"Men are fundamentally more selfish"
Daily Pundit has a good post on why men do not want to become Big Brothers: BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS--Duh....why does anyone question this and try to make the lame argument that men are selfish?
The media blares non-stop stories about perverts (men, of course, women can't be perverts--they are "educators of young men") snatching girls, police detectives and even Ms. America trying to entrap men on the internet, domestic violence committed by men only and teachers (usually male) going to jail or fired for abuse allegations, the Duke rape case etc. And the BB/BS can't figure out why any self-respecting man does not want to go within fifty feet of a child? Get a clue.
Steven Rhoads, author of "Taking Sex Differences Seriously," agrees with Prof. Putnam that women are much more social. But he focuses more on what he views as innate differences between the sexes. Men, he argues, are "fundamentally more selfish." Unlike women, "they're simply less interested in people. And they're less empathetic." According to Mr. Rhoads, the trick to getting them to volunteer lies in appealing to men's egos, even their sense of duty and heroism. "Men need to be needed," he tells me. "Make it clear: We need you and this is really important."
The media blares non-stop stories about perverts (men, of course, women can't be perverts--they are "educators of young men") snatching girls, police detectives and even Ms. America trying to entrap men on the internet, domestic violence committed by men only and teachers (usually male) going to jail or fired for abuse allegations, the Duke rape case etc. And the BB/BS can't figure out why any self-respecting man does not want to go within fifty feet of a child? Get a clue.
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 7:52 AM
183 Comments:
Jeez, they're clueless.
Every baseball coach I had was male. Were they all "more selfish" than the neighborhood women, who never coached a single team in their lifetime?
Men volunteer for masculine tasks. Count the female volunteer firefighters.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters is a noble organization full of noble volunteers (disclosure: my wife is one of them). Undoubtedly, all the molestation media-hype makes a good excuse for men who didn't really want to join BBBS anyway. But inherently, that group tilts toward the feminine side, owing to its nurturing aspects.
BTW, between a full-time job and the needs of my children, house, spouse, and church, I don't know when I (or many other male heads-of-household) would ever find time to volunteer for anything more.
Nail straight on the head.
In a society where no good deed goes unpunished, I would never consider becoming a big brother.
Sadly, there are enough self-hating males to either write this stuff or sign on to it. Studying them would be interesting and perhaps yield something useful.
Trey
I just finished reading Freakanomics the other day, which takes a look at a lot of different phenomenon and at the incentives that affect said phenomenon.
I have no idea how one might go about analyzing this "withdrawal" of men from younger children, but I would be fascinated to see some number crunching on it.
I would note that the only young children I (provide) care for and spend time with (I am a man) are my nieces and nephews. When other children are a factor I become much more cautious for most of the reasons pointed out.
B.E.S.
TO: Professor Putnam
RE: Really???!?!?!?
"Men, he [Professor Putnam] argues, are "fundamentally more selfish."
Yeah????!?!
I guess we witnessed their sense of 'selfishness' all through World Wars I and II.
Especially at places like Tarawa, Iwo Jima and, not to be left out, Normandy; where men selfishly gave up their lives at a rate of 500 per minute in order for you to be able to say such.
Without such 'selfishness', you'd be teaching in German, today, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Male: A member of the unconsidered, or negligible sex. -- Ambrose Bierce]
This 'professor' proves the axiom to be true.
P.S. Where does this 'professor' [of BS] 'preach', anyway?
Trey,
What a good idea. A research study looking at the men who betray their sex and the reasons behind their "self-hatred." Just as an aside, I don't think it is self-hatred, it is to get "perks"--women in bed, good press etc., grants--most of these men don't believe a word of what they say-- would make a good dissertation etc. but I doubt it would be allowed and who would fund such non-PC research for a grant?
Quite an across-the-board stereotype (men are more selfish). Take a look at which way earned money is flowing in society in general.
And as if Paris Hilton is a completely selfless, giving person (for example).
"I don't think it is self-hatred, it is to get "perks"--women in bed ..."
----------
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I'm not sure it's a "perk". Picture the quality of woman who would sleep with these self-hating weenies.
I used to try to act like a feminist man to try to get Andrea Dworkin in bed, but it didn't work.
Putnam is a girlie man.
Putnam is big on differences between men and women, so why isn't he listing negative things about women, even stereotypes about women, like he's doing with men.
Somehow, I don't think that would go over as well.
anonymous:
"I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I'm not sure it's a "perk". Picture the quality of woman who would sleep with these self-hating weenies."
Hey, sex is sex--and if you're on to the next one, what does it matter?
"And as if Paris Hilton is a completely selfless, giving person"
(In Austin Powers voice) Paris Hilton is a man, baby!
HAH! Dons, you made me laugh till it hurt!
Trey
Having been a caseworker with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, I can testify that recruiting volunteers for BB/BS is very difficult. And then there's the complications mentioned.
One not mentioned is the threat of lawsuits. I had a newly placed Big Brother call me and request to be placed with another boy. When he picked up the boy he had been placed with the mother made several references to all the people she had sued to get a few bucks here and there. (All were small settlements for falling on porches of rented houses and such.)
Of course, she wasn't selfish. Calling men fundamentally selfish is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard. In most situations women expect and get more than men, weddings, Mother's Day v. Father's Day (Hallmark makes a Father's Day card for single mothers), who picks out the furniture for the house, etc.
Who made up the overwhelming majority of those who died on the Titanic and in every other sinking ship or burning furniture store? We need to appreciate our selfish men much more.
My boyfriend in the early 90s volunteered briefly in an urban preschool. He dropped out because he felt he was viewed with suspicion by parents and others. It was really unfortunate because he was freakin' great with kids and they seemed to love him.
The concept of "selfishness" as used in the public discourse is unfortunate in general, I think. It tends to be used as a club for people to get others to do what THEY think is best. This is a classic example. Another classic example is the frequent labelling of career women as "selfish" even though our careers contribute to our society and to our families' income as much as men's careers do.
(Dadvocate, it's cute that you think that getting lots of mother's day cards and being the center of attention at a wedding is such a huge societal advantage. They aren't.)
-- Margaret
**
Here's a story about a new campaign to call 911 on any man seen with a child:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/21/if-you-see-a-father-holding-his-childs-hand-call-the-cops/
I have grown children now, but I can tell you as an adult male, that for the last 10 years I have completely stopped any and all interaction with children. I haven't even so much as made eye contact with anyone under 16 or 18 in all these years and never will again until the day I die. I completely avoid any potential situation that will involve children. I would never consider dating any woman with children ever again. It simply is far too dangerous- if you discipline or anger a child they will make false allegations against you in a heartbeat (or a mother will do it out of petty revenge) thanks to all the feminist coaching in our public schools and the general demonization of men in society by women, the media and the court system. Well, it's come back to bite women and society and they don't like it. Too bad- you get what you give, now live with it and shut up.
To call me 'selfish' is hysterical! It's call 'survival.' The legal system, women and children are extremely dangerous threats to men today. Take my advice, men: Grow up and face it- family, marriage & children it's over.. any hope of being a father is DEAD- it's done- women and the goverment killed it. Protect yourself, because no one else gives a crap about you- PERIOD.
BBBS- that's funny- Big Brother BS-I couldn't agree more. The whole Big Brother organization anymore does nothing but help to facilitate selfish, slutty 'single' (by choice) mothers who have simply kicked out the fathers on false DV charges or just general no-fault divorce because they want to screw around, but now have the AUDACITY to expect a hard-working man to devote HIS TIME to be a surrogate father to her bastard children!
Any man who would fall for this is an idiot.
I certainly agree that there needs to be more male role models, but I do not think using seduction or accusations of selfishness are going to entice men to help children. If anything, the constant judgment of their character will just cause the men to stay away.
What organizations like Big Brother can do to rectify this is address the widely accepted notion that males interested in children are inherent threats to children. The overwhelming majority of volunteers do not abuse children. One can protect children and monitor the behavior of both male and female volunteers without the over-scrutiny we see. Simple marketing strategies focusing on the good males can bring into a child's life could do more to persuade men that it is both acceptable for them to like children and want to support them and that it is safe for those men to be around children.
I am not sure if anything like that will happen, but until it does it is wiser for men not to engage in anything involving children.
TO: All
RE: The Solution....
...to this problem rests with women.
We cannot compel them to be 'good', that can only come from their heart.
We, as men, can only seek out 'good' women. The challenge, on our part, is to be 'good' ourselves.
And therein lies the proverbial rub. What IS 'good'? Who defines it? What does it behave like?
The best answers to those questions, in my considered opinion, comes from a VERY old Book; which I read on a daily basis.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.]
P.S. Personally, I think that the current state of the world is 'too safe' and some women have got the idea that they can do without men.
On the other hand, I think the current state of affairs is not going to last that long.....
I really object to Rhoads and Weiss' use of the stigmatizing word "selfish". Men are more selfish than women? Tell that to all the men who died in combat protecting American society, in large part become American women demanded to be protected.
There is a large body of theory and research in evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics concerning greed, altruism, social manipulation (including managing one's social reputation to appear pro-social while actually being vicious, something that political liberals do constantly) and the use of social allies in achieving selfish aims.
I suspect that Rhoads has read much of it. I also suspect that Weiss has not and probably will not.
Hey Anon, are you really that bitter and angry, or are you just someone posting inflamed, angry, accusatory posts thinking that you can get someone to agree with that crap because we all "obviously" hate women here?
I needs to know. I have wondered about this type of post for months. And I have never seen that kind of post get an amen, much less a right on. So which is it?
Trey
Back in the mid-80's I thought I might volunteer for Big Brothers in Boston (more alliterative than I realized at the time). I deluded myself thinking I might be a good candidate, given that I had a PhD, worked in a private think-tank, and taught at Northeastern University.
The interview process was long, which didn't bother me. I knew what was at stake. My interviewer was a tyro, and I was her first interviewee. She asked many searching questions about my life, and I answered candidly.
I was a 36-year old bachelor at the time, dating a woman I had been dating for some years. Since then, I got married at 40 and have been happily married for 17 years. BUT - and this is a big but - during my last two years of my PhD program, I suspected my housemate, Ray, of some prior homosexual experience based on comments he had made about his life prior to grad school. However, Ray was involved with a very nice woman the entire time I actually knew him, as I was during our time as housemates.
My interviewer's supervisor, who never met me, rejected my application. According to my interviewer, her supervisor (apparently a woman and clinical psychologist) suspected I had latent homosexual tendencies and felt I would be a risk to a male child.
Two things:
(1) I agree with the decision, insofar as I think one must be very conservative during the selection process for Big Brothers/Sisters. There is much at stake, and the cost of an error could be very high.
(2) It would have been nice if the supervisor had bothered to speak to me herself.
Regarding BB-BS volunteering. While I was in college I volunteered as a BS. It was rewarding and educational experience and the organization is wonderful and top-quality. But then again, when I was in college I had nothing to lose. Would I, as a woman, volunteer now? Heck no! I have too much to lose in a frivolous law-suit. But I would look less at men as being selfish but moreso as women might get something emotionally and socially for volunteering for a child-related organization. It is expected of women in American society to be seen as a caregiver and nurturer, and I think some women feel as it might make them look good to their employers, peers, dates and friends for being a role model to poor children. As a side note, having lived among poor children for a number of years, I think many of the
"economically disadvantaged" kids grow up better adjusted and with a better attitude than many children in the "privileged" class. If men are concerned about being labeled as a pervert while volunteering, I have the same concerns. I have the same attitude about not interacting with any child that is not a blood relation. Better safe than sorry, it might take a village to raise a child but you are going to have to go looking for the village where I don't reside.
At every church I've attended for about 10 years, insurance requirements have made it a policy that men not work in the nursery, even with other adults present. Our current church allows my husband to volunteer in the nursery because that rule wasn't in place when we started attending, but in future men will not be allowed. If anyone were to make an accusation, founded or not, you can expect that policy to be tightened and to spread to older age groups beyond the under-two-year-old group to which it currently applies. And keep in mind, in our nurseries the volunteers don't even change diapers and are never left alone with the children. But men are still too risky, apparently. . .
Margaret - You may disregard any and all of my comments in the future. God forbid, that I would appear cute to you in any way. I'm sure you enjoy using that word as an insult to men in retribution for all the wrongs women over the centuries have suffered at the hands of men. Be careful or I'll call you a "lady" or "gal." It is interesting how you've appointed yourself the judge of righteousness.
When was the last time you actually opened you mind enough to actually perceive something so as not to be colored by your preconceived notions?
It's not about being the center of attention on the wedding day. Virtually entire process is about what the bride wants.
On Father's Day more collect calls (to Dad) are made than any other day of the year. And, now mother's get cards in Father's Day. Try turning that around and see what happens.
I never said either was a social advantage, just a sign how women are treated more preferentially than men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=455616&in_page_id=1770
But in these politically-correct times, it seems, gentle flattery has become something of a lost art.
Not only are men failing to compliment female friends and colleagues for fear of causing offence - but women are highly likely to suspect the motives of the individual offering the admiring comment.
Two-thirds feel uncomfortable if someone other than a partner offers praise, and a similar number mistrust the motives of the man behind the praise.
Unfortunately for women, this all presents something of a conundrum because, according to research, nine out of ten claim they love to be complimented.
then theres the case of Fitzroy Barnaby on the sex offenders register for Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.
then theres a story in the UK, where a man saw a young child walking alone down the street and didnt stop and help because he thought he was going to be called a pedophile, the child later on drowned.
theres a law being told in the UK, that EVERYONE, who works with any child at any time, has to be checked with the police.
male teachers rare now..
