Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
Philip Lewis
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/10/1018333371835.html
The Age (Melbourne)
11 April 2002
Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
By Bettina Arndt
The video did a great job. For we potential jurors gathered last month in
Sydney's criminal courts, it was helpful to see actors playing typical
jurists, showing us what we had in store. But what was striking to me about
this educational video was that the villain, the one person we were
destined to hate, was male. A male in a suit, to be precise. An arrogant,
impatient businessman who irritated the hell out of everybody with his
pushy, obnoxious manner.
Today, men are the only standing target. It is no longer permissible to
take potshots at women. A few decades of lobbying by women activists has
taken care of that. But men are still fair game for television advertising
showing them as bumbling and incompetent and scathing attacks in newspaper
and magazine articles. Last year British novelist Doris Lessing spoke out
against this continual, demeaning humiliation of men: "The most stupid,
illeducated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most
intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they
can't fight back, and it is time they did," she pronounced.
In Australia, some men are fighting back. The West Australian Equal
Opportunity Commissioner is considering a complaint made by members of a
local men's group against the Women's Policy Office. At issue is the WPO's
"Freedom from Fear" campaign against domestic violence, which members of
Men's Confraternity WA claim is discriminatory and sexist.
The Freedom from Fear campaign is based on the presumption that "the
perpetrators of violence are almost exclusively male" a presumption the
complainants see as hurtful, insulting and wrong. Their 102page complaint
lists the substantial body of international evidence showing domestic
violence is by no means an exclusively male preserve.
A new book by New Zealand academic Garth Fletcher The New Science of
Intimate Relationships (Blackwell, 2002) sums up the evidence from more
than 70 studies involving more than 60,000 people in the US, Canada, New
Zealand, Britain, Australia, Korea and Israel: "The rates of violent acts
(both minor and major) reported by men and women in intimate relationships
are roughly equivalent; however there is a slight tendency for both men and
women to report that women are more likely to be initiators of violent than
men," Fletcher writes.
The WA complaint by Brett Kessner and Ian Cugley argues that the refusal to
acknowledge the extent to which women can be perpetrators of violence means
male victims are frequently denied help by domestic violence services and
the police. "The sad reality is that male victims are subject to a range of
social and political obstacles and prejudice when it comes to domestic
violence. The Freedom from Fear campaign does nothing to encourage male
victims to come forward," Kessner and Cugley write.
Last month, a date was set for a final hearing in an 11 year court battle
over just such a case. A Canberra man, Mr K, is claiming compensation and
apologies for alleged discriminatory treatment by the ACT Domestic Violence
Crisis Service. In 1990 he sought help from the DVSC, claiming he and his
son had been physically abused by his wife. DVSC staff refused to assist
him but instead counselled his wife and helped her to obtain court orders
for Mr K to be evicted.
Mr K's initial complaint of discrimination was dismissed by Sex
Discrimination Commissioner Sue Walpole on the basis it fell outside her
jurisdiction, but an appeal to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission led to a determination that Mr K's "less favourable" treatment
was not due to his gender but resulted from "hopelessly ineffective,
unprofessional and inadequate procedures" and "seriously flawed policy". An
appeal to the Federal Court determined this second commissioner to have
erred in law, and the matter was returned to the HREOC for reconsideration.
Last month, Mr K finally learned his case is to be heard by the Federal
Court in September.
This is not to deny the great threat posed by men's superior size and
strength, which means men are more likely to use violence to coerce and
control their partners. But men are right to object when portrayed as the
only aggressors in intimate relationships. Neither sex has a monopoly on
vice or virtue.
We must consider the consequences of denying men our trust. I am reminded
of a conversation I had last year, after spending a week ferrying children
to and from the snowfields for interschool competitions. Each day I would
offer lifts to young male snowboarders hitching rides along the route.
Another mother was horrified. "They could be axe murderers," she told me.
True enough; axe murderers are more likely to be male. But as a mother of
two sons, I hate the idea of my boys growing up in a world which assumes
them to be likely predators. Hence I feel I have no choice but to act on my
knowledge that most men deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, there may be some sight risk in letting these scruffy big boys into
the family car, but for me the price of treating all males with suspicion
is far greater.
---
Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
--
Phil
The Adam & Eve story was about
the loss of "innocence" caused
by the emergence into sentience
of human beings.
Links:
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/
http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html#references
http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/Bakom1E.htm
http://members.w-link.net/%7Eparkertr/RefDesk.htm
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/Library_MHN.htm#congressandother
Apples - food for thought!
(Len Firewood 2001)
The Enlightenment
White Males, are the only standing target left. Ironically the WASP
bogey man and woman has been so vilified and ridiculed that his/her
culture and self esteem is destroyed.
