Well said From the farm. TorStar comments as you stated are moderated while NP is not. They are posted within a minute or so and are removed if foul language, personal attacks, and intimate info is posted.
Mike I take a little bit of exception to your statement "Men are both hard wired and socialized to protect those weaker." I think you meant (though I do not want to put words in your mouth) physically weaker or mentally infirmed. The lefties like ambrose will jump on that as evidence that we perceive women to be intelectually "weaker" which of course we know is not the case but the loons will grasp at anything.
by tomale

Mar 03 2010
1:38 PM

Thanks for handling December 6 the way you did. It has always bothered me that many males I have come to know are abused - it is not just women. Thus, using white ribbons on Dec. 6 seems wrong to me when we ought to be reducing abuse period.
by jimshort19

Mar 03 2010
1:54 PM

The battle of the sexes ended symbolically on the day of the Challenger disaster, when the hold-outs who said a woman had no place on the mission covered their mouths in grief and horror at the televised sacrifice. Now feminism has become a common state of mind and fact of life, and as such is passe. Yet, "... along with the extinction of "honour" as a viable ideal... the patriarchy was on its way out, gender equality on its way in." You Barbara seem to believe that you were the one who lost the battle.  We are all enriched by women and their rights, and all damaged by Marc Lapine.  Women who use Lepine as their feminist poster boy will come to nothing, thanks in part to you. They are losers, activists without credibility, rebels without a cause. Honour has not been extinguished, far from it, it has expanded. The honour that you allude to has been taken by force of will by women, and now belongs to them as well as men.
by MacGregrrrrr

Mar 03 2010
6:15 PM

Personally, I'd ever so politely suggest this discussion might benefit from some additional context - specifically, the origin of the phrase "Women and children first" and HMS Birkenhead, as follows: www.historic-uk.com/.../WomenandChildrenFirst.htm
by els99

Mar 03 2010
8:19 PM

There are men and then there are those who are only physically adult males.  God save us from them.  I like men a lot.  The others can go jump in the lake.
by Nimrod45-70

Mar 03 2010
10:27 PM

Barbara, please use his birth name, Gamil Gharbi, when addressing this deranged madman.  It tells his story much more succinctly: he was the son of an Algerian Muslim, a wife and child beater, who inculcated a hatred of women in his son at an early age.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/02/barbara-kay-how-patriarchy-ran-into-its-own-iceberg.aspx#ixzz0hAK0pZBm
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Hockey night in Canada ~ or how to make a case for equal rights and ruin Canada even more

This is one of the more important substantive articles on the state of so called human rights in Canada and the couch potato laissez faire state of men.  Note the authors last observation. Men in Canada have no idea how their rights are being removed right under their noses. Not until the wife hands him his divorce papers will he know how second class he is compared to the other gender and all those who are hybrids. Seventy five percent of divorces are initiated by the wife and 90% of them get sole physical custody, child support, spousal support if the judge is so inclined and 50% of everything else. She may have been cheating on him, stealing from him, gone to jail for theft, fraud and forgery, beat the children and emotionally abused them, and even on the rare occasion the dad may have even been raising the children from home while she worked. It doesn't matter because she's got boobs or the other hybrids  have more rights because the judiciary and Human Rights Commissions say so.  The subtlety embedded in what Mr. Warren states is profound.MJM

By David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen 

March 1, 2010

Photograph by: The Ottawa Citizen,

David Warren

The Ottawa Citizen

I have sometimes thought it would be diverting to put a hockey team together. This idea is not, in itself, very original, but there are a couple of twists in my proposal that might make it uniquely entertaining. For I should like to have a "politically correct" hockey team.

Not sure, just yet, what league it would play in, but by the time it was assembled, I'm not sure what league would dare to turn it down.

The team I have in mind would consist of a couple of goalies, two defensive lines, three forward lines, for a total of 15 players; plus a coach, an assistant coach, a couple of trainers, a general manager and 43 lawyers. While the ethnicities and sexual orientations of the "invisible majority" off-ice staff wouldn't really matter, I'd go to tireless lengths to be sure the players themselves represented as much "diversity" as it was mathematically possible to pack into just 15 persons.

We'd try to represent every possible skin colour and shading, all major non-European language groups, the least probable national origins, some interesting religious affiliations, the widest possible range of body weights and ages, a selection of common physical disabilities, and as many sexual orientations as we were able to identify through diligent research -- all to be included through combinations of faculties, or absence of faculties, to the exclusion only of white heterosexual males.

And yet for all the extremes, the team would be carefully balanced. For instance, I have in mind six nominal male-type persons, six apparent females, and three unimpeachable transvestites. Though I admit that is a fairly arbitrary balance, and I'd be open to juggling the numbers in other ways.