Dadvocate,
God forbid, that I would appear cute to you in any way. I'm sure you enjoy using that word as an insult to men in retribution for all the wrongs women over the centuries have suffered at the hands of men.
Now who has preconceived notions?
You are correct, however, that we may be more in agreement than I realized from your wording. Part of my point is that preferential treatment does NOT translate into a social advantage. I am glad that you see that distinction.*
*The wedding thing still makes me laugh.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
Tmink/Trey
I am puzzled your comment at 2:56 p.m. because it's not clear to whom it is directed. Every single anonymous comment on this thread (including mine!) was supportive of Dr. Helen's post!
But, to answer your question as a newbie to this thread, I am not commenting here to get an "Amen!" or "Right on!" but to explore the issues raised and to engage in a substantive give-and-take with people who have different views than mine.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
TO: All
RE: Why She's Here
"I am not commenting here to get an "Amen!" or "Right on!" but to explore the issues raised and to engage in a substantive give-and-take with people who have different views than mine." -- Margaret [the feminist]
I needed a chuckle, and that bit of nonsense provided it; albeit a sardonic one.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Laugh, and the world ignores you. Crying doesn't help either.]
I commented in another thread that I was a card-carrying girl scout (had to be) when my wife and I were co-leaders for my daughter's Brownie troop. We all had such great fun! Not sure I'd do that now, though, for the risks mentioned are very real.
I also made reference to the young fems I have tutored in math. Those sessions have always been either in public or with the fem's mother present. Even the public sessions have almost always been with my wife or the fem's grandmother just a few feet away and in sight. I specified this arrangement both to protect myself and also to help relax the student, especially for the first vital sessions where a teacher-student rapport must begin. Eventually, the young fems have wanted their mother/grandmothers to be inside a coffee shop where they can see us at a table (still in public) but with a pane of glass separation so that they can concentrate better. For some reason, stranger passer-bys do not disrupt concentration but innocent sounds (like coughs) from a mother do disrupt. This is especially true for cell phone conversations - strangers' dialogues they can tune out, but not a mother's.
I have not volunteered at a BBBS program, but I can say that as an adult male, I had difficulty in gaining acceptance when inquiring about being a volunteer. A few years ago, when my first son was old enough, I thought it would be a good experience for him if we volunteered at a local nursing home. I had done this in college and met some wonderful folks. I tried three local homes for the elderly, and got blank stares, passed-on to uninterested supervisors, and unreturned phone calls.
We finally threw in the towel and a year later my wife gave birth to twins--leaving us temporarily with no time for volunteering anyway. I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer in places that house the elderly, but someone who is bringing a young person to visit with their residents, is willing to provide references and go through background checks should at least deserve a return phone call.
It isn't just men who are avoiding other peoples children for self-preservation. My aunt stopped working in the church nursery for similar fears. She had a bad habit of making children mind. A habit that served her well in raising four children and nine grandchildren, not to mention over 30 years as a pediatric nurse. A habit many of the parents and grandparents of the kids in the nursery had experienced firsthand over their childhoods.
The risks of being around other people's children have been made so disproportionate by the very people who now lament the lack of volunteers. Yet they are unable to see that it is their actions that cause rational individuals to avoid those risks.
Margaret - Maybe I've given you some insight into why many men hate weddings. It's the process not the getting married.
During my daily bicycle ride, I was thinking about this. Nothing new, really. But I did come up with the point of view that one could take the tact that teaching boys to open doors for girls and the other preferential treatment stuff (courtesies) does give females a social advantage.
Teaching boys this prepares them to sacrifice their life in order to save that of a female. In the event of life threatening events, ship sinking, etc., it's women and children first, men only after everyone else is saved. This is still a common theme in movies and TV shows. The male who tries to save himself first is the worst of cowards.
To me, this argument sounds like some of the "logic" I hear from feminists except with the genders reversed.
I have no problem with all this except that it's time for the radical feminists to give the guys a break. Let boys be boys and men be men. We're really not that bad.
Hey Margaret, I appreciate your posts as they are thoughful and thought provoking. I was referring to the 12:40 anon. If you read that post, I bet mine will make sense.
I am wondering if it is some dead fish, fake misognynistic troll. It was this part: "The whole Big Brother organization anymore does nothing but help to facilitate selfish, slutty 'single' (by choice) mothers who have simply kicked out the fathers on false DV charges or just general no-fault divorce because they want to screw around, but now have the AUDACITY to expect a hard-working man to devote HIS TIME to be a surrogate father to her bastard children!
Any man who would fall for this is an idiot."
Perhaps this poster is just bitter and borderline delusional, or maybe it is a ruse. What do you think Margaret?
And, Anon posting is not without hazards. It is difficult to follow the points and discussions, you never know when someone is speaking about you, and some people will not read them as a matter of course.
I do not consider you an Anon because you sign a name. Thanks for that.
Trey
Sorry, Trey, I misunderstood. The 12:40 anon comment is extremely nasty. (And thank you for your kind words.)
And Dadvocate, I hear you on the wedding process, although as a bride, it seemed like a pain in the butt to me too. I caved and had the big wedding due to social pressure from my in-laws -- and the pressure to produce the perfect occasion seemed to fall more heavily on me than on him. (Not that I'm complaining. My husband pulled his weight with the wedding planning. And, in retrospect 10 years later, both of us look back on the occasion fondly and are glad we did it.)
-Feminist Margaret
When I was growing up (I'm now 51), my Father spent many years as the leader of the community Cub Scout Pack. He and my Mother also volunteered time to work with kids in our schools, church, and other community groups. Other men volunteered as Scoutmasters, Baseball/Football/Basketball coaches, Camp counselors, Swim instructors, endless other activities. Maybe we were naive, but pedophilia never seemed to be an issue. Or perhaps the fact that these men, mostly Korean War Vets, would have dealt with the predators swiftly and appropriately, was an effective enough deterrent.
Today, any man wanting/willing to be involved with youth activities is automatically suspect. And a man must be on his guard to never be alone with someone else's child, even for a moment. Rather than take an interest in the communities youth, it is better to cultivate a reputation as man with an intense dislike of youth.
Paranoid? Not quite. A cousin of mine was recently prosecuted for sexual abuse of a neighbor's toddler, even though the state could not produce any physical evidence of abuse and could not show that he had ever even been alone with the child. (The criminal jury acquitted, but when a civil suite was filed, his homeowner's wouldn't even defend. They just threw in the policy.)
That's Justice in the 21st Century. Can't make the case that we're better off, though.
richard blaine-
Or perhaps the fact that these men, mostly Korean War Vets, would have dealt with the predators swiftly and appropriately, was an effective enough deterrent.
Don't be naive, there were pedophiles back then. Kids were indoctrinated back then that adults were to be obeyed no matter what, so it wasn't reported or prosecuted as often.
Paranoid? Not quite. A cousin of mine was recently prosecuted for sexual abuse of a neighbor's toddler, even though the state could not produce any physical evidence of abuse and could not show that he had ever even been alone with the child. (The criminal jury acquitted, but when a civil suite was filed, his homeowner's wouldn't even defend. They just threw in the policy.)
Now let's see here. What if the god-like Korean War Vets that you have such a fawning admiration for had "dealt with" your "predator" cousin? Being a veteran doesn't mean you're allowed to be a criminal. The hypocrisy there is disgusting - your cousin should have his rights honored, but no one else, right?
Richard,
I have prosecuted a number of sexual assault cases involving children (although only one toddler and in that case the abuser confessed). There is rarely any "physical evidence of abuse" because most such cases involve fondling, or maybe some digital penetration, as opposed to intercourse or rougher penetration. However, it is important to at least be able to establish that the defendant had an opportunity to abuse. Also the prosecutor should try to corroborate as much of the child's testimony as possible -- even if it relates to innocuous aspects of his or her story.
Assuming it is established that the child is competent to testify (which may tough in the case of a toddler), the child's testimony in and of itself is considered sufficient to establish the elements of the offense if the jury believes the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, eyewitness testimony (by a victim or anyone else) is legally sufficient to convict someone of any type of crime. The trouble in sexual assault cases is that there is often no physical evidence, and the lack of physical evidence doesn't necessarily mean the crime didn't occur (as opposed to certain kinds of felony assault, where one needs to have some evidence of an injury).
I am a little confused about your cousin's homeowner's policy. Are you saying that the insurance company settled the case, or are you saying they wouldn't provide coverage at all? Most homeowner's policies don't provide coverage for "intentional acts," so if you get sued for sexual assault, you are usually on your own.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
The 12:40 anonymous comment is apparently offensive because of its brutal accuracy. We have an enormous criminal underclass in this country, created and fueled by women who reproduce indiscriminately and who then expect "someone else" to bear the responsibility for their spawn. The few men who volunteered for the Big Brother program -- no doubt with the best of intentions -- found themselves branded as pederasts when it became expedient for their beneficiaries to do so.
And as to the question of "selfishness:" That's the logic of the five-year-old. You have something I want (but have no entitlement to), you won't give it to me, therefore you are "selfish." No offense to Dr. Helen, but that mindset seems especially pervasive in modern academia. So it's no surprise that some degreed half-wits can make a career of opining on the subject.
So back to the issue in the post-- how do we as individuals and as a society balance the need to protect children from abuse with the need to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution and the need to protect caretakers of our children from unjust suspicion?
1) You may want to find out the policies of your local prosecutor's office. One DA's office where I worked (very briefly) automatically prosecuted all allegations of sexual assault regardless of merit. That's a bad policy because it removes one protection for the accused (i.e. scrutiny of all cases by the prosecutor's office) and it undermines confidence in the justice system when bad cases are prosecuted.
You want to demand that your local prosecutor is exercising independent judgment -- that he or she is not afraid to tell a family that the case won't be prosecuted because the evidence doesn't add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a hard conversation to have with someone who feels they are the victim of a crime, but prosecutors need to step up to the plate rather than just saying, "It's up to the jury."
2) We should promote role models of men who are good with children. My favorite was and is Mister Rogers, whom I absolutely adored when I was a toddler. He may seem a bit "smarmy" to adult eyes, but little kids love him and he was unquestionably devoted to the wellbeing of young children.
Is there any good news? Yes:
1) Law enforcement have learned from some of the travesties of the '80s. At police/prosecutor training programs in my locale, the McMartin preschool case is reviewed in depth. (Interestingly, a lot of these bogus preschool prosecutions have involved women defendants.)
2) The public is slowly coming to understand that women can be offenders as well (although not at the same frequency as men).
-- Feminist Margaret
Margaret-f -- Theft. You can accuse me of taking something all you want, but without proof, it's moot.
The trouble with cases involving children is that they can be swayed to report what one party wants. The smaller the child, the less likely they will override this with a sense of truth and justice.
2) Mister Rogers --
No, we need to remove the false concept that there are "preferred" male models. Kids like Hulk Hogan too, you know.
Slamdunk --
I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer in places that house the elderly,
Why? Female volunteers are more likely to abuse the elderly.
stats
From article:
"The level of abusive behavior was positively associated with gender, education level, and caregiver’s burden and negatively correlated with age (P < .01–.05), suggesting that female caregivers, caregivers with higher levels of education, and caregivers with high burdens demonstrated more severe psychologically abusive behavior."
Margaret and Richard -
Insurance companies very rarely contest suits, and not just when it is child abuse.
For example, maybe 20 years ago, a young next-door girl (age about 5) wandered out of her yard and (uninvited and untended by her parents) into our backyard. My youngest child (age aut 8) was playing in our yard with our golden retriever on a leash. The leash got tangled in the girl's legs and gave her a rope deep burn.
My insurance company setled for multiple tens of thousands of dollars without a second thought.
I'm not feeling terribly optimistic at the moment generally speaking but with regards to this issue I think there have been some improvements in the last 18 months or so.
One of my best friends from college, whose about my age, is married, has two young girls & was sufficiently freaked by the public school system in the Bay Area that she pulled her kids told me some months ago that a lot of public schools in Northern California, which is not exactly known for being terribly friendly to masculine men (except when they elect governers--go figure), are actively seeking male elementary & high school teachers.
And my old college sponsor, now retired in Florida & the first person to confirm my nagging suspicion that there was increasing hostility towards men in society was telling me not long before that there's a big demand for male English teachers in Florida & that even pay them like human beings.
I'm trapped in a pretty male-hostile region--more accurately, a pretty male hostile region if you're not a successful, wealthy, married professional with a perfect WASP pedigree. Then you're acceptable. Also, don't be a woman over 25 if weighs more then 110 pounds, especially if you're single & have a kid. Or be black and poor. Not a nice place.
Anyway, that said, I know a few nurses who've told me they love the fact that more men are going into nursing--partly, I think, it's because most male nurses could pass for middle linebackers & if a patient needs to be gently restrained it helps if you've got someone on call whose 6'1" & 210 pounds to help with the restraining.
Even the local feminist domestic violence organization is pretty open-minded. Oddly, they seem to have a blind spot where techniques favored by violent women are concerned but they readily acknowledge that resources for men are totally inadequate, hate the social service people as much as I do (something to bond over) & have actively started recruiting men.
I'm sort of curious as to motivations, but Donna Byrnes, the director once told me that most of their opinions are formed based on what they see...and not in a challenging way. More like an invitation to present different perspectives.
And if you follow the Washington Post, Dana Priest & Anne Hull have been doing some dynamite work on veterans (pretty much all men) who've been chucked aside by the Powers That Be after they've been physically & emotionally maimed.