In the US for instance WASPs earn less money than noraml victims
groups such as Catholics and Jews; yet the myth of white male power
continues to be used as a Cudgel. Interestingly because in the US
Hispanics (1/8 caucasion and 7/8 indian on average) are gathered into
the white category when they commit a crime and as a seperate group
when victims the absurdity of white male scapegoating is reinforced.
In the US a white male with the same IQ has several times less chance
than a black or hispanic of entering or completiung college or landing
a high status professional job.
If you want to understand at an intellectual level what is going on
read these links; they will give you a start:
http://www.propaganda101.com/frankfurt.htm
http://www.amren.com/hardtime.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml
kluf
<NotTe...@You.com> wrote:
> But as a mother of
>two sons, I hate the idea of my boys growing up in a world which assumes
>them to be likely predators.
This is what will cause the inevitable swing from feminazi extremism.
When the raging femivictims pause to draw breath between their bouts
of hysterical hate mongering, they may just begin to have an uneasy
feeling that the gorgeous blue eyed little darling boychildren they
have will someday grow up to be the enemy.
Kluf
Andy Pandy
Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
news:a950b9$eik8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/10/1018333371835.html
>
> The Age (Melbourne)
> 11 April 2002
>
> Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
> By Bettina Arndt
[snip excellent article]
Good article Phil. Note that it was written by a woman. Most articles like
this that I've read seem to be written by women, including a couple by
feminists [please wipe the spit off your screen] such as Fay Weldon. Why do
you think this is?
Do you think it makes a difference whether sexism against men is highlighted
by male or female writers, politicians etc? Do you think it is men or women
who are more likely to be criticised or ridiculed for highlighting sexism
against men? Do you think it is men or women who are more likely to be
listened to? Do you think a female MP with views like Bettina's would be
able to do more or less to tackle sexism against men than a man with the
same views?
--
Andy
Angilion
wrote:
>From another list fwd fyi...
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/10/1018333371835.html
>
>The Age (Melbourne)
>11 April 2002
>
>Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
>By Bettina Arndt
[..]
>We must consider the consequences of denying men our trust. I am reminded
>of a conversation I had last year, after spending a week ferrying children
>to and from the snowfields for interschool competitions. Each day I would
>offer lifts to young male snowboarders hitching rides along the route.
>Another mother was horrified. "They could be axe murderers," she told me.
>
>True enough; axe murderers are more likely to be male. But as a mother of
>two sons, I hate the idea of my boys growing up in a world which assumes
>them to be likely predators. Hence I feel I have no choice but to act on my
>knowledge that most men deserve the benefit of the doubt.
>
>Yes, there may be some sight risk in letting these scruffy big boys into
>the family car, but for me the price of treating all males with suspicion
>is far greater.
Well fuck me, she actually understands! I'm lost for words.
If only she had written "male people" rather than "males", it would
have been perfect.
Does anyone have an email address I can use to heap praise on her?
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
kluf
(Angilion) wrote:
>>Yes, there may be some sight risk in letting these scruffy big boys into
>>the family car, but for me the price of treating all males with suspicion
>>is far greater.
>
>Well fuck me, she actually understands! I'm lost for words.
>
We are yet to experience the full force of her last fears: "price of
treating all males with suspicion is far greater." Thanks to the
successes of Politically Correct feminism, we are entering a situation
in which all males are perceived as a bestial underclass of criminals
intent on raping, violating and physically injuring females. This is
their nature and all males are suspect.
Good luck, lads, soon you will know first hand what it was like to be
a nigger in Alabama in 1920.
Kluf
Angilion
<spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote:
>Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
>news:a950b9$eik8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
>> From another list fwd fyi...
>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/10/1018333371835.html
>>
>> The Age (Melbourne)
>> 11 April 2002
>>
>> Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
>> By Bettina Arndt
>
>[snip excellent article]
>
>Good article Phil. Note that it was written by a woman. Most articles like
>this that I've read seem to be written by women, including a couple by
>feminists [please wipe the spit off your screen] such as Fay Weldon. Why do
>you think this is?
A few reasons, I think:
1) Most people writing about sex&gender issues are women, which is
to be expected after decades of feminism.
2) Editors may well be wary of printing such articles if they are written
by men, because they may think (probably correctly) that publishing
material opposing antimale sexism and written by a man will be
interpreted as supporting antifemale sexism.
3) Men are strongly socialised to *not* complain about anything that
adversely affects them.
Probably some more.
>Do you think it makes a difference whether sexism against men is highlighted
>by male or female writers, politicians etc?
Yes.
>Do you think it is men or women
>who are more likely to be criticised or ridiculed for highlighting sexism
>against men?
Perhaps neither, but the criticism and ridicule will be more effective
against men.
