J. Soltys's Weblog

January 28, 2008

Men and Housework – No Problem!?!?

man-and-mop.jpg                          Women leave Canadian town in hands of men

That is the title of a story I found in Reuters News over the weekend. After further review, it is actually a new reality show that has debuted in Canada this month. The premise of the show involves most of the women in the Canadian town of Hardisty being asked to leave their men and families behind for one week and to see how the men handle the traditional female roles of housekeeping and childcare. Presented by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, it is being hailed as a “social experiment” because in Canada, 70% of households are run by women.
Hardisty was chosen because ” the producers searched for the perfect beaker to test theories on division of labor and gender roles at home and in the workplace.”

When I first read this, I felt the same nauseating feeling I get when I run across the typical “men vs. women vs. housework” rhetoric. It is apparent to me that society, whether here in the U.S. or elsewhere, is always trying to undermine men’s contribution to family management, and at the same time trying to establish a belief that men cannot handle traditional “women’s work”. It appears society believes men will just fall apart under the umbrella of traditional female responsibilities, and grovel at the feet of their significant other upon her return, begging for mercy for their errant, traditional, ignorant ways, and proceed to wallow in a sea of appreciation and recognition for what she contributes to the family. This is what the female ego would like to see happen, but unfortunately, reality creeps in, and robs the female ego of its desire.

I’ve written about men and housework before. Research shows men do more housework than women give them credit for. So when I see a show like this, it irritates me to see that real family management indolence is always placed on the wrong person.
Society has the belief that men disparage and avoid traditional female work around the house, but some of the most recent research shows that it is women that actually disparage and downplay men’s contribution towards family management. Recent research also shows women today engage in less than half of the housework of their mother’s generation while men are doing more than double of their fathers. It should be noted that women do more housework and childcare than men overall, but what should be noted – to counter women’s and societies sexist nature to scold men for what they perceive as masculine laziness – that according to a study done by University of Michigan Institute for Social Research:

From 1989 to 1999, the questionnaire recall data indicate that paid work in the labor market increased by 10% for men and 17% for women, reflecting the decade’s strong job market and the increasing labor market participation of females. As a result, total work time for men increased by eight percent over that decade, but, given the drop in housework time for women, their total work time rose by a mere two percent.

So you see men are not lazy, as is the reason most women – and society – give to explain the difference. The truth is men work more outside the home leaving them less time for family management.
This is why I become irritated when I see programs such as this. It is labeled a reality show, but its premise is really based in mythology. Both men and women work hard at family management these days with men assuming a large portion of traditional female work around the house while women continue to do very little traditional male labor around the house.

But here is where the story gets really interesting. As I read this story, I recognized it to be very similar to a show that took place in England a few years ago. As I continued reading, I found out I was right, and that the people who were responsible for the show in England, are the same people involved in this one.

I remember reading about the results from the show in England. I remember the men did fine without their wives. Sure, it was hard at first, just like anything new, but once the men got their routines down, they did just as well as the women in traditional female roles. But as I read the article about this show in Canada, there was no mention about the results in England. That seemed odd to me, to mention the previous show in England, but not the results. So I began a search for the results from the BBC’s version of “The Week the Women Went”. I found the results nearly impossible to find. Numerous websites were mentioning Canada’s show and its relationship to the BBC show, but not one website offered the results from that first experiment.

Well it took some time, but I found the results. I was right. The men did well. Said one wife,
‘The house is very tidy – he’s done very well. I definitely married the right man. Being away you realize that every minute you’re with them is important.’
And many of the men managed so well, they had time to bake “welcome home” cakes for their wives return.

So now I began to ask why everyone was avoiding the results. My conclusion is because the results did not confirm women’s and society’s beliefs about men and housework. The men did not fall apart, humiliate, and embarrass themselves. They survived traditional women’s work without much despair; therefore, in today’s climate of men and father bashing, the show failed and was forgotten.
In order to “fix” that problem, the producers decided to move the show to Hardisty, a town where most men work away from their families for weeks at a time. The potential for these men to fail at traditional women’s work is now much greater than the show in England, because these men are rarely home, so they barely know the details of a normal day.
I wouldn’t call this a social “experiment” because the results can already be envisioned. This is no experiment. It is simply taking a person from a well known task and putting them into an unknown one. Of course it is going to be difficult, but that doesn’t mean those individuals are of bad character. But I know if these men fail, the judgments placed upon them will be – lazy, sexist, ignorant men.

My point: The whole idea that women are overworked more than men is more myth than reality. Both men and women are stressed when it comes to family management. Yet the media and society always gives more compassion to the stresses women face. Men’s stressors and anxieties are brushed aside in order to make more room for women’s. I have yet to see a show where the women are put into the shoes of men. This show would have the women repair the roof, insulate the attic, put in a new hot water heater, build a deck or patio in the yard, have sole responsibility as bread winner of the family, and find everything she does disparaged by her husband and society.
I guess it is just wishful thinking. After all, we know our “equals” wouldn’t stand for it.

Women leave Canadian town in hands of men
How did the men of Harby cope when their women left?
BBC’s Bring your Husband to Heel or “Arbeit Macht Frei”
Men Do More Housework Than Women Think




January 25, 2008

Research and the Genders

man_hiding_face.jpg       I have felt for a long time that the research community tends to ignore male issues and focus more attention on female issues. This opinion would be quickly debated by feminist and their supporters who would argue two similar points:
First, historically research has focused exclusively on men, and what I am witnessing is “balance” taking place. In their eyes, quality research into serious issues from the female perspective is catching up after all those years of serious male focused research.
Second, I know I will find the element of “two wrongs make a right” in their argument. They will say, since women were ignored for so many years, it is only “righteous” or “fair to now ignore men’s issues.

Recently I was listening to a radio show where the subject of women’s health was being discussed. I was waiting for someone to mention the historical discrepancy between male and female research, and I didn’t have to wait long. But as I listened, I realized how every woman’s opinion centered on the fact that the cause of this disparity was blatant sexual discrimination. Not one woman offered any opinion that strayed from this belief. More importantly, it was the attitude that men did this with a conscious knowledge that it was wrong. As if society back then should have realized what it knows now. According to these women, and even society today, men as a whole are held to a standard for their actions and behaviors in the past by the more knowledgeable and greater understanding criteria of the present.
But is this fair?
When I studied psychology in school, it was always noted that the same standards used for research in the past, would never be allowed today. The research community of old consistently violated moral, ethical, and individual rights of their research subjects during experimentation that are strictly prohibited in today’s research communities. But this information is always left out of the feminist argument. Think of it this way: What the feminist are really arguing is they are upset because research atrocities and personal violations were not implemented upon women in the same numbers as men. Huh???
What is missing from the feminist point of view is the fact that the research community of old actually had an inherent patriarchal respect for women; that is, it would have been despicable to use women or children in human experiments that could result in serious complications or even death. Instead, the research community saved this potentially tragic research for men only.

So it appears that while the element of sexism was present in the research community, the overall reasons for their exclusion may have been due to a fundamental element of respect for women and their physical well-being. Another argument missing from the feminist perspective is that since men were perceived as the bread winners of the family, it would only make sense that to insure the stability of the family, research into men’s health would take precedent over women’s. If the man of the house was healthy, then by proxy, his wife and children would enjoy good health. By today’s standards, this is an unacceptable philosophy, but at that time, not only would men have accepted this philosophy, but the women would have accepted it also.

So it seems that things did balance out. Men received better insight and care into their physical health, but suffered the atrocities placed upon them by the unregulated research community. Women, on the other hand, did not receive the proper attention towards their healthcare needs, but at the same time, did not have to suffer the consequences of research atrocities.