Come to think of it, I think this is the first major newspaper series I've ever seen that presents adult men who've been victimized in a positive light without diminishing them as men or politicizing their race or sex or party affiliation.
That's something, anyway.
I agree with paul harvey. Anon 12.40 has a perfectly good point, even though the language is angry and aggressive.
The point is of course to highlight the contradiction of women having children without fathers, then turning around later in life and expecting another older male to "father" their child in a desperate attempt to plug the gap that should never have been there in the first place. How can this make sense especially when any damage due to fatherlessness has by now become deep-rooted and harder to eradicate? Would not the more sensible and logical course be to take more care to ensure your child had a real and proper father in the first place? Especially when the child is supposed to be the most important person here all along?
If you don't make a mess to begin with, you won't have to clear it up (or prevail upon others to do it for you) later when it has become far worse. Then there should be no need for BBBS with all its problems (and excuses for yet more male bashing) or anything else.
What is so terrible with such a suggestion?
Olgonicella,
It doesn't have to be Mr. Rogers. Hulk Hogan types are fine too. I think the Mr. Rogers types are more likely to be viewed with suspicion because they are acting in a more stereotypically "feminine" way.
Theft. You can accuse me of taking something all you want, but without proof, it's moot.
Actually, eyewitness testimony is "evidence" or "proof" in a court of law.
But just as I said, with some crimes, the LACK of corroborating evidence is more problematic in certain types of cases than others. So if I am a child who accuses you of fondling me, there isn't going to be any physical evidence of fondling. But if I accuse you of breaking my nose, there has to be physical/medical evidence that my nose got broken or my claim is going to be extremely suspect.
With theft, my testimony alone may be enough to convict you, assuming I witnessed (or claimed to witness) the theft. Even if the stolen item is not found in your possession, that may be because it's money and therefore not readily identifiable OR perhaps because you disposed of the stolen item. In the alternative, you may claim that I GAVE you the stolen item, in which case the trial will devolve into a "she said/he said," just like a rape case might.
Actually, the testimony of the defendant is evidence too. If the defendant says "No, I didn't steal it", real evidence would be required.
Otherwise, you could simply have someone locked up by claiming they stole something. Your last sentence supports my position.
oligoncella--
Well thought out, btw.
Nothing wrong with Hulk Hogan, though. I must protest. Met the guy once. Pretty mellow. Must have been post 'roids. ;)
John Clarke asks "What is so terrible with such a suggestion?"
Two things I think. First, your post leaves no room for the child being abandoned by their father. It suggests a world where only women are to blame for their fatherless children. Do you really believe that, or do you believe as I, that women are likely around 50% to blame for the problem? If it is an even distribution of blame, then the angry post is actually blaming and ducking responsibility at the same time.
Secondly, the children are innocent. You do not participate in big brothers for the moms, but for the children. Refusing to do so because of anger at the mothers who are perhaps innocent, perhaps totally to blame for the problem, damages the children, who are blameless.
And you and I through our taxes will pay for them for their rest of their lives if they grow into feral adults.
That is what is wrong with both posts. You write like a sensible person, I would like to hear your thoughts on this critique.
Trey
Oligonicella,
You are absolutely right that the defendant's testimony is also evidence, just as much the victims or alleged victims' testimony.
However, the defendant's testimony doesn't automatically cancel out to the victim's testimony or create reasonable doubt. It's up to the jury to decide whom to believe. Juries are actually instructed by the judge that they are free to either accept or reject a party's testimony in whole or in part. Thus, a jury may simply decide not to credit the defendant's testimony if it doesn't seem believable.
Juries are given factors by which they can judge the credibility of witnesses -- i.e. does the party's testimony seem reasonable or probable, does the party seem to be a person worthy of belief, is there corroborating evidence of the party's testimony, is the party's testimony consistent with his or her prior statements etc. etc.) And yes corroborating evidence or the lack thereof IS a factor, but it's not the only factor and corroborating evidence is not legally required.
Therefore, even if the defendant testifies, a jury may convict a defendant on the victim's word alone in all sorts of cases, including theft and sexual assault. Obviously, a jury is much more likely to convict if there is corroborating evidence but there is no rule that says they has to has corroborating evidence. There are plenty of convictions in theft cases, as well as rapes and other types of cases, based on the victim's testimony alone.
(This was my line of work for many years, so I have seen how these things play out in the courtroom.)
I'm a photographer, among other things, and I confess I'm paranoid about taking pictures of children - no matter how beautiful or engaging or cute they are. I wouldn't even ask their parents for permission. Too many risks.
Helen, Trey,
Regarding the reasons men self out their sex...
I speak as someone with a degree from a small liberal arts school that grew increasingly gynocratic (in a terroristic way) during my tenure as a student, I can give you three reasons why men sell out:
1) Power through women over men AND women through fear (men) & covert manipulation (women).
2) More sex.
3) An easy PhD, presumably extending the period during which they will get more sex & because Science is Hard!
(Quoth Talking Barbie...)
One way to get a really good understanding of how the criminal justice system works in your locale is to get a copy of the model criminal jury instructions for your state. This will set forth what the jury is told about how to make a decision in a criminal case, and how to weigh the evidence.
Oh, and I should note that I cannot speak for the way this stuff outside the U.S., which may be a completely different story.
Oligonicella,
Just to address your last point:
Otherwise, you could simply have someone locked up by claiming they stole something. Your last sentence supports my position.
To sum up my prior comments on this issue: Yes, you CAN get someone locked up by claiming they stole something (or committed some other crime against you)!
However, you'd have to be very determined and cold-blooded because you would have to lie repeatedly and in detail by telling your story to the police, to the prosecutor and under oath in a public courtroom under cross-examination. You need to know that inconsistencies and improbabilities in your story will be looked at closely as well as any motives you may have to lie.
Oligonicella said... "Why? Female volunteers are more likely to abuse the elderly."
Thanks for the study link, and I had two counterpoints. The study is of caregivers and is not restricted to volunteers. Reading the article summary, it is not clear how caregivers is defined, and the full article is $30. Without assigning proportions to the population in question (that the vast majority of caregivers and volunteers in elder care facilities are female), stating that more women are involved in elder abuse is of limited value--the equivalent of saying that in the male-dominant profession of law enforcement, male police officers make more arrests than female officers.
Second, I would still argue, as described by many posters, that there is a perception of male volunteers as being a higher risk than female volunteers.
Margaret said:
"So back to the issue in the post-- how do we as individuals and as a society balance the need to protect children from abuse with the need to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution and the need to protect caretakers of our children from unjust suspicion?"
I believe you miss the point. The balance has been achieved. Men do not volunteer to be involved with children. Now BB&BS and others are hoping to bully men to imperil their reputation, liberty and livelihood "for the children." From the comments here and to the post on DailyPundit, many men would like to volunteer but not only is the risk of accusation there, the groups wanting volunteers start out with the preconceived notion that you are an offender. Your discussion of the legal proof doesn't alter that the best way to avoid the risk is to avoid any appearance of opportunity. It is unfortunate that the children will not have a direct male role model but they can always look up to athletes and rock stars.
Let us not forget that male activities, such as hunting, fishing, canoeing, woodworking, building fires, hammering nails, sawing wood and cooking meat on a grill, are generally not acceptable to a lot of mothers and the social programs looking for volunteers. At least not anymore.
The horror of her poor baby coming in smelling of smoke and covered in soot from poking at a campfire. Or God forbid, a scrap from running or jumping.
Well, here is a news item on a report in Australia that found most child abusers are women. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=77464
True men are the biggest sex abusers but women get high marks in neglect, physical and verbal abuse. Let's see which abuse is more likely?
So if I am a child who accuses you of fondling me, there isn't going to be any physical evidence of fondling. But if I accuse you of breaking my nose, there has to be physical/medical evidence that my nose got broken or my claim is going to be extremely suspect.
Wasn't That the whole problem with the way molestation crimes are prosecuted, in particular, the McMartin case?
Get the child to accuse and the accused is then having to prove his innocence, rather than the DA having to prove the crime.
Why should the evidence bar be lower with children? Emotionally, I can see it, but not as a matter of law.
Jkb,
Fair enough. I understand that the point of the post had to do with people trying to get men to act in a particular way by accusing men of "selfishness" (and I did address that in my original response to the post). That's not cool.
But it does seem unfortunate, as you noted, that many men (like my ex-boyfriend whom I mentioned at 11:51 a.m.) are holding back from volunteering with kids. The kids lose out and so do the men who would otherwise volunteer (and so do women, since we as a sex will continue to be perceived as primarily responsible for young children). Is there any hope, I'm wondering?
My discussion of standards of proof was meant to address other comments on the thread. And I understand that the standards of proof don't necessarily make people feel any more comfy volunteering with kids.
Sgt. Ted,
The evidence bar isn't lower as a matter of law. But it's just hard to argue that the State failed to find "physical evidence of abuse," when there generally is no such thing as physical evidence in a case involving fondling (as opposed to a broken nose). Similarly, there is no physical evidence if I watch you take $20 out of my desk drawer.
One of the problems with McMartin though was that there SHOULD have been corroborating evidence of the children's claims and there wasn't. If I remember correctly, the children told stories of being molested in underground passageways which didn't exist. Also, there was something about a huge storeroom of peanutbutter, which was smeared over the children's bodies. There was no evidence of a storeroom of peanutbutter. (Another problem with McMartin was that the children were questioned in a leading and suggestive way.)
In your garden variety fondling case though, there generally aren't these wild claims. The child may describe being fondled in his bedroom and, while he may be able to describe his bedroom accurately, that neither proves nor disproves that the fondling actually occurred.
Sgt. Ted,
Upon reflection, my example of stealing $20 from my desk drawer may not be the best example because one may (but not necessarily!) leave fingerprints behind on the drawer.
I once prosecuted a woman for forgery because she was signing her ex-husband's name to checks. She said that he gave her permission to do so; he said he didn't. He said/she said. She was convicted on his testimony. Maybe it was a set-up but his story made more sense than hers (although he did have a motive to lie due to the acrimonious nature of their break-up).
margaret,
That was actually a particularly piquant example of the KIND of criminal behavior women seem more likely to inclines towards. Small scale stuff compared to sexual abuse but it's the sort of thing women are more likely to do to men.
Covert, or partner violence, or poison.
Sometimes I think the worst thing most modern men are guilty of is failing to defend on behalf of those who can't defend themselves is the habit of going blind and deaf to save their butts when a women is doing the damage...or another man.
With older men (early boomers, mostly) it's often a kind of failure to believe that kids can't deal with some girl (mothers included). With somewhat younger men, it's often fear, but that's a good enough excuse.
Correction: NOT a good enough excuse.
My experience with female offenders is anecdotal obviously, but I noticed that there seemed to be a greater concentration of female offenders, often middle-aged, for crimes like forgery and embezzlement. For crimes of violence, burglary, and DWI, the vast majority of offenders in cases that crossed my desk were young men. I would say that about 5 - 8 % of the DV cases involved female offenders. The most severe one was the woman who kicked her significant other in the face when he was leaning down to look under the car. Obviously, I can't speak to unreported cases.
-- Margaret
Slamdunk --
I should presume then that the "I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer" really referred to the perception, not the facts? Otherwise, shouldn't it have been just volunteers? I know I'm nitpicking.
Margaret --
Since you have experience, what's the percentage of cases convicted with only witness say so on a simple theft? Ballpark guesstimate, I obviously don't expect researchable numbers.
Oligonicella,
Hmmmm . . . tough question. I would probably say 5 - 10% but that really is just a guesstimate. And I would readily admit that it is probably a much higher percentage in sexual assault and simple assault cases (simple assault being an assault with no injury, such as a slap or a shove). But in most cases of any sort (except murder!), the victim's testimony is THE crucial piece of evidence.
With child sexual asault cases though, I have observed that there is a clear distinction between compelling and less-than-compelling testimony from a child witness. A child witness who can't give any details and needs to be led shouldn't be propping up an entire criminal case (although those prosecutions do often go forward). But a child witness who convincingly describes adult sexual behavior can be extremely compelling even without much corroboration.
For example, I once had a ten year old girl who described in detail exactly how her girlfriend's stepfather masturbatd and ejaculated in front of her at a sleepover. Even with the increased sexual knowledge kids have these days, I doubt that a little girl that age could convincingly fabricate that description, not mention the scuzzy things he said to her and things he did to try her attention to his penis. Another compelling aspect of her case was the fact that she had every motive NOT to disclose what happened because she knew it would cause a rift between her and her best friend. There was also testimony from her own mother about her demeanor when she came home from the sleepover and her demeanor when she told what happened.
(In addition, although the jury didn't get to hear about this, I was aware of similar allegations about this guy from other children in other parts of the state.)
theres an assumption of guilt. now against men.
look at the press stories, about the madeline mccann story in portugal, a mr murat was tried and convicted in the press, and effectively ruined his life. he may be innocent, or guilty.
theres many stories about men being presumed guilty, there was an asian (indian) taxi driver here, a woman 17 clamined he raped her, he didnt they police proved she lied, she got 4 months in prison, but he lost his job, his home, and his family for that ONE womans claim.
look at the false rape claims, men are blamed even where there is no proof, the duke story springs to mind, and so on.. theres many more stories like that.
would you be a man in todays world, with all the risks.
(boris johnson a UK MP, was asked to move away from some kids when he was flying.. because he may have been a pedophile.. one tiny problem they were his children. )
i can get the articles if you want..