>Do you think it is men or women who are more likely to be
>listened to?
Women, partly because of the prevailing gynocentrism and
partly because it's not as easy to dismiss it as whining when a
woman's doing it.
>Do you think a female MP with views like Bettina's would be
>able to do more or less to tackle sexism against men than a man with the
>same views?
More.
Angilion
Not soon, no. They had it far worse. The basics are already in
place, but there's a long way to go. The road is going that way, but
society is only a small part of the way to that destination.
Andy Pandy
Angilion <angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cb9b336...@news.freeserve.net...
> >Good article Phil. Note that it was written by a woman. Most articles
like
> >this that I've read seem to be written by women, including a couple by
> >feminists [please wipe the spit off your screen] such as Fay Weldon. Why
do
> >you think this is?
>
> A few reasons, I think:
>
> 1) Most people writing about sex&gender issues are women, which is
> to be expected after decades of feminism.
>
> 2) Editors may well be wary of printing such articles if they are written
> by men, because they may think (probably correctly) that publishing
> material opposing antimale sexism and written by a man will be
> interpreted as supporting antifemale sexism.
Indeed, and the same I'm sure would apply to a male MP making a speech or
announcing a measure which countered anti-male sexism. Which is why it is
usually female MP's that make the few such announcements/speeches we've seen
from this government.
Also male judges probably feel similarly constrained to discriminate in
favour of women in custody and other family court issues.
> 3) Men are strongly socialised to *not* complain about anything that
> adversely affects them.
>
> Probably some more.
>
> >Do you think it makes a difference whether sexism against men is
highlighted
> >by male or female writers, politicians etc?
>
> Yes.
Agreed.
> >Do you think it is men or women
> >who are more likely to be criticised or ridiculed for highlighting sexism
> >against men?
>
> Perhaps neither, but the criticism and ridicule will be more effective
> against men.
Agreed. Comments like "he's a bitter whinger who can't get a shag" would be
hard to use against a woman!
> >Do you think it is men or women who are more likely to be
> >listened to?
>
> Women, partly because of the prevailing gynocentrism and
> partly because it's not as easy to dismiss it as whining when a
> woman's doing it.
Exactly.
> >Do you think a female MP with views like Bettina's would be
> >able to do more or less to tackle sexism against men than a man with the
> >same views?
>
> More.
Which I think proves my point (which I raised in the other thread
crossposted to uk.legal "BBC anti-men policy") that more women in positions
of power is actually *good* news for men.
I think this will be particularly true if the government changes the law to
allow all women shortlists. Women so selected to stand for election would be
under extra pressure to demonstrate that they aren't just there to represent
women but *all* their potential constituents.
If this results in more equal health spending, more equal life expectancy,
and less sexism in the family courts, then a handful of men not being
allowed to stand for election because of their gender is a tiny price to
pay.
--
Andy
kluf
(Angilion) wrote:
>>We are yet to experience the full force of her last fears: "price of
>>treating all males with suspicion is far greater." Thanks to the
>>successes of Politically Correct feminism, we are entering a situation
>>in which all males are perceived as a bestial underclass of criminals
>>intent on raping, violating and physically injuring females. This is
>>their nature and all males are suspect.
>>Good luck, lads, soon you will know first hand what it was like to be
>>a nigger in Alabama in 1920.
>
>Not soon, no. They had it far worse. The basics are already in
>place, but there's a long way to go. The road is going that way, but
>society is only a small part of the way to that destination.
It's an unfortunate indication of what has happened that the only
point of contention left is the time scale.
Kluf
tssk
>
I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
of this country.
In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
asking for it'.
Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
or setting me alight 'for fun'.
tssk
Rich
tssk wrote:
>
> > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> >
> Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>
> I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> of this country.
I'm curious, can you explain exactly what you are talking about WRT
the "original inhabitants"? And if they are so much more important,
why don't all you imports just leave?
> In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> asking for it'.
Are there any women left alive in Australia? Or have you overstated the
case.
And in what way does one thing justify racism and sexism against you?
> Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> or setting me alight 'for fun'.
So they're all dead. Hows the mail-order bride business doing?
Rich
> tssk
Bev
Here is a Profile of Bettina Arndt
http://www.saxton.com.au/speakers/Arndt.html Profile
What Tom graves had to say about Gender Issues and who he thinks
is fighting the good fight.
http://www.tomgraves.com.au/index.php?fid=gendidx
She is a member of the Government Family Law Pathways Advisory Group
and as such has probably brought a touch of reality to bear on this
important Federal Government advisory group.
http://law.gov.au/aghome/commaff/fllad/familylawpathways/Welcome.html#members
Here are some of her Speaches and Articles.
http://www.saasso.asn.au/often_Updated/whats_new_archive.htm
http://www.saasso.asn.au/often_Updated/whats_new/education%20arndt.doc
http://www.saasso.asn.au/often_Updated/whats_new/Boys-arndt.doc
http://www.saasso.asn.au/often_Updated/whats_new/Affluent%20neglect%20arndt.doc
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page15h.htm
Naturaly she is despised by the "sisterhood" who have mounted attacks on her
and attempted to censor her.
http://people.enternet.com.au/~beswick/pubaff/ManneArndtCulturalOrth.htm
Here is what Alan Barron had to say.
