Messages

1

Main / Re: Inaction, indifference enable abuse

Dec 10, 2010, 07:42 AM

"The federal government is telling women to shut the f--- up," Vallee said.

There is not a single shred of evidence to validate this bloke's claim.

"If you speak up, you're a Femi-Nazi. You can't say violence against women,' you have to call it domestic violence' -- it sounds more gender neutral."

Women might be more likely than men to be injured or killed during a domestic dispute, but the sexes are on parity when it comes to initiating violence against one another. Based on this, it makes perfect sense for people to take offence when the state uses "violence against women" as a synonym for domestic violence.

Vallee said the cost of violence against women in Canada comes to about $4.5 billion in health care, law enforcement, court and other costs.

I'd like to know how much money is spent on health care. If its ratio to "law enforcmeent, court and other costs" is relatively low then Vallee's claim misleading.

The number of men killed by women dropped by 70% with the advent of shelters, he said. The rate of women killed only dropped by 25%, he added.

That is, the amount of husbands known to be murdered by their spouse has dropped by 70%. For all we know, women might be less likely than men to evade detection when they kill their spouse. The statistics on black widow murder cases suggests this is the case.

Along with funding for shelters, mandatory gender equality courses should be taught through elementary and high school, he said.

This bloke's definition of "gender equality courses" is probably best summed up as feminist propaganda. If the courses are as biased and factually incorrect as the claims he gave to the paper then it'll rival Hitler's propaganda training program.

"Shelters are in the crime- prevention business. The sooner politicians realize that . . . they should start putting money where it belongs. This is the only way we're going to solve this thing."

This lie has been debunked quite a few times. Here is a classic example.

2

Main / Inaction, indifference enable abuse

Dec 10, 2010, 07:40 AM

Inaction, indifference enable abuse
Local News
By LAURA CUDWORTH , STAFF REPORTER

Source: StratfordBeaconHerald.com

Brian Vallee didn't know what fear was until he met Jane Hurshman.

The investigative journalist went to meet Hurshman in small- town Nova Scotia two years after she killed her abusive husband Billy Stafford.

Stafford was known for his psychopathic rages, but nothing he did in public was as frightening and sadistic as the abuse he practised at home.

As Hurshman was miked for an episode of the Fifth Estate and she began speaking about her experience, the sound technician thought there was something wrong with his equipment. It turned out her heart was beating so heavily and quickly, the microphone was picking it up.

Vallee met Hurshman as a producer for the Fifth Estate in 1984. Since then, he's written the book Life with Billy and The War on Women, a screenplay based on Life With Billy, produced more documentaries and continues to speak around the country about violence against women.

Vallee was the keynote speaker at a forum Tuesday hosted by the Stop Violence Against Women in Perth County committee to commemorate domestic violence awareness month.

Women in abusive relationships often get asked why they don't leave. Vallee said 70% of women murdered by their partners are killed when they try to leave.

Regardless, he said, it's the wrong question.

"We've got to stop asking the victim why she didn't leave and ask the batterer why he's beating her," he said.

Hurshman met Stafford, whom she thought was charming, after a failed marriage. In 1977, she moved in with him. They had a son together, but he had wanted a girl. Hurshman couldn't have more children and the relationship began to turn.

Stafford would fire a gun at her to see how close he could get without hitting her. He knocked her teeth out with the barrel of a gun and once knocked her unconscious and left her on the kitchen floor overnight.

The sexual abuse was unthinkable.

He told her if she left, he'd kill her family one person at a time.

Stafford wouldn't allow their son to cry even as young as six months old. He forced their child to eat so quickly he'd vomit. Then, Stafford would make him eat the vomit.

The night she shot him, he was drunk and raving about burning down their neighbour's house with the neighbours inside.

He passed out in the truck and she shot him in the head.

An RCMP officer said she deserved a medal. While interviewed on the Fifth Estate, the officer said Hurshman probably saved a couple of RCMP lives.

She was charged with first- degree murder. Ironically, Vallee pointed out, men who murder their partners rarely face first- degree murder charges.

Hurshman's case represented a turning point in Canadian history. It was the first time the courts began to acknowledge abuse as a defence and the windows were opened on what was previously a private issue.

As Hurshman said on the Fifth Estate, violence against women isn't taboo but speaking about it is.

