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.
|"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."
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
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.
Farmer jailed 16 years for wife's murder
December 8, 2008, 4:36 pm
A NSW farmer who shot his wife and buried her with lime to deter wild pigs from disturbing the body has been jailed for at least 16 years for her murder.
Laurence Bede O'Connor told police he had had "a gutful" of Flordelizza O'Connor and shot her as she descended a ladder after repairing a leak on the roof of their property.
Acting Justice Timothy Studdert noted O'Connor resented the "expressed assertion" by his wife that she was "the boss" and told police "she used to yell and scream and screech".
The now 65-year-old admitted to the manslaughter of Flordelizza O'Connor, 47, on the basis of provocation in July last year at their property, called Quandalli, near Tooraweenah, in the state's central western slopes.
But in October, a NSW Supreme Court jury sitting at Dubbo found him guilty of the more serious charge of murder.
In sentencing him last Friday, the judge described the shooting as "callous" and "cowardly".
But he accepted O'Connor was remorseful and concluded he had suffered some loss of self control at the time of the murder.
Two months after the shooting, he confessed his crime and showed police where he had buried her body, in a relatively isolated location on the property.
O'Connor said he placed her body in the bucket scoop of a tractor and placed lime on her body when he buried it.
He told police his wife had been on the roof when she said she had taken his car keys, his wallet, his cheque and deposit books, and had burnt his tobacco.
He unsuccessfully searched for his keys and later told police he had had a "gutful" of his wife doing these things, which he claimed had been going on for years and getting worse.
"There was a loaded .22 rifle kept on the verandah, placed there for shooting birds that raided the strawberries and this was the gun the offender used," the judge noted.
As she descended, he placed the gun against his wife's spine and fired without warning, firing a second shot at her temple when she fell on to the concrete and was moaning.
The judge said the marriage was happy at the outset but stresses developed and increased when their two children left home.
O'Connor, an alcoholic, had resented his wife's wish to participate in decisions about the property, most of which was leased out but which she wanted them to work themselves.
In setting a maximum sentence of 21 years, Justice Studdert said O'Connor shot his unsuspecting victim twice at close range with intent to kill.
The earliest date he will be eligible for parole is September 6, 2023.
MRO Owner Said: According to a member from the Cool Tools 4 Men Forum, the graffitist was a man. A cabal of insane feminist savages were planning on vandalising the graffitist's house.
What this goes to show is the devious feminist savages are quite adept at damaging property that they don't like, but they throw a tantrum, fall in a rage and bust the capillaries within their vulva's when some one does something that they don't like.
Even schizophrenic children have demonstrated that they can show more self-control that the contemptible feminists are able to muster. Why? Because women receive a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law advantage over men.
It has been this way for many centuries. Under Old English law, women received a large amount of legal impunity. When a woman violated the law, it was her husband who was required to answer for her actions.
Belfort Bax's documentation of 19th Century Law shows that women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men.
The bottom line: Women have never been oppressed in the Western World.[
As for all of those dumb cunts who thought the graffitist was a heroic feminazi. You should stop functioning entirely on emotion, as it limits your ability to observe and infer. At the moment you're limited to observing and drawing fallacious conclusions that suit your agenda.
Posted by: MRO Owner | May 26, 2007 09:07 AM
Charity Said: Yes, as already pointed out, women were considered property and they were beaten by their husbands on those fun occasions when they "transgressed" but, being inhuman, were not subjected to legal ramifications. Quite a position of advantage, there, MRO...or, you know, completely the opposite.
a reasonably stated, genuine, intellectually honest "dissenting view" and one that was crafted (poorly, incoherently, disingenuously, and historically inaccurately) for no other reason than to have an excuse to call women on a feminist web site "dumb cunts".
MRO Owner Says: If you bothered to study history, then you would realise that woman-battery was prohibited under Old English Law. The following citation repudiates your claim in six ways to Sunday:
"The feminists/socialists are successful as they use fraudulent and immoral tactics to deceive their supporters into believing that they're an oppressed minority; even if they are the bulk of the entire population. Second-Wave-Feminists as well as the socialists who appeared at the Women's Convention at Seneca Falls, New York, USA in 1848 were able to gain a LOT of support by distorting the truth of the Old English Law, as doing so would allow them to convince the populace that there was a need for a legal reformation.