GLARING OMISSIONS IN BOYS' EDUCATION REPORT
/QUOTE
Late last year I attended a Symposium in Melbourne on 羨ddressing the
educational outcomes of boys'. The Symposium, organised by the Australian
Institute of Political Science (AIPS) was made up mostly of academics
d bureaucrats and was opened by then Federal Minister for Education,
the Hon David Kemp. Recently I received an attractively printed Report
of the symposium featuring papers from all the main presenters and
discussants. I was dismayed to find that the well researched and
articulate arguments offered at the Symposium by panel member Bettina Arndt,
were not included. She had argued that boys were seriously disadvantaged
in modern education because of many factors, not least of which was the
emphasis on raising the educational outcomes of girls. This had resulted
in boys' educational needs being marginalised and in many cases ignored.
Bettina Arndt's comments at the symposium had raised the ire of some.
How dare she challenge the status quo, which said that girls were the
ones today who needed special measures to improve their educational
outcomes? It became obvious to me at the time that some people were not
too thrilled about the fact that the Symposium was held specifically to
look at the problem of boy's disadvantage in education.
/UNQUOTE
Here is part of an attack on her from "Inkwel" the newsletter of the
powerful feminist group WEL (Womens Electoral Lobby)
http://www.wel.org.au/inkwel/ink0107/educatn.htm
/QUOTE
However, to date, the O'Doherty Report has not been translated into
policy and the media continues to play a key role in delimiting the
discourse. For example, social commentator Bettina Arndt is a vocal
advocate of strategies to address boys' 'disadvantage' in education.
She claims that their underperformance in English is "tied up with
notions of masculinity which see 'soft' subjects, such as English,
as feminine and unappealing" (1999, p. 4). According to Arndt,
the reason why this is a problem is, not because it closes off
these subjects to boys and forecloses their exploration of gender
characteristics generally attributed to females but, because 'there
are good reasons to attempt to shift these cultural norms -
particularly given the link between male unemployment and poor
literacy' (Arndt, 1999, p. 4). One conclusion that can be drawn
from this is that within dominant equity discourses females,
and those characteristics associated with them, have maintained
their inferior status.
/UNQUOTE
Bev Armstrong
Scott Gilbert
[snip]
> Here is part of an attack on her from "Inkwel" the newsletter of the
> powerful feminist group WEL (Womens Electoral Lobby)
>
> http://www.wel.org.au/inkwel/ink0107/educatn.htm
>
> /QUOTE
> However, to date, the O'Doherty Report has not been translated into
> policy and the media continues to play a key role in delimiting the
> discourse. For example, social commentator Bettina Arndt is a vocal
> advocate of strategies to address boys' 'disadvantage' in education.
> She claims that their underperformance in English is "tied up with
> notions of masculinity which see 'soft' subjects, such as English,
> as feminine and unappealing" (1999, p. 4). According to Arndt,
> the reason why this is a problem is, not because it closes off
> these subjects to boys and forecloses their exploration of gender
> characteristics generally attributed to females but, because 'there
> are good reasons to attempt to shift these cultural norms -
> particularly given the link between male unemployment and poor
> literacy' (Arndt, 1999, p. 4). One conclusion that can be drawn
> from this is that within dominant equity discourses females,
> and those characteristics associated with them, have maintained
> their inferior status.
> /UNQUOTE
>
> Bev Armstrong
Thanks for posting this, Bev. The above quote is well nigh
incomprehesible: Is the writer, as the text seems to say _really_
saying that boys poorer educational outcomes in english demonstrates
the inferior status of _women_?!?!?
maurita.o
news:1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> >
> Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>
> I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> of this country.
I put it to you that you probably have your blinkers on. Many women are
attention seekers. Probably more than you realise. They enjoy being the
centre of attention and much of this so-called 'abuse' is actually
appreciated and aimed for. There are women who are beaten black and blue but
there are also men in fear of their wives and girlfriends ... it's all
swings and roundabouts.
>
> In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
Or of being falsely accused by a woman and having the police believe every
word of it, despite her showing herself to be a pathalogical liar.
> Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> or setting me alight 'for fun'.
