From WND: Has bias pendulum swung against men?

Started by SecondToDie, Feb 20, 2006, 01:26 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Quote from: "WorldNetDaily"

Has bias pendulum
swung against men?
Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates,
shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft


WASHINGTON - Watch network sitcoms and you will find the dolts are usually men.

In TV commercials, it's always the kids or the mothers who know the real score, not the fathers.

Affirmative-action programs by definition mean women get preference in hiring, school admissions, contracts and promotions.

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless - or possibly even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against women - others are beginning to conclude that men are the real victims of discrimination so virulent it is shortening their life spans, causing them to be self-destructive and suicidal, crippling their educational opportunities and destroying a generation of fatherless children.

Here are some sobering facts:

   * Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women, are now dying 10 years earlier.

   * Boys have inferior reading and comprehension scores and lower graduation rates than girls.

   * Men are much less likely to pursue secondary degrees and university graduate programs.

   * The suicide rates for boys, young fathers and older men range from four to 10 times higher than for their female counterparts.

   * According to Dr. William Pollack of the Harvard Medical School Center for Men, the general health of American males is in a state of serious crisis.

   * Men spend more and more time at work, as compared to women in similar full-time jobs, and they engage in considerably more demanding and dangerous career choices.

Those are just a few of the findings of a report of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men, one of several state panels convened to re-evaluate assumptions about the role of men in society.

"That men would need help by way of a chartered commission to improve their status seemed counterintuitive given the popular image of men as independent, self-sufficient survivors, able to overcome the most difficult of life's challenges on their own," said the commission in its report issued in November. "Modern pressures, however, find men and their families experiencing significant difficulties due to evolving values, health problems, growing educational deficiencies and new socio-economic family standards."

The commission found the school drop-out rates of boys much higher than for girls. It found men treated unfairly by the family court system. It found men often falsely accused of domestic violence not getting due process. It found government programs for women getting far more funding than programs for men.

In matters of health, for instance, breast cancer, a threat to women, receives far more government funding for prevention and research than does prostate cancer, a threat to men.

Nationwide, about 9 percent more men develop prostate cancer than women develop breast cancer. Yet the federal government spends approximately seven times more on breast cancer research ($550 million) than it does on prostate cancer research ($80 million).

In fact mortality rates from all causes - cancer, diabetes, heart disease, injuries, suicide - are significantly higher for men than women. The New Hampshire commission found men are more than five times more likely to kill themselves than women.

Perhaps nowhere is the bias against men so obvious than in matters of child custody and support, the panel found. Fathers get custody of children in uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time in contested cases. Women get sole custody 66 percent of the time in uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

This might make sense, the commissioners suggested, in a society in which the workforce was dominated by men. However, according to the latest statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, women now make up 47 percent of the total labor force.

"Given the plethora of evidence documenting the benefits of involved fathers with their children, and the present rate of female participation in the workforce, the custody imbalance between fathers and mothers seems difficult to justify," concluded the commission. "This commission suggests that the governor of New Hampshire issue a proclamation declaring that both parents are equally important for their children."

But the bias against men in the family courts is not limited to custody cases, according to the commission.

"Men came forward during our public meetings to allege unfair treatment in family court domestic violence proceedings and to allege that unsubstantiated charges of domestic violence were being improperly used as tools to place them at a distinct disadvantage in civil matters before family court," the New Hampshire commissioners reported.

The word on the street, the commissioners learned, was that a woman could readily gain immediate possession of children, home and other assets by filing an "emergency" ex-parte domestic violence petition, claiming to be in fear of her safety. The accused would then have an immediate restraining order placed against him on a "temporary" basis without any hearing or defense.

The commission also cited studies that show more than half of all domestic violence is actually directed against men. It points out that the American Judges Association website notes solemnly: "Every 15 seconds a women is battered somewhere in the United States." What the website doesn't mention is that every 14 seconds women batter their partners.