Another frequent example of the victim's testimony trumping all else are stranger violence cases (rapes and muggings for example). Eyewitness identification of strangers is notoriously unreliable, yet people can be and often are convicted on the basis of a victim's eyewitness identification. I had one case the cops wanted me to prosecute involving a man who caught a burglar in the act. The burglar fled. The cops showed him a photo line-up of known burglars in the area, and the man identified a particular suspect. My personal policy was not to prosecute based on eyewitness IDs without corroboration, but the law would have permitted me to do so, even though the victim might well have been mistaken.
(Sorry for all the war stories. I'll try to stop.)
margaret-
No - keep the stories up. It exposes how easily the criminal justice system in this country can be mistaken, corrupt, discriminatory, etc.
From Proximate: A good friend of mine experienced the downside of the Big Brother program firsthand. His wife used fake child molestation charges to get custody of their children. One of the accusations regarded a boy he helped through the Big Brother program.
My friend made the rather sensible decision, in light of how little evidence is required for such things to flee the country. He also was quite mindful of how those jailed for child molestations are sometimes killed by fellow prisoners even before the trial (this happened in O.C., CA recently).
In time he found that the authorities concluded that the charges were ungrounded. Still, he'll never see his children. He'll never form a relationship with a woman again.
I know second hand of two other men who were also falsely accused. One went to jail before his name was cleared. Many wives in bitter divorces routinely use false child molestation charges in order to secure total custody.
This is one of the causes of a precipitously low birthrate in western nations. Too bad it effects the Big Brother and similar programs, but the problem is much bigger than that.
Anonymous at 3:49 --
The criminal justice system is only as good as the people in it. Given the fallibility of police, witnesses, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries, it is inevitably a highly flawed institution and miscarriages of justice occur.
In theory, the system makes sense. In practice, people screw up, or worse, are dishonest. And the layers of protection for the accused don't always work. People who have honestly been victimized by crime sometimes have their reputations unjustly ruined as well. It's an ugly business.
In time he found that the authorities concluded that the charges were ungrounded. Still, he'll never see his children. He'll never form a relationship with a woman again.
He shouldn't tolerate that. I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't stop until justice was collected - in full. (And legally / non-violently - I'm not advocating vigilante criminality.)
From Proximate: I agree, he shouldn't tolerate that, but he doesn't seem to have the energy for a fight. He's back in the states for now settling up on child support and setting up a mechanism for it to be paid in the future. He already lost his house, retirement account and all significant possessions.
It would cost him even more to wage a sustained legal battle; he doesn't have the means. Also, his wife has moved with the boyfriend she'd been seeing on the sly to a rural area where my friend could not possibly find employment for his profession. He couldn't move near enough to them to see the children regularly.
He's heard that his children have been told over the last three years that he's dead. He just counts himself lucky to be alive and free.
I would say that about 5 - 8 % of the DV cases involved female offenders. The most severe one was the woman who kicked her significant other in the face when he was leaning down to look under the car. Obviously, I can't speak to unreported cases.
Gelles, Sommers and Steinmetz have done the most exhaustive longitudinal studies on domestic violence. Their data indicates that women are just as likely to instigate domestic violence as men are. Women are more likely to be injured (because men are usually stronger), but they are also much more likely to use a weapon.
Anecdotally, a few years ago my brother and sister-in-law were having an argument. She hit him, ripped his shirt and then called the police. Though the only physical evidence indicated that she was the one guilty of assault, police policy is to arrest someone (for fear of being sued in case they don't, leading to more violence or murder), and typically they arrest the person who is more belligerent. You can understand that being treated like a criminal when he was the victim of an assault didn't exactly calm my brother down, so he was the one who they arrested.
Margaret -- Please continue. It is lamentable you share a name, but it's also obvious that you're a different party.
"The criminal justice system is only as good as the people in it."
Margaret, you are being too hard on yourself and oyur colleagues. The criminal justice system is only as good as the public it serves. This is a democracy, after all. Nifong wouldn't have lasted a week at his arts and crafts if the "community" hadn't been backing and protecting him and baying for blood the whole time.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3435/
A new survey by the children’s charity NCH – at the start of Volunteering Week – finds that 17 per cent of men wouldn’t volunteer to work with children because they would face a criminal records check. Moreover, 13 per cent wouldn’t volunteer because they fear that they could be perceived as a paedophile.
The NCH chief executive, Clare Tickell, gave a description of male volunteers that was not unlike that of prisoners on day release. ‘We work hard to ensure volunteers are checked by the police, trained and monitored, which we hope encourages men to come forward and helps assuage the public’s concern.’
From Proximate: Count me in with the 13%. Who needs that kind of risk? I send cash to charities, that will have to do.
Mercurior:
"We work hard to ensure volunteers are checked by the police, trained and monitored"
Sure, hon, I am going to "volunteer" for an organization that is going to delve into my personal history and then monitor me. I would have more rights over at Gitmo.
Margaret, your data is faulty.
Remember David Hume, the drunken Scot.
I mean, uh, THE Drunken Scot.
And I can say that because my family is Scottish.
He was the guy who really took Reason to the Rim, ended up something like cognitive psychology, possibly with a little too much head around the rim of the pint.
But what he really ended up with was an understanding of the limits of human perception.
Here is the flaw in your statement:
The fact that 5-8% of your DV cases involved men does not mean that this is a representative sample.
I walk a lot. I like to talk to people whose lives are absolutely unlike mine in every particular.
I see more of the world at 4 mph then anyone sees at 60 mph, even within limited boundaries.
You work within a system of laws and you are clearly a woman of scrupulous integrity, but there is an enormous amount of qualitative and quantitative evidence that suggests very strongly that domestic violence data is so flawed as to be unusable, that personal experience prejudices the opinions of all of us & that unless we challenge the accepted narrative--call it a law or not, something is going to come around and bite us on the butt sooner or later.
Correlation, en masse, is not causation. Causation only exists within a priori systems: closed systems. They're not real. Laws are convenience & contrivance. Handy, yes, but sometimes dead wrong.
But correlation in quantity tends to get us closer to reality then personal experience sans doubt.
I think I know why Hume drank so much.
It's a bugger thinking you might be wrong about everything at any time.
But once people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. And once people thought that dead animals spontaneously generated insects.
And once people believed that Barry Bonds gained 50 pounds of pure muscle, went from a 10 1/2 to a 13 shoe and gained an entire hat size even after he shaved his head by effort of will and moisturizing creams.
After all, (and didn't you something a bit like this yourself?), the justice system is dependent on its participants. It's very easy for a skilled barrister with impressive but highly selective recall to convince a little gang of jurists that up is down, left is right & that OJ was innocent.
I'll judge on my own as best as I may & I feel beholden to no system save for convenience, that the alternative might be worse.
Maybe the Sun does whirl around the Earth.
Hey, I've been wrong before.
Generally, I like to rely on quantitative data crunched 67 ways backed by my senses, experience & spun many people as I can find within the slot before deadline who can make a compelling argument to the contrary of what I'm pretty sure is right.
Lawyers spend a little too much time concentrating on being right.
I kinda understand. Maybe. It's like shooting free-throws. You start to doubt your technique and next thing you know you're clanging balls off the rim like Shaquille O'Neal with a palsy.
But like the lady says, keep talking. You make compelling points.
Don't mean you're right.
Don't mean you ain't.
Make mine a pint.
You?
With Respect,
-G
TO: Margaret
RE: Yeah....BUT....
"The criminal justice system is only as good as the people in it. Given the fallibility of police, witnesses, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries, it is inevitably a highly flawed institution and miscarriages of justice occur." -- Margaret
It seems more the 'rule' than the 'exception' that women, like Mary Winkler, get off easy. As opposed to men.
We have, at this moment TWO excellent cases of men murdering women that they were sexually involved with; Cutts and Vaughn.
Let's see what happens in their sentencing and compare it to Winkler.
Then again, maybe you, with your legal activity, might find a study of sentencing of men vs. sentencing of women for similar crimes.
We're looking for 'parity' here. Like a lot of feminists look for equal pay for equal work.
How about 'equal punishment for equal crimes'?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
OK. So 17% of men don't want to face a criminal records check.
That may be because they have records, but it may also be because they find it offensive. (That would be me.)
And of course many, many other men would volunteer to work with children on the first cold day in hell. (That would also be me, for several other reasons besides a background check.)
So, I confess, I like fast cars. I have a corvette and my wife has a Jaguar XK8 (her idea, not mine). One day, I had the garage door opened, and I was standing next to the door smoking (yeah, I have bad habits, too) and a couple of kids were walking by and yelled to me "nice cars, mister!". My first thought was to invite them over for a closer look and a split-second latter my next thought was "don't be stupid". And I have 4 kids of my own too, all grown up or so they think, and yes, I let them them drive mine (my wife won't let them drive hers though). The next thought I had was, how sad...maybe I should be more brave...
From Proximate: I agree, he shouldn't tolerate that, but he doesn't seem to have the energy for a fight. He's back in the states for now settling up on child support and setting up a mechanism for it to be paid in the future. He already lost his house, retirement account and all significant possessions.
Too bad. Sounds like those responsible need to pay for what they did. If it was me I wouldn't stop.
He's heard that his children have been told over the last three years that he's dead. He just counts himself lucky to be alive and free.
Well at least they didn't do anything to damage his body and health. Personally, I wouldn't stop. The more human garbage gets away with crap like this, the more they will keep doing it - there's an obligation to put a stop to it.
The fact that 5-8% of your DV cases involved men does not mean that this is a representative sample.
Absolutely. I can only tell you what crossed my desk when I was in the DA's office.It doesn't mean that there weren't more unreported cases out there involving male victims or cases that the cops didn't bring to me.
I can't comment on Mary Winkler or Cutts or Vaughn because I don't know much about their cases.
But I wouldn't automatically assume that a woman who gets a lesser sentence than a man benefited because of her sex. That may often be the case. On other occasions, it may be that she benefits because the circumstances of her offense are not as severe or there were mitigating factors or she doesn't have as many prior offenses on her record.
-- Margaret the Feminist
Olgonicella at 4:34 p.m.
I think you were responding to me, Margaret the Feminist. I forgot to specify myself as such. I will try to make it clear that I am not the other Margaret to avoid confusion.
-- Margaret the F
The logical conclusion of this thread is that -
women and men are now mortal enemies.
There is no alternative truth.
Five years ago my daughter and her friend were accused of sexually molesting a boy they had both babysat for over a year. The police concluded that the parents were coaching the child (the parents presented a tape of the child describing what happened and all he did was repeat what the parents said behind the camera. It was so absurd, the lead detective was incredulous and was tempted to file charges against the parents, but decided it was a can of worms best left unopened.) My daughter and her friend never babysat again for non-relatives and even then, my daughter doesn't like doing it. My wife and I won't let our other children babysit. Instead, when a parent really needs a sitter, we have them drop the child off at our house and my wife watches them (she's a girl scout leader, so they are mostly young girl scouts and/or their younger siblings.)
anonymous 12:08AM-
The logical conclusion of this thread is that -
women and men are now mortal enemies.
There is no alternative truth.
I wouldn't go that far, but the women that facilitate and encourage this kind of fraud and abuse or look the other way while it is happening are part of the problem. But then again so are the men that are facilitating, encouraging, and looking the other way.
exactly cham, imagine a government agency, looking into every aspect of your past, and sometimes your parents history as well. (i have been vetted before and i passed with flying colours, but even i am nervous when it comes to dealing with children).
this is the LAW or going to be in the UK, and if someone says if you have nothing to fear if you havent done anything wrong, then they are just fools.
the anti male bias, does exist. it happens when a man is walking down the street, in college, in work. yet somehow a lot of women applaud the anti male stance.
ts: Yes! The constant negative judgements and viewpoints are themselves at fault for men not wanting to get involved. The ONLY allowed solution in our culture is more hatred of males, more misandry.
I used to be VERY involved with the charitable sector and with children. Now, I do nothing of the kind. Constant misandry is a big part of the reason I stay away. The real and ever present risk both to my sanity and to my life are also important factors.
All: I can't see our society changing its view of men at any time in the next few decades. Misandry, contempt and suspicion will continue to grow until they reach a point whereat our society cannot govern itself. Then? I don't know. I really do not know.
Women are going to get more and ever more work dumped on them for the simple reason that men will not do the work that involves children, helpless men or women. Women will, obviously, blame the men and not themselves ... with certain exceptions of course. But, too few exceptions, way too few. Some men will blame and shame the rest of the men, for multiple illogical reasons: These men will dump the most violent of hate onto the rest of the men.
We're already spending government funds in multiple wasteful ways just so we can keep misandry. I think that will get FAR worse.
Pessimistic, aren't I? Yet, I think we can only go on what has happened before and that demands pessimism in this case.
I don't see this as hatred of men, everyone who volunteers for organizations that work with children is getting this scrutiny. Nobody is saying that they are only going to do background checks on males and not females. Background checks are a necessary evil, but there is a cost. There aren't many people who will submit to a multi-level check into their personal history for a volunteer position or a minimum-wage daycare post. Heck, you can't get some perfectly fine people to submit to a background check for a teaching position. With our economy being what it is, one can always write a check or find another job.
I had to undergo a criminal record check, motor vehicle check, and provide two references in order to be accepted as a volunteer to work with people making the transition from homelessness. The theory may have been that the work could have involved some contact with children. I don't know. It didn't bother me.
I assumed the issue posed had mroe to do with prejudices men encounter when they volunteer to work with children. For my ex-boyfriend, he was disturbed not by having to undergo a background check but rather by his perception that his co-workers and the children's parents seemed to view him with suspicion and to wonder why a young man would want to volunteer with young children.