She was initially acquitted -- the courtroom broke out in applause -- but was retried and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. She was sentenced to six months in jail but was released after two months.

She committed suicide 10 years after killing Stafford.

In his speech yesterday, Vallee suggested any gains made by Hurshman's willingness to share the very worst of her story and her determined advocacy for others have halted and maybe even faltered.

Funding for women's shelters and programs has been decimated, he said.

"The federal government is telling women to shut the f--- up," Vallee said.

Gender inequality is the elephant in the room, he said.

"If you speak up, you're a Femi-Nazi. You can't say violence against women,' you have to call it domestic violence' -- it sounds more gender neutral."

Vallee said the cost of violence against women in Canada comes to about $4.5 billion in health care, law enforcement, court and other costs.

"Shelters are in the crime- prevention business. The sooner politicians realize that . . . they should start putting money where it belongs. This is the only way we're going to solve this thing."

The number of men killed by women dropped by 70% with the advent of shelters, he said. The rate of women killed only dropped by 25%, he added.

Along with funding for shelters, mandatory gender equality courses should be taught through elementary and high school, he said.

Law schools also should have mandatory courses which include survivors talking about their experiences.

He also was critical of media coverage of the issue noting it's either ignored or buried in the back of the paper.

"Most men don't beat women and don't condone it. Men should speak up because it's the right thing to do," he concluded.

[email protected]

Article ID# 2860365

3

Main / Boys Injured by 'Sack Tapping' Game

May 27, 2010, 11:38 PM

Boys Injured by 'Sack Tapping' Game
Posted by Al Tompkins at 12:05 AM on May 27, 2010

Source: Poynter.org

If it were just an isolated incident, it would not matter as much. But "sack tapping," or hitting or kicking someone in the testicles, is a YouTube attraction and is leaving serious injuries.

Take this story from Minnesota for example, which quotes a local urologist saying he performs three to four surgeries a year on teens who have been injured in these so-called games. He sees dozens of such injuries in his office that do not require surgery. All in just one community.

Late last year, WTHR-TV in Indianapolis took a deeper look at the rumors of widespread sack tapping (also called "ball tapping"). I appreciate that this station, which often proves to be thoughtful in its reporting, conducted a survey of school nurses to find out the extent of the phenomenon, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. My friend and investigative reporter Bob Segall reported:

"It's a disturbing game with devastating consequences, and a new WTHR survey suggests it is rampant in Indiana schools [PDF]. " 'Ball tapping' is the act of intentionally hitting or kicking a male in the genitals. Earlier this month, an Eyewitness News investigation showed the game has become commonplace in some area schools, resulting in serious injuries for students. "As part of the investigation, WTHR also conducted a statewide survey of school nurses. The results are in, and they show the problem of ball tapping is more common and widespread than many school officials had realized. "School nurses from 163 Indiana schools participated in the anonymous survey, and 33% of those nurses said they're aware of ball tapping happening at their school within the past twelve months. "But a closer look at the statistics shows the problem is much more serious in some schools than in others. "23% of school nurses who work at the elementary level say they've seen or heard of ball tapping at their school. That number nearly doubles in high schools, where 43% of school nurses say they've seen it. "And in middle schools, 62% of school nurses said they're aware of students engaged in ball tapping. " 'I would have expected it to be a low number,' said Mary Conway, president of the Indiana Association of School Nurses. 'I would not have expected [school nurses] to have had much experience with it at all ... because I think it's something most kids won't talk about with a nurse. I'm very surprised by this whole issue and it's given me a new perspective.' "Among the 72 middle school and high school nurses who participated in WTHR's survey, 50% said they had seen students who came to the school clinic seeking assistance related to an incident of ball tapping. Half of those nurses also reported they had observed the problem several (more than two) times each school year, and about 10% said it happens at their school on a daily or weekly basis."

A lawsuit involving sack tapping even ended up on the "Judge Judy" show.

4

Main / Re: Boys convicted of attempted rape: branded criminals for 'playing doctors and nur

May 27, 2010, 09:29 PM

I hope the prosecution and jurors succumb to a terminal illness. They deserve it.