This week must be anti-feminist week at WND.  Two days ago they had an article on paternity fraud, and now their main article is one about difficulties faced by men.  It should be interesting to see the response to this article on feminist blogs.


Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the forum.  This is one of the better articles that I've seen in awhile.

I printed out two copies, as I want to give one to the pastor at my church.  They were discussing abortion this week (from a Christian, not feminist perspective), and I wanted to include men's issues.

The link to the article is:

Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter -


Also in WordNetDaily...

Are secret societies controlling world's destiny?
'Brotherhood of Darkness' result of 40 years of research

Posted: February 16, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Are secret societies controlling the world's destiny?

How powerful are groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers and others seldom ever mentioned?

Is there a grand conspiracy at work to move the world toward global government and a universal religion?

Dr. Stanley Monteith, a medical doctor by training, set out on a mission to answer those questions some 40 years ago. The results of his startling research is found in the book, "Brotherhood of Darkness," a shocking expose that shines the light of day on the secret societies - some of which have been at work on the world stage for centuries.

"Most people don't realize they exist because their minds have been conditioned to reject any thought of such organizations," explains Monteith.

This hard-hitting book names names, places, dates and full citations from primary sources. Monteith reveals the identity of the mysterious forces behind the men who rule the world, and why some U.S. leaders have dedicated their lives to destroying their own nation.

Are they all working together? Who are they ultimately serving? Is there a grand architect? You will be shocked and disturbed at the answers.

You may not accept everything Monteith offers, but one thing is for sure: After reading "Brotherhood of Darkness," you will never look at the world in the same way again.

Are secret societies controlling word's destiny?  By golly, they should include The Patriarchy in this book!

Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter -

dr e

Excellent article Secondtodie.  My only concern with it is that they overdo the stats on several occasions.  Life expectancy is not 10 years difference for men and women, prostate cancer gets more funding than 7x what breast cander gets and one or two othes.  Sheesh it's great to have to correct stats in the other direction for once.  Weird.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


The article also says:

"Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women, ..."

I don't think it has ever been on par with women, at least in the last 100 years or so.

Sir Jessy of Anti

The last information I can recall about that placed men and women at equal life expectancy at the turn of the last century.   I don't have a source on hand for that though.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />


It was about a two-year difference in the USA about 100 years ago.
ttp:// ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address


My problem with the article is that expressions like

"the pendulum has swung too far" and

"the battle of the sexes"

trivialize the issues.

There is an implied message in "The pendulum has swung too far" that somehow the current state is nobody's fault and that the pendulum will for sure swing back. There is no evidence to support either implied assertions.

Besides that, I have no interest in the pendulum returning to some previous state. We should use this period of unrest to bring men/boys to an entirely new postion that is better than what we have suffered with throughout history. We should try to make some real gains. Even if there was no feminism we would need to raise men's issues and make life better for us and for all.
Men's Movie Guide:   The Healing Tomb:

dr e

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless - or possibly even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against women

Yeah, this part is the typical bull that gets tossed around that implies that women have suffered past injustices that somehow created a debt that all men need to pay to make up for this terrible plot.  What a crock.  I get so used to seeing it and hearing it I forget to call it bullshit.

For goodness sake.  Evolution has moved forward out of necessity and survival not some evil plot by people trying to cheat women out of having meaningful lives.  How stupid can some people be?  I still love the line someone wrote here a while back:

When women were barefoot and pregnant men were bareback and burdened.  Or something like that.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.


While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless - or possibly even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against women

Good points Dr. Evil.  And if one is going to go the affirmative action route and rationalization, how about letting men off the sinking ship before women to correct for past injustices like the Titanic stats.  Or how about requiring a certain percentage of women to work the dirty and dangerous jobs that men have always labored at nearly exclusively.