Aside from the gender question, you should NEVER NEVER NEVER submit to a background check to be performed by an agent of the requesting party. If you do, you're basically consenting to allow them full access to all personal records, including financial records, in perpetuity.
There was recently a blow-up at a local charity when it was determined that one of the directors was spreading malicious gossip about volunteers based on the info she'd gathered through these checks. Other staff were fully aware that the checks were beign abused. But all that has resulted is her resignation. It turns out that there's no legal recourse because the applicants have effectively waived their expectation of privacy.
"Two things I think. First, your post leaves no room for the child being abandoned by their father. It suggests a world where only women are to blame for their fatherless children. Do you really believe that, or do you believe as I, that women are likely around 50% to blame for the problem? If it is an even distribution of blame, then the angry post is actually blaming and ducking responsibility at the same time."
The tone of this is like a little girl. I could imagine you standing outside of building that was on fire with screaming and dying people inside just standing there crying about how unpleasant it all was for you (waaa) and not lifting a finger. You are the new American 'male'- soft, effiminate, and a do-nothing.
The probelms facing our society today are like a building on fire & unless you've been living under a rock, single motherhood is 'celebrated' today- go to Amazon- there are 26,000 titles under single motherhood. It is now a 'popular' (sick) part of mainstream culture- men are seen as sperm donating ATM machines and women no longer have respect for men. The problem is with women- wake up, idiot.
TO: Margaret [the obfuscating attorney feminist]
RE: Compare and Contrast Opportunities
"I can't comment on Mary Winkler or Cutts or Vaughn because I don't know much about their cases." -- Margaret
Are you having trouble with English today?
I didn't ask you to comment on Cutts and Vaughn cases.
I said let's watch their sentencing and compare what they get, if convicted, against what Mary Winkler got.
Comprende?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When cornered, the typical attorney will deliberately misinterpret what has been said.]
TO: Graham
RE: The Blessings of Over-Indulgence
"Remember David Hume, the drunken Scot.
I mean, uh, THE Drunken Scot.
And I can say that because my family is Scottish.
He was the guy who really took Reason to the Rim, ended up something like cognitive psychology, possibly with a little too much head around the rim of the pint.
But what he really ended up with was an understanding of the limits of human perception." -- Graham
I know a superb database designer. He says he does his best work at 2 am after 7 scotches.
However, I doubt if he can remember how he did it, come the next wakening.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Alcohol! The last gift of the relenting gods. The simple word that makes life's crossword puzzle easier to elucidate. - Lennie Lower]
P.S. It's too bad that Knockandew is so pricey these days. I remember when they were trying to break into the American market in the mid-80s.
The gentleman who introduced me to it, a prof of geology at Colorado School of Mines, passed away a several years ago. A friend of mine, whom he introduced me to when he introduced me to Knockandew, and I did a whole bottle of it at his wake, to his memory.
Anon 12:27 wrote a lot of stuff about my comment.
In response, nope, I am not a girley man. Where would you come to that conclusion? Is it that I refuse to blame women solely for the ills of the world? Real men take appropriate responsibility. It is what separates us from boys.
And you say that I am not lifting a finger. Silly thing to say, half of my job is working with abused children. I was in court last Monday and helped to put a woman abuser away for 8 years. It is part of my job, I post here as a hobby. So, sorry pal, you missed again.
I do agree that some of the problem is with women, but you do not know many men if you think it is all the women. I am wide awake, and hardly an idiot. Your angry posts make you look like one, but I bet if you calm down and think a little more, you could make some decent posts that contribute to the discussion. Give it a try, you may like it, and it may help you on the road to being able to distinguish between wonderful women and dangerous ones.
Trey
Save the dangerous ones for me...
P.S. - I am naturally more selfish than women. It probably wouldn't surprise Rhoads and Putnam if I invited them to go piss up a rope.
Do you ever feel like you're a bug living under these people's microscopes? Is that any way for free men and women to live?
"Is it that I refuse to blame women solely for the ills of the world?"
Women are currently not being blamed for anything they are doing wrong.. at all. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, little weinee?
"Real men take appropriate responsibility. It is what separates us from boys."
Grow and wake up, you dope, if you are a man (which seems highly unlikely) it's time for you to look around and realize that you have nothing but responsibilities with zero rights and all of the blame. You are one of those maginas that's going to have to learn the hard way. You can join the conversation after you get yourself educated on DV laws and family court laws- until then your opinion is less useful than a pile of fecal matter (ha) I sincerely hope you're falsely accused for (fill in the blank) by a woman.
"I do agree that some of the problem is with women,"
Who cares if you agree when you don't even have a clue as to what's even going on?
"I am wide awake, and hardly an idiot. Your angry posts make you look like one,"
Your passiveness makes you look not only like an idiot, but spineless as well.
"..and it may help you on the road to being able to distinguish between wonderful women and dangerous ones."
That is the most naive part of all-like saying, 'not all women are like that.' Think of women and the divorce court system today like cigarettes. What you are implying is the same thing as, "hey, you can't say ALL cigarette smokers are going to die from smoking, so lighten up and light up- what's wrong with you?" Idiot.
Anon wrote: "Women are currently not being blamed for anything they are doing wrong.. at all. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, little weinee?"
In my post, I blamed them for 50% of what is going wrong. Come on, step up, you are just upset because I will not blame them for a higher percentage. What percentage of the blame would satisfy you?
I know and understand the law, sadly, I spent tens of thousands of dollars keeping access to my eldest daughter. I was accused of being an abuser. Been there, done that, sold the t shirt for legal fees. And I pervailed. One reason I pervailed, is that I did not appear to be a misogynistic idiot.
It helps. Try it!
Trey
Actually, the trick in gaining the interest of a man is to talk to him about something substantive, not something soap operaish.
anonymous 12:27pm-
The tone of this is like a little girl. I could imagine you standing outside of building that was on fire with screaming and dying people inside just standing there crying about how unpleasant it all was for you (waaa) and not lifting a finger. You are the new American 'male'- soft, effiminate, and a do-nothing.
And what exactly are YOU doing? (Besides talk garbage.)
Men today are largely hamstrung for several reasons -corruption/bias in the court system and public opinion being the main one. Pursue things officially and the corruption and bias in the court system kicks in. Pursue things outside of the system and a bunch of liars claim you are being threatening, abusive, stalking, etc.
I know personally that I am not "whining" - I'll let you know when I am.
tmink-
In my post, I blamed them for 50% of what is going wrong. Come on, step up, you are just upset because I will not blame them for a higher percentage. What percentage of the blame would satisfy you?
You're simplifying things in a way that doesn't make sense. You're treating everything like a "he said, she said" when in reality much of the time there is a woman that is simply gaming the system. And I find it pretty disgusting that that even as the victim as a court-facilitated false abuse claim that you don't realize that. If someone makes a false claim they are 100% at fault.
Note: I'm not anonymous 12:27.
"In my post, I blamed them for 50% of what is going wrong. Come on, step up, you are just upset because I will not blame them for a higher percentage. What percentage of the blame would satisfy you?"
I'm just about done with you. 'Arguing' with you is like arguing with a woman- you cannot even understand simple concepts and you are confusing issues, and this is why men and women cannot have an intelligent discourse on any of the most important issues.
If you cannot understand the 95% of the problem is with our legal system facillitating women to commit constant fraud, in order to destroy families like it was fun game, I can't do anything for you. Actually, YOU are another part of the problem, because you are in denial.
"I know and understand the law, sadly, I spent tens of thousands of dollars keeping access to my eldest daughter. I was accused of being an abuser."
And you STILL don't get it? Exactly what in the Hell is your problem?
"Been there, done that, sold the t shirt for legal fees."
Ha- a real 'man of the world'- yea, right.
"And I pervailed. One reason I pervailed, is that I did not appear to be a misogynistic idiot."
Get it through your thick skull- it doesn't matter if you hate women/love women- indifferent to women- that isn't going to change the psychotic laws. If you are male and living in the U.S. you are now living in a nightmare- you can be falsely accused of anything and sent to prison at the drop of a hat. Does the word 'Duke' ring a bell? Get it? Got it yet? GOOOOOD.
You keep insisting someone who is is angry is somehow less intelligent- exactly how does that work? If you're implying intelligent people cannot be angry, you're not just an idiot, you're insane. Here's a news flash for you.. attacking someone like myself with bad news is primitive, caveman-like, knuckle-dragging behavior- & then going so far to call me 'misogynist..' & thus trying to to dodge the subject and focus on me- (typical female shell game) pfft! Screw YOU! You are in denial like so many other men, refusing to acknowledge that life is now that horrendous for men in the U.S. Nothing is going to change until everyone wakes up.
"And what exactly are YOU doing? (Besides talk garbage.)"
I'm involved politically. Anymore questions?
Life is horrendous for men in a lot of places. Doesn't get any better when we abuse each other for having different opinions.
Paging Dr. Helen...
Anon wrote: "If someone makes a false claim they are 100% at fault."
I completely agree with you. I think that false claims are made equally by men and women. I think women's false claims are believed more often than men's are. I bet we agree on that.
Trey
Rosie?
Did you have a sex change operation?
Come to think of it, as horrendous as my life as an American male is, I don't think I'd trade it for the life of, say, a male living in Darfur. At least I've got central air conditioning and people aren't trying to kill me all the time.
Anon 4:21 wrote: "You keep insisting someone who is is angry is somehow less intelligent- exactly how does that work?"
Sorry, my bad. I was trying to say that people who run their emotions on other people are less effective in communicating and look out of control angry. That makes us look stupid, me, you, Helen, whoever.
How it works is that the anger center of the brain is less developed and older than the higher thought centers. It is snake like and scaley. It only knows how to run and how to bite.
The higher thought centers, especially the pre-frontal cortex, is capable of complex thought and complicated communicantion. When the primitive brain floods the higher functioning parts, we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion. This is fine and very adaptive when it comes to protecting our family from an intruder, but it severly compromises our ability to write and communicate more complex thoughts.
"If you're implying intelligent people cannot be angry, you're not just an idiot, you're insane."
It would indeed be idiotic to say that intelligent people do not get angry. Not insane, being insane has to do with hallucinations, or persistent and strong delusions, or intense mood swings.
Intelligent people DO get angry unless they are brain damaged in some way and lost the ability to do so. I know plenty of smart people that cannot control their anger. They look stupid then.
I was trying to say that by avoiding over the top statements, you could and would make points that many here, including me, would agree with. When you insult me, it makes you look less intelligent. When you argue with me, you look smarter and you will probably win some of the arguments, cause God knows I think some stupid stuff sometimes.
I am sorry that calling you a misogynist felt like an attack. I really do think your experience has led you to hate women because of the things you wrote. It was not my intention to attack you as a person, but I did want to and do attack the ideas that all women are bad. Your posts are really angry and over the top. While we have areas we agree on, it is difficult to get to them because when I disagree with you you call me names!
Hope that helps, and I am willing to discuss ideas about women, men, power and the law. It is a very interesting subject, one that we both have experience with.
Trey
bugs, I sure agree with that. Things can always be worse, eh?
I joke around a lot, but in all honesty, my life is truly more simple, more enjoyable, without a woman (companion) in it.
That's a shame, but a fact none the less.
Br549, do you think that is Rosie???? I had not thought that. Rosie usually calls me fat and gets all superior. One time she posted something on here, and when I commented on it she told me to mind my own business!!!! That was the best one.
These insults felt more male to me.
Trey
"Come to think of it, as horrendous as my life as an American male is, I don't think I'd trade it for the life of, say, a male living in Darfur."
But we don't live in Darfur. We live in the U.S. where we are suppposed to be protected by the law, but the 'law' is being used to prey on us.
Trying to make someone's problems seem insignificant in comparison to another's is a condescending and insulting way of trying to belittle a real issue- just another cheap psychological trick and a scam that only works on sheep and losers- a way to keep people 'down.'
Anon wrote: "But we don't live in Darfur. We live in the U.S. where we are suppposed to be protected by the law, but the 'law' is being used to prey on us."
While I am not sure that it was their attempt to skirt (heh heh) the issue, you make an excellent point. We are indeed guaranteed protection by the constitution, and those rights are being run over rough shod by the family courts. It should be criminal.
Trey
"I really do think your experience has led you to hate women because of the things you wrote."
If that was even true, who cares? The subject here is how a men get railroded throught the court system everyday by women for profit or for fun. I'm either right or I am wrong. My personal dislikes have nothing to do with it.
"I did want to and do attack the ideas that all women are bad.
Again this is a exremely childish, simplistic approach to an extremely complex societal and legal issue.
"Your posts are really angry and over the top."
Let me ask you a question. I don't know... living in a society wherein you can be automatically arrested on the false accusation of a child or a woman, & having no rights in a marriage or in your own home.. you think these realities might be a little 'over the top?'
What is more important to you, petty little writing issues or your rights?
No, Anon. its called having perspective.
And I'm pretty sure that the Darfurians have laws as well. After all, the Soviet Constitution sounded pretty good--in theory. It was only the practise that was lacking.
OT-Then there was that guy who called me a 'baffon' if I remember right. Wasn't sure if I was supposed to be a buffoon or a baboon.
Tennwriter
anonymous 12:27-
I'm involved politically. Anymore questions?
How? Note that I agree with much of your 4:21 response to Trey. If there was a movement to change things, or even just share information and tips on how to uncover some of the fraud, get access to records, etc. I would be very interested in hearing about it. (A lot of what seems to be happening in my case there don't seem to be records for - or they are criminally and tortiously being witheld from me.)