So why bring this all up?

I have found over the years of doing men’s work that any research done by predominately “female interest” researchers and institutions will usually be biased towards men when the research covers issues that cross gender lines – the same behavior these women have attacked men for.
We have already seen some distorted and discriminating research from these female interest groups concerning the genders such as:
These female “dominated” groups are not concerned with the male partner perspective when researching abortion; they are not concerned about male victims of domestic violence and the independent research showing greater numbers of male victims than their own research; they once claimed girls were being discriminated extensively in school when it was actually the boys suffering extensively in academics; and they have also claimed pregnant women are at greater risk of being murdered by their husbands or boyfriends when in fact, almost all research positions that this is not true.

So while scanning the web, I found this research concerning depression from the Society for Women’s Health Research, a Washington, D.C., based advocacy organization. It discusses the findings of their research concerning male and female doctors and their ability to diagnose depression in women. While I am aware that this research was intended to focus strictly on the perceptions of male and female doctors concerning women and depression, it disturbed me to find there was no mention of the crucial facts concerning men and depression.
The reason I take issue over this exclusion is due to the repeated reinforcement of female suffering and their corresponding statistics always being included in research and media articles that focus on the male side of cross gender issues.
For example, research and articles written about male domestic violence victims will always include statistics concerning female victims to maintain proper “perspective” on the issue. Research or articles about male suicides will almost always include the fact that women are more likely than men to attempt suicide. And nobody these days would dare to talk about the sacrifices our male soldiers are making in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without making sure to include the female victims, even though their numbers are greatly smaller.
Overall I do not have a problem with this approach. I feel it is fair and balanced.
What I do have a problem with is that it appears to me when research or articles focuses exclusively on women issues that cross gender lines, more often that not it excludes the statistics on male suffering, and ignores maintaining a proper “perspective” on the issue; hence, male discrimination.
In this research on doctors and female depression, I found this discrimination present again.
The article stated:

Women doctors are more likely than their male counterparts to believe that women are specifically susceptible to depression during two key times of hormonal transition in a woman’s life: puberty (67.5 percent to 48.2 percent) and perim[eno]pause (92.8 percent to 67.5 percent).

The research also stated:

The survey did find consensus among male and female doctors on several issues. Almost identical percentages of women and men doctors, about 84 percent, agree that women are at higher risk than men of ever having major depression.

Sadly this research article didn’t maintain proper “perspective” and reveal some disturbing stats about male depression.
One of the leading healthcare institutions, the Mayo Clinic, has this to say about men and depression:

Each year, depression affects about 6 million American men and 12 million American women. But these numbers may not tell the whole story. Because men may be reluctant to discuss male depression with a health care professional, many men with depression may go undiagnosed, and consequently untreated.

When they visit their health care professional, men are more likely to focus on physical complaints – headaches, digestive problems or chronic pain, for example – than on emotional issues. As a result, the connection between such symptoms and male depression may be overlooked.

In a given year, men with depression are more than twice as likely as men without depression to die of any cause. Women with depression also have an increased risk of dying, compared with women without depression, but the difference is not as great as it is in men.

Although women are twice as likely to have depression, men are four times as likely to suffer its worst consequence: suicide. Starting in adolescence, men are far more likely than women to take their own lives. Older men, particularly white men over age 85, have the highest suicide rate. Although women attempt suicide more often than men do, men are more likely to complete suicide.

Men take an average of just 12 months to go from contemplating suicide to attempting suicide. In contrast, it takes women about 42 months. During this time, men are less likely than women to show warning signs, such as talk of suicide. Because this window of opportunity is so short, family and mental health professionals may have little chance to recognize a man’s depression and intervene.

After reading those statistics, wouldn’t a few sentences about men and depression seem appropriate? And considering doctors unskilled in detecting male depression have a shorter time frame to work with in order to avoid a tragedy, one would think the researchers would have made some mention of this. But there is no mention of this at all – not even one sentence.

My point: For years women have complained how research has ignored women when confronting serious health issues that cross gender lines. While once true, I feel it is definitely not the case today. I feel serious male issues are ignored in preference for the latest “suffering” of women.
More importantly, men are carrying the burden of being perceived as inherently discriminatory, but over time, we see women are just as comfortable ignoring the serious issues that men face in order to raise awareness towards their own – the very thing they have scolded men for over the years. And sadly, our society as a whole seems to be comfortable with joining them in this behavior.
The jab against men is that they are uncaring and selfish. Maybe men would show more compassion and empathy for others and the serious issues they face if others would show more compassion and empathy for them.

I know, the idea is so stupidly silly and pragmatic, so the chances of it working are probably slim.
Silly me.

Women And Men Doctors Have Divergent Views On Women And Depression
Male depression: Don’t ignore the symptoms



January 22, 2008

35 Years of Roe vs. Wade – A Celebration?


      Today marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion.
In my writings I have used abortion in such ways as to give the impression that I am totally against it. However, I am not. I respect a woman’s right to an abortion, but it doesn’t mean I am devoid emotionally of its violence on a precious innocent life. Over the years my opinion about abortion has changed dramatically. I was once a solid supporter of abortion rights and felt any restrictions placed upon its needs and access was a gross injustice.
But things changed as I grew older. I began to experience my solid support for this right diminishing over time. There are many reasons why my opinion changed, but the greatest impact came from my work with men and men’s issues, and the birth of my own children.

The impact from the birth of my children is self evident to any man who has become a father. When my wife became pregnant, she was considered “high-risk” due to complications from the birth of her first child – my step-daughter. Therefore, six weeks into the pregnancy the doctor requested my wife and I come in for an ultra-sound exam. It was at that moment, when I saw the miniscule beating hearts of my children, that I knew I would never again argue for the right of women to have unrestrictive and unbridled abortions.
I recognized two important fundamentals of life that day: First, with a right comes a responsibility, and second, just because it is legal to engage in certain practices, doesn’t mean those practices are morally justified.

The other component that led to my erosion of support for abortion came through my work with men and men’s issues. In my work with men’s organizations – those that help men going through difficult periods in their lives – I ran across a few men that were emotionally troubled by abortions they agreed to when they were young and irresponsible. The deep-seated emotional trauma of the abortion experience lay dormant in these men, and did not manifest until the men were older and going through the process of being a father for the first time.

It was during this same time when dealing with these issues and others that I began to see society’s hypocrisy towards men and the issues they face. It is as simple as this:
Society wants better men, and most men are willing to better themselves, but society isn’t willing to make any serious commitment intellectually, emotionally, or financially to men, boys, and fathers and the issues they face.
Thus began my work and research into men and men’s issues.

Today I use the right to abortion as the epitome of the sexism and hypocrisy men face. It authenticates in various ways the core arguments that most father and men’s rights advocates vocalize – the unequal, and discriminatory attitude towards men and masculinity.
Here are my reasons, the hypocrisies and inequities, that have caused the my unequivocal support of abortion to fade:

— Many feminist deplore the horrors and violence of war and are quick to point out that war is a product of masculinity. However, abortion kills more innocent lives every year than most wars, but the feminist sleep well knowing this feminine violence upon innocent victims occurs at a rate of almost 3300 everyday in U.S.

— Most wars are fought to secure and protect the liberties, safety, security, and stability of civilizations from rogue nations and dictators. In other words, the end results of men’s wars have resulted in the preservation of influential societies and governments. For all its devastating sacrifices, ultimately everyone benefits.
Consequently, studies show most abortion services are performed to avoid the responsibility of parenting. Therefore, it uses the death of innocent victims as a means to advance the interest of predominantly one party only – the woman.