This group include females, by any chance? Teenage girls are these days just
as likely to get their kicks out of torching someone as boys. They are in
South Wales, anyway (the REAL South Wales, not the poor copy you call New
South Wales).
tssk
> tssk wrote:
> >
> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > >
> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> >
> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > of this country.
>
> I'm curious, can you explain exactly what you are talking about WRT
> the "original inhabitants"? And if they are so much more important,
> why don't all you imports just leave?
I am talking about the indigenous people here, I'm not saying that
they are more important than white people, just that the greater
community sees them as less important.
>
> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > asking for it'.
>
> Are there any women left alive in Australia? Or have you overstated the
> case.
>
> And in what way does one thing justify racism and sexism against you?
Just pointing out here that while I cop some verbal abuse, there are
other people out there who cop abuse that is much worse. If people
call me names I just ignore it. I've never been physically attacked
for being white. (Although I have been physically attacked for being a
wog.)
> > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
>
> So they're all dead. Hows the mail-order bride business doing?
>
> Rich
They aren't all dead. I'm saying that men have a long way to go before
they have it half as bad as other people in the community.
tssk
Rich
tssk wrote:
>
> Rich <rpa...@home.someplace.comcom> wrote in message news:<3CBA2CC8...@home.someplace.comcom>...
> > tssk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > > >
> > > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> > >
> > > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > > of this country.
> >
> > I'm curious, can you explain exactly what you are talking about WRT
> > the "original inhabitants"? And if they are so much more important,
> > why don't all you imports just leave?
>
> I am talking about the indigenous people here, I'm not saying that
> they are more important than white people, just that the greater
> community sees them as less important.
So? Do the indigenous people see the whites as more important than
themselves? I doubt it.
> > > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > > asking for it'.
> >
> > Are there any women left alive in Australia? Or have you overstated the
> > case.
> >
> > And in what way does one thing justify racism and sexism against you?
>
> Just pointing out here that while I cop some verbal abuse, there are
> other people out there who cop abuse that is much worse.
You've not connected the two at all. And most of the victims of
violence are men anyway.
How does one abuse justify another?
> If people call me names I just ignore it.
And if they act in other ways, like denying promotions, refusing to
hire you and in other ways that affect your livelihood, what then?
Bigotry does not stop at names.
> I've never been physically attacked for being white.
As opposed to what exactly?
> (Although I have been physically attacked for being a wog.)
What's a wog? And why is it OK to attack you for being one?
> > > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> > > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
> >
> > So they're all dead. Hows the mail-order bride business doing?
> >
> > Rich
>
> They aren't all dead.
If the abuse is as bad as you say, can't be many left alive.
> I'm saying that men have a long way to go before
> they have it half as bad as other people in the community.
Once again, how does one abuse justify another? Either it's all
equally wrong, or it's not wrong at all. Which is it?
> tssk
Rich
Philip Lewis
"Andy Pandy" <spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
message news:a97ade$n4i$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
| news:a950b9$eik8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
| > From another list fwd fyi...
| >
| > ---------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/10/1018333371835.html
| >
| > The Age (Melbourne)
| > 11 April 2002
| >
| > Besieged males deserve benefit of the doubt
| > By Bettina Arndt
|
| [snip excellent article]
|
| Good article Phil. Note that it was written by a woman.
So what - it is the content and ideas that is important to me.
|Most articles like
| this that I've read seem to be written by women,
That is because they got PUBLISHED.
including a couple by
| feminists [please wipe the spit off your screen] such as Fay Weldon. Why
do
| you think this is?
Ask the publishers .
|
| Do you think it makes a difference whether sexism against men is
highlighted
| by male or female writers, politicians etc?
It doesn't to ME - I wish I could say the same for the mass media and
publishing industry.
| Do you think it is men or women
| who are more likely to be criticised or ridiculed for highlighting sexism
| against men?
Again it shouldn't make a difference - Warren Farrel is an example of a man
who is not fazed by this.
| Do you think it is men or women who are more likely to be
| listened to? Do you think a female MP with views like Bettina's would be
| able to do more or less to tackle sexism against men than a man with the
| same views?
I see now why you are framing your questions so carefully - let me respond
DIRECTLY to what you were hinting at - NO I doubt that a FEMINIST policy of
"all women shortlists" would likely bring MORE "Bettina's" into parliament
than women gender bigots anxious to capitalise on an anti-male law.
Phil
|
| --
| Andy
|
|
|
Philip Lewis
"Andy Pandy" <spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
No it doesn't prove anything of the kind - UNLESS you can show that the
MAJORITY of those women in positions of power would be female MP's "with
views like Bettina's".
|
| I think this will be particularly true if the government changes the law
to
| allow all women shortlists. Women so selected to stand for election would
be
| under extra pressure to demonstrate that they aren't just there to
represent
| women but *all* their potential constituents.
| If this results in more equal health spending, more equal life expectancy,
| and less sexism in the family courts, then a handful of men not being
| allowed to stand for election because of their gender is a tiny price to
| pay.
