Messages

16

Main / Re: Requesting information on 1/3 college rape statistics

May 27, 2007, 06:59 AM

84% of reported rapes DO NOT RESULT IN A CONVICTION! 88% of rape convictions do not result in incarceration of the rapist. 54% of rapists will be acquitted or have the charges dismissed.
Woman don't lie about rape, therefore he is guilty even if he is found inocent. 
Reported=guilty
Acquitted=guilty

This line of thinking is being taught at our colleges and Universities, amazing! 

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." (Germaine Greer)

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." (Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students).

  "All men are rapists and that's all they are." (Marilyn French, Author; and advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)

  "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)

  "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." (Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor)

17

Main / Re: Strong women dominate new US TV shows

May 25, 2007, 06:26 PM

Strong woman= woman with balls....... ...

18

Main / Re: Requesting information on 1/3 college rape statistics

May 25, 2007, 06:18 PM

Well, not statistics exactly but this type of hystraical ranting and the fools that believe it is where the problem lies.

APRIL IS SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH!

Most people are shocked to find out that April is sexual assault awareness month; but the fact of the matter is that sexual assault is a crime that happens to women everywhere all the time. This April, while you're chowing down on easter candy or spending time with your loved ones, take a moment to rememebr the women in the world--mothers, daughters, aunts, sisters--who aren't so lucky, and the men responsible for it.

Sexual assault comes in many forms! It can be verbal! If a man makes you feel uncomfortable with verbal harassment, it is still sexual assault!

80% of rapes are planned! 75% of rapists are KNOWN TO THE VICTIM! ANY MAN can be a rapist! Fathers, sons, brothers, uncles--they are ALL CAPABLE. A survey of college students showed that 51% of MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS said that THEY WOULD RAPE A WOMAN IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT!!! Remember this the next time you're out on a date or walking alone-- 51 PERCENT! THAT'S MORE THAN HALF! Even if it was a little less, that still means that nearly half, over a third, over a fourth, of men not only are capable of it, but they WANT TO DO IT! THE ONLY THING STOPPING THEM IS FEAR OF GETTING CAUGHT! (M.A. Koss, Hidden Rape: Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Students in Higher Education; A.W. Burgess, Rape and Sexual Assault)

If a woman tells you she's been raped, IT IS TRUE! WOMEN DO NOT LIE ABOUT RAPE! THE FBI say that only 2% of reported cases (80% GO UNREPORTED!) turn out to have had a made up factor.

84% of reported rapes DO NOT RESULT IN A CONVICTION! 88% of rape convictions do not result in incarceration of the rapist. 54% of rapists will be acquitted or have the charges dismissed. 50% of rapists will spend less than a year in prison. 98% of women will see their attacker go free. (Senate Judiciary Report, 1993)

40% of women are afraid to go out at night-- versus 9% of men!!! Take back the night! (McCall's, May 1990-- Mark Warr, Sociologist)

19

Main / Whisker Rubs: Developing the Masculine Identity

May 24, 2007, 05:00 AM

This looks like a good book.

http://tinyurl.com/2tmoot

Whisker Rubs: Developing the Masculine Identity


From A Press Release
Book Description

Embracing God's intent and design between the sexes
Boys are falling further behind in school, spend more time in special education classes, are prescribed Ritalin or other drugs to control behavior and have a higher dropout rate than girls. Meanwhile, women now receive more bachelor's degrees than men (133 to 100), and they are more likely than men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of forty.

The sociological landscape between the sexes is clearly changing and not all for the good. In a society that was eager to embrace feminist ideology to right perceived imbalances, men and boys are now suffering the residual effects at home, in relationships, in school and in the workplace. And men are increasingly confused about their role in the world as media images of stupid or abusive fathers degrades and minimizes masculinity.

Don Otis, the author of Whisker Rubs: Developing the Masculine Identity suggests we have been sowing the seeds of social upheaval for decades without considering the consequences. "Lost hurting boys become hurting, angry men. Is this what our society wants to foster?" He chides the feminist movement for their nearsightedness and suggests the move to eradicate gender differences is hurting male-female relationships. "Weak men do not make good husbands and they make even worse fathers," says Otis. "A culture that de-masculinizes boys or men leaves a woman unprotected. Meanwhile, a woman who emasculates a man leaves herself vulnerable."

Boys who feel marginalized by social or media forces will find little motivation to take responsibility for their lives, let alone the lives of others. "Boys are less likely to want to grow up if being a man carries negative baggage or stigma. In the rush to create a culture of sameness, we educate the natural aggressiveness out of boys," explains Otis. He believes the trend toward masculinizing girls and feminizing boys is destroying the differences placed there by the Creator.