— While feminist decry abortion as an inherent right – “my body, my choice” – I see it as another example of a matriarchal system that establishes a social construct in which children and men must sacrifice their rights and lives in order to preserve and advance the well-being of females.
In other words, the matriarchal system believes equality begins by establishing a woman’s life as having more value than that of men and children.

— While feminist have always been quick to point out the tragedies women suffer at the hands of men who become deadbeat dads and abandon their responsibilitiy to their child, they avoid discussing the differences between men and women concerning the avoidance of parental responsibility. The majority of men abandon their parental responsibilities by running away from women and children, but leave the child(ren) alive, which leaves the potential for faith, hope, and opportunity to intervene. Women just kill the unborn child, killing the power of faith, hope, and opportunity along with the child.

— Feminist and pro-choice supporters have established in their arguments that the government has no business intervening in a woman’s life and making the emotional, and life changing decision as to whether she should terminate her pregnancy. For abortion supporters, having this powerful choice of decision placed into the hands of somebody else is the greatest injustice women can face. This is validated by its importance included at every political election.
However, these same abortion supporters have no problem with current abortion laws that exclude men legally from the abortion decision making process, giving women total power and control over whether or not the father will be forced into parenthood. It appears women do not want others making life changing decisions for them, but they are very comfortable making those same decisions for others and calling it “fair”.

— It must also be noted how Roe vs. Wade began. A woman named Norma L. McCorvey became pregnant with her third child. Her first child was raised by her mother, the second child left to be raised by its father. When she became pregnant again, she did not want the responsiblilty, so she sought an abortion – illegal at this time. When she found out she could not get one legally, she decided to try a different tactic – she claimed she was raped. It turns out she later admitted her rape story was false.
Feminist have consistently stated women will never lie about being raped, and any false claim of rape is extremely rare and has no lasting effect on those involved.
The foundational issue of a woman’s freedom and liberty from the masculine patriarchy has been the right to an abortion. And the main event leading to this historical victory for women began with a false accusation of rape – the very thing the feminist say never occurs. And remember, according to them, should it occur, it has very little impact on those involved and almost no impact on society.
I’ll leave you to decide.

My point: I believe in the right for women to have access to abortion services, but I do not believe that abortion should be used to abandon parental responsibility.
I view abortion the same way I view war – a necessary evil. Each of these uncomfortable events carries the right to do so, but each carries (or should carry) the responsibility to find more reasonable solutions at all cost. And just because we can rightfully carry out either action, doesn’t automatically justify that it is morally correct to do so.
As one can see, abortion carries many of the core issues faced by men and father’s rights activist today. That is why I use it as a convenient issue to display the inequities that men and fathers face.
Again, I’m not against a woman’s right to an abortion. But if someone is going to vocalize to me about men and masculinity being at the root of all evil, well you know where this debate is going to go.



January 18, 2008

My How Things Change When the Shoe is on the Other Foot

The other day I posted some rantings by female writers, pissed off because men aren’t behaving the way THEY feel men should. I was actually pleased to see these women validating my point that women have serious power and control issues just like men. Without these women, my job would be a lot more difficult. But since women LOVE giving their opinions of men, I can’t resist the urge to take aim at the huge target they paint on their backs by this behavior, and define how sexist, hypocritical and egomaniacal these women are.

An article by Suzanne MacNevin is a vile rant against men who preach the best way to fight feminism is through devoting themselves to bachelorhood. This really seems to tick her off, and the more I read her argument, the more hypocrisy she displayed.
For instance, why is she so upset about men devoting themselves to the single life? After all, feminism has made it a priority to indoctrinate our young women into believing that they do not need a man to be happy in life. But now that men have taken the same vow, recognizing the same empowering elation of independence experienced by women, these same feminist suddenly become emotionally volatile. And considering how feminism has preached equality between men and women, why the anger over men gaining their independence from societal expectations of marriage and family just like their female counter parts?

One can see the hypocrisy and prodigious egos at work here. We (the feminist) want the freedom of choice to decide whether or not we what/need men in our lives. However, we want to restrict you (men) from the same choice. The female ego, fed superfluously by feminist insecurities and their sexist ideology, harbors the belief that females are naturally superior to males; therefore the choice should be theirs, not the men’s.
The female ego has a hard time believing that something inferior (men) may actually not want or need the company of a woman. Females have been brainwashed to believe that men are irresponsible, unorganized, chaotic beings that cannot function in life without a woman’s touch, guidance, and affection. But what they forget is that before we met them, dated them, married them, and had children with them, we were fully functional, happy, independent beings making the best of every moment in life with very little help from them.
In the past, marriage became a symbiotic relationship between men and women in which men were left to focus on expanding and succeeding in their careers, which in turn brought more stability and opportunity not only to them, but to their wives and children also.
But since the feminist movement, men can no longer count on women to stay at home and raise their children, cook their meals, clean the house, and many other family management tasks that traditionally were fulfilled by the females in their lives. So marriage no longer offers a man the opportunity of greater success than it once did.
So the question has now become: Why SHOULD men commit to settling down with women in today’s relationship environment when marrying women now offers men less today than they did in the past? If we are expected to cook our own meals, do our own laundry, clean our own living quarters, and many of the other traditional female roles and still maintain our traditional male roles and resposibilities, then why do we need a woman in our life anyway? Men have greater opportunities for personal success by avoiding marriage, while still maintaining the same level of personal responsibility found in bachelorhood or marriage. The only thing today that women can offer men is sex, companionship, and children. And in reality, casual sex can be found through sexually “empowered” women within the feminist movement, companionship can be fulfilled by men or women, and children can be adopted, for which every man who does so will be elevated into sainthood like Angelina Jolie.
Think about it this way, the feminist movement taught women not to be dependent upon men, but it also changed roles so much that men are not dependent upon women either.

Another hypocritical and egomaniacal element I pick up from her rant is the argument that men should marry. Men who choose to postpone marriage are called “commitment phobics”, a derogatory label which implies immaturity and irresponsibility. However, the feminist become disturbed, and rigorously dispute, any research or public opinion which implies a woman’s life will be more stable and happier through traditional marriage vows. They have aggressively fought any government-funded programs which promote marriage, always finding these programs sexist and patriarchal. But now when the shoe is on the other foot, they prescribe marriage as the healthiest thing a man can do in an effort to achieve overall happiness.
And these women believe men have huge egos – LOL!

Now let me list some of her comments and my counter-point:

Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support the mother and child when it was partially the fault of the father who sired the child? How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man’s sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around? Men don’t take this matter seriously enough. They think they can sleep with whomever they want without any consequences but in this world of STDs, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that is simply not true.

Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support mothers who have numerous children out of wedlock from different men, and then run to the government for support and aid to care for them? And why is it these women do not receive contempt from you and other feminist – which you so eagerly pile upon men – but rather you and other feminist deliver assiduous applications of compassion, understanding, and impunity to these women? At least I admit, some men think with their penises, but your sexist attitude doesn’t allow you to accept the fact that some women think with their clitorises (sorry, fair is fair ladies).

And if society or the deadbeat father doesn’t pay up what is the social effect of having hundreds or thousands of women impoverished and struggling to feed and clothe these children?