Anon, I am just trying to help you post better here. Honestly, I think your life would be better if you channeled your anger in a positive way too.
My rights are important, damn important. But my daughter's needs outweighed my rights. I spent about $50,000 on keeping my access to my daughter. It was a huge mess, and the judge was known for not liking men, and hating psychologists!
But we prevailed. She lives with me half time now, and we all cherish that time. Perhaps the best part of the story is how I am remarried to a WONDERFUL woman. I am happy, my daughter gets to see how a healthy couple live, and she loves her stepmother.
One reason for the happy ending was I got good advice to deal with my anger, hurt, and fear. And I did. I am part of case law now, and if you are in Tennessee, I hope you benefitted from the money that went into winning that case!
What happened to you?
Trey
tmink-
I completely agree with you. I think that false claims are made equally by men and women. I think women's false claims are believed more often than men's are. I bet we agree on that.
The problem is that false claims are not made equally by men and women.
Let me start by stating that not all women are dishonest, deceitful, manipulative, etc. and that I am not a misogynist. But many women are raised and conditioned to go about things differently, and many are raised and conditioned to be manipulative, deceptive, passive aggressive, duplicitous, etc.
You used to be able to see it on the schoolyard. If two boys had a dispute they would argue or in some cases fight it out. If two girls got into a dispute it would usually result in backstabbing, ridicule, ostracism, etc. Often it would involve false claims to an authority figure - a teacher, parent, coach, etc. Note that this is also what would happen when a girl got into a dispute with a boy - the result would often be a false or exaggerated claim to a teacher, parent, coach, etc.
Now things probably have started to change because our society has been trying to feminize men, but the men who are adults now generally aren't as liable to make false claims as women are. So no - I disagree with your premise, women make false claims more than men do, and many have been raised or conditioned to do this. And when a women makes false claims she is still 100% responsible for that.
It's an indirect assault. Rather than attacking men directly, they make a false claim to someone else and have them attacked indirectly.
bugs-
Come to think of it, as horrendous as my life as an American male is, I don't think I'd trade it for the life of, say, a male living in Darfur. At least I've got central air conditioning and people aren't trying to kill me all the time.
Except that this isn't a game of "Dueling Misfortunes". There will always be horrible situations somewhere on earth, that isn't an excuse for looking the other way or tolerating crimes and injustices here.
Would it be OK for me to steal from you if, when you asked for your property back, I said "no, you don't need it, people are starving somewhere"? What largely seperates this country from other places is that people's rights, including there property rights, are supposed to be protected.
Well, if I knew of a system that always does what it's supposed to do and compared ours with it, I might agree that our current situation is indeed horrendous.
We here in Virginia have been monkeying with our government since 1607. Nevertheless, it was our government that let Cho get away and murder 32 VT students. After 400 years, our system is still not perfect.
We keep trying, though...
Are all narcissists men? Although there are many women who are narcissists, psychoanalysts estimate that up to three quarters of narcissists are male. Scan the literature, talk to the people who feel they’ve been victims of narcissists, and you’ll find the vast majority of case studies are about men. Why? There’s possibly a complex interplay of two factors:
"Come to think of it, as horrendous as my life as an American male is, I don't think I'd trade it for the life of, say, a male living in Darfur."
There is no country in which men are worse off than in the United States. They are worse off by comparison with their female partners: the differing living condition of a man and woman within one and the same social class of a given country, within one and the same family.
In addition, even the most oppressive governments on Earth, past and present, have never denied the most basic human right to men- the right to their own children, but that is the systematic situation we now live in here in the U.S. What difference does it make if you air conditioning and all the other modern conveniences if there is no peace at home because the wife holds a legal knife to your throat, and you have no rights to your very own children?
You think this is all a big, cutesy joke? You're going to learn the hard way, and you are going to learn that there no longer is a 'right' and a 'wrong' in this country.
Hi tmink.
Nope, I was making a funny.
tmink-
(I'm not anonymous 12:27.)
How it works is that the anger center of the brain is less developed and older than the higher thought centers. It is snake like and scaley. It only knows how to run and how to bite.
You're still doing it - trying to claim that someone angry is stupid. Actually, studies have shown that people actually make better decisions when they're angry, but of course this has its limits.
Come on, you're a counselor, you should know this stuff. Sometimes - very often - the angry one in a conversation is right and has a right to be angry.
It would indeed be idiotic to say that intelligent people do not get angry. Not insane, being insane has to do with hallucinations, or persistent and strong delusions, or intense mood swings.
Sometimes, although those definitions have been left intentionally vague. If my "mood swings" come from you assaulting me, they're not part of some mysterious delusion on my part.
I think what's complicating this subject is that you are a counselor using a discussion style that very similar to one of the very tools used to abuse men in your conversation here: baiting & intentionally confusing cause and effect. You see this with people that commit crimes and torts against someone and then when that person gets justifiably angry claiming they are "crazy", "dangerous", "abusive", etc. and then trying to get their way in the dispute based on that, or refusing to negotiate at all, therefore getting their way as well.
By the way, gang, I stated in an earlier thread that no matter how much in love a man is at this moment, he needs to spend an entire work week of days in divorce court, sitting in the back against the wall, and watch.
All questions will be answered by the end of the week. Been there, done that. Waiting for my own to show up, who insisted on a divorce from me. She never showed. No one did anything about it. EVERY TIME a man did not show, a bench warrant went out for his arrest immediately. Actually, it was six days in a row, total.
People can say what they want. I know what I experienced.
I have a standing offer to all my male friends and acquaintances. I live on the east coast, near the water's edge. If anyone wants to get married, I offer them a case of beer and a one way bus ticket to Seattle - to think it over in peace and quiet with no one else's input.
If, after they arrive from a 4 day bus ride, they still want to go through with it....they have to pay their own way back.
tmink-
(Again, not 12:27)
Anon, I am just trying to help you post better here. Honestly, I think your life would be better if you channeled your anger in a positive way too.
What more "positive" use of someone's time is fighting and putting an end to an abusive system that is trampling on your rights? Stopping and doing something else might be "positive" for the abusers, but not anyone else.
My rights are important, damn important. But my daughter's needs outweighed my rights.
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is some of the cheap rhetoric that has gotten us here in the first place. Everything is "for the children" and since the women and the courts control the children they therefore control men. It is not much different from someone holding your children hostage. In fact, that's what it is. The rights of children are important, but they are not to be held hostage or used as a cudgel to violate men's rights.
One reason for the happy ending was I got good advice to deal with my anger, hurt, and fear.
Every situation is different. In some cases people are playing games with cause and effect and trying to use this as a vehicle for more abuse.
bugs-
We here in Virginia have been monkeying with our government since 1607. Nevertheless, it was our government that let Cho get away and murder 32 VT students. After 400 years, our system is still not perfect.
No, a crazy person killed 32 students. Short of 1984-style totalitarianism - which is in fact what a lot of people want, as long as it is pushing their pet agenda - there is little that could have been done to stop it. And even then it would probably still occur - what then?
Some of the mass killings with the highest casualties have been fires - specifically a hotel and nightclub fire, if memory serves. (Note - no guns involved.) So what are you going to do, ban matches and anything flammable?
As Franklin said, those that would surrender liberty for security deserve neither. And it seems like there are quite a lot of absolute morons that are ready to do just that.
meade-
I would like to read your seemingly misandrist article, but the link won't work.
I'll note that the symptom sets for "narcissism", just like the symptoms sets and checklists for other mental health "diagnoses" are very vague and open-ended. With enough creativity I would wager everyone in the population could be interpreted as having a couple.
Also, men tend to be more confident and independent, which I'll wager a guess that many people would like to classify as "narcissistic", especially socialists and collectivists who get upset when someone resists their rights-trampling master plan.
PS: Also note that depression and narcissism are diametrical opposites. So if someone is claiming a person is "depressed" one minute and "narcissistic" the next chances are they are just frantically trying to diagnose them with something, anything, they can use to smear and discredit them. Of course they would try "bipolar" next, but it would be obvious this is just a grasping attempt at a fraudulent diagnosis.
br549-
I have a standing offer to all my male friends and acquaintances. I live on the east coast, near the water's edge. If anyone wants to get married, I offer them a case of beer and a one way bus ticket to Seattle - to think it over in peace and quiet with no one else's input.
If, after they arrive from a 4 day bus ride, they still want to go through with it....they have to pay their own way back.
What's the significance of Seattle? Are you just naming a place far away?
TO: All
RE: The Disappearance of Margaret [the feminist]
I notice that since I posted a simple question, with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer to Margaret [the attorney feminist] a few doors down the hall from here, that Margaret is no longer posting items as 'herself'.
However, most interestingly, someone is posting 'anonymously' here, of late. And they use the same formating, approach, as Margaret [the attorney feminist] used prior to her 'disappearance'.
It COULD be pure 'coincidence'....but then again....
Whatever the case, when she manifests herself again, wherever that may be, I'll pose the same question to her, as it seems to have a direct bearing on what Dr. Helen has been addressing these last few days.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In the battle between you and the world...back the world. -- Frank Zappa]
It's the longest bus ride from the coast of VA. That's all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry, it is difficult to keep track of the anons. Please just sign a little name at the bottom so the regulars who want to have a conversation with you can keep track. It really helps.
And no, I am not trying to confuse or bait and switch anyone. I am trying to have a rational conversation. It works most of the time for me, why is it not working with you?
People who are enraged do not think well. I was not trying to state it, I was giving the neurological explaination. Facts is facts. I get angry when I have reason to, sometimes when I do not have reason to. So I am not upset that you are angry, and I am not calling you stupid. I think your anger as expressed, is counterproductive to your goals. (There is some bona fide counselor speak, but I stand by every word!)
I would not waste time talking with someone who I thought to be stupid. It seems to me that you have something to say, I am trying to improve our communication by asking you to tone down your over the top rhetoric.
I have nothing to say to bigots and racists. In reading your posts, it looked as if you had something to say worth discussing despite the "all women suck" statements. Maybe I was wrong, but I will not appologize for trying to have an informed, rational discussion with you. And I am not sure why you are so suspicious and insulting of me for disagreeing with you about some of the points.
But perhaps this will not go anywhere, and I do not want to get in a pissing contest with you. You take the last word, if you want to have a discussion, I would like that too.
If not, just insult me and I will leave you alone.
Trey
Anon 6:05 wrote: "So no - I disagree with your premise, women make false claims more than men do, and many have been raised or conditioned to do this. And when a women makes false claims she is still 100% responsible for that."
Well, I stand corrected. In a court of law, a man accusing his soon to be x wife of sexually abusing him or his children will get nowhere. A woman doing that will at least win a temporary injunction, and perhaps take the children away from their innocent father. That is the truth.
In my mind I was referring to an earlier post on a different topic about men and women and marital problems, in which I gave men at least equal blame. But that was not at all what you were referring to. DOH! In terms of false claims of abuse, I have no doubt that you are correct.
Thanks for taking the time to point out my mistake.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
TO: All
RE: "Curiouser...
...and curiouser," said Alice.
Interesting deletions recently.
Hadn't seen comments deleted since that kerfuffle down the hall at some discussion about mommy-blocking.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I believe in 'coincidence'. I just don't trust it. -- Garrick, Cardacian tailor/tinker/soldier/spy on ST:DS9]
To Meade:
OK, now you've done it,citing David Buss. I don't own that book, but I do own four others by him.
I think that if you look closer, you'll find that Buss would not agree that men are less altruistic or empathetic (although I think you mean sympathetic) than women. What he has said is that, evolutionarily speaking, men have lived in more of a winner-takes-all environment than men (i.e, their reproductive fitness has a higher variance). This has caused us/them to adopt a differently weighted set of strategies.
As for women being less violent than men, it all depends on what you mean by "violence". Certainly, in terms of physical conflict, men are more violent, but, to me, violence includes things like paternity fraud, which is something that only women can do to men. In terms of evolutionary fitness, paternity fraud is absolutely devastating to the cuckolded man. And, since the U.S. is a feminazi police state, paternity fraud is perfectly legal in most states.
I deleted in an attempt to fix the link.
anonymous: see if this works --
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/body_and_soul/article1972604.ece
(when you paste the address into your bowser window, check to see that it ends .ece)
and here's an interesting piece on a book by the psychologist cited in the above article:
http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/murder/index.html
I don't think it's necessarily male-bashing or misandry to observe that males tend to be less altruistic and empathetic and more egotistical and violent than females. We seem to be wired by myriad evolutionary adaptations to be that way. Not all of us -- just enough to make it difficult, along with irrational fear of males, for the rest of us to serve as Big Brothers if we so choose. It isn't stupid for men to work with children -- it's a boon to civilization -- but I think today's social climate does require those who do to muster up additional courage and good sense.
TO: meade
RE: Recent Deletions
"I deleted in an attempt to fix the link." -- Meade
Okay.
Thanks for the information.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Are you REALLY, 'Margaret' Meade?
TO: [Margaret] Meade
RE: A Matter of 'More' or 'Less'
"I don't think it's necessarily male-bashing or misandry to observe that males tend to be less altruistic and empathetic and more egotistical and violent than females." -- [Margaret] Meade
Talking about 'altruism'....
...how many women gave up their lives on OMAHA BEACH? Or wadding ashore through machine gun fire at Tarawa? Or stood and Died-In-Place [DIP, as we call it in the Army] in the face of Banzai charges on Iwo Jima?
Tell me MORE about 'alturism'. Please?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If the enemy is within range, chances are you are too.]