In Whisker Rubs, Otis doesn't pull any punches about what he sees happening to boys and men. Feminism has been a double-edged sword, providing some good opportunities for women but leaving boys and men gradually more confused about what's expected of them. He encourages men to push their sons and involve themselves in the lives of other boys. "God has placed men in the lives of other men and boys for a purpose-to push them beyond what they think they can do, beyond their zones of comfort."

Otis looks at what he refers to as "The stages of bewilderment," the five key phases of a man's life. Masculine development begins early and runs through the teenage years, mid-life, and into the so-called Golden Years. Next, he examines the forces that have led to the marginalization of men and boys. Lastly, Otis looks at what we must do, in churches, in schools, in relationships and in the media to develop a healthier view of maleness. "Masculinity is not a pathology for which men need to apologize, it's a God-given gift we can harness for his purposes."

About The Author:
Don Otis is the founder of Veritas Communications, a publicity agency based in Sandpoint, Idaho. He has worked as a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist with troubled boys and raised three sons of his own. He is also the author of Teach Your Children Well, Staying Fit After 40 and Trickle-Down Morality and his articles appear in national publications like Focus on the Family magazine.

20

Main / Re: My speech

Apr 21, 2007, 08:08 PM

Wow.......Thank You BQ!!
An especially powerfull statement coming from a woman. 

21

Main / Re: SPAIN: Fems Pissed; Judge Tosses (domestic) Harassment Suit

Apr 19, 2007, 06:15 AM

I suppose she wants money?

22

Main / Re: Mary Winkler Trial

Apr 19, 2007, 05:28 AM

Even if he did abuse her this is no excuse for murder.
No-fault divorce, abuse hotlines, mandatory arrest and prosacustion laws, restraining orders......she has lots of options and didn't take any of them......NO Excuse.                                       

23

Main / Re: What Feminism Forgot: Why men get married

Apr 16, 2007, 06:32 AM

Funny you mention Dr Luara zarby.......I just discovered her radio show.
Although I don't agree with everything she says.......she defends men and holds woman responsible and is very anti-feminist!

24

Main / Re: Schoolgirls bullied into stripping online aka WAAAA! I got caught!!

Mar 31, 2007, 04:51 PM

Get up at 3am and flick through the channels until you find a infomercial selling "Wild girls on spring break".....
After seeing this, I doubt that anyone will be under the illusion that girls need to be preasured into showing their breasts, or anything else for that matter. 

25

Main / Re: F4J Protest ignoed as usual

Mar 31, 2007, 04:26 PM

The Cincy Post covered it too.
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/index.php#blog

26

Main / Re: Duke prof. quits committees in protest

Jan 15, 2007, 06:38 AM

Thanks for the link Capt!
I see where the conflict is.........Woman's Studies and Ethics don't go together, like water and oil.
Another female woman's studies, ethics person with egg on their face and foot in their mouth!

Karla FC Holloway is the William Rand Kenan Professor of English at Duke University. She also holds appointments in the Law School and in Women's Studies. Her research and teaching interests focus on African American cultural studies, biocultural studies, ethics and law

27

Main / Re: Power tools

Jan 14, 2007, 07:20 PM

I bow to the superior woodworker.

BTW, what kind of wood did you use?  Your son looks very happy with it, he is a cutie! 

Thanks Jen.........but please no bowing, I'm just sharing my joy with a fellow woodworker.
I used pine and if I remember correctly, white maple for the pannels.
He really enjoyed it for a period of time, but is now on to bigger and better things like light sabers and Star Wars weapons..........now he wants me to make him a "real" light saber!  ....

28

Main / Re: Peck on the cheek? That's sexual harassment. Off to jail with you!

Jan 14, 2007, 06:48 PM

He is free on a $10,000 bond.
Although I agree that this should be a joke, the bond is rather serious. I hope he comes prepared, many men have found out too late that these people( judges, lawyers, police) aren't kidding.

29

Main / Re: Power tools

Jan 14, 2007, 07:47 AM

Wow Gen, very cool.......nice work!

I love woodworking, and have made a couple of toys for my son.
Here's a working(manual) jackhammer......

30

Main / Re: Biden Seeks to Fund Feminist Jurisprudence

Jan 14, 2007, 06:41 AM

This seems like a good time to post this.

