This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - whome112
MAUS: It's right in the regulations for Ontario Housing that battered WOMEN (not MEN) go to the top of the list for public housing. All the agencies are very open about the size, scope and violence of the policy.
Not here ....
There are VERY good reasons for protecting boys & young men from sex with adults. Extremely good reasons.
A) It increases their chance of serious mental problems
B) It radically increases their chance of serious social problems
C) It exposes them to being FORCED to become a father
On and on and on that list goes. YES! Yes, these things do not always apply. Some women can be raped, stand up, shake themselves off and have no effect. It happens ... Does that mean we do not protect women? Of course not!
One thing I have NEVER, NOT EVER, understood is some people's reluctance to protect boys. That I cannot understand. It is DEEPLY dehumanizing.
As for charging the parents? Sadly, charging the parents is probably the only tool we have to force people to care about their sons.
A part of it will be ruminations: That is, a part of the difference will be men's tendency to put his feelings in a box and not think of them combined with women's tendency to keep on thinking of the feelings. Ruminations are the most likely cause for the differences in depression rates as well.
My worry is that whenever women go over 50% of anything, the treatment tends to become female primarily or even women-only. This is a serious and society wide problem based on contempt for males.
Yes Devia, we see such fairly frequently. Plus, you're right, it is easier and often brings in more money to not declare the father.
I believe we need a law stating the father MUST be declared. It would take a bit of work in some cases, but in most the whole thing would be fairly easy. It is not uncommon for her to fully know who the father is, get money from him under the table and welfare over the table.
I also do not like this hanging around on welfare for long periods of time, often years.
I'd also up the welfare rates, for the shorter time and change the current job finding help to REAL help. The current system is too based on what social workers think job finding is: DUMB!
Plus, we need to fix the welfare-education system. There are schools for the welfare people who do not have high-school. Good enough, except a lot of people do not want to be there; they disrupt, threaten, heckle, do not come to class .... It is disgusting. Fix it hard by improving it for those who want to learn and cutting the rest off.
whome (who has a LOT of experience with Ontario's system)
StrangeDisk: I am so sorry ... What a thing to put a kid through ...
One thing which is clear, the state will "try" to help a known to be abusive mother when there is a known not to be abusive father who wants the child. THAT, that is a for sure. Getting the FACS/CPS/CAS to see the best interests of the child over the best interests of the mother is one thing which will clearly lower our child abuse numbers. Getting them to see fathers as valid parents will also lower our numbers. BEYOND DOUBT!
There are other things which need doing. Among the most important is holding people responsible for mistakes AND getting the workers out in the field: We have no business having a system wherein the workers spend more time in meetings than in doing their job!
Information. As information transfer to the public goes up happiness goes down. What they are really measuring is how much the public in country X knows about what is happening around them X how that information is presented.
News tends to use "if it bleeds it leads." News also tends to rant on and on about the same general topics.
For instance here in Canada with the exception of one day per year all cancer programing aims at females: But males die more often at at an earlier age from cancer. The result is a fearful female population which drives happiness down.
Anywhere you go in the first & second world that is the sort of thing you see. The developed countries make themselves CRAZY!
Men seeing women as T & A
Women seeing men as wallets
This is biology. It is a part of biological determinism just like a baby's need to look like his or her father. We are supposed to get over it, that is part of maturity. Sadly these days, things are getting worse ...
Women have a lot of trouble giving up their right to cheat with one man and force another man to raise the child. This has been a biologically-determinist method of improving a woman's chances of having her progeny grow up for as long as we have been a species.
For some reason, as yet unknown, men were willing to give up our right to cheat with a great many women as part of our determinist method of ensuring some of our progeny grow up. Women refuse to give up theirs. WHY?
No one knows. We can only say that women refuse to give up their extra right. That MUST change ...
ps, the following is a rough draft covering the concept:
We all love to look at babies. What you may not know is the all babies use a series of biological strategies to improve their odds in life. One of those strategies is to look like your father. When we put up a baby's picture and a group of potential parents, most people can pick the baby's father, few can pick out the baby's mother.
There is immense benefit in this. A baby greatly improves its odds of a good life if he or she can get the father to care for the mother and the baby. Operating against this, is that no male ever knows that a baby is his: While women object, usually loudly, to this statement, it is quite true and important to a baby's life. By looking like the father a baby may trick the father into caring or into caring more. That caring often makes the difference between a hard life and a very good life. It is very important for a baby to look like his or her father.
Operating against this is female biological need. A male has two ways to improve the odds of his children living; he can be very dominant and thus have a lot of children via cheating or he can be more caring and thus improve the odds of a small number of children living to reproduce. A female also has two ways of improving her biological odds; she can be very supportive of a caring male or she can cheat with a high dominance male and trick a caring male into raising the child.
Planet wide 1 in 10 children born to a married woman is fathered by a man other than her husband. The actual local rate varies highly between 1 in 7 and 1 in 32. By engaging in cheating a woman gets the better sperm of the dominant male and the caring of the caring male. We now know that an ovulating woman can tell which male is dominant and that she that will become aroused by being in the presence of a dominant male during her ovulation.