The socialists and feminists from the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries have tried to insinuate that the Old English Law allowed the men of society to batter their wives with legal impunity, however there is an abundance of evidence that proves the claim is a fallacy.
Official documents from the 18th Century have shown that the concept of *Wife-Battering* was prohibited in England and the USA. If a man were to batter his wife,then he would face prosecution from the state. The concept of *Old English Law* ensured that the husbands were required to answer for the misbehaviour of their wives, so the system allowed the men to use *moderate correction WITHOUT the usage of violence* in order to control the women from engaging in unlawful activity (IE. They were allowed to discipline their wives and children in a similar manner).
Punishments for wife-battering were severe, with some of the American states such as Maryland and Delaware enforcing the flagellation at the whipping post of any man who performed the act. Some of the other states issued heavy fines and imprisonment for the men who performed the act of *wife-battering*.
The feminists have tried to refer to the *Rule of Thumb* metaphor as the legalised battering of women, however the phrase does not even originate from the legal documents of the Old English Law system.
Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock stated the following: "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."
According to Philip Hiscok, the phrase came into metaphorical usage by the late 17th Century.
Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a detailed editorial on the subject in her book "Who Stole Feminism?" (Simon & Schuster, New York 1994). An actual except from her book (Chapter 9 "Noble Lies" pp.203-208) can be viewed by Clicking Here."
As you can see, Charity's claim is factually fallacious. Perhaps she should educate herself on history before she makes absurd statements. In my opinion, she should be banned for being a hysterical cunt who uses false information to spread her agenda. Then again, if she was banned for doing that, then the owners of this site would need to ban themselves, as they're guilty of doing the same thing.
Charity Said: So, I would hesitate to legitimate a troll like that as a "dissenting view". Just my two cents! And that's why I really feel we should not be afraid to ban such people - there are plenty of others who will have honest dissenting views and who will express them in coherent ways that assume the audience is human, and not merely collections of "icky" anatomical parts or receptacles for entitled, hateful nonsense-spurting.
MRO Owner Says: The feminazi's anger is derived from the fact I used factual evidence to repudiate her fallacious claim. Her demand for me to be <i>banned</i> is merely her way of saying "this guy knows too much, we better ban him before he exposes us for being lying cunts".
Working mothers are mugs
By Sue Dunlevy
December 15, 2006 12:00am
WORKING mothers are a bunch of mugs. That's the only conclusion I could reach after filling out the Government's 20-page childcare rebate claim form to find I'd save $1.20 a week off my childcare bills.
It was the first and only taxpayer-funded family welfare benefit I had ever applied for and I decided I would be insulting myself if I went ahead with my claim.
Last week a House of Representatives committee on work and family balance found that Australia's shambolic childcare subsidy system was the reason up to 20 per cent fewer mothers work in Australia than overseas.
And the families punished the most by this ridiculous system are those 640,000 middle income families who earn between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.
If the father in these households in Sydney earns the average wage of $1217.28 per week, it is not worth his wife going out to work.
She could earn $591.84 per week if she worked for three days at the average wage.
But after tax and childcare costs for two children are taken out of her wage and her family tax benefits are reduced because of her earnings, the family is only around $54 per week better off.
That's right, she gets to keep 9 per cent of her earnings.
And the reason she ends up with so little is that Government subsidies only cover about 15 per cent of her childcare bill.
If she waits another 18 months, she might be lucky enough to get the Government's 30 per cent childcare rebate, but a subsidy that turns up 18 months late is not much help when she's actually paying the childcare bills.
Proof of this is the fact that two thirds of the families eligible for this rebate, promised at the last election, haven't even applied for it.
The only reason most women using childcare are working is to keep a foot in the office door so they'll have a job when their kids reach school age and work becomes an economic proposition again.
The House of Representatives committee says the remedy is to make all childcare fees, including nanny wages, tax deductible.
And it has called for the fringe benefits tax to be removed from childcare so employers have an incentive to deduct childcare fees from their employees' income before tax.
Quite rightly, the report attacks a tax system that lets you salary package a mobile phone, a car and a laptop computer, but doesn't recognise childcare costs as a necessary work related expense.
Aegis Consulting, which gave evidence to the committee, has a model which shows that a working mother's tax and childcare bill could be slashed by up to $8000 a year if she were allowed to salary sacrifice her out-of-pocket childcare costs after receiving childcare benefit. This is based on a family income of $80,000 with two children in care.