Zarby, I read that Biden was looking at running for president too, do you know more about this?.......has he decided yet? This could be a play to warm up to all of his female victims, supporters.





http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-43.htm

The Conflict Of Theory And Data

After a period of lengthy neglect, family violence achieved heightened attention as a serious social problem in the early 1970's (Dutton, 1995; Pleck, 1987). Through a combination of activist effort and research findings showing family violence to be more prevalent than previously believed, governments began to take a more aggressive arrest policy toward the problem. Subsequently, shelter houses for female victims as well as mandatory treatment for male perpetrators became commonplace in North America. Research followed, based in many cases on samples drawn from those shelters (woman-victims) or court-mandated treatment groups (male-perpetrators). As a result of this sample selection and of the prevailing ideology of feminism, the notion evolved that spouse assault was exclusively male perpetrated or that female intimate violence, to the extent that it existed at all, was defensive or inconsequential. Subsequent research showing equivalent rates of serious female violence has been greeted with scepticism, especially by the activist-research community (e.g. Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly 1992; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003). Data surveys (e.g. Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Stets & Straus 1992; Straus & Gelles 1992) similarly met with criticism, especially by feminist researchers who were committed to the view that intimate violence was the by-product of patriarchy and, hence, an exclusively male activity (Bograd, 1988). This initial dogma has persevered despite data to the contrary, to be presented below.

This type of error in social judgment is demonstrated in research studies by social psychologists such as Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky (1982), Janis (1982), and by Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) that show "confirmatory bias" (also called "biased assimilation") and "belief perseverance" occurring when research subjects have a strongly held belief and are exposed to research findings inconsistent with the belief. The subjects reconcile the contradiction and maintain the prior belief by discounting the research methodology. They do not apply the same rigorous standards to research findings that confirm their beliefs.

Kahneman et al. described the tendency of humans to make premature causal judgments, often based on unconscious biases in human inference. Personal experience is an especially erroneous basis for making social judgment as we tend to give too much weight to single, salient experiences and to subsequently discount contrary data to the "confirmatory bias" we have established. Lord et al. illustrated how contradictory data sets are systemically discounted. Janis (1982) further demonstrated how social groups evolve a social reality called "groupthink" where group ideology is protected by and serves to self-sustain through rationalizations for discounting contradictory data. A conjunction of the social psychological phenomena of groupthink and belief perseverance appears to account for the "paradigm" (or "worldview") and ensuing urban myth surrounding domestic violence often found in academic journals specifically focused on domestic violence.

Lord et al. (1979) and Janis (1982) focused on "lay judgments" not on academic studies. In fact, the notions of scientific objectivity and falsifiable hypotheses act, at least in principle, against the formation of "groupthink." However, social scientists frequently become aligned with contemporary notions of social justice and attempt to fit their enterprise to the objectives of achieving social change. In so doing, they increase the risk of straying from objective reporting of data. In domestic violence research, the sense that a greater good for women's rights and the protection of women should prevail over scientific accuracy has provided this function of directing the search, data reported, interpretations, and applications of the data. In concert with value-laden theories, the focus of attention has been on male violence and simultaneously has deflected study and acceptance of female violence. In effect, a "paradigm" (cf. Kuhn, 1965) has developed in the domestic violence literature in which perpetrators are viewed as exclusively or disproportionately male. Any and all data inconsistent with this view are dismissed, ignored, or attempts are made to explain them away. The function of the gender paradigm originally was to generate social change in a direction that righted an imbalance against women (see Dobash & Dobash, 1978, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly 1992; Patai, 1998; Walker, 1989; Yllo & Bograd, 1988). The result, however, has been to misdirect social and legal policy, to misinform custody assessors, police, and judges, to disregard data sets contradictory to the prevailing theory, and to mislead attempts at therapeutic change for perpetrators (see also Corvo & Johnson, 2003; Dutton, 1994; George, 2003).

The radical feminist paradigm


In an earlier paper, Dutton (1994) described feminist theory as being a "paradigm," roughly translated as a set of guiding assumptions or worldview, commonly shared within a group and serving to ward off recognition of data that are dissonant with the paradigm's central tenets. This theory views all social relations through the prism of gender relations and holds, in it's neo-Marxist view, that men (the bourgeoisie) hold power advantages over women (the proletariat) in patriarchal societies and that all domestic violence is either male physical abuse to maintain that power advantage or female defensive violence, used for self protection.

The feminist paradigm supports the notion that domestic violence is primarily a culturally supported male enterprise and that female violence is always defensive and reactive. When women are instigators, in this view, it is a "preemptive strike," aimed at instigating an inevitable male attack (see Bograd, 1988; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly 1992; inter alia).

In contrast, male violence is not similarly contextualized and is always attributed to a broader social agenda. As a result of this perspective, feminists tend to generalize about violent men, about men in general, and to ignore female pathology. As Dobash and Dobash (1979) put it, "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society -- aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination -- and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance" (p. 24). Bograd (1988) defined feminist researchers as asking the fundamental question "Why do men beat their wives...Feminists seek to understand why men in general use physical force against their partners and what functions this serves in a given historical context" (p.13). In fact, the data demonstrate that while feminists are accurate in portraying abuse in intimate relationships as rampant, the reality is that most often both parties engage in aggression (Stets & Straus, 1992a, 1992b; Kessler et al., 2001, Nicholls & Dutton, 2001). Feminism favors strong arrest policies and "intervention" rather than treatment (since treatment implies that society is less to blame) (Pence & Paymar, 1993). It is not clear how men are held individually responsible by feminism when patriarchy is to blame, nor how feminists account for differences in male populations in attitudes and acceptance of violence.