If you are female, fertile and not on birth control you can test this: From the fourteenth day after the start of your last period until the eighteenth day smell the armpits of every male who will let you; some, about 1 in 10, will make you instantly horny, the rest will have no effect. I strongly suggest you have a husband or boyfriend standing by if you engage in this experiment; the effect is really quite strong during actual ovulation.
The old way of viewing gender had its problems, but overall it worked. People's desire to cheat was balanced by a baby's need to look like his or her father.
Females are extremely reluctant to give males reproductive choice as it directly goes against their second reproductive option: Biologically, a female does not want to give up her choice to cheat and have a caring man raise the baby. From a biological-determinist point of view, this makes sense: From a justice point of view, it is really quite dangerous.
Males gave up much of our right to reproduce via cheating. This happened due to dominant male's reluctance to fight with dominant females. One would think that female desire to protect babies would act in the same way, but that has clearly not happened.
We've moved the reproductive balance a long way towards women and away from the needs of men and babies. Thus, we have an increasingly angry male population and an increase in both maternal and paternal child abuse. Australia has started fixing the problem by making genetic testing mandatory and removing the legal requirement for a man to support any baby born to his wife. Canada has done nothing.
Thus, we have a problem and it is a big one.
There's another thing which is not mentioned. Hospitals routinely get men who have been slipped the date rape drugs, usually for robbery purposes, sometimes for rape purposes ... women do rape men you know, just not as often as the other way around. Women object to either fact being put before the public and that is a problem.
Look at the standard 6 part S scale for rape: In S1, coercion, most "crimes" are female offender and male victim: Although VERY few S1's ever go before a court. In S2, the normal non-drugged date rape, there are a LOT of female offender male victim crimes. In S3, the drugged and drunk date rape, there still are some female offender male victim crimes. You have to go to S4, what YOU and I think of as rape, to get rid of the female offender and male victim crimes. When you get to S5 you start getting a few female offender male victim crimes and at S6, where you get deaths you have a fair number (about 280 per year for US & Canada) of female offender male victim crimes.
Yet! Yet, these women DEMAND that the male victim be left out entirely!
I've always believed that most men's brains have become, through evolution, hardwired not to attack women verbally or physically, whereas the opposite is true for women. It's nature's way of balancing up our bigger size/muscles with their bigger mouths. On top of this, most younger men have been told they are monsters and are guilty of just about everything bad in women's lives since they were learning to talk. So it's not much of a surprise that men just stay silent....
YES! Well said, you've got the right of the thing.
I might add the joke:
A man is walking through the forest. He says something. There's no woman there to hear him. Is he still wrong?
Wasnt this lie what got the different offices of womens health started? Wasnt it something like ONLY 17% OF MONEY GOES TOWARDS WOMEN'S HEALTH RESEARCH, which everyone assumed the rest went towards men. The truth was that something like 8% went towards men and the rest (75%) went towards human research? My numbers might be off, but wasnt it something like this?
The best data has it as 7% to males, 14% to females, 79% to all. The feminists get their idea from heart health where there was a focus on men as men die earlier from heart disease. Mind you, men also die earlier from cancer and the focus there was and still is on women ... the feminists will never tell you that.
strangedisk has the right of the thing. IF, if it is clearly two crimes, murder & terror OR assault & terror, then it is a hate crime. Otherwise it is just regular crime.
I doubt that the feminists will get their hate crime bill as it would be written gender neutral and most gender based killings are killings of men because they are men.
As for the Amish girls ... Women have gone a long way out of their way to make a female murder victim a LOT more important than a male murder victim; something like 13 times more important as measured by press response. THAT, that alone accounts for the killing of the Amish girls. Put the blame where it belongs, solidly on the women's groups.
The whole thing is complex and has multiple relationships. Plus, just to make things more complex, you often cannot take one's sex as standing alone.
- Levine(?) studied the penalty for killing a person while driving drunk:
- kill a black man and get 2 years
- kill a white man or a black woman and get 4 years
- kill a white woman and get 6 years
So, one must add race and other factors into the thing.
Now as to benefit, does beng a single mother constitute a benefit? Sometimes yes, sometimes no ... it's an almost impossible question to answer.
Clearly women's wages have benefited from anti-male discrimination: Women's wages have gone up more than men's for the last few decades: Sometimes this is a good thing, often it is very unfair.
While I answered yes, that answer is a hard one, with a lot of unclearness.
Yeah, CBT works well enough when used on the right people. CBT clearly works A LOT better than feminist therapy for batterers and for victims.
I'm a skeptic about psych. There are aa great many people who want to help people in the field: There are also a lot of control freaks and just plain dangerous idiots.
As for psychology being even marginally fair to battered men or male rape survivors? I don't expect to live to see it. There's too much hatred of men in the profession.
I strongly disagree with this.
I agree that most women in day to day life do not appear to be feminists. I agree that they even deny to be feminists.
But, at the crucial points, they become feminists.
Yes, you are right on a day to day basis, most women are not feminist. The problem is that when it really counts they are.
Well, is that not normal?
People take advantage of the loopholes allowed them. Men did it many years ago, women do it now. The whole idea of the law is supposed to be to plug up the loopholes so that all have the same rights. Sadly, the law has been perverted. Constitutions and Charters are supposed to be there to stop perversion of the law. Sadly, they do not appear to be able to do the job.