First of all, women do not have to live in poverty. Women have the right to abort their unborn children to avoid the responsibility of parenthood – men do not have that choice. If men did, the deadbeat dad numbers would virtually disappear. Men can be forced into parenthood, women cannot.
And if the child is born due to lack of protection by the man, it is still the woman’s fault. The feminist mantra is “My body, my choice!” Yes, legally this is true, but consequently, this also carries the burden of “My body, my responsibility”. If you don’t want the discomfort of nine months of gestation; have your ability to work and make living put on hold; run the potential to be a single parent in poverty; and chase a man around looking for child support, then it is the woman’s responsibility – meaning you dear – to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Second, studies show women initiate the majority of divorces and predominately ask for full custody of the children – and receive it. So the heartbreaking stories of divorced women with young children living penniless due to men shedding their marriage vows is actually more myth than truth. If the genders were reversed, you and society would take a less sympathetic approach. Men would be told unapologetically,
“You made your decisions and you have to live with the consequences.”
Oh! Excuse me. My bad. That is a quote from you in this same article directed towards men who bitch about feminism ruining their relationships. Thanks for proving me right about this difference in acceptance of resposibility between men and women in society.
Third, studies show that the majority of men do pay their court ordered child support on time, so your economic apocalypse from deadbeat dads is another myth. However, you disregarded studies that show women are more likely than men to avoid paying court ordered child support. Oops! Should’ve done your homework.

I could go on taking this whole article apart piece by piece, but I think I made my point – the rest is just details.
But let me touch on one last quote:

However, I believe this propaganda fails to convince because it uses inherently flawed logic, useless rhetoric/slogans and the blatant sexism is its downfall.

I feel exactly the same way. And I’m sure if I go back and read your article again, I’ll get that same feeling all over again.
Dealing with Anti-Feminism: The Feminist eZine – Bachelorism

January 15, 2008

Can’t Catch a Break – Unless You’re Female: Part II

Yesterday I shared with you some articles that were worth noting because they displayed what I felt are the various forms of sexism men face daily. I’m not sure if it was Karma or just coincidence, but between yesterday and today I came across a hand full of articles that corroborate yesterday’s theme.
So let’s continue by dealing with these articles now.

Dealing with Anti-Feminism: The Feminist eZine – Bachelorism
This article is written by Suzanne MacNevin, a female/feminist who is very upset with men who have blamed feminism for their vow to remain bachelors.
The irony is that her emotions, opinions, and logic play right into the hands of the men she is arguing against. She is upset that men blame feminist for all their problems, but then uses the typical feminist blame, shame, and humiliation tactics to make her case – the exact behavior that has given feminist an evil reputation, and the exact behavior that does nothing to dispute the bachelors’ logic. In fact, it appears to actually reinforce and validate their argument.
And it just wouldn’t be a true anti-male/hate speech if it didn’t include some kind of reference to female-on-male violence – a right of passage for female empowerment – to which the writer is more than happy to indulge with a picture of women kicking a man in his face.
The only thing this article did for me was validate the argument for the bachelors. You go boys!
Dealing with Anti-Feminism: The Feminist eZine – Bachelorism

Who’s Tired of Pink
Another emotional harangue by a disgruntled woman, Erica Jong, who is frustrated and upset with men because they haven’t created a perfect world for her and other women to live in. She complains about men’s wars, men trying to control women’s wombs, men not doing their share of housework and family care, how men are killing wives and children, blah, blah, blah
On the plus side she states she knows her judgments are “generalizations” (a euphemism for hateful, disturbing, sexist remarks towards men), but these disingenuous generalizations are good enough for her intellect to determine it is time for women to take charge. She sees men as having f***ed everything up.
Isn’t just like the female ego to know its judgments and analysis of a situation is wrong, but confident enough to know that in spite of its faults and vices, it’s still superior to anything a man can do?
Note: I will be writing more in-depth about these two articles in the near future. In the mean time, David Usher from Men’s News Daily has responded to Mrs. Jong’s harangue. His article can be found on this website in the “Featured Article of the Week” in the upper right hand corner.
Who’s Tired of Pink

FOXSexpert: Dissecting the Ultimate in Double-Dipping; Why Do People Cheat?
I have written previously about my dislike for female sex therapist. I feel they are closet feminist because most of their writings and opinions reveal sympathy for women and their issues, but display snide, insincere remarks about men when topics cross gender lines.
Previously I reported how Fox News “sexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright wrote about some gender issues with an obvious disdain toward men. Well, she is at it again.
In her most recent column she tackles the issue of infidelity. While the main article itself is kept gender neutral, Fulbright couldn’t keep from taking a cheap shot at men. At the end of her piece, she briefly covers topics in the news.
One topic covers the growing disparity between males and female in school and the well known trend of girls outperforming the boys in record numbers. Instead of showing concern over the inequality in academic performance and opportunity, she is spiteful and gleeful in the fact that women are outperforming the men. She states with unbridled enthusiasm that men can no longer be considered the smarter ones on the dating scene, and most disturbing, it seems to bring tears of joy to her eyes that men will not be able to compete with women for quality jobs.
She has pretty much validated my opinion about the underlying currents of contempt and hate female sex therapist have for men. And since bigotry breeds ignorance, it is obvious Fulbright is no “expert” at anything but ignorance. Most studies show that the more educated a man is the more likely he is to exhibit the very conscious behavior prescribed by women right’s advocates. A man who is educated is more likely to have greater self-esteem and a greater sense of self worth which leads to him:
— having the qualities women desire, such as respecting women as individuals
— having more empathy for their needs and concerns
— less likely to abuse his spouse or his children
— a strong interest in seeing her succeed in her passions
— less likely to become involved in criminal activity
But Fulbright’s ignorance and immaturity subjugates all logical reasoning. She would rather engage in playground politics than show any real concern for men and women.
Sadly, it’s all about satisfying her own ego.
FOXSexpert: Dissecting the Ultimate in Double-Dipping; Why Do People Cheat?

I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything In the World
The last article I want to share with you concerns the “malevolence to benevolence” tactic used by women to diminish or disguise their irresponsible or violent behavior.
This research concerns abortions – who is having them and why. It explains how women who have abortions feel compelled to do so out of sympathy for the unborn child, feeling the quality of life for the child will be a difficult one, and the ultimate choice – to abort -is one of ultimate compassion.
The research itself is insightful, but the researchers themselves can’t escape from being seduced into apologists for the female killings of the unborn. Here is the quote that caught my attention:

The findings demonstrate reasons why women have abortions throughout their reproductive lifespans and that their decisions to terminate pregnancies are often influenced by the desire to be a good parent.

Are you kidding me? Killing unborn children is an effective “good parenting” skill? If this is true, then women owe men an enormous apology.
Here are some things to think:
— Men are humiliated, shamed, ostrazized, and incarcerated for not being responsible to their children. Many men fear being a parent and the responsibility it entails; therefore they run from the situation. I’m not condoning their behavior, but this assessment is known to be generally true. So it amazes me that men who abandon fatherhood because they feel they are not emotionally or financially stable enough to care for their child are demonized for leaving the children fatherless, but ALIVE. At the same time, women who can’t handle the responsibility of a child, KILL the child, and receive sympathy and empathy.
— Women’s rights group are disturbed by countries that hold male children in veneration, thereby killing most female babies – in the womb or out. But according to this research on abortions, if true, then women’s right’s activists would have to conceded that they no longer have an argument that the practice of killing female children is despicable. In these same foreign countries, male children are seen as having the best quality of life. This is the same argument being made by these researchers. If we accept a woman’s decision not to bring a child into this world with respect to the quality of life as an important issue, them women’s rights advocates and others cannot hold foreign countries and their cultural beliefs to a different set of standards than others.
But I’ll bet the feminist ego finds an excuse why the two are “different”.
I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything In the World