And is NZ a model of such egalitarian fairness?
(Peter Zohrab would disagree!)
Phil
|
| --
| Andy
|
|
Bev
> > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> >
> Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>
> I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> of this country.
>
> In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> asking for it'.
>
Oh I see you actually believed the dodgy reports that said one third of
Australian women had been raped at some time, that all men were potential
rapists and constantly beat their wives and girlfriends. Funny how some
people had to back peddle when the statistical lies on which the reports
were based came to light.
<snip>
No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
elsewhere.
Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
but it was despite the system not because of it.
So you go ahead and believe the "fairy stories" and take your "black
arm band" view of Australian history. That is until you run foul of the
system and realize what the truth REALLY is.
Bev Armstrong
Angilion
> >
> Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>
> I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> of this country.
Feel free to provide any evidence that antifemale sexism is so much
more common than antimale sexism in your country.
> In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> asking for it'.
Are you seriously arguing that every woman in Australia gets raped and
then told she was asking for it?
> Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> or setting me alight 'for fun'.
That happens to every person whom you regard as the original inhabitants
of Australia? The original inhabitants have been dead for millenia, btw, but
don't let that stop you.
Angilion
wrote:
It appears so, probably because they believe that *everything*
demonstrates the inferior status of women. Once you have
accepted as faith that women have inferior status all the time, you
must interpret everything to fit that, no matter how incomprehensible
and irrational you need to be in order to do so. It's a matter of faith.
Andy Pandy
Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
The majority won't. The point is, that any female MP's who *do* recognise
that sexism against men exists and needs tackling, will feel *far less
constrained* in expressing those views than a male MP, for the reasons
above. A male MP who expressed such views would probably be committing
political suicide, especially in a heavily male dominated government. So
they don't. In other words, male MP's are useless at tackling sexism against
men. Female MP's are our only chance!
The possible downside, of course, is that we could end up with lots of
misandrist bigots, however I've seen very little evidence of that in any of
the current government's female ministers or MP's (indeed, more from the
male ones).
--
Andy
tssk
> "tssk" <tssk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > >
> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> >
> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > of this country.
>
> I put it to you that you probably have your blinkers on. Many women are
> attention seekers. Probably more than you realise. They enjoy being the
> centre of attention and much of this so-called 'abuse' is actually
> appreciated and aimed for. There are women who are beaten black and blue but
> there are also men in fear of their wives and girlfriends ... it's all
> swings and roundabouts.
No, I'd say that there are some cases of female/male abuse but I'd say
its pretty rare.
> >
> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
>
> Or of being falsely accused by a woman and having the police believe every
> word of it, despite her showing herself to be a pathalogical liar.
Rare again in this country. I'm sure its happens, I just haven't seen
many cases of it.
> > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
>
> This group include females, by any chance? Teenage girls are these days just
> as likely to get their kicks out of torching someone as boys. They are in
> South Wales, anyway (the REAL South Wales, not the poor copy you call New
> South Wales).
Really? South Wales must indeed be a tough place. Its usually teenage
boys who do it down here. Do you have any case studies I could look
up?
tssk
tssk
> tssk wrote:
> >
> > Rich <rpa...@home.someplace.comcom> wrote in message news:<3CBA2CC8...@home.someplace.comcom>...
> > > tssk wrote:
> > > I'm curious, can you explain exactly what you are talking about WRT
> > > the "original inhabitants"? And if they are so much more important,
> > > why don't all you imports just leave?
> >
> > I am talking about the indigenous people here, I'm not saying that
> > they are more important than white people, just that the greater
> > community sees them as less important.
>
> So? Do the indigenous people see the whites as more important than
> themselves? I doubt it.
Not at all. But the mainstream media seem to revel in painting a very
bleak picture of them.
> > > > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > > > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > > > asking for it'.
> > >
> > > Are there any women left alive in Australia? Or have you overstated the
> > > case.
> > >
> > > And in what way does one thing justify racism and sexism against you?
> >
> > Just pointing out here that while I cop some verbal abuse, there are
> > other people out there who cop abuse that is much worse.
>
> You've not connected the two at all. And most of the victims of
> violence are men anyway.
I'd say the victims of violence would be more 50/50. But most of the
perpertrators are men.
> How does one abuse justify another?
>
> > If people call me names I just ignore it.
>
> And if they act in other ways, like denying promotions, refusing to
> hire you and in other ways that affect your livelihood, what then?
> Bigotry does not stop at names.
>
> > I've never been physically attacked for being white.
>
> As opposed to what exactly?