Disconfirming research data appear to have had little impact on supporters of this perspective over the past two decades. For instance, speaking to intimate partner homicide, Serran and Firestone (2004) recently asserted we live in "a society where almost every major institute accepts or ignores the problems of gender inequality" ...and "The law and the patriarchal hierarchy have legitimized wife beating and control, resulting in unequal power relationships between men and women" (p. 12). In fact, considerable evidence suggests that there are strong social prohibitions inhibiting men from aggressing against women (e.g., chivalry; Arias & Johnson, 1989, Archer 2000a), legal sanctions against men who transgress (the U.S. Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA); Brown, 2004) and fewer social prohibitions inhibiting women from aggressing against men (for reviews see Brown, 2004; George, 1999). These legal and social policies, well intended though they might be, are based on erroneous information both about the causes and incidence of most intimate violence. They have evolved based on the needs of the small but significant proportion of women who experience chronic "wife battering," they do little to serve the much larger majority of men, women, and children coping with the more frequently encountered "common couple abuse" (Johnson, 1995; Stets & Straus, 1992b).

Among the data sets cited by Dutton in 1994 as contradictory to the feminist view were the following:

1. Unidirectional "severe" female intimate violence was more common than male unidirectional intimate violence (Stets & Straus, 1992b);

2. Lesbian abuse rates were higher than heterosexual male-female abuse rates (Lie et al., 1991);

3. Only a small percentage of males were violent over the life course of a marriage (Straus et al., 1980);

4. As many females as males were violent (Straus et al., 1980);

5. Very few males approved of the spouse abuse (Stark & McEvoy, 1970); 1

6. Only 9.6% of males were dominant in their marriage (Coleman & Straus, 1986); and,

7. Male violence was not linearly related to cultural indicators of patriarchy across U.S. states (Yllo & Straus, 1990).

Each of these data sets, available by 1993, has routinely been ignored by the feminist paradigm.

The initial effect of the feminist paradigm in practice was to focus so exclusively on male intimate violence that female violence was ignored. Corvo and Johnson (2003) outlined the bedrock view of feminist thought

"that battering (by males) is NEVER... provoked, hereditary, out of control, accidental, an isolated incident. It is not caused by disease, diminished intellect, alcoholism/addiction, mental illness or any external person or event. It is a means for men to systematically dominate, disempower, control and devalue women...it is greater than an individual act, it supports the larger goal of oppression of women."

Conversely, Dutton (1994) asserted that intimacy and psychopathology rather than gender-generated relationship violence are responsible for intimate partner violence. In societies where violence against women is not generally accepted, such as North America, violent men are not living up to a "cultural norm." That norm may exist in patriarchal societies such as Korea (Kim & Cho 1992), or Islamic countries (Haj-Yahia 1998; Moin 1998, Frenkiel 1999; as cited in Archer 2002) but data do not support its existence in North America. Archer (in press) cites a negative correlation between social-structural factors empowering women and frequency of wife assault across 51 countries (called the Gender Development Index). However, in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and New Zealand (nations supplying the bulk of data on spouse assault) gender empowerment for women is the highest of all 51 countries and structural factors have the least impact on wife assault.

It is because of intimacy that lesbian and heterosexual rates of abuse are similarly high; the impact of attachment and related anxieties produce anger and abuse. Dutton (1998, 2002) further elaborated the psychological phenomena that would increase an individual's propensity to experience such anxiety and react with abuse. The "intimacy problem" explanation constitutes an alternative to gender explanations and posits that abusiveness in intimate relationships occurs for both genders and that certain psychological features increase risk for individuals independent of gender. Dutton (1994) cited data from a study on lesbian relationships by Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, and Reyes (1991) that showed, for women who had been in past relationships with both men and women, abuse rates were higher for all forms of abuse in relationships with women: physical, sexual, emotional. Hence, Dutton argued, intimate violence is not specific to men and cannot be explained on the basis of gender or gender roles.

An alternative would be to view intimate violence as having psychological causes common to both genders. Psychological explanations for intimate violence have come from numerous sources. One good review by Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smuztler, and Sandin (1997) cited psychopathology, attachment, anger, arousal, alcohol abuse, skills deficits, head injuries, biochemical correlates, attitudes, feelings of powerlessness, lack of resources, stress, and family of origin sources for male intimate violence. Follingstad et al. (2002) found anxious attachment and angry temperament predicted dating violence in both sexes. Feminist "intervention" discounts all of these as "excuses" despite empirical support for the relationship of each to marital aggression and the utility of these risk factors for prevention and intervention.