Now, down to business. I'd certainly want my team to practise, and that's where the trainers would come in: teaching players who might never have put on a pair of skates before -- or might refuse to wear them now -- how to stand up on the ice; how to put on safety-regulation shin pads and visor helmets and so forth. We might call in some publicity and fashion consultants to make sure they all looked very spiffy for the group photographs.

Before we'd ever played a game, I would expect rave affirmative coverage from, say, the Toronto Star, and CBC television. In fact, I would suggest some sort of "countdown" feature to the media, as the team made heroic preparations for its first game. Indeed, I would make cocky declarations about how good we were -- sports journalists seem magnetically attracted to such rhetoric -- and angle for an exhibition match against, say, the NHL All-Stars.

Then the big night. After some initial, cursory protests about who was singing the national anthem, and why, we would take to the ice. All 15 at the same time, including both goalies -- who would be instructed to lean a 4-by-8 sheet of plywood over the goal mouth for additional defensive protection. As well, our cheerleaders -- an amateur chorus from a local feminist support group -- would take up positions around the opposing team's bench, and begin shrieking our team slogans: "Racist! Sexist! Fascist! Homophobe!"

It's at this point I would expect the referees to raise some sort of objection. Not to our cheerleaders, I wouldn't think, they'd be untouchable. Maybe the refs would object to the plywood, maybe to some other unusual equipment, such as the high-powered waterguns slung over the shoulders of our defencepersons, or the fact that our centre was swinging a scythe. But if they whistled us down for "too many 'men' on the ice," we'd have them cold.

Immediately our team of Osgoode Hall's finest -- the complement of lawyers mentioned above -- would swing into action, with human rights complaints against the linesman who blew the first whistle, and our first Charter challenge ready to go to court. For who says the rules of hockey -- which reflect a dark history of cultural and sexual oppression -- should take priority over Canada's most sensitively re-formative constitutional document?

But supposing the game got any further than that, we'd have process servers sweeping down from the end blues with arrears notices for alleged "deadbeat dads"; cops primed with assault charges after the first body-check; hate-crime citations against anyone who laughs; and various other devices to keep our opponents a little off their game.

We'd also be willing to negotiate some arrangements out of court. For instance: we remove the plywood sheet from our goal mouth, if the other side agrees to remove their goalie.

The long and short of it is, that after several years of taxpayer-funded litigation, proceeding remorselessly towards the Supreme Court of Canada -- and no game that lasted more than five minutes -- we would proudly accept the Stanley Cup. And this as our reward for "breaking down the barriers that hold Canadians apart."

Alternatively, and more hopefully, we would find the one issue on which the complacent reclining couch potatoes of our nation would be willing to rise up.

David Warren's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.a

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Hockey+night+Canada/2623660/story.html 

In London Ontario a Lecture ~ Domestic Violence in Divorce: Propaganda and other Fictions

An Evening of Awareness in Relation to Domestic Violence

 

Guest Speaker: Roger Gallaway 

Lecture title: Domestic Violence in Divorce: Propaganda and other Fictions 

Domestic Violence industry leaders have also been invited to make a presentation at this event. 

For more info, please call

519-614-8713 or email lepcinfo@gmail.com 

Crouch Library 

550 Hamilton Road (west of Egerton)

519-673-0111 

Presented by The London Equal Parenting Committee and Crouch Library

6-9 pm , Thursday, March 11, 2010 

(6:30 – 7:00 presentation, Q & A to follow)

Australian born Alberta woman charged with murder of her two sons

Canwest News Service  Published: Tuesday, February 23, 2010

More On This Story

• Baby brothers homicide victims
  
• Alberta community reeling after children found dead in home
  

Related Topics

• Allyson McConnell
  
• Jayden McConnell
  

 

 

Handout/Facebook Connor (left) and Jayden McConnell taken from Facebook

MILLET, Alta. -- The mother of two young boys found drowned in their Alberta home three weeks ago has been charged with two counts of second-degree murder.

Allyson McConnell, 41, was charged by the RCMP on Monday and has been taken into police custody, though she is currently still under 24-hour supervision in a medical facility, where she will stay until doctors clear her to move to a jail. 

Jayden McConnell, 10 months, and his two-year-old brother Connor were found dead on Feb. 3 by their father, Curtis, in their Millet, Alta., home. He told neighbours they had been drowned in the bathtub.

RCMP said they cannot release any information about the woman's health, due to privacy legislation.
Her first court date has been set for March 16. 

Millet is about 50 kilometres south of Edmonton.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2602392#ixzz0gNuWYSP1
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.