>
> > (Although I have been physically attacked for being a wog.)
>
> What's a wog? And why is it OK to attack you for being one?
Slang for Italian. The chip on my shoulder is that I get attacked by
white jerks for not being white enough and jeered by others for being
white. That is really starting to get to me. And no, it definately
wasn't OK to be attacked for being a "wog'. Its just interesting that
I might have copped verbal abuse for being white, I have never been
physically attacked for it.
> If the abuse is as bad as you say, can't be many left alive.
>
> > I'm saying that men have a long way to go before
> > they have it half as bad as other people in the community.
>
> Once again, how does one abuse justify another? Either it's all
> equally wrong, or it's not wrong at all. Which is it?
>
It doesn't, of course. But I still maintain that while there are some
problems that men have to sort out we are still luckier than other
groups in society.
tssk
tssk
> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > >
> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> >
> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > of this country.
> >
> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > asking for it'.
> >
>
> Oh I see you actually believed the dodgy reports that said one third of
> Australian women had been raped at some time, that all men were potential
> rapists and constantly beat their wives and girlfriends. Funny how some
> people had to back peddle when the statistical lies on which the reports
> were based came to light.
>
that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
views somewhat.
>
> No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
> but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
> surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
> elsewhere.
We do have a smaller population base, but yes I think we have it
better than the US at least.
> Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
> when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
> want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
> have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
> in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
> from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
> back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
> but it was despite the system not because of it.
No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system. I
believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
> So you go ahead and believe the "fairy stories" and take your "black
> arm band" view of Australian history. That is until you run foul of the
> system and realize what the truth REALLY is.
>
> Bev Armstrong
As tempting as it is to quote "better a black armband than a white
blindfold" I have to admit having no experience with the court system
as of yet. I have heard stories from my mother who is studying law at
the moment but the picture she paints is one of the disadvantaged
being the party with less money or as she puts it "poverty has no
prejudices." I'll still stick to my views on prejudice in the streets
but will endeavor to keep my mind open on family court matters.
tssk
tssk
tssk
> tssk...@my-deja.com (tssk) wrote in message news:<1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > >
> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> >
> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > of this country.
>
> Feel free to provide any evidence that antifemale sexism is so much
> more common than antimale sexism in your country.
Of course I can't. Prejudice is insideous. Feel free to provide any
evidence antimale sexism is so much more common than antifemale sexism
in your country.
>
> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > asking for it'.
>
> Are you seriously arguing that every woman in Australia gets raped and
> then told she was asking for it?
A lot are. Some of my friends have been told that they were asking for
it when they were assaulted. Everything from a slap to sexual assault,
the perpetrator always said they deserved it.
> > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
> > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
>
> That happens to every person whom you regard as the original inhabitants
> of Australia? The original inhabitants have been dead for millenia, btw, but
> don't let that stop you.
Badly worded by me I'll admit. But some people here see the indiginous
people as less than them, and some young people see baiting or
assualting them as sport. Fortunatly this is being taken more
seriously by the law, a group of young men were charged a couple of
years ago for assualting a homeless indigenous man in a park.
tssk
Mike
<tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
>
>No, I'd say that there are some cases of female/male abuse but I'd say
>its pretty rare.
Not rare at all. These links might be helpful -
http://www.vix.com/men/domestic-index.html
http://www.landwave.com/family/
>> >
>> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
>>
>> Or of being falsely accused by a woman and having the police believe every
>> word of it, despite her showing herself to be a pathalogical liar.
>
>Rare again in this country. I'm sure its happens, I just haven't seen
>many cases of it.
>
False allegations by women are certainly not rare and IME the (UK)
police are over eager to believe everything a woman say regardless of
the evidence.
>> > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
>> > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
>>
>> This group include females, by any chance? Teenage girls are these days just
>> as likely to get their kicks out of torching someone as boys. They are in
>> South Wales, anyway (the REAL South Wales, not the poor copy you call New
>> South Wales).
>
>Really? South Wales must indeed be a tough place. Its usually teenage
>boys who do it down here. Do you have any case studies I could look
>up?
>
Not specifically, sorry.
--
Mike
Andy Pandy
> > more common than antimale sexism in your country.
>
> Of course I can't. Prejudice is insideous. Feel free to provide any
> evidence antimale sexism is so much more common than antifemale sexism
> in your country.
Well here in the UK there are certainly more sexist laws which discriminate
against men the against women. Although things are getting better.
> > > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > > asking for it'.
> >
> > Are you seriously arguing that every woman in Australia gets raped and
> > then told she was asking for it?
>
> A lot are. Some of my friends have been told that they were asking for
> it when they were assaulted. Everything from a slap to sexual assault,
> the perpetrator always said they deserved it.