5

Main / Re: warren farrells response to daily show male inequality clip

May 10, 2010, 08:30 AM

The woman's comment about men running 3 levels of Government is a fallacy. She based it on the sole fact that most of the representatives in Parliament and the Senate are men. What she didn't acknowledge is the fact that the members of the Parliament and Senate are required to act in favour of the people they represent. Since the bulk of the people they represent are women -- women vote more than men and are more likely to band together -- the members of Parliament and Senate need to bow to women's demands. Failure to meet women's demands will lead to them been voted out of office. Therefore, men do not run all three levels of Government.

And, the actual public servants who implement political policy may be a female majority, it seems that way in our country after a couple of decades of Employment Equity regulations.

Education, health care and social services are dominated by women also, all politically-charged portfolios.  The myth that women have no political power is decades out of date, like most feminist rhetoric.

True.

6

Main / Re: Thank heavens for little girls...

May 10, 2010, 08:29 AM

After Bieber jokingly called Kardashian his "girlfriend" on his Twitter page, the pop star's two million Twitter fans began to threaten the sexy reality star.

This goes against everything the feminists said about men and women. According to them, men will use violence to get their way because they're aggressive, egotistical, selfish and uncaring. The behaviour from the girls suggests that there are many girls willing to use violence to get what they want and, do not care about the consequences it has on other people. This shows there are many young girls who are everything the feminists said about men.

How many men threaten to kill the men who date Pamela Anderson? I've never heard of one doing it.

Western feminists ignore social class in their pronouncements.  Working class girls will raise a fist without hesitation, while "nice" middle class ladies might not use violence as a first option.  The same may be true for men (I don't know the stats, just going by personal observation here)

There is a link between violence and class.

7

Main / “Men’s Rights” Movement Doesn’t Belong On Top

May 10, 2010, 07:03 AM

"Men's Rights" Movement Doesn't Belong On Top
Andrew Belonsky :: Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 3:40 pm

Source: DeathAndTaxesMagazine.com

There's something queer happening among men in America. As society moves toward a more integrated, gender-blind direction, a small yet potent group of men are looking to rise up and reclaim the nation's reigns. And their mission involves a prescriptive masculinity that, frankly, seems like a step back.
The period after World War II helped solidify the macho man's role in America. Men were meant to rule their roost, help damsels in distress and answer to no one, not even their wives. As time went on, hippies, homos and women helped erode this image of the "ideal" male and helped men touch their sensitive side. No longer were men afraid to cry. Nor were they afraid of vanity, as seen in the "metrosexual" movement and arsenal of body sprays. Shit, men are even being used to peddle low-fat yogurt! Now the only images of "macho men" are on a screen, fictional etches of masculinity gone by. But certain groups want to change that.

Rutgers University Professor Lionel Tiger and some of his penis-wielding peers have been rallying to establish a "men's studies" program at Rutgers University. Men have reached a point where "they're experienced a considerable amount of dismay and uncertainty," says Tiger to CNN. Men today feel "somewhat scorned, in principle by women." Tiger's work has been born from a fear that men are being feminized. Thus, men must explore what it means to be masculine; both on a social and biological level, and reclaim their territory.

Professor Tiger's not alone in his masculinity mission. Just ask Harry Reid. The senator enraged "men's rights" activists last month when he claimed unemployed men are to blame for increased domestic violence. Said Reid, "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive." Men's News Daily Editor Paul Elam described Reid's remarks as "bizarre and unfounded" that "reveals an unimaginable disconnect from the millions of unemployed Americans who are not abusive." The National Organization for Men, Men and Fathers for Justice, Men's Equality Conference, the Fatherhood Coalition and at least a dozen other "men's rights" groups joined the fray and called for Reid to apologize. He did not.

These organizations not only protest the feminization and demonization of men.  They also rally against what they describe as widespread inequality against men. Marty Nemko, president of the National Organization for Men, insists that men are consistently put on the back burner for women and "minorities," "When boys start to look into college, the very first thing they see are the colleges' brochures and websites, with far more pictures of women and minorities; the subliminal message: we don't care about white males." Thus, they feel like a "disposable sex." He goes on, "In our attempt to lift up girls and women, we have destroyed boys and men. Just as we are assiduous to avoid unfair treatment of women and minorities, we must do the same for boys and men." Other members of this men's movement are making a career out of revitalizing America's men.