January 14, 2008

Can’t Catch a Break – Unless You’re Female

Jessica Alba, other stars, show support at V-Day event
According to this article, the annual V-Day event, hosted be Glamour magazine, is celebrating its tenth anniversary. In this same time frame, the movement has raised 50 million dollars and has raised awareness about violence against women in 119 countries. Sadly, most of that time and money has been spent misinforming the public about women’s role in domestic violence. I can assume with certainty that V-Day organizers and supporters refused to mention female-on-male domestic statistics that show female violence on males in intimate relationships is happening at the same rates as male-on-female violence, and they will ignore that most of this female domestic violence is perpetrated by young women in the high school and college age ranges. Instead, their advocacy methods will call for more education in the school systems to warn young women about abusive men, letting 50% of society’s abusers of the hook.
Such is the environment of domestic violence advocates – creating and funding programs to help female domestic violence criminals hide, disguise, and avoid accountability for their violence towards men and children in their lives.
Our society hasn’t seen this kind of evil bigotry since whites denied seriously ill black people from receiving care at white hospitals because they weren’t their “own kind”.
Jessica Alba, other stars, show support at V-Day event

Why some women wear too much perfume
Another article displaying the creative ways in which the female ego will transform irresponsible female behavior towards others into a cause of sympathy and compassion for themselves. This article states that women who wear too much perfume aren’t being rude to others, their probably suffering from depression.
Question: Will women ever grow up and just take responsibility for their abhorrent behavior by just saying, “I f****ed up. Sorry, my fault.”?
Why some women wear too much perfume

Fear of Crying Unfair
This female writer is “crying” about how unfair the media and society responded towards Hillary Clinton’s crying episode. She uses the usual argument about how men are allowed to cry these days, and are rewarded for it, while women who cry are ostracized for it.
It is pretty much the usual bullshit that women are just sooooo wronged in our society. This quote gives you an idea of her warped, narrow-minded and sexist mentality:
The fact is, women are always in the wrong. Our culture is sexist and we don’t even see it.
After reading this article, one thought kept going through my head. With a sarcastic grin on my face, all I kept thinking was WELCOME TO MAN’S WORLD SWEETHEART.
Now just do what women like yourself always tell men in these same situations – shut up and get over it.
Fear of Crying Unfair

Young women choosing careers over love
The most blatant form of male sexism is present in this article. When men refuse to settle down and get married they are looked upon as immature, irresponsible, or most of all, they are called “commitment phobics”.
However, when women refuse to get married, it is transformed into a positive behavior: “I’m aggressively working on my career”.
Again the female ego proves how hypocritical and insensitive it is when comparing similar situations and realities between men and women.
Notice how women always find a great excuses for their behavior, but generally refuse to accept any excuses from men?
Here is a quote from a female psychologist excusing this changing female behavior:
“Women have been aware of the time pressure to establish themselves in a career before starting a family, because of the difficulty of starting this task in their thirties and forties,” she says. “I think what we are seeing in this study is the solidification of this trend”
How many men have been given this kind of serious understanding and compassion for not wanting to marry?
Young women choosing careers over love

Man, 82, On Oxygen Kicked Off Plane
In one of the most obvious distinctions between the way men and women are treated in society, this story says it all.
An 82 year old man who suffers from emphysema and congestive heart failure was kicked off a flight by US Airways officials for not having the proper paperwork for the oxygen tank.
What makes this story so remarkable is the lack of concern for men with respect to women in similar situations.
When Southwest Airlines forced a woman to cover up her provocative clothing on a flight last year, it made international headlines, resulting in the women appearing on numerous news and media outlets to address her “humiliation” and “shame” over her treatment by the airline. Eventually her exposure caught the attention of Playboy magazine which offered her a nude pictorial called “Legs in the Air” which she accepted (so much for her “humiliation and shame” speech).
There have also been numerous stories in the news concerning women being kicked out of public places for openly breast feeding their babies. This awareness has led to numerous states enacting legislation to protect the rights of breast feeding mothers, and has also led to lawsuits filed by the “humiliated” mothers.
However, when an elderly man, who suffers from serious debilitating and life threatening health issues, is kicked off a commercial flight because he does not have the proper paperwork for his life-supporting oxygen tank, it fails to make national headlines.
One can safely assume it’s because the victim is male. Our society has a hard time finding sincere emotions for male victims.
Does it get any more sexist than this?
Man, 82, On Oxygen Kicked Off Plane

January 11, 2008

My Response to a Female Reader

Today I went to see what was happening at Glenn Sacks website. Glenn posted a response from a female reader regarding a column he wrote with respect to a recent article from Gloria Steinem.
Both articles can be found here.
The woman, a female scientist named Besty Barton, wrote that while she does not agree with Steinem, she feels she makes some relevant points.
Read her posting here before you read my response (you may have to scroll to find it).
(I’ve also corrected all my typo’s from the original)

Betsy Barton,
I have to vehemently disagree with you on a couple of points. The assumption has been made that men hold almost all the power and women have very little. The truth is, if you look closely at how men must achieve and use their power, it favors women more than men.
A man may have a better chance of reaching the White House than a woman, but he cannot get there without the support of the female population. The same situation you complained about:

And women essentially never succeed without powerful male supporters.

If I am involved in a big project and I want to do something radical within it, I generally will privately enlist the support and cooperation of a man, who then becomes the public supporter of whatever it is I want to do. I have tried it both ways, and the behind-the-scenes way is essentially always more successful for me. Maybe this is not fully a gender issue, but many of us believe that it is.

A man running for office cannot achieve his goal without enlisting the help of women. Recent history has shown, once in the White House, he will be prone to favor legislation that creates or utilizes resources for female issues while ignoring male issues. This is because actual voting power lies with women, not with men. It is women, not men that harbor more registered voters, and vote more consistently, and in greater numbers than men. This is why legislation that would favor only males never receives serious consideration, unless that legislation concerns putting more men behind bars. This type of “male only” public policy is favored by more politicians than any other.
My next point: Hillary Clinton is the first women to have a legitimate shot at the White House. She is also a self declared feminist. Do you think a men’s rights activist would even be considered seriously by women, or society in general? I can assume with confidence that he would be seen as some misogynist radical, and would never be taken seriously. However, a woman who aligns herself with a movement that has historically maligned men, fathers, and families, is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. The picture becomes clear: if you’re a man and you want to succeed in public office, your powers are better served supporting female issues and causes rather than male issues and causes (excluding crime) because it is political suicide if you don’t.

“…anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects ‘only’ the female half of the human race”

If successful women have strong opinions, the are demonized and considered you-know-whats. The weak, wishy-washy women are sometimes promoted, and in my opinion this may be because they are not threatening.

I’m going to challenge you here with two simple examples to think about. First, if society really devalues the feminine side of issues and places more value on the male side, then why the strong push in public opinion to force men to “get in touch” with their feminine side?
This is usually a one way street: men must sacrifice their masculinity to “fix” themselves, but women do not need to sacrifice their femininity to become a better person. It creates the allusion that femininity is superior to masculinity. While speaking from my own personal experience, I have yet to see a societal movement to force women to “get in touch” with their masculine side in order to “fix” femininity. Most women (and a number of men) see masculinity as defective, and in order to correct it, it must be done with the infusion of femininity. I have yet to see this argument made with the genders reversed. This is why I think you and society see strong women as bitchy. It is because women themselves are offended by a woman that is acting masculine. It means she must be defective in some way. As I pointed out earlier, men who are sensitive to women’s issues are seen by women and society as in touch with their feminine side. They are viewed as a man who has “fixed” himself, one who has transformed from a defective man into a “better” and more “trustworthy” man. People are reporting in political circles that Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire because she won the hearts of female voters by allowing herself to cry in public – a feminine trait.

But overall, is it not the case that we think the things men traditionally do are “important” and that the things women traditionally do are not?

This needs to be more defined.
If what you call “important” are career, status, and financial independence, then I think those have been traditionally what everybody has wanted. However, until the women’s movement, those things could only be achieved by men directly, and for women, they could only be achieved indirectly by way of men and marriage. Women have that opportunity today.
But if we include raising children, then I feel this has taken precedence over money and status in our current environment. I consistently read about women who have left their careers behind to raise children, and proclaim this job to be the most rewarding one of all. I also have read about how our children ARE the future, how our children have become our nation’s greatest commodity, and how our children are seen as our greatest measure of who we are as parents, as a community, and as a nation.
The job of raising and nurturing our most precious commodity has traditionally been in the hands of women. From conception, to toddlers, to pre-school, through grammar school, and through high school, our greatest gift is left in the hands of women. Fifty years ago I do not think men realized how important this job was, but I know men realize it today. Studies show more men trying to find work that allows them to spend more time with their children, and on a personal scale, children and family now compete with a man’s career as top priority. For men today, a combination of career and family are the most important components of their lives – the same as today’s women. Fifty years ago I would have agreed with your statement above – today, no. Traditional male work and traditional female work is seen equally as valuable to individual and collective happiness.

Another angle I want to leave you with comes not from me, but from a friend of mine, Tim Goldich, who has researched and written about sexual politics. After almost twenty years of research he has concluded that the power between men and women does balance out in the long run. He has drawn one underlying current present in all gender issues. That is “men are more respected than loved, and women are more loved than respected”. Each gender sacrifices – consciously or unconsciously – one for the other. This is why both genders point fingers at one another. Let me over generalize it:
Men enjoy being more respected, however, they sacrifice being loved on the same level as women which leads to less compassion, understanding, and sympathy for their own issues. Women on the other hand, are more loved and enjoy being more loved – it’s important to them; therefore, society is more sensitive and moved by their issues and tragedies than men’s, and society is more eager to sacrifice something for them rather than men. Remember the old saying “Women and children first”, it is a perfect example of this belief. But what women sacrifice for this unconditional love is respect. Women are seen as having an abundance of love, therefore we take away a level of respect away from the female voice – to ensure balance of power between the sexes. Neither behavior is fair, but Tim’s theory points out that it does all balance out in the end. One way to correct this disparity is for society to show more compassion for men and their issues. This needs to be done by both men and women. And society will in turn naturally show more respect for women.
As you said in your post,

Both genders will suffer if we continue to let it go on.

Yes, men’s issues are women’s issues and women’s issues are men’s issues also. If we do not come together on this it will never change. However, I do feel women like Gloria Steinem only inflame the gender wars. As long as she and others are out there doing what they do best, disparaging men and masculinity, I will be here defending it.
Maybe more women like you, open-minded and compassionate, need to rise up and take over the reigns of the feminist movement?

Best wishes,

J. Soltys

January 10, 2008

Gender Wars – Claiming Victim Status

I ran across this article about a week ago. It triggered some questions for me, and also brought about some relevant points issues I feel men face in the media and society.
The story is about women in the military and the mental health issues they are face due to the violence and hardships of war. It explains how we have traditionally focused on men, but we must now deal with helping women and their unique issues related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health related issues. Let me be unequivocal in stating that I honor all men and women who sacrifice their physical and mental health in the best interest of this country and its citizens. What I am going to say is not meant to diminish the hardships our brave military women endure, but to show why I don’t trust advocates for women issues because of their unequal reactions to similar issues concerning men and women.
What irritated me most about this article is the ever present battle for victim status perpetrated by women issue advocates and their supporters (almost always female journalist) when men and women have the unfortunate opportunity to suffer from the same tragedy. In this case, it is the tragedies of war, and the article wants to establish how our female soldiers are suffering more than our men. It says,

Women are barred from ground jobs in infantry, armor and artillery units and are technically confined to support roles. But those jobs include some of the most dangerous: driving supply convoys, guarding checkpoints and searching women as part of neighborhood patrols.

I’m not going to deny that any role in a war zone is dangerous, but I find it hard to believe that going door to door flushing out trained fighters in classical urban warfare carries the same dangers and mental overload as delivering supplies. But what is stranger is the writer’s contradiction. She also states,

Although some of those women suffered PTSD, few saw actual fighting or were subjected to the stress of multiple deployments.

So I’m confused. Are women really suffering on the same level as men, or has the writer unknowingly accused women of being mentally weaker than men?
But then the article gets to its real purpose. If women issue advocates cannot successfully argue that women of war deserve more sympathy and a higher victimization status as men, then it must resort to its old tricks – copious doses of how evil men are.
The article discusses how women are greater victims of war due to women being subjected to numerous acts of criminal sexual behavior by fellow male soldiers. The article states,

For some, combat trauma is complicated and intensified by rape or other sexual abuse, often by comrades they’ve trained and fought beside. The VA says 20% of women seeking its care since 2002 showed symptoms of military sexual trauma, compared with 1.1% of male veterans. Many say they were preyed upon by men higher in the chain of command, crimes military women call “rape by rank.”

I am not going to say that criminal sexual behavior is not a problem in the military, but I do know that some research on this subject has proven some of the claims made by women issue advocates do not hold up under scrutiny.
For instance, this very article makes a claim I know to be unsubstantiated, yet has proliferated among feminist. The article states,

Some women in Iraq risked dehydration by refusing to drink liquids late in the day for fear of being raped while walking to latrines after dark.

Other reports have made the claim that some military women have actually died due to dehydration for fear of having to visit the latrines at night because,

There were male soldiers lying in wait out there for the women soldiers. They would pull them into the latrines, abuse them and rape them. When word of this spread, the women became afraid to go out.

This female writer – and other feminist writers – forget to inform their readers about some very important information concerning where that claim originated, or the controversies surrounding it. The accusations came from Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the same woman who was the commander in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, and eventually demoted by the military for her mismanagement and denial of the abuses. Her claim of women dying from dehydration, and the accusation of men stalking latrines at night to rape women, didn’t surface until after her demotion. She claims,

Because the women, in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the portatoilets or the latrines, were not drinking liquids after 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. And in 120-degree heat or warmer, because there was no air conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep. And rather than make everybody aware of that, because that’s shocking — and as a leader, if that’s not shocking to you, then you’re not much of a leader — so what they told the surgeon to do was, “Don’t brief those details anymore. And don’t say specifically that they’re women. You can provide that in a written report, but don’t brief it in the open anymore.”

But according to Women’s eNews,

Lory Manning, director of the Women in the Military project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute in Arlington, Va., says Karpinski’s story lacks credibility and appears to be an attempt to strike back at a system that sacrificed her while sparing superiors. “She’s really angry,” Manning said. “She feels like she was left to hang out to dry by her bosses.”

And the same article also states,

Anita Sanchez, spokesperson for the Miles Foundation, an organization in Newtown, Conn., that combats violence against women in the military, called Karpinski’s allegations about the cover-up of the deaths of female soldiers “questionable at best.”

Both Manning and Sanchez point out in the article,

Citing figures released by the Pentagon, Sanchez said no female master sergeants have died in Iraq. Of the more than 50 women who have died there, only two have died from illness, she said. The rest of the deaths arose from hostile fire or a variety of other causes including vehicular accidents, accidental gun discharge, possible suicide and other injuries.
Manning also noted that dehydration is not likely to cause death within a single day, even in a climate as hot as in the Middle East. But it can cause urinary tract infections, she noted, a problem that has caused discomfort for many female troops in Iraq. Manning added that Karpinski’s testimony is based entirely on one unnamed source: a medical doctor who has not come forward to corroborate Karpinski’s allegation. Karpinski says she cannot recall the doctor’s name.

I truly believe that some women are being sexually assaulted in the military, and it is our responsibility as men to make sure we do are part to help eradicate this behavior. However, finding the truth about rapes and sexual assaults is difficult because both men and women are going to deny any accusations projected towards them when evidence is limited. But feminist can’t get over seeing men only as liars and perpetrators, and women as angelic and victims; therefore the problem can never be honestly addressed.
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness wrote about how feminist and the media failed to follow up on one of the military’s most recognized scandals – Tailhook.
Let me share with you what she wrote concerning how most people ignored the eventual findings of the investigation:

While navy men saw careers sunk over being at the wrong party at the wrong time, some Navy women walked away from more serious offenses without a scratch. Take, in particular, Ensign Elizabeth Warnick, who accused Lieutenant Cole Cowden of attempting, with two other men, to gang-rape her. Under oath, Ensign Warnick admitted she had concocted the entire story to keep her fianci from learning she had willingly engaged in sex with Cowden, and had allowed men to drink “belly shots” from her navel. Despite the Navy’s stated policy forbidding false accusations, Ensign Warnick received nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Disciplinary authorities failed to pursue other Navy women known to have participated in some of Tailhook’s more outlandish party traditions. Lieutenant Rolando Diaz, who shaved women’s legs in public, was prosecuted for “conduct unbecoming an officer,” but three female officers whose legs he shaved were not disciplined on an equal basis. Indeed, one of those three customers, according to Diaz, was none other than Paula Coughlin, who showed her appreciation by signing a banner with “You made me see God. The Paulster.” (This is the same media-savvy assault victim who had been invited to the White House to be consoled by George Bush.)
When her own case, one of just two assault cases brought to court martial, was finally brought to court, it crumbled. After first identifying the photograph of a man who had not even attended Tailhook as her assailant, Lieutenant Coughlin picked a Marine captain out of a line-up. But she said she remembered the captain wore an orange shirt, whereas a picture from Saturday night showed him in a green “Raging Rhino” T-shirt (the rhino is his squadron’s mascot). That, plus alibi witnesses, doomed Tailhook’s most celebrated case.

And consider this statistic I came across,

A 1992-93 study of female vets from the Gulf War and earlier revealed 90% said they experienced sexual harassment while in the military. Sexual harassment included anything from being pressured for sex to being stared at or relentlessly teased.

Being stared at constitutes sexual harassment? This reminds me of early feminist research on domestic violence, where female researchers asked women if they ever feared their spouse. If any women said yes, she was labeled a victim of domestic violence – translation: inflated numbers.

My point: It seems to me that men are victimized by a “competition” in which we compete for “victim” status with women when faced with the same crisis. Women want to lay claim to being the greater victim; therefore, sympathy, compassion, understanding, and resources generated towards helping all victims is disproportionally favored towards women.
There is an obvious disparity between men suffering war casualties versus the women, with men suffering in greater numbers, but women advocates want to not only raise awareness to the hardships of females – something I agree with – but also burden our suffering men with gender politics by trying to minimize their right to the same compassion, sympathy and resources as our women through lies and unsubstantiated claims.
Their hypocrisy is evident in domestic violence cases. Men’s advocates have pointed out the disparity concerning acknowledgement of attention and resources for male victims of domestic violence compared to female victims, with male victims discovering all resources consumed by female victims. Feminist counter its “in the numbers” meaning the number of female victims out-number the male victims; therefore, in fairness, women should receive most of the resources. But by their very own philosophy, it would require them to ignore the tragedies of female soldiers because their numbers “don’t add up”, but as we see, this is not the case.

This is why, as a men’s rights advocate, I get trapped in mixed feelings – wanting to help men as well as women in similar situations, but finding I reserve my sympathy for women victims due to the behavior of women’s right advocates and their desire to “out victimize” men.
In the meantime, my prayers are with all of our service personal – men and women equally. If I can’t beat the inequities perpetuated by feminist, I’m sure as hell not going to join them.

Mental toll of war hitting female servicemembers
Karpinski Raises Doubts About Military Sex Assault
Female Soldiers Died of Dehydration Rather Than Risk Sexual Assault
The Tailhook scandals – how the Navy’s sexual harassment investigation case was mishandled

January 8, 2008

Blame the Victim? – Men Are Easy Targets

Blaming the victim is gutless, heartless, compassionless, and unequivocally a biased and damaging judgment that further complicates an already delicate and volatile situation. However, this belief is reserved only for women. If you are a man, blaming the victim is perfectly acceptable.
After the mauling death of a young man at the San Francisco Zoo and the mauling of his friends by one of the zoo’s tigers, the reaction from the investigators, zoo officials, and the public court of opinion is that the young men MUST have taunted the tiger. This included reports that an empty vodka bottle was found in the car belonging to the victims, and footprints on the rails of the enclosure.
The New York Post reported,
“The discoveries could be an indication that the brothers may have taunted the 350-pound Siberian tiger before it leapt from its grotto.”
From Manuel Mollinedo, executive director of the zoo, who has vehemently denied the zoo is unsafe,
“Something prompted our tiger to leap over the exhibit.”
From one of the most reputable and respected men in zoology, Jack Hannah,
“Virtually impossible.” when asked if the tiger could have gotten out on its own. He then continued to imply the victims must have taunted the animal, and even went so far as to assume the victims helped the tiger get out by putting a board in the moat to aid in its escape.
So how did these accusations against the young men, and the subsequent blaming the victims formulate?
From one woman’s account of what she saw that day.
It appears a woman named Jennifer Miller was at the zoo with her family when she saw four young men approach the tiger’s grotto. She gave this statement after she heard about the attacks:
“The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them. They were trying to get that lion’s attention. … The lion was bristling, so I just said, ‘Come on, let’s get out of here’ because my kids were disturbed by it.”

From what I have read, this seems to be the only “hard evidence” against these boys. But wait, there is more. A rumor has surfaced that the surviving boys made a “pact” in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. According to unnamed sources at The Chronicle,
“[T]he brothers made a pact while in the ambulance after they were mauled by the tiger. “Don’t tell them what we did,” Kulbir, 23, reportedly told his brother, Paul, 19.

So the evidence against these boys is; (1) one person’s account that they were roaring at the tiger, trying to get its attention; (2) they may have been drinking alcohol before the attack; (3) a shoe print on the rail surrounding the grotto; (4) an unsubstantiated claim of a “pact” to suppress the facts.
This is all the evidence they have?

Now, let’s break it down.
First, the woman who allegedly saw them taunting the tiger reported four young males when there was only three.
Second, what these young men were doing, roaring at the animal to get its attention, is no different than what happens everyday, at every zoo across this country.
Third, so what if they were drinking alcohol? If zoos across this country are concerned with drunk patrons taunting animals, then why do most zoos sell alcohol on the premises?
Fourth, a shoe print on the railing? How many dads lift their kids up onto the railings of the grottos to get a better view? And how do we know that the one of the victims did not try to scale the railing in a futile attempt to get away.
And fifth, why the hell is anybody giving serious weight to this “secret pact” rumor. I’m supposed to believe that these two young men, in front of witnesses, made a secret pact among themselves. Sounds a little absurd to think that this secret pact was hashed out and executed in the presence of numerous witnesses.

Now let’s begin with what we do know.
First, this same tiger attacked a handler last year eating away most of her arm in the presence of horrified children and families before being subdued. According to the zoo director in his most recent comments, he is adamant that this tiger would not have behaved in the way it did in unless it was provoked. Is he implying his own handler provoked the attack last year?
Second, it was discovered the zoo’s grotto walls were not in compliance with safety standards. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the guidelines for tiger grotto walls should be around 16 feet. The point where the tiger is assumed to have scaled the grotto wall is only 12 feet. And it was found the polar bear grottos do not meet required safety standards also. According to Lloyd Kraal, a former employee at the San Francisco zoo, he was fired after complaining about the safety issues surrounding the zoo’s grotto walls.
Third, authorities say they have no intention of filing any charges at this time. However, if charges are filed, taunting of a zoo animal is a simple misdemeanor.
Fourth, it is the responsibility of the zoo to ensure the safety of its patrons – period. Regardless of any patron’s behavior, the zoo has the responsibility to account not only for the safety of its patrons, but also the safety of the animals themselves. Think about it: The purpose of a zoo is to take wild, unpredictable animals and put them in captivity for our enjoyment – danger is a fundamental element of the zoo business and environment.
Ronald Tilson, director of conservation at the Minnesota Zoo had this to say about tigers in general,

“They can inflict real severe damage, if not kill you, because they are trained to do that. They are unpredictable and they have all of the accessories to get the job done. Anything can set them off. They can wake up having just a bad hair day. And they see mammals as nothing more than a piece of meat.”

It appears Tilson and San Francisco’s zoo director have different views on the behavior of tigers. But then again, Tilson isn’t looking at a multi- million dollar lawsuit, so his honesty is refreshing.

My point: I feel the only reason we are seeing the victims being blamed for what happened to them is because they are male. I don’t believe if the victims were female we would be subjected to this kind of “blaming the victims” and the corresponding feeling of “they deserved it” sweeping the media and the public. I feel if the genders were reversed, the investigators, the zoo officials, and the media would be taking a much more compassionate approach. I suspect we would be reading something more along these lines in the media:

The tragedy at the San Francisco zoo, where three innocent women were horrendously attacked by a monstrous, vicious tiger is still under investigation. While there is some evidence that the women may have provoked the attack, investigators and zoo officials want to stress that the evidence is scarce, and mostly unsubstantiated. Both are asking the public not to rush to judgment and blame these innocent women for this tragedy, but more importantly, hold these women and their families in your prayers while the investigation continues.

I am willing to bet the talk of criminal charges against the victims would not even be considered if the victims were female. Everyone involved would agree that these women have suffered enough already, and charging them with a criminal act would be further victimizing them.

Reality Headline: “Avoid blaming the victim – Men need not apply.”

Zoo attack survivors’ attorney decries ‘character assassination’
San Francisco Zoo Director Defends Staff Amid Tiger Attack Victim’s Criticism, Police Probe Alcohol Link
SF Zoo tiger Attack: 30 Memorable Quotes

January 7, 2008

Female Sex Therapist and Pseudo Trends

Recently I wrote how I do not like female sex therapist. Today I will reiterate that position.
Dr. Laura Berman is a sex therapist from the Chicago area and I’ve read many of her columns. She is the quintessential apologist for all women’s vices and faults, and can usually be found dripping with a bleeding heart for the women’s side of the story when it comes to gender issues and gender politics. While I know she will not admit it, if one reads enough of her columns, she displays the usual “men are naturally evil and women are naturally good” mentality.
Today’s column is a perfect example of what I’m talking about:

Did suburb wife join trend, run from bad union?

She writes about Anu Solanki, the young married woman of Indian descent who faked her abduction to escape her marriage. I wrote about various stories similar to this one last week, and how there seems to be a trend among women to lie their way out of irresponsible and destructive behavior.
Dr. Berman gives a different opinion on why Mrs. Solanki ran away. She implies it was due to an abusive marriage:
Despite her husband’s assertions to the police that their marriage was happy, it seems Solanki felt differently. Like many women in similar situations, she ran away. While her reasons for discontent are still a mystery, women often choose to run from an abusive marriage rather than face their partners’ wrath. This is understandable, as statistics show that the most dangerous point of an abusive relationship is when a woman tries to leave.
Dr. Berman is entitled to her opinion as to why SOME women run away, but to imply Mrs. Solanski fled due to abuse is completely false. According to the Associated Press, Mrs. Solanki never claimed abuse as an issue for her escape. The AP reported:
Anu Solanki told authorities she never meant for people to think she’d drowned and simply wanted a clean break from her husband. She said she was not a victim of abuse, but regretted the marriage. She also apologized.

And according to the IndiaPost, a news organization that tracks news related to India and its people throughout the world,
There were no serious problems between them excepting a few squabbles that happen practically in all marriages, he said. Even Anu is believed to have confirmed Dignesh’s version to the authorities stating that he was neither abusive nor cruel to her. She just wanted a break from the marriage as she was not feeling happy.

The Chicago Sun-Times, the same newspaper in which Dr. Berman appears (does she read the newspaper she writes for?), reported in an interview with the husband:
A day before she vanished, his wife told him she wanted to have a baby, he said. He now thinks it was a ruse to convince him nothing was wrong between them, he said.

For Dr. Berman to imply that Anu Solanki and other women predominatley fake their dissappearances due to abuse is immoral and unethical. Where is her research to back up this claim?
Why didn’t Dr. Berman mention that Mrs. Solanski stated abuse was not an issue? That would have been the responsible thing to do.
Her assumption results in another unjustified attack on a good man. Mr. Solanki is now assumed in the public court of opinion to be a domestic abuser.

Dr. Berman displays she is the typical female apologist I’ve known her to be, and by doing so, tries to diminish the irresponsible behavior of Mrs. Solanki and women in similar situations.
She tries to manipulate the public opinion by generating a misappropriated feeling a sympathy for these women rather than responsibility, while at the same time generating suspicion and contempt for men.

But is there really a “trend” of women leaving relationships due to abuse and other issues. In her writing she lays heavy on the accusations that MEN, religion, and societal pressures are the components responsible for this “recent trend” in women’s behavior.
Her are some of the most recent headlines concerning women who have lied to their families, husbands, and communities:

Pregnant attorney admits kidnap tale was a lie
Butler Girl Admits Kidnapping Story Was Fake
Rape claim was cover for cheating on husband, charges allege
Woman who cried ‘rape’ may have to pay back county
Woman faked her own kidnapping: police

None of these situations concerned abuse, or other issues except bad decsions by the women themselves. So there really is no “trend” of abused women having to fake abductions in order to leave their husbands and families. It is just merely women taking an irresponsible approach towards towards trying to solve various problems in their lives.
But because Dr. Berman is a female apologist, she doesn’t like to see women treated like adults (Re: Men) and have to take responsibility for their actions. Instead she chooses to enable them so that women never really learn how to maturely analyze and resolve serious issues in their lives. Dr. Berman’s method assures that this behavior will happen again, and assures “trends” will develop because there are no consequences for those who women who engage in this behavior – only safety, compassion, and protection. She also helps place a bigger burden of suspicion and distrust on the men in these situations through the implication that women who fake their abductions are looking to escape abusive relationships.

My point: I feel most female sex therapist harbor sexist beliefs and attitudes towards men. As a man, I would be critical to accept their interpretation of situations and research. If you find some of their information useful, God bless you. But I think you will find, as I do, that most of them have only female interest at heart. They could care less about the well-being of men.
I think Dr. Berman makes that very clear.

Did suburb wife join trend, run from bad union?
Illinois Man Surprised Wife Ran Off
Mystery solved; Anu had eloped
‘I completely trusted her’

Here is another opinion on women who disappear:
Three things about the Anu Solanki story

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.