With regard to life expectancy:  Warren Farrell states in "The Myth of Male Power" that the life span of the sexes is about equal in pre-industrialized cultures.  But industrialization increases the life span of females by about twice as much as it does males.  He cites the Department of Commerce as a source for this estimation.
How ironic that the vast majority of industrial advances are made by men, but it is women who benefit the most from them.  And what and where is the affirmative action to correct for that?
eminism:  The new sexism


And let's make sure that in the future there is a female-only draft that stays in place until as many female soldiers have been killed as the total number of male U.S. soldiers killed to date.


Women's lifespans dramatically increased in the past 100 years because of medical advances in childbirth. 100 years ago, childbirth was the leading cause of death in women. (Just to be a Cliff Claven  :wink: )


The brand of information given in this article is appearing thicker and faster in the general talkstream, and becoming known in wider circles. The day is fast approaching when no more collective ignorance or denial will be possible -- "everyone" will acknowledge such things as matters of accepted, undisputed, commonplace fact.

And when that day arrives, it will be interesting to watch the flips and  turns the feminists will be driven to, as they try to *position* themselves to advantage in the public eye.

They'll have quite a PR job cut out for them. They'll want to stay on the good side of the issues; they'll want to keep a place on the moral high ground; they may even want to appear as "part of the solution".

It's a common trick for malefactors to molt their skins and reinvent themselves as good guys when they sense that exposure is imminent. Quite understandably, they don't want to face the music.

And what exactly is the "music" which feminism doesn't want to face?

In a word, its own responsibility.

Expect to see a proliferation of expressions such as; "don't blame feminism", and "that isn't really feminism", and "those people weren't really feminists", and "that was never a part of feminism's plan", and "I was never that kind of feminist!", and above all a thousand slippery new ways of saying "but feminism is about equality!!"

Watch for the appearance of books and articles devoted to "feminist apologetics". Watch for feminist leaders who develop a peculiar and  very sudden interest in men's problems and men's issues -- to a point where they will try to control the discussion and frame the whole lot as a continuation of feminism's narrative!

In a word, they want to slip feminism off the hook. But we must keep the heat on, take the offensive, flush them out of their covets and badger holes, and make sure that feminism's self-exculpation and shape-shifting self-reinvention DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Don't let feminism off the hook!

Gather the evidence and confront them with it, and confront them again, and confront them again. Permit them no rest! Get them on the ropes and don't let up! Call attention to their dodges and evasions while these things are happening; don't let them slip away!

Don't let feminism off the hook!

Feminism's direct culpability in bringing about our present historical crisis  must not be swept under the rug. We must map the acts and the actors to the facts and the factors, and show the concrete historical role which feminist activism and ideology played throughout the entire process, every step of the way.

We should  be able to point to an example and say, loud and straight:

"Feminism made this happen! And...feminism made THIS happen...!

Watch and be prepared. Don't let them get away.

Don't let feminism off the hook!

It will be a very sad mistake if we do.


On another thread I wrote:
As I look back at the grim, toiling, frustrated lives of my forefathers, at what they endured simply simply to earn the illusory titles of 'Family Man' or 'Breadwinner' (to them a 'Patriarch' was a vague figure in some foreign religion), I wonder who's been kidding whom all these centuries.

On this thread Paul wrote:
We should use this period of unrest to bring men/boys to an entirely new postion that is better than what we have suffered with throughout history. We should try to make some real gains. Even if there was no feminism we would need to raise men's issues and make life better for us and for all.

Exactly. And if we can do that maybe the silly experiment of feminism was just the kick in the pants that we needed.
'm an asylum seeker. Don't send me back.


Well, it is a start. Good. The thing is to get the public familiar with seeing men as a group with our own needs and to get the public weened away from female only public policy.

Rob:  Death in child bed started its big drop sometime before 1880, a bit more than 100 years ago. Anyone who cares to look can see the drop in the number of widowers with kids in the census. It is clear and easily seen, (one must also look for a father, kids and much too old wife since widowers often married elderly widows so that there would be someone to look after the kids and the elderly woman would be supported. It was kind of a pension plan / daycare plan).

For instance, this will search the 1880/81 census for the US, Britain and Canada:

ay what you mean: Mean what you say.

Go Up