A man named Brett McCay has become something of a leader for the "retrosexuals," and wrote a book with his wife called The Art of Manliness, which is chock full of outdated advice on how to keep one's sack from becoming a purse. Like what? Well, men don't cry. We have to be "the rock" in a (presumably straight) relationship: "When something tragic happens that affects your family, be a pillar of strength during the crisis. Take care of the business that needs taking care of." It's only later, when he's alone, that a man can cry. I can only assume that these images of "manliness" don't involve any of the gay or even sensitive men roaming around. And that's why I'm worried.

Complaints about the "inequality" facing men and the loss of masculinity implicitly endorse an archaic image of the masculinity, one in which only the strong - and straight - survive. Countless boys, whether they be uncoordinated, weak or a bit fey, have been told they need to "man up." What does that even mean? Who writes the rules of what it means to be a man?  It seems to me that such choices should be left to the individual, rather than a group of irate activists who claim men need to embrace "maschismo," which would basically produce cookie cutter clones. And who in the world wants a man who's just like the next?

I left the following responses under the comments section:

Andrew Belonsky,

The insinuations you've made about the men's movement would be laughable if they weren't so damaging. Accusing men's rights activists of labelling the inclusion of women and minorities at colleges and universities as a form of oppression is a complete misrepresentation of their stance. I've never come across an MRA who said anything of the sort. Please cite a men's rights activist who has said men are oppressed because women and minorities are allowed to study at college and university. I've heard many MRA's speak about the introduction of gynocentric policies that discriminate in favour of women and at men's expense. This is not even close to resembling the straw-man you're created.

There is a lot of merit behind the commentary from men's righs activists on men's position at colleges and universities: male students are often required to fund the women's only departments that they're forbidden from entering, yet there are no similar measures assured for men; women's studies programs often promote unsubstantiated ideology and hate-mongering myths as "facts"; men who are falsely accused of rape are considered guilty until proven innocent and, receive no recourse when they're found to be innocent (remember the DUKE innocent?), and; the "men's studies" course is based solely on the feminist theory about masculinity and, does not allow men to critique feminism -- it's why the newly formed "male studies" course was introduced by MEN.

A key issue you're failed to mention is the men's pathway to college and university. The teaching standards and the curriculum in schools is detrimental to boys and preferential to girls -- as has been pointed out by many experts, many of whom are women -- thus leading to women outnumbering men on most campuses because boys do neglected and judged by women's standards. The system places more emphasis on girls' innate abilities and ignores boys' innate abilities. It's patently obvious to anyone who has a brain that the teaching standards rate girls' superior ability to cooperately in class and, write and communicate at an advanced level over boys' superior spatial awareness and problem solving skills. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the "high performing" girls are hopeless at maths and science and only study art, law and other ideological-based programs at college and university? If you think it's due to "discrimination against girls" then you're nuttier and dumber than any conspiracy theorist I've never known. Contrary to what the feminazis would have you believe, there are no old men in white robes using subliminal messages to prevent female geniuses from reaching their potential in maths and science. The reason women are less successful in science and maths is because extremely high intelligence is mostly found among men. Every test and study that has been performed on the issue, whether it has been in the form of IQ tests or comparison of men and women in maths and science, has shown that most geniuses, scientists, inventors and mathematicians are men and that men are more likely to dominate the extreme ranges of the IQ scale.


Considering you're wrongly portraying all MRA's as lazy whiners who aren't as qualified as the female counterparts, I thought it was quite ironic to see you make the following error:

"As long as your qualified"

You meant to say "As long as you're qualified", right? Any journalist who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" isn't qualified to work as one!

"Women can get ahead and so can men. As long as your qualified"  Andrew Belonsky

Andrew Belonsky,

1. A qualified journalist knows the difference between "your" and "you're".
2. Affirmative action leads to women and minorities gaining jobs over equally qualified Caucasian men.

"Now that the playing field is beginning to level, they wonder if their son or grandson will be able to EARN a spot at that college since it won't be handed out." Christopher

It never was handed out. Only the most talented candidates were accepted into the college and university system. Academically-challeged athletes might have been included, but only because they were the best athletes available. Whether you like it not, sport has been part of the college and university curriculum for over a century. Allowing men of moderate intelligence to enter university because they excel at American football holds more merit than giving a seat to a feminazi who excels in womyn's studies.