P.S. For the military historically 'ignorant'...
OMAHA BEACH, 500 casualties per minute for around 8 hours.
Tarawa, 50% casualties in the assualt force.
Iwo Jima, as I recall, the Marine commander of the front lines standing up to the assault said, "Send me all the cooks and clerks you've got."
When the officer on the other end of the line, i.e., in the rear, said, "But sir. None of them are Marines."
The Marine commander replied, "Any of them alive in the morning will BE 'Marines'."
Hope that helps....put thinks into 'perspective' about 'altruism'.
No, Chuck. I'm neither Margaret, Margaret Meade, nor Margaret Mead.
And yes, we owe our liberties to the men and women who sacrificed their lives in the cause of defeating tyranny. Their deeds allow us to be free and are enough to prove their character, sense of duty, and humanity. But my guess is that very few men choose to be Marines because of their altruistic and empathetic personalities.
Narcissism, altruism, and egotism are measured through psychological testing, which does not always provide a "full understanding" so I used the word "tend."
TO: [Margaret] Meade
RE: Tend[ancies]
"Narcissism, altruism, and egotism are measured through psychological testing, which does not always provide a "full understanding" so I used the word "tend."" -- Meade
And I say that idea is full of merde.
Otherwise, we'd have
seen MORE women running to enlistment stations after Pearl Harbor.
Reality is somewhat different from psychological theory.
Women, by and large, lack the 'fighting spirit' necessary to defend a country and/or society. You can drivel on and on about how things ought to be. But reality is where the tread meets the pavement and image, let alone imagination, doesn't hold up very well at the point of pressure.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Reality....what a concept. -- Robin Williams]
P.S. When you see Margaret [the feminist attorney], please ask her for me, "Is there gender bias in the judicial system's sentencing procedures....YES or NO?"
tmink-
And no, I am not trying to confuse or bait and switch anyone.
No, you bring "anger" into the conversation as a distractor. You can use this for several purposes. First, you assume a clinical stance and begin lecturing on anger. This from your point of view elevates you to "treating" the other party and therefore asserts your believed superiority. Second, it presumes to place you in a positions to judge the "anger" of the other party, and arbitrarily decide whether their arguments have any merit depending on how "angrily" they are expressed, whether or not they objectively have merit.
I am trying to have a rational conversation. It works most of the time for me, why is it not working with you?
Implying that my argument isn't rational. More argument by definition. If an argument isn't "angry" its "irrational".
People who are enraged do not think well. I was not trying to state it, I was giving the neurological explaination. Facts is facts.
No, those aren't the facts. Some recent research suggests that angry people make better decisions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19172819/
(Although I acknowledge that each situation is different and research is rarely conclusive.)
It seems to me that you have something to say, I am trying to improve our communication by asking you to tone down your over the top rhetoric.
Some of the things being done to men are classified as serious crimes (fraud, Constitutional violations, civil rights violations), trying to call them by other names doesn't change that. So I don't consider my rhetoric over the top.
I have nothing to say to bigots and racists. In reading your posts, it looked as if you had something to say worth discussing despite the "all women suck" statements. Maybe I was wrong, but I will not appologize for trying to have an informed, rational discussion with you. And I am not sure why you are so suspicious and insulting of me for disagreeing with you about some of the points.
I'm not a racist or bigot and I don't recall insulting you. And I specifically stated that all women were not bad, evil, etc.
Well, I stand corrected. In a court of law, a man accusing his soon to be x wife of sexually abusing him or his children will get nowhere. A woman doing that will at least win a temporary injunction, and perhaps take the children away from their innocent father. That is the truth.....
In my mind I was referring to an earlier post on a different topic about men and women and marital problems, in which I gave men at least equal blame. But that was not at all what you were referring to. DOH! In terms of false claims of abuse, I have no doubt that you are correct.
That was one of my posts, so maybe you were confusing me with someone else.
Although my points above about the clinical approach are still somewhat valid. I'm not sure if you want to seem or come off like that, but it can be perceived as condescending.
From now on I'll try to sign each post as "anonymous libertarian".
bobh-
And, since the U.S. is a feminazi police state, paternity fraud is perfectly legal in most states.
Thank goodness sham marriages are illegal, who knows what they'd be able to get away with if that wasn't on the books.
meade-
About the first link:
I don't really buy it. A lot of psychobabble and female psychological porn - if he rejects you or a relationship doesn't work out it is because he is a sick, dangerous, criminal animal. Now granted there are arrogant, self-centered men out there, and men who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want - but there are a LOT of women that are the same way.
I've seen it in some of my relationships. Even if you are honest, truthful, up-front, communicative, etc. with some women if you reject them or a relationship doesn't work out it is magically your fault somehow. Something has to be wrong with you. That's why I referred to the article as psychological porn, because its a female fantasy that every man that rejects them or breaks up with them actually has something wrong with them. In fact you could classify it as female narcissism - if someone rejects you, breaks up with you, or disagrees with you or your efforts to run their lives there is something wrong with them.
And note that the "symptoms" of narcissism are twists on positive male traits. Take the dichotomy of arrogance and confidence. Sure there are men out there who are by most objective measures arrogant. But it can often be the case that someone who is confident and rejects a certain woman suddenly becomes "arrogant". And note how much women prize financial success - but you certainly don't get there by donating all your possessions to charity or working a low-paying, but socially beneficial job.
I don't think it's necessarily male-bashing or misandry to observe that males tend to be less altruistic and empathetic and more egotistical and violent than females.
As far as empathy goes, much of it is based on perception. Many women are knee-jerk collectivists and socialists because those things sound good - fair, compassionate, etc. Many don't know a lot about economics and history - so they don't know those ideologies result in starvation, misery, ruin, individual rights being trampled, totalitarianism, oppression, etc.
So if you don't go along with socialist and collectivist initiatives does that mean you are not "empathetic" or "altruistic"? No - it means you know something about economics, history, and human nature. It could be quite the opposite - you realize that free-market economics and a firm commitment to individual rights. including property rights, is the right path to liberty and prosperity.
This seems to be more argument by definition. If you agree with the woman's social and economic agenda, you are "empathetic". If you don't you are "selfish". If you are confident and play ball with them, you are confident. If you are confident and reject them you are "arrogant". But note that I do acknowledge there are some arrogant, selfish, etc. men out there, just that the pictures they are painting here bear little resemblence to reality.
About the second link:
In one passage it reads:
“Many abused and battered women choose a time to kill when their partner is more vulnerable, such as when he is drunk or asleep,” he said. “Because the laws typically state that a person’s life has to be in imminent danger to invoke self-defense, defense lawyers often have a difficult time convincing juries that a battered woman who waited until her husband fell asleep was actually acting in self-defense.”
Gee - maybe because killing someone when they aren't an imminent danger to you ISN'T self-defense. Imagine that.
The rest is fairly pedestrian stuff, except this part may be a little dangerous:
“As an evolutionary psychologist,” he added, “I’ve become accustomed to critics who confuse what is with what ought to be. We can prevent murder, in principle, through a deep understanding of its underlying psychological circuits and designing environments that prevent their activation.”
It depends on what "designing environments" entails. You can't treat innocent people like potential criminals. The Nazis "designed environments" like this by locking up and sterilizing innocent gypsy men.
"That was one of my posts, so maybe you were confusing me with someone else."
Anon lib, I was not referring to you at all! I agreed with your point (in which I identified your Anon post by the time posted,) it was the other, angry anon I was talking to. See, he was real, real angry. That is why I mentioned anger, cause, you know, he was. You got confused, not me. Check out his posts, they are a bit different than yours in style and tone. Still want to lecture me?
So the other anon makes a point, I critiqued it. Nothing I brought up was spurious or off thread. He called me a weenie and other stuff every time I disagreed with him. I stuck to the point. Read the posts, you can see that I respond to the things he wrote.
When you critiqued one of my posts, I accepted both the correction and the point gracefully. Still want to lecture me?
Trey
Some people in the biz think that there really ARE more narcissistic men than women, and that there really ARE more borderline personality disorder women than men. Same with antisocial and histrionic, more men than women respectively.
Others think that male borderline personality disordered men look antisocial, and are misdiagnosed.
Not sure where I come down on the issue, but I do support the concept of the personality disorders. When you know what to look for, they are easy to spot and different from the rest of us.
And the part about preventing murder through designing environments is a hoot! Man, that guy must be smart! Heh.
Trey
I was just over at Joanne Jacobs blog reading the comments on this topic with I saw this comment:http://joannejacobs.com/2007/06/24/looking-for-big-brother/#comment-53123
Seems at some BB&BS offices, your vetted not only as a potential abuser but also to ensure you have the proper politics. Seems believers in free market economics and liberal democracy need not apply.
And yet they still can't understand why men don't apply.
i agree cham that background checks are valid, however... it is open to discrimination. positive or negative.
try getting a job in a nursery, even if you get past the application, and the check, and everything else, some employers think its too much of a risk to hire men, incase they are a pedophile but hasnt been caught yet.. thats the danger. to all the women on this topic, knowing what you do of the world.. would you want to be a man. with all the inherent risks.
tmink i try to argue with logic in most cases, but i agree when i get angry i make elementary errors in arguments, which doesnt help to argue my point, and it does sometimes make me sound like a twit.
Merc, the right amount of anger is a really good thing. It helps, it sharpens the mind and focus. Too much, when it boils over into bitter resentment, clouds the mind and ruins lives. In bitter resentment, all experience is colored by the angry preoccupation.
And that sucks, especially for the person stuck in bitter resentment.
Trey
TMink --
How it works is that the anger center of the brain is less developed and older than the higher thought centers. It is snake like and scaley. It only knows how to run and how to bite.
The higher thought centers, especially the pre-frontal cortex, is capable of complex thought and complicated communicantion. When the primitive brain floods the higher functioning parts, we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion. This is fine and very adaptive when it comes to protecting our family from an intruder, but it severly compromises our ability to write and communicate more complex thoughts.
Couple of errors in biology here.
The amygdala is older than the enhanced development of the pre-frontal cortex, but that in no way means it's less developed. It functions perfectly fine for what it does -- flight or fight.
"Primitive brain" refers to the time frame of appearance in evolution, not to the level of sophistication of accuracy thereof. That gets misunderstood quite a lot and interpreted down to 'emotions bad'.
When it 'floods' the brain, in no way do we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion. Some do, some don't. That's more a function of training and the individual.
Even when someone is angry as they write, it would be my guess that their amygdala is not in control. Few people without problems enter that level of emotion as they write.
You can't have it both ways. Either we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion or it's not in control when we execute the complex thinking involved with writing.
To Anonymous 12:15AM
Concerning the "dangerous" passage about "designing environments":
Suppose you are married, with a couple kids and during an argument with your wife, she mentions that neither kid is biologically yours. Historically, and even today in some cultures, this admission will typically get the woman killed.
I think the "environmental design" that Buss had in mind was more in the line of making paternity fraud illegal, giving the husband a more socially acceptable way of retaliating against his wife than simply killing her and her children. (When Buss revised his book "The Evolution of Desire", he added two chapters, one on homosexuality and another on paternity fraud. I'm fascinated by/obsessed with paternity fraud, mostly because of most women's completely manipulative and hypocritical social reaction to its existence.)
Hey Olig, you wrote: "When it 'floods' the brain, in no way do we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion. Some do, some don't. That's more a function of training and the individual."
I am a bit confused between the statements "in no way" and "some do and some don't." Are you saying that not everyone loses the ability to think in a complex fashion when bitter and angry, or that nobody does? I think it depends on just HOW bitter and angry we are.
My reading does state that the amygdala (thank God you spelled that first) is also more primitive in terms of decision making, that it largely controls the fight or flight response. It works with fewer choices. So that is what I meant in terms of the use primitive, not in evolutionary biological terms. Now I am no biologist (hat tip to you) but as an amateur neurologist, that has been my understanding. Am I wrong in that?
I do not mean at all to say that affect is bad or stupid. In fact, I believe that affect is another important aspect of internal communication which is vital to healthy functioning. I was referring to chronic, bitter resentment. I view that as similar to depression, a case in which the affective thermostat is stuck, and colors and/or mangles all the process that goes on while it is active.
It would be similar to the perceptual studies done with depression, but instead of interpreting neutral images as defeatist, we would interpret them as injurious, and they would start the anger and resentment cascade all over again. While in that affect driven stae (as opposed to a healthy affect informed state)we make stupid mistakes.
It reminds me of the peasant talking to King Arthur in Monthy Python's Holy Grail who was obsessed with class issues. All data was turned into the same paradigm.
In the same way, someone with say consuming bitterness against women and false claims of abuse, would do damage to the accuracy of their perceptions by processing most of their thoughts through this overactive schema. I would blame the amygdala as brain scans have shown it to be involved in affective flooding and PTSD. Am I in the ballpark here?
Sorry this is such a round about way of making my point, the amateur part of my neurological interest is showing!
But I bet you know what I am talking about: The person who has been hurt in a particular manner and becomes obsessed to the point of distraction about possible reiterations of the same injury in unlikely places. "Come see the violence inherent in the system."
Straighten me out pal, I appreciate your professional status, and look forward to your reply.
Trey
anon@7:12 sez So what are you going to do, ban matches and anything flammable?
Oh, I'm not going to do anything. Except maybe sit here quietly while you make a spectacle of yourself.
Have fun.
Oops it looks like this thread lives on. Can't wait to catch up on it. I see that my pal Chuck has a question for me:
When you see Margaret [the feminist attorney], please ask her for me, "Is there gender bias in the judicial system's sentencing procedures....YES or NO?"