The same applies to victims of other crimes. People are always quick to
blame the victim, from the person who's car gets nicked cos they left the
keys in it, to the person who gets murdered for their Rolex while walking
through a rough part of town.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
> believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
Here in the UK, if a couple who are splitting up contest custody of their
children, it is very rare for the father to be awarded custody, unless the
mother is proved to be a positive danger to the children. The family courts
are incredibly sexist.
Also, unmarried fathers don't even get PR (parental responsibility, ie
parental rights) for their own children, unless and until it is granted by
the mother or a court. They do of course have the obligation to financially
support their children. However the government have promised to change this
and grant PR to all fathers automatically.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
> problems that men have to sort out we are still luckier than other
> groups in society.
So in your country, do men or women live longer? Are men or women more
likely to be victims of violent crime? Do you have screening programs for
both male and female cancers? Do men or women recieve longer prison
sentences for the same crime?
--
Andy
Ian
Tony Blair has not one, but two minister's for women. He's only got
one Foreign Secretary. What makes you think that the extra taxes
men end up paying as a result of tomorrow are in any way going
to help men's causes.
He's more interested in fox hunting, you know, dumb animals that
kill every chicken they can, than male human rights.
What has Tony Blair done for men today?
More than Gordon Brown will take away from men tomorrow in
the budget? I don't think so.
"Andy Pandy" <spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
message news:a9ht9k$g7b$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jay Vonbriel
>
>What has Tony Blair done for men today?
Oh, he 'seems' to be doing a good job.
Angilion
>"maurita.o" <maur...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<IQuu8.8176$qa.3...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>> "tssk" <tssk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
>> > >
>> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>> >
>> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
>> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
>> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
>> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
>> > of this country.
>>
>> I put it to you that you probably have your blinkers on. Many women are
>> attention seekers. Probably more than you realise. They enjoy being the
>> centre of attention and much of this so-called 'abuse' is actually
>> appreciated and aimed for. There are women who are beaten black and blue but
>> there are also men in fear of their wives and girlfriends ... it's all
>> swings and roundabouts.
>
>No, I'd say that there are some cases of female/male abuse but I'd say
>its pretty rare.
You'd be wrong. It's about as common.
I can provide a great deal of evidence to support that statement.
I know that you can't provide any evidence to support yours, because
there isn't any.
Prove me wrong any time you like.
[..]
Angilion
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:00:40 +0100, "Ian" <dra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>What has Tony Blair done for men today?
>
>Oh, he 'seems' to be doing a good job.
In what way? He's instituted more antimale sexism
than any other PM I can recall.
Philip Lewis
The only other 'group' relevant in the scope of this discussion is WOMEN
(singular) - and we MEN are NOT "luckier" far from from it.
Phil
|
| tssk
Bev
> No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system. I
> believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
It is interesting to note that the court had no problem with
"self represented litigants" while mothers were receiving
legal aid and fathers(even the most poverty stricken) were not.
Fathers were regularly told "this is as good as it gets" dont
bother thinking about litigating you won't succeed.
Since mothers stopped getting legal aid the court has bent over
backwards to accomodate "self represented litigants". I wonder why?
Justice Alastair Nicholson, Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia
resisted changes to the family court system (despite serious community
concern)
until changed were forced onto the court system by the Federal
attorney general
In his (in)famous! letter to the Australian newspaper he blamed Family
court problems on men attempting to obtain some justice. (I
paraphrase)"The court
wouldnt have any problems if it were not for vexatious men trying to
get back
at their wives by attempting to gain custody or increased access to
their
children." (fathers were nasty because the were attempting to obtain
access
to their children). He suggested that the court wasn't biased because
in over
80% of cases men did not ask for custody or increased access they just
rolled
over. Where men did pursue litigation about half were successful
therefore
the court was not biased.
It would appear from his address to the lastest Law conference that
his
views have changed little. He makes on two direct references to
men(fathers).
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/stateofnation2002.html
Food for thought : the State of Family Law and the Family Court of
Australia 2002
By the Honourable Justice Alastair Nicholson, Chief Justice,
Family Court of Australia, Law Council of Australia, Family law
Section, 10th National Conference, 18 March 2002
/QUOTE
The lives of many mothers and children are blighted, even endangered
by the violence they experience directly or witness in the home.
/UNQUOTE
The assumption here is quite clear women dont commit violence or abuse
their children only men do that.
/QUOTE
I have received reports that self represented litigants (particularly
fathers) are often showing signs of exasperation, and that some
practitioners find the
quasi-criminal provisions difficult to deal with.
Our figures show that since the implementation of the amendments in
January
2001 the Court has made 71 post- separation parenting orders.
Subsequently,
21 notices were received from providers pursuant to section 70NH
informing the
Court that