"I personally don't think or feel that I have been discriminated against as a white heterosexual male. In fact, I look around and see a lot of privileges like disparity in pay because of race/gender in favor of white men, or the ability to marry someone I love" Clinton Jasperson

You don't have a clue. The so-called "disparity in pay" is derived not from discrimination, but lifestyle choices. Women tend to choose part-time work over full-time work and, are less likely than men to work overtime and remain committed to the same job over many years. Women will opt out of the workforce so they can have children, then re-enter in a reduced capacity so they can blend work with motherhood. While men tend to work in the high-paying fields that are avoided by most people (IE. dangerous industry and physical labour), women choose the easier, safer, more comfortable jobs thay pay less. The fields dominated by men pay more because of the demand for workers in these professions. Most women are not going to contemplate the idea of working in dangerous industry and physical labour because it's messy, dangerous and tiring work that requires a great deal of effort and strength. It's hardly fair to say that a woman who sits at a desk and answers phone in an airconditioned building deserves the same wage as the man who is risking his life in the blazing sun by working with dangerously heavy and sharp objects that can kill him.

8

Main / Re: Thank heavens for little girls...

May 09, 2010, 11:13 PM

After Bieber jokingly called Kardashian his "girlfriend" on his Twitter page, the pop star's two million Twitter fans began to threaten the sexy reality star.

This goes against everything the feminists said about men and women. According to them, men will use violence to get their way because they're aggressive, egotistical, selfish and uncaring. The behaviour from the girls suggests that there are many girls willing to use violence to get what they want and, do not care about the consequences it has on other people. This shows there are many young girls who are everything the feminists said about men.

How many men threaten to kill the men who date Pamela Anderson? I've never heard of one doing it.

I think it shows something else that we MRAs need to expose. Women HATE women. Women are the biggest source of misogyny in the west. These are young girls ALL tearing apart another woman probably with the usual "skanky hoe" name calling.

This is a serious issue in the US and Canada and Britain that NO ONE is talking about.

It happens in Australia and New Zealand, too. I've heard heaps of young women and middle aged women ridiculing women who are married to rich men. It's sickening. They sit there and ridicule everything about the famous women they see on TV.

"That bitch has falsies and a fake tan! She looks so silly!", they say.

In New Zealand, an adolescent girl took Bieber's cap and said she wouldn't hand it back until he gave her a hug. If an adolescent boy took a woman's cap and refused to hand it back until she gave him a hug then he'd be labelled a future rapist and future wife-beater.

9

Main / Re: A Kick in the Groin Compared for Men versus Women. Which Hurts Worse?

May 09, 2010, 09:49 AM

Fiance decides not to hold his peace

Saturday, Apr. 24, 2010

Souce: UnionLeader.com

MANCHESTER - Maybe the groom-to-be should have simply said "I do."

Instead, an unfortunate choice of words yesterday in Manchester District Court forced a costly postponement of Tyler Haynes' wedding, which had been scheduled for today.

Haynes, 18, of 28 Trolley St., was in court for arraignment on a charge of assaulting his bride-to-be Thursday afternoon.

Because conditions of Haynes' $1,000 personal recognizance bail barred contact with his fiancee, Krystal Kula, Haynes agreed -- after lengthy negotiations -- to plead no contest to the domestic assault charge.

The plea arrangement -- in which Haynes agreed to undergo a domestic violence evaluation and counseling -- would have kept him out of jail providing he remained on good behavior for two years. He could have been hearing wedding bells today.

But it was not to be.

As police prosecutor Steven Mangone related the details of the domestic assault charge, Haynes tapped his fingers on the table in front of him and turned periodically to look in the direction of his fiancee, who was in the courtroom.

According to Mangone, a woman called police Thursday afternoon and said she was driving on Beech Street behind a vehicle in which the driver appeared to be assaulting a passenger. According to the caller, when the lead vehicle stopped, a young woman got out and fled.

The caller said a man got out of the car, chased down the woman and kneed her in the groin. She fell, and he kneeled on her and punched her repeatedly.

In court, a no contest plea is entered into the record as a guilty plea, but the defendant is not asked to confirm the accuracy of the charge. Haynes, however, decided to make a comment anyway.