Answer: There is gender bias in the application of sentencing by some or many judges.
I personally know a judge who does not believe that statutory rape of a teenaged underaged male by an adult female is a serious matter. I have also met judges who do not take rape as seriously if the female victim seems "slutty."
But I don't think it's fair to AUTOMATICALLY conclude that a woman who gets a lesser conclude than a man for a particular crime has benefited from gender bias. Her lesser sentence may relate to the particular circumstances of her offense, or her background (such as a lack of prior offenses compared to an offender with a history of violence). It's important that a male criminal may also get a lesser sentence than another male criminal for the same offense because their circumstances differ.
The price of individualized sentencing that it is sometimes harder to detect bias based on race or sex. Another price is that sometimes decisions may too easily appear to be the result of racial or gender bias.
bugs-
Oh, I'm not going to do anything. Except maybe sit here quietly while you make a spectacle of yourself.
Have fun.
No, other people are creating the spectacle.
Come on - what's your grand plan for taking everyone's rights away to "prevent" the unpreventable?
tmink-
Not sure where I come down on the issue, but I do support the concept of the personality disorders. When you know what to look for, they are easy to spot and different from the rest of us.
I believe that some do exist, but the symptom checklists are so vague and subjective you could make just about anyone fit one if you interpreted their behavior and motivation certain ways.
I also believe the various diagnoses are very susceptable to being politicized and used for political oppression, especially by people that don't know a lot about economics, political theory etc. As in: "What? He doesn't believe in the vague socialism and collectivism that most mental health professionals consciously or unconsciously buy into? He's some kind of sociopathic monster! Keep looking, there has to be some diagnosis that can be tacked on."
anonymous libertarian
(The response to bug just above is mine too, forgot to sign it.)
oligonicella-
When it 'floods' the brain, in no way do we lose the ability to think in a complex fashion. Some do, some don't. That's more a function of training and the individual.
The level of the stimulus causing the anger is a significant variable as well.
anonymous libertarian
bobh-
Suppose you are married, with a couple kids and during an argument with your wife, she mentions that neither kid is biologically yours. Historically, and even today in some cultures, this admission will typically get the woman killed.
I think the "environmental design" that Buss had in mind was more in the line of making paternity fraud illegal, giving the husband a more socially acceptable way of retaliating against his wife than simply killing her and her children. (When Buss revised his book "The Evolution of Desire", he added two chapters, one on homosexuality and another on paternity fraud. I'm fascinated by/obsessed with paternity fraud, mostly because of most women's completely manipulative and hypocritical social reaction to its existence.)
Perhaps I was a bit glib in my response. I agree that paternity fraud is a travesty and it is disgusting that in some cases some women get away with it. I wasn't aware that was the context of Buss's comment.
Anon libertarian wrote: "The level of the stimulus causing the anger is a significant variable as well."
Agreed. And if the stimulus is the activation of a chronic, bitter, angry schema, well, you know where I am going with this! Repetition strengthens response, as does trauma. It can feed on itself and become disorganizing.
Trey
And when a male does commit an act of "sexual predation," how do the courts respond:
A 17 y/o has consensual sex with a 15 y/o, and is DENIED BAIL:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286952,00.html
When you see Margaret [the feminist attorney], please ask her for me, "Is there gender bias in the judicial system's sentencing procedures....YES or NO?"
Nice duck on your answer, Margaret. You are indeed a feminist.
- BK
There is a profound concern that Dr. Helen Smith is so gender biased against females in this blog that she may be unfit to serve in any capacity for the community in Knoxville. The rights of female juveniles are in danger of being compromised.
A long way back now I commented that Paul Harvey and a previous anon had made a valid point, that mothers who have children without fathers are creating problems that get harder to clear up later.
Tmink (11.18 am) disagreed on the grounds that fathers who walk out on their children must also be taken into account, and believed that women are only about 50% to blame for the problem of fatherless children; and asked for my response. I have been away but I will pick up the thread again because I think there is a fundamentally important point that has still not been addressed.
I should add that I am in the UK, so my experience and perspective could be very different from yours; but I think we have virtually identical problems of fatherlessness here too, so I hope my comments will have general validity.
Of course Trey I agree that fathers who abandon their children must accept at least some responsibility for what can and often does go wrong in that child's life afterwards. But is it really the case that 50% of fatherlessness is down to such acts by the fathers?
I have long wondered exactly what kind of a man could plan a child with a woman he loves, see that woman get pregnant with his child and give birth to it, but then of his own volition walk away and have nothing more to do with his own flesh and blood? It does not make any kind of sense to me. Maybe the odd rogue individual could act that way, or a man suffering some kind of terrible trauma that unhinges him; but for it to be happening on an epidemic scale? Sounds too inexplicable to be true. Which is why I think it is not true.
I have never seen any comprehensive or reliable research into "why dads walk away". I would be very grateful to anyone who can point me to any; but I don't think it exists. If I am right, that in itself is a staggering thought - one of the biggest problems in western society, causing untold misery: and we don't know exactly why it is happening because nobody is bothering to seek out and ask the people who are doing it.
Could that be because we really just don't want to know? That we prefer to stick with our comfortable prejudice that they are just bad people, so we don't have to dig any deeper and maybe find something we don't want to face up to?
But my view, based not on any evidence (as I have just explained, I simply don't know of any) but on observation and personal experience, is that the main reasons why a dad walks away are:
He is simply not the biological father in the first place.
He is the biological father, but doesn't know it - because the woman deliberately keeps that fact from him; or because he is gone from her life before she even knows she is pregnant; or because she has slept with many men and does not know herself who the father is.
He is the biological father and knows it, but never wanted to be and was fooled or tricked into fatherhood (remember that once a woman is pregnant, however it happens, it is 100% her choice from that moment on as to whether she goes through with the pregnancy or not. The guy is utterly bound by her decision).
He initially believes he is the biological father, but later has reason to suspect - or even know - he is not.
Then there is that huge swathe of dads who have been deliberately removed from their children's lives against their will. That is of course a real big total, but a different story for a different day.
I nearly forgot the first group I mentioned, the guys who are the biological father, know it, wanted to be so, but who still walk out, for reasons unknown and apparently not of sufficient interest to anyone other than presumably the mother and the child, to warrant anyone trying to find out. As I say, I have no idea what percentages of walk-away dads fall into each of these groups, and I will be amazed if anybody else does. All I can say is that I have a very strong conviction that this last group will represent only a tiny, tiny minority, and most walkaway dads will fit into one of the earlier categories - each of which has a greater or lesser justification for their absence.
So do you still think that the "father" is responsible for fatherlessness in 50% of the cases?
I don't, and I hope you understand why.
As for men joining the BB programme purely for the sake of the children, and ignoring the acts of the mother, yes indeed that is a strong point. But you must recognise that if you ignore why the problem exists in the first place, you are merely tackling the symptoms, not the cause. It reminds me of a man building a house, when it catches fire. Of course he has to rebuild the burnt bits, but is it sensible to try do that while the fire is still raging? Or if he has to fix the burnt bits immediately, should he not at least tackle the fire at the same time?
When you give people safety nets for their behaviour, you are encouraging more of that behaviour, and more of it is exactly what you will get. If women learn that having a child without a father is made easier by being able to tap into an instant older mentor for their child if and when it becomes uncontrollable, do you think there will be more women having children without fathers in future, or fewer?
I am not being heartless and not saying the BB programme can't do some good, but it is not a real solution - it is only papering over the cracks. Worse, it is feeding the cause of the problem. I would not like to live in a world where the only contribution men make to the raising of children is as sperm donors on day one, then are consigned to a standby pool of dads-in-waiting until called into action as a surrogate father to bail out some feckless woman who has lost control of her child and can't cope any more. What kind of a society is that?
John, thanks for the excellent and thoughtful post. I appreciate your tracking it down to engage in more dialogue, it speaks well of you.
"So do you still think that the "father" is responsible for fatherlessness in 50% of the cases?"
Yes, and it is based on an assumption. The assumption is that men and women are equally disordered and gifted, though not necessarily in the same ways. That masculine and feminine power are complimentary, but equal.
I try to not blame the one group at the expense of the other. Now individual cases are certainly different, but I think that the blame can be fairly distributed.
Part of this is social science research that shows that within group differences are always larger than between group differences, part of it is just a statistical hunch because we are dealing with basicall all humanity, a very large number, and I bet the distribution is essentially similar. Part of it is based on my religious convictions which I will not bore you with here. And part of it is my belief that humanity is similar across race, religion, gender, orientation, etc.
This is cetainly not to suggest that such is not the case with you! But those presuppositions certainly color my expectations and understandings of the problems.
The cases you present are tragic and I know that they happen. I just believe that there are as many players as harpies.
And I agree with your points about supporting poor choices. I just come back to the innocent children and how intervention can help them, and that can make all the difference in their and their children's lives.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please continue.
Trey
TO: Margaret [the feminist attorney]
RE: ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION, AS SPECIFIED!
"When you see Margaret [the feminist attorney], please ask her for me, "Is there gender bias in the judicial system's sentencing procedures....YES or NO?" -- Chuck Pelto, to Margaret [the evasive, obfuscating feminist attorney]
"Answer: There is gender bias in the application of sentencing by some or many judges." -- Margaret [the evasive, obfuscating feminist attorney]
YES or NO.
What's the matter? Having trouble understanding English? Is it a tertiary language for you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Now answer the question, or I shall taunt you again, you silly English[-impaired] feminist person. -- Monty Python (paraphrased)]
Chuck,
Well, it's your own fault because your question is stupidly phrased. If I were just going to say "Yes," or "No," it wouldn't tell you much about what I really think, because your question can be interpreted in a variety of ways. That's why I did you a favor and spelled out my view of the issue for you, which apparently you are incapable or unwilling to understand.
Since apparently you can only understand "YES" and "NO, here are two possible interpretations of your question and my "YES" or "NO" answer to them:
Is there gender bias in the APPLICATION of the judicial system's sentencing procedures?
YES.
(Of course, your question fails to ask how often I think such bias manifests itself, and whether I think all judges operate under such a bias.)
Is there gender bias in the judicial system's sentencing procedures AS WRITTEN....YES or NO?
NO.
-- Margaret the Feminist
TO: Margaret [the English-Impaired Attorney]
RE: MY 'Fault'?
"Well, it's your own fault because your question is stupidly phrased." -- Margaret [the English-Impaired Attorney]
Hardly.
Others here could see it plain enough.
So....what country did you immigrate to here from after you immigrated from somewhere else to that one?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If it weren't for lawyers, I think we could have invented a universal symbolic representation of reality.]
P.S. Regarding "YES" and "NO"....
....you're reminding me of John Kerry; he was "FOR" it before he was "AGAINST" it.
[Lawyers: The larval form of politicians.]
tmink, 3:20 PM, June 28, 2007
It would be a godsend were I.Q and emotional intelligence on equal footing, having equal common sense. In most, including (perhaps especially) me, it ain't always so.
There are folks who live in refrigerator boxes in alley ways. Some live in 100 million dollar + homes on Puget Sound. The overwhelming majority live somewhere in between.
Each person is given 24 hours in every single day, no more, no less. What we do with that time separates the alley from the sound.
Some can't help their situation. Some won't. Some seem to not need much help at all. And I wish I knew what I am trying to say.
Feminism is a fallacy.
Human females have evolved, over a millennia, a certain instinctual propensity toward the "alpha male". This, of course, is completely understandable considering the fact that the male was required in times past to actually, and in reality, PROTECT the female he chose to be with and their offspring. This propensity toward the alpha male is seen all too commonly in cases we see sited constantly where the woman falls for the "bad boy" and totally rejects the "good guy". Her reasoning is vague as to why this happens. She can’t tell you why the good guy sensitive male bores her to death and why the bad boy sexually excites her. Well, I’ll tell you exactly why right now – it’s because attraction is not a matter of choice, (just as fear is not a choice). It is in fact a hardwired instinct that all mammals have evolved over the past couple million years. You see it everywhere you look, from the splashy tail feathers of the peacock to the exciting bad boy human. The bad boy represents the alpha male image to her, so her being attracted to him is not a choice it is instinctual. I could go on and on but I’m sure it already is and will continue to fall on deaf ears mostly and specifically because, generally speaking, the majority of you just don’t get it and probably never will.
Consider:
I’d like to request that you all, both male and female, seriously and logically examine your goals and specific likes and dislikes concerning mate selection. Men that act like women are not attractive to women, likewise women whom are too masculine are not attractive to men.
An example:
I remember an episode of a sci-fi TV series some years ago, called “Buck Rogers in the 21 first century” where they portrayed a society in which the gender roles were reversed. Men wore makeup, fancy clothes and generally were feminine acting, while the females portrayed a masculine persona and appearance. Is this really where we want OUR society to go? I for one can answer this with a resounding NO FUCKING WAY!
Please dont jump to conclusions so fast.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Helen you are inviting more controversy to your blog. I find your posts quite interesting. Your posts shall be the subject of my research.
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
a遊戲基地0204movie免費影片微風成人區視訊網愛聊天室視訊妹後宮電影電影院蜜雪兒免費小說聊天室交友洪爺情色論壇sexy girl video movie視訊交友90739無碼dvd維納斯成人用品辣妹貼圖a片天堂月光論壇sexy girls get fuckedkk777視訊俱樂部中國性愛城交友網sex520-卡通影片383movie成人影城ut正妹 聊天室倉井空免費a影片伊莉論壇
Post a Comment
<< Home