It shows that the Government would make $586 million in extra taxes if such a move encouraged even a modest 50,000 extra women back into the workforce, as it did in Britain.
The Prime Minister's response to this inquiry is to claim that childcare costs are already close to fully tax deductible under his 30 per cent rebate system. Eighty per cent of taxpayers pay no more than 30c in the dollar tax, he says.
But what he and his Treasurer Peter Costello refuse to see is that their 30 per cent rebate, which turns up 18 months after you pay your childcare bills, is too late.
Childcare centres bill parents every fortnight or every month - they need their subsidies then, not 18 months down the track, and not as a lump sum once a year.
Removing the fringe benefits tax from employers who contribute their staff's childcare bills is much better than a simple childcare tax deduction.
It helps families on middle incomes, not just the super rich, who will be the only ones who will benefit from making childcare tax deductible.
Lower income earners, those families on less than $34,000 a year, are still likely to be better off under the current childcare benefit system.
This inquiry has defined the problem with the current system and suggested a range of solutions - but don't hold your breath waiting for action.
Daily Telegraph reader Mary Lou Carter this week asked what was the point of having women MPs if they didn't get off their bums to help working mothers?
The only times women MPs had crossed party lines to act as a group was on anti-family issues like abortion, she said.
"When do you think one of the many women in Parliament will see her way clear to bringing a private member's Bill with a view to easing the lot of working mothers of young children?" she wrote.
Women Are Diagnosed With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder More Than Men, Says Research
Males experience more traumatic events on average than do females, yet females are more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), according to a review of 25 years of research reported in the November issue of Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
The authors reviewed 290 studies conducted between 1980 and 2005 to determine who is more at risk for potentially traumatic events (PTE) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- males or females? The results of the meta-analysis found that while males have a higher risk for traumatic events, women suffer from higher PTSD rates. PTSD is defined as an anxiety disorder precipitated by a traumatic event and characterized by symptoms of re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance and numbing and hyperarousal.
From the review, researchers David F. Tolin, PhD of the Institute of Living and Edna B. Foa, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that female study participants were more likely than male study participants to have experienced sexual assault and child sexual abuse, but less likely to have experienced accidents, nonsexual assaults, witness death or injury, disaster or fire and combat or war. Sexual trauma, the authors conclude, may cause more emotional suffering and are more likely to contribute to a PTSD diagnosis than other types of trauma.
Women's higher PTSD rates were not solely attributable to their higher risk for adult sexual assault and child sexual abuse, explained Tolin. PTSD rates were still higher for women even when both sexes were compared on the same type of trauma.
"PTSD may be diagnosed more in women in part because of the criteria used to define it. Cognitive and emotional responses to traumatic events make a diagnosis of PTSD more likely. So even though men may experience more traumas, they don't seem to have the same emotional responses to traumatic events," said Tolin and Foa.
Furthermore, according to the authors, those participants who experienced multiple traumas may be more vulnerable to re-experiencing old PTSD symptoms when confronted with a new trauma. For example, if one studies male and female survivors of a motor vehicle accident, typically the female accident victims report more PTSD symptoms than do the male accident victims. "However, the data suggest that the female victims will have brought to the table a much greater risk of abuse and sexual assault prior to the accident; this could place them at higher risk of developing PTSD after the accident even though the current accident may not have caused all the symptoms," said Tolin.
These findings were consistent regardless of the population and age examined and the type of study and assessment tool used.
A reason that men may not fit the current diagnosable criteria of PTSD, said Tolin, is that their symptoms may manifest themselves differently. The male participants examined in this review were less likely to report anxiety or depression, but were more likely to report behavior and drug problems. They were also more likely to become irritable, angry or violent after traumas.
Understanding that responses to trauma can vary from person to person will help better determine if a person has experienced a trauma, said Tolin. An example of how subjective trauma symptoms can be illustrated in research investigating the traumatic effects of 9/11 terrorist attacks. Quite a few studies showed that participants' distance from ground zero was directly related to the likelihood of experiencing severe PTSD symptoms. But, said Tolin, "People from all over the U.S. could technically have been classified in research as having 'experienced' a terrorist attack just by watching it on TV. This is a major problem for trauma research because it's hard to determine whether someone has really been traumatized or not."
"Simple checklists or short interviews are insufficient for assessing trauma and this is what is used most in these types of situations. More thorough assessments are needed to know if someone will suffer long-lasting symptoms from an accident, attack or disaster," said the authors.