The comment prompted an angry Judge William Lyons to stop in mid-sentence and ask Haynes whether he had indeed uttered a particular two-word expletive.

Lyons then said an innocent plea to domestic assault would be entered, a public defender would be appointed, a trial would be held July 8 and bail conditions were back in effect -- putting today's scheduled wedding, reception and honeymoon on hold.

10

Main / Re: Thank heavens for little girls...

May 09, 2010, 04:16 AM

After Bieber jokingly called Kardashian his "girlfriend" on his Twitter page, the pop star's two million Twitter fans began to threaten the sexy reality star.

This goes against everything the feminists said about men and women. According to them, men will use violence to get their way because they're aggressive, egotistical, selfish and uncaring. The behaviour from the girls suggests that there are many girls willing to use violence to get what they want and, do not care about the consequences it has on other people. This shows there are many young girls who are everything the feminists said about men.

How many men threaten to kill the men who date Pamela Anderson? I've never heard of one doing it.

11

Main / Re: warren farrells response to daily show male inequality clip

May 09, 2010, 04:08 AM

Love the Daily Show saying over 400 of the top 500 richest people in the world are men.

Which means there are 400 women in the world who can use marriage as a means of attaining much of those men's worth and, probably a countless number of women who benefitted from them during their past marriages. The only time you'll hear The Daily Show mention women divorcing rich men is when they want to mock the men for being plundered by the law system.

Notice how they never cited the fact that 95% of the homeless are men?

Would have love to counter that over 95% of the war casualties in Iraq are men.

Good point. That and the fact that most homeless persons and most victims of suicide are men is a good counter argument.
Note that when men do better, somehow that's bad and its believed that was due to cheating. But when men die more that's ignored.

Success is not the same as state mandated affirmative action.

If men and women run a foot race and men tend to cross the finish line first then there's nothing wrong there. The problem is when someone steps out of the bushes and hobbles the faster runner so the slower runner can win in the name of social justice.

True. Women do not come across as "strong" and "empowered" when they are given special provisions. If anything, it reinforces the contention that men are usually stronger, smarter and more competitive than women.

12

Main / Re: warren farrells response to daily show male inequality clip

May 09, 2010, 03:54 AM

Excellent point. Women vote in men who will give them what they want. If the men want to be reelected, they will pander to their voters.

Exactly. It's why I laugh really hard when women, feminists and manginas complain about men "running" Government. The idiots don't know what to say when I explain the dynamics behind democracy in the Western world.

13

Main / Re: A Kick in the Groin Compared for Men versus Women. Which Hurts Worse?

May 09, 2010, 03:45 AM

Aren't the female counterparts to the male gonads the ovaries, and aren't they in the stomach area?

Yes.

I got the inspiration for this thread from some of the avatars on the http://www.mens-rights.net forum, especially the one featuring Oprah.

Gears created the one about Oprah Winfrey. I created the other ones.

The following website contains some informative theories on self-defence against women:

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Art-of-Fighting-Females

14

Main / Re: A Kick in the Groin Compared for Men versus Women. Which Hurts Worse?

May 08, 2010, 09:08 AM

I would ask, more than the pain, is what is the likelyhood a woman will get kicked in the groin, and what is the social reaction when it occurs. I am the only woman I know who has been personally kicked in the crotch out of spite. I know there are others, but I have not met them. I know many men who have been kicked there for many excuses. 

I've spoken about society's unequal stance on this issue for years. The people who try to justify society's cognitive dissonance on the issue haven't offered a compelling argument to support their stance. They usually resort to insulting me (IE. you take your nuts too seriously, get a sense of humour, blah blah) when I refute their baseless arguments.

You might find the following video of mine interesting:

Sensitivity of the Vulva

15

Main / Re: warren farrells response to daily show male inequality clip

May 08, 2010, 08:51 AM

The woman's comment about men running 3 levels of Government is a fallacy. She based it on the sole fact that most of the representatives in Parliament and the Senate are men. What she didn't acknowledge is the fact that the members of the Parliament and Senate are required to act in favour of the people they represent. Since the bulk of the people they represent are women -- women vote more than men and are more likely to band together -- the members of Parliament and Senate need to bow to women's demands. Failure to meet women's demands will lead to them been voted out of office. Therefore, men do not run all three levels of Government.