J. Soltys's Weblog

July 30, 2008

More Distorted Research From Relationship Violence Advocates

Recently, many news outlets ran a story concerning the results of a survey indicating how prevalent dating violence and abuse was among “tweens and teens in our society. According to a report by CNN:

Sixty-nine percent of teens who had sex by age 14 reported some type of abuse in a relationship, with slightly more than one-third saying they had been physically abused, according to the survey, conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited.

The survey was intended to raise awareness, particularly for parents, to this hidden crisis among our youth. But as I have written before, many studies done by domestic violence awareness advocates, and similar groups, are seriously flawed, distorted, or discriminatory towards males.
It appears this study can be added to the “junk science” pile.

According to Benjamin Radford, the “Bad Science Columnist” at the website LiveScience.com who’s job it is to review research making the news, this study is deeply flawed.
He states;

Parents may want to remove their fingers from the panic button and take a closer look at the study. Some of the most alarming statistics are misleading.

What Radford found alarming was how easily the numbers became distorted from the type of questions the survey asked. For instance, one question asked the respondent if he or she has ever experienced being called a derogatory name by a dating partner. If they answered yes, it was recorded as dating abuse.
As a former teenager, and the current father of a teenage daughter, this behavior is common among adolescents. So as Radford points out, of course the numbers are going to be huge, but shocking?
I always thought that society expects this behavior from adolescents, and society also expects that this will be the most trying time to teach them proper behavior and how their behavior affects others. I always thought this was called growing up, or the natural maturing process – not a crisis.
So the question becomes, “Is it fair to classify immature adolescent behavior as abusive, or should we tread more carefully when labeling various types of adolescent behavior?”
If not, we will see a crisis everywhere, and open up the possibility of overreacting towards all adolescent behavior, including labeling teenagers who do not clean their rooms as displaying signs of serious depression, or teenagers who are rebellious against their parents as having serious anger and authority issues, or teenagers who lie to their parents about who they were with, what they did, and why they came home late as having serious moral and discipline issues.
Where do we draw the line between what is normal and expected behavior versus what is abnormal behavior? Determining this could cause more problems if we don’t add some rational thought into the process.

Another serious flaw Radford points out is that the survey used questions that asked if “you or somebody you know has experienced…” which leads to inflated and distorted numbers. Adolescents are notorious for gossip, so how did the analysis of the survey dissect fact from fiction?
This is not known.

Radford also discusses how this type of questioning can lead to serious distortions:

It doesn’t take into account multiple reporting of the same incident among survey respondents. For example, let’s say there’s a fight at a high school and someone gets stabbed. If you later take a survey of students at the school and ask them if they know or heard about anyone who was stabbed, hundreds of people will say yes. But that doesn’t mean that hundreds of people were stabbed, it just means that all of the people asked had heard about the one person who was attacked.

What is also alarming about this study, and studies similar to them, is that when the media reports on them, some news organizations will include pictures or stories of individuals that have dealt with abusers in their relationships along with the report, and those individuals are always females. It projects a false image that it is always men who are the perpetrators of abuse. CBS News and Katie Couric did just that when this report was released, in spite of growing research that shows females are as likely as males to be abusive in relationships:

Male And Female Adolescents Equally Victims Of Physical Dating Violence, Study Shows
Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence, UNH Expert Says

Sadly, the programs that are implemented into our nations school systems to deal with dating violence are developed and structured on this myth that females are almost always the victims, and males are almost always the abusers. I’ve been told some programs actually focus exclusively on demanding young males denounce violence towards women, while the similar issue of female dating violence towards males is ignored.
It sends a clear message to young men that their emotional and physical safety, as well as their overall well-being does not carry the same concern or value as that of women. It also generates a very egregious implication to the young and impressionable minds of our males and females that violence towards males, particularly by females, does not need to be taken seriously.

Radford includes a statement in his critique of the study that is worth mentioning:

There may indeed be “shocking horrors” in teen dating, but these particular statistics do not reflect them. Teen dating violence and domestic abuse are serious issues, and deserve both credible research methods and good journalism.

I can’t agree with him more.

One final note: As far as I can tell, the study appears to have been released to the press before it had the chance to be reviewed by other professional researchers, something that is required to attain credibility in serious research environments. One can only wonder why is was not done.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

July 22, 2008

Another Double Standard Gone Unnoticed

In New Jersey recently, a man was arrested for having pornography openly displayed in his car. According to NBC10:

New Jersey State Police arrested a 47-year-old man, whose allegedly display of a topless Barbie doll and explicit porn magazines inside his car caused a stir at a Garden State Parkway rest area.
Robert Martin, of Dennis Township, N.J., had women’s underwear on a platter, in addition to the naked doll on the dashboard of his car, investigators said.
New Jersey State Police arrested Martin early Wednesday morning and charged him with maintaining a public nuisance. They arrested him after he parked the car at the service plaza. He’s done that for months, in order to catch a ride to his job at a boat yard in Atlantic City.

As it turns out, a woman who works at the rest area said visitors have been complaining for sometime now about Martin’s car, so she checked it out herself and decided to call the police. She stated:

“Very explicit pornography. It was a mixture of pornography, a Bible, cross, it was all laid out perfectly. Nobody should have to really be exposed to that.”

At first I brushed this story off as one of those “weird news” stories that the press likes embed within more serious news stories. But it then triggered my memory about a story from a few years ago.
Back in 2005, the Harvard University campus was awash in a fresh layer of snow after a winter storm. Some of the male students became bored and decided to venture outside and create a giant snowman. After thinking about it, the men decided that a snowman was too boring and unchallenging, so they decided a greater challenge and eye-catching creation – and extremely funny one – would be a giant snow penis. That’s a nine foot penis!

It turns out, a giant snow penis is not a great idea. Seems it greatly offended some people on campus. Not other male students, and not the average female student. Think Larry Summers.
Right! The feminists.

Two female students took great offense to the frigid, menacing phallic symbol, and after fetching a couple of shovels (Spade shovels? Another phallic symbol?), perniciously swung away until the massive threat was obliterated.
According to the two female students:

“The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not.”

One of Harvard’s women’s studies professors chimed in reminding society of the ominous, oppressive, and destructive penis laced environment that surrounds women. She stated:

“The snow penis follows a long line of public phallic symbols, including the Washington Monument and missiles.”

Missiles are intentional phallic symbols? And here I thought they were shaped that way due to the physics involved with aerodynamics and propulsion.
It’s now obvious to me why feminists choose gender studies instead of math and sciences as their majors in college.
(Side note: Also, does this mean men should register their anatomy as a deadly weapon? If this is true, this simple act may diminish the number of men from suffering a mid-life crisis. Who needs corvettes and young women to raise one’s self-esteem when being able to carrying a federal I.D card with a picture of one’s anatomy describing it as “deadly” will do the trick!)

My first impression of these two stories is that the men involved did not think through the potential impact their actions would have on others. While I don’t see either action as harmless, I do not find it extremely threatening as the women in the stories allege.
Some will say “boys will be boys”, and to a point I agree. But what happens when “girls are being girls”?
I’m talking about public bachelorette parties.

I’ve spent many nights in crowded, public dance clubs, and every year, especially around this time, one can find young professional women entering clubs across the nation decorated profusely with penis shaped hats, wearing penis shaped noses, armed for serious drinking with their penis straws, and at least one woman (sometimes two) sporting a large inflatable penis under her arm. Usually the present club they enter is not the first club they have visited for the evening, nor will it be the last. For hours these women have been parading around the streets of some busy, populated, and active city dressed in similar, previously labeled, ominous, oppressive, misogynist attire, dancing individually and collectively with their giant penis in front of numerous strangers, drinking merrily from their penis straws as many strangers watch, and snapping numerous pictures of themselves enjoying their phallic induced evening for many future laughs and memories.
And yet by the end of the evening, not one woman (or man) will complain, become irate, or raise her voice about how offensive this embedded cultural display is to women. Nor will any woman raise her voice about the double standard men face; continuously shunning them for having the audacity to display the penis as an act of their own humor or enjoyment, while giving women a big “you go girl” for doing the same.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of stories like these is that the women doing the most complaining about men and phallic symbols are usually the same women who have (or will in the future) sucked an amaretto stone sour through a penis straw, grappled with an inflatable penis while dancing to “Get Jiggy Wit It” on a crowded stage, and walked the public streets for a few hours in their high heels and penis noses and did not give a damn if anybody was offended – all in the name of girl fun.
But OH MY GOD if the boys do it.

I guess girls will be girls.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

July 17, 2008

“Sexpert” Or Sexist?

As I stated previously, since I came back from vacation last week, I’m trying to get caught up on news stories. This has led me to find a handful of stories that show what I feel is a strong anti-male sentiment in the media and society.
In my last article, I revealed what I felt was a negative bias towards men by the CNN news network.
Today I will continue another story that I feel displays the same characteristics as CNN.

FOXSexpert: Do Men Really Have More Partners Than Women?
I have previously written how I do not trust female sex therapist. The reason being, most seem unable to show any sincere feelings for men and their issues.
For instance, a while back I read an article by a female sex therapist where she reported that a study found women today are less likely to use condoms as compared to years before. Her reasoning did not include that women today are acting more irresponsible, but instead concluded that because of the wage gap between men and women, women cannot afford condoms as easily as men.
Women today are more financially secure than previous generations, and more educated than previous generations, so excuse me for saying that her reasoning is a load of crap. And if I were to except this excuse, then it automatically absolves many men of the responsibility for not using a condom and enduring an unwanted pregnancy by providing a perfect excuse – I had no money for a condom.
But for our men in society, we would never allow them to use that excuse. Instead, we tell them that if you can’t afford the responsibility, then you shouldn’t be having sex – keep it in your pants!
What a difference.

In this Fox News article by “sexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright, she takes on the conflict found in sex surveys concerning the large difference in the numbers of sexual partners between men and women.
Historically, men have reported more partners than women. Some experts have reasoned this disparity exists because men include prostitutes, exaggerate their numbers, or just plain lie. Therefore, the research becomes skewed.
Fulbright discusses these reasons, and others, to find why the disparity exists.
But she can’t seem to do so without degrading and disparaging men.

Her first off-color remark directed at men is presented while she discusses a commonly held belief that evolution explains men’s promiscuity:

After all, evolutionary argument argues that men are supposed to be promiscuous. That’s what allows them to spread their seed in their effort to guarantee the success of the human race. Women, on the other hand, need to take care of the offspring with those few suckers — I mean, fine gents — who are willing to stick around and help out.

What is that supposed to mean? Does it imply that fatherhood is for suckers? Or does it perpetuate the sexist stereotype that men are likely to run from parental responsibility and abandon the mother and child? Or is Fulbright an over-achiever, skillfully implying both defamatory beliefs in one sentence?
If she wants to take a cheap shot and make generalizations about men, then I would expect a similar cheap shot generalizing women on the same level somewhere in the article in order to show she does not harbor anti-male sentiments.

The next headline reads in bold face:

Men are either pigs or just plain lucky.

Pigs? One would think a professional writer would be apprehensive about using such a derogatory statement, but not Fulbright.

But wait, maybe I’m wrong. She then makes this statement:

While unfair social notions want to chalk men up as pigs on this matter, researchers warn that male sexual antics do not explain the great gender divide in sexual histories.

At first I gave her the benefit of the doubt, feeling she was trying to defend men against this sexist stereotype, but it becomes apparent later in the article how differently she defends the sexist stereotyping of men as compared to women. Further along in the article, she discusses how some women just “forget” to count certain sexual encounters which causes the disparity in sex surveys. At first it appears she is defending men – until I thought about it:

To further take the heat off the men, let’s not overlook her mental lapses in recall. Hers, however, are probably more intentional. This is most ironic given the aforementioned research finding on name recall. Thanks to the double standard issue of women being “sluts” — instead of “studs” like men when it comes to sleeping around — counting up her total to date is a very sensitive matter.

I have a problem with her conclusions at this point. Let me explain my position.

First, she has no problem using the term “pigs”, noting that society has used this term exclusively for men, and she labels this sexism as an “unfair social notion”. To me, the term “unfair social notion” carries the weight of something uncomfortable in society, but definitely not in need of being addressed with urgency.
However, when discussing the terms “whore” and “slut”, she minces no words in calling it what it is, a double standard, invoking the unequivocal image of inequity, unfairness, oppressive, and just plain wrong.
By her own words, Fulbright is validating that she is not only conscious of, but also well versed on issues surrounding gender discrimination. So I find it disturbing that she didn’t address the term “pigs”, used by women against men, with the same unequivocal tone she used for defending women. If she really believes double-standards are wrong, then her article should have included something like this when addressing the word “pigs”:

“This is a derogatory, sexist term used by women in gender discussions that has little value other than to humiliate and shame men.”

But instead, when confronted with sexism towards men, she turns milquetoast, and chooses the term “unfair social notion”.

This is the difference in approach towards the sexes I find from female sex therapists. Intense compassion and understanding for women’s and their issues, indifference for men and theirs.

Second, Fulbright states grown men have “imaginary friends” that they include in these surveys. She says:

“While dream girls shouldn’t count, in his memory they often do.'”

As a man I’m insulted. However, I could forgive and forget if the same tone and language was used towards women in her article, but Fulbright is careful not to humiliate and shame women. While men “lie” about imaginary sexual encounters, Fulbright refers to women as “conveniently forgetting” when it comes to their sexual history.
I can’t help but wonder why Fulbright was extremely comfortable using the term “pigs”, “imaginary friends”, and “suckers”, when referring to men, but she found it extremely difficult to state the obvious about women; they LIE when it comes these surveys. Instead she uses euphemisms like “conveniently forget”, “edit their numbers”, and “selective memory”.
And of course, unlike men, she goes easy on the gals fibbing, using the traditional feminine tactics that it’s society’s double standards, and our oppressive expectations of women which is the cause of female lying.
In other words, it’s not their fault.

Only towards the end of her article does she use the word lying, for both men and women, but at this point the damage was already done.

I’m always amazed how women are willing to vigorously challenge men or institutions that engage or promote those double-standards which rob them of respect, status, image, etc., But as women’s power and influence expand, and they find themselves in positions today to apply the same standards of decency and respect they have demanded from men, they fail miserably. Fulbright is a great example.

Women’s rights advocates vocalize how men and women need to come together to end discrimination against women, claiming it will benefit not only women, but men also. Well if this is the return on my investment; humiliation, shame, disrespect, ignorance, etc., then I’m sorry, I’ll invest my time in another cause.

This is not the first time I’ve taken issue with Fulbright. Here is an article I wrote about her last year which appeared on my former website. Here is a revised version:

A PhD Ain’t What It Used To Be

I don’t trust female sex therapist.
I found my belief validated over the weekend when I read an article by the Fox News “sex expert”.

The article was written by Yvonne K. Fulbright, a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc.
Her words and opinions have appeared in many forms of media; television shows, news media, and several books.
Last week she wrote an article for Fox News about what she felt were all the ridiculous sex studies that appeared in the news for 2007. The piece was called: FOXSexpert: Ridiculously Obvious Sex Studies of 2007

After reading it, in my opinion, Mrs. Fulbright has serious issues with men. In her article she comes out attacking men within the first couple of paragraphs.
Example: The first study she mentions is one that discovered the 237 reasons people have sex. Toward the end of this segment she exclaims:

“Calling all men, doing more housework will get you more “bootay” in the boudoir!”

She doesn’t mention how the study actually deconstructed the societal belief that women have sex for emotional reasons while men have sex for purely physical pleasure. It found men and women have sex for the same reasons – there’s no differences. Instead she brushes this aside and writes as if this male/female difference is not an issue.
Breaking long held traditional beliefs is not news?

She also doesn’t mention that when looking at the top ten reasons for having sex, men came out ahead of the women in the category of wanting to please their partner. Men also exceeded women in the category of “wanting to keep my partner satisfied”, and men were also found victims of giving into sex more than women for the reason of “my partner kept insisting”. This shatters commonly held beliefs about men and women.

Instead, Mrs. Fulbright insists on attacking men for not doing enough housework, ignoring the most poignant information of the study.
She assaults men on what SHE feels the real problem is, revealing her contempt for men, rather than dealing with the truths of the study.

So this is a professional sex therapist?

She then continues to cover more research, and continues her assault on men when she writes:

“While psychologist John Gottman has been faithfully churning out respectable work on couples for more than 30 years, did anybody need to remind guys that they can forgo the flowers and chocolate for a mop and vacuum when it comes to wooing women? Practically any gal can tell you that if her partner was more willing to lift a finger around the house, she’d be up for more sex and better sex at that!”

Did anybody bother to tell Mrs. Fulbright that when it comes to “men’s work” around the house, most women do not lift a finger? One would think that women themselves would be flooding handyman and home repair classrooms across the nation in an attempt to bring true equality to the “work” around the house, but sadly they don’t. When it comes to “men’s work” women still excuse themselves from getting involved claiming, “I don’t know how to do that”, leaving men to not only do traditional male work, but also take on the burden of half of traditional women’s work around the house.

She then discusses the study conducted on sex dreams by men and women. She writes there was no ground breaking information in this study. She lied again.
The study actually showed women dreaming more about sex than in past studies, with women’s sex dreams occurring as frequently as men’s.
The study was poignant because it was another example of recent research that shatters society’s myth that men are more obsessed with sex than women.

Another tidbit of information Mrs. Fulbright gives her readers concerns a study about oral sex. She tells us the study found girls feel more emotionally distraught after oral sex than the boys. However, this time it is her wording that caught my attention:

“The killer finding – boys were more than twice as likely as girls to say sexual activity made them feel self-confident and popular.”

Why is this information “killer”? I just revealed some “killer” information with respect to the studies she wrote about. Why wasn’t this previous information considered “killer” and included in her assessments? The only conclusion I can suggest is that information could deliver negative connotations for women. I guess that is reserved just for men.

As I pointed out, Mrs. Fulbright has some serious issues with men, putting the burden on them for most relationship problems and avoiding any blame or negativity for women. For this reason, I can assume that any negative information concerning women found embedded in current research between the sexes is ignored by this “professional” sex therapist.

In the last part of her article she shows how ignorant she is about male health and well-being. Here she covers AIDS and the importance of condom use.
After covering some serious statistics about the prevalence of AIDS, and its prevention through the use of condoms, she states,

“And when you consider that a condom can help a guy last longer and relieve any problems with premature ejaculation, while providing protection against sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, spending a few dollars on your favorite latex or polyurethane smock is not such a bad investment.”

This is a clear example of how men’s issues are glossed over and ignored by professionals. The majority of non-condom wearing men do so out of embarrassment. Because most men lack proper knowledge of condom use, it results in a loss of sensation and erection when using condoms. The result is embarrassment, shame, humiliation, and the avoidance of condom use for men.
A study from the University of Indiana and The Kinsey Institute from 2006 covered this very topic, and how these issues will lead to risky behavior for men.

Mrs. Fulbright – again – avoids the documented major concerns with respect to men and condom use, and instead, chose to highlight some of the minor reasons why men should wear them: last longer; relieve any problems with premature ejaculation.
As a man, I found her remarks condescending. Her remarks sounded more like an info-commercial rather than a serious look at men and condom use. It proved to me she has no clue what men honestly think, feel, and need with regard to the components of their sexuality and sexual health. She obviously makes no effort to find out either. I found the condom study in less than ten minutes of searching.

My point: This is why I don’t trust female “professional sex therapist”. I find most of them are concerned only with female sexuality and health which results in uninformed, misguided, and sexist attitudes towards men – just like I what I observed from Mrs. Fulbright.
My advice to men is to ignore most female sex therapist. If you need accurate and reliable information, try to find a male therapist.
Only rely on a recommendation from another man before trusting a female therapist.

To use a common female defense: I’m not being sexist; I’m just telling the truth.

FOXSexpert: Ridiculously Obvious Sex Studies of 2007

Women Dreaming of Sex More Often

Condom, erection-loss study identifies possible path to risky behavior

Why Humans Have Sex


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

July 11, 2008

CNN Sloppy When Reporting On Genders

While I was away on a long vacation with my family, I made a semi-intentional effort to cut myself off from all forms of news media. This meant no newspapers, limited internet access, limited magazines, etc..
Since I spend most of my free time perusing media circles for my blog, I figured this vacation would be like taking a sabbatical from the tenacious reading and writing cycle of my daily life. After all, isn’t “getting away from it all” the main fundamental element of a vacation?

Well I have to say it was quite a challenge. I’m a creature of habit, so to say I became a little “edgy” is misleading. Just ask my wife.

So as I find myself getting caught up on news stories, I can report I’ve come across numerous articles that harbor negatives biases towards men while I was away.
I’m going to try covering a few of these over the next couple of posts. Here is the first.

At CNN the headline read: Women do better as friends of the boss, expert says

Gender stories naturally attract my attention because I usually find the anti-male biases present in society also firmly entrenched in the modern media. One particular bias takes the form of an overt or insidious implication that women/femininity is better than men/masculinity.
In most cases, the “evidence” is suspect, or has been completely distorted from the truth in order to sensationalize the story.
CNN did just that.

I read the CNN story and found no evidence that women are better friends of the boss. There was absolutely no mention of any differences in the genders. The article only mentions a specific gender once:

In his book, Dobransky examines how friendship affects a woman’s career and family life, as well as the science behind making and keeping close friends and avoiding toxic relationships.

I thought, “That’s it?” The article doesn’t mention any differences between men and women.
So began to research the book from which the article was drawn The Power of Female Friendship, and it’s author Paul Dobransky M.D.

I wasn’t actually going to purchase the book, so I relied on press releases and book reviews. Here is a description of this book from Amazon.com:

Psychiatrist Paul Dobransky, author of The Secret Psychology of How We Fall in Love, once again looks to the brain, this time to examine the full range of female friendships. A recent study has shown that women have fewer friends than they used to. In the years after college and before children (and even after that), many women find that they have fewer friends, and new ones are harder to make. Taking his three-parts-of-the-brain theory, Dr. Dobransky breaks down the primal codes of friendship that many women aren’t even aware of and gives scientifically grounded advice for understanding how to be a better friend and how to cultivate new friendships. Women of all ages who are searching for deeper relationships or are trying to break free of a toxic friendship will find help and hope in this enlightening and prescriptive exploration of how the brain makes friends.

Again, nothing else I read about Dr. Paul’s book made any reference towards women and their relationships with their bosses, or how women out perform men at these relationships. Everything I read was more indicative to explaining the importance of relationships to a woman, and how these relationships effect every aspect of a woman’s life.

So why did CNN use the title Women do better as friends of the boss, expert says?

To be fair, I didn’t read the book, so maybe Dr. Paul does mention this distinction between the genders somewhere in the book, but if so, why didn’t CNN use that quote? Wouldn’t that have made more sense? If CNN is going to use such a powerful and controversial headline, which is sure to add fuel to the gender wars, shouldn’t CNN have backed it up with some plausible evidence?

I have always felt CNN carries an anti-male bias in it’s reporting, this blatant bias is another I’ve found recently at CNN. Last month I wrote how CNN ran a special segment on working mothers – and the hardships they face – during the days leading up to Fathers Day. I found it insensitive that CNN could not find the time or space to write a special segment about working fathers around Fathers Day.
So why does CNN find so much contempt for men and fathers?

But wait, there’s more

As I said earlier, sometimes the evidence is suspect in these gender news stories. When I researched Dr. Paul, I found these credentials:

Dr. Paul Darbransky is a board certified psychiatrist, a former associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, a national speaker, and business consultant. He has appeared on broadcast and cable numerous times, and in a wide variety of print publications, including USA Today, Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, and First for Women. He is also the sex and dating columnist for Maximum Fitness Magazine.

What began to raise my suspicion was how a professional psychiatrist/researcher can find the time to produce substantial, quality research, and also appear so consistently in various forms of media. So I went to Dr. Paul’s website to look around.
It didn’t take long to have my suspicions confirmed.

Let me show you what I mean. From his website:

You’re About To Learn Secrets That Most Women Will Never Discover About Men, Dating, And Relationships That Last For Life…”

# How to permanently ban cheating from your relationship… and how, when and why he has been thinking about it up to now.

# The five “deal-killers” to avoid that most women accidentally communicate to men.

# What to do if your man has a “wandering eye” or if YOU have one.

# How to learn to speak the language only men speak with each other, in easy, simple steps.

# The four hidden nonverbal clues you can give men that silently but clearly announce you are interested.

# The three hidden actions men will do in return, if they absolutely will follow through on their promise to connect with you. (And they are not even AWARE they are doing them.)

# Why there are only four types of men, and why only ONE type will benefit you for life.

# The three secrets to communicate to a man that will not only open the floodgates of him revealing his true self, they will cause him to follow you to the end of the earth.

# The truth about men who aren’t “emotionally available” or “don’t listen” to you… how to know if you’ve accidentally invested in one and what to do if you’re committed to him.

# The three mistakes women make which annoy men and kill any chance of your relationship moving forward or lasting.

# The three inside tips married women can show you about “knowing, that you know, that you know” the ONLY guy who’s right for you.

# And you’ll also get a FREE trial to Dr. Paul’s “guide you by the hand” Newsletter For Women…

You might be surprised to find how only a few women are aware of the precise ways the male mind works, and that being without this information is the SOLE source of dating, relationship, and personal problems for women.You cannot afford NOT to know this…

Now, if your like me, you probably think Dr. Paul’s work is more about sensationalism/marketing rather than legitimate research. Well Dr. Paul assures you this is not true. His research/information comes from a very reliable source. He states:

And how do I know this? Because I AM a guy. And a pretty good catch too.

Now I know it seems Dr. Paul has quite the ego, but he assures one that he’s not that self-centered:

In other words, what I teach you cannot possibly be good enough or even useful if it is based only on “my experience as a great guy,” or former “player,” or least of all, as merely a “marketer” of products and services.

No Dr. Paul, I never even entertained the thought that you could possibly be marketing a product. I truly believe that your intentions is one of prodigious altruism, working arduously to help women and men develop solid relationships that deliver a perpetual state of bliss. I refuse to believe you are doing this to make a quick buck.

But wait! There’s more!

Dr. Paul doesn’t help only women, he helps men too. He offers a course called The Secrets of Mature Masculine Power, costing only $97. With this course men will learn how to develop that special karma which attracts women and success.

When I read this, I did a big WAIT A MINUTE!
The term “mature masculine” is a term I’m familiar with. It’s a theory  that has been used extensively in the men’s movement for almost twenty years now. It comes from a book called King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette.
This book is a must read for anybody who is serious about exploring men’s issues. It explains the crisis that modern men and masculinity face, acknowledging the flaws of the patriarchy, yet critical of feminism and it’s efforts feminize men. It’s theories are based on the theories of the archetypal self as developed by C.G. Jung, the founder of analytical psychology. It brakes down masculinity into four different components (archetypes) of a man’s life; king, warrior, magician, and lover. It explores how each of these components have an inherent nurturing side (benevolent), and an inherent shadow side (malevolent). By understanding the differences, a man can lead a more mature (conscious) way of life, that not only transforms himself, but through his personal mission, has the ability to influence others into doing the same. The theories also apply to women; however, the King is changed to Queen.

With my curiosity now in overdrive, I did a little more exploring. Sure enough, I found Dr. Paul’s King, Warrior, Magician, Lover e-course for $47 based on C.G. Jung’s archetypal self model.

Want to save a few bucks? By the Moore and Gillette’s book from Amazon.com for 10$ and $3 shipping and you can go straight to the source and cut out the middle man – Dr. Paul. The book will have everything you need to know about the four archetypes of masculinity.

I didn’t write this article to pick on Dr. Paul. I’m sure Dr. Paul is a fine psychiatrist, and ultimately wants to help men and women change uncomfortable aspects of their lives. He’s entitled to produce and sell a product he believes will help people. And if people enjoy his self help courses, God bless them.
What I really wanted to highlight is how major media outlets can be irresponsible when reporting on gender issues. At first glance, the CNN story appeared completely credible. It recounts the findings of a book written by a legitimate psychiatrist concerning women and relationships, and the ideas presented seem quite plausible. But upon closer inspection, the reader finds no information or quotes that validate the headline which implies women are most likely to have a closer relationship with their bosses than men. Then, after further investigation, one finds the source of the “findings” is a psychiatrist who’s makes a living not doing academic, peer reviewed research, but makes his living promoting his own version of a well known, well established psychological theory.

The common theme in this story is sensationalism.

Dr. Paul has a right to promote his books and services the way he wants. As for CNN? Their behavior appears more like the intentional exploiting of societies current gender wars to attract readers. This type of sensationalism is something I would expected from the The National Enquirer, rather than the behavior of a respectable news network.

As I said earlier, numerous gender based stories that report new “findings” showing women are superior to men usually fall apart under closer scrutiny. I don’t believe them and never will. Most legitimate research will conclude men and women share more similarities in life than differences. Unfortunately, the modern media loves stories that humiliate and emasculate men, providing numerous articles that perpetuate the belief that women are naturally superior to men.

If CNN really believes women make better friends than men with their bosses, and those decisions made by their superiors concerning their quality of employment are based more on the strength of this friendship rather than actual expected performance, then why do women face the proverbial “glass ceiling” in corporate America?

Seems to me if this theory was true, women would have surpassed men in corporate America a long time ago – but they haven’t.

Get it together CNN.


Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

July 9, 2008

I’m Back!

Filed under: men — J. Soltys @ 12:07 pm

I’m back from vacation and ready to start writing.

I will be posting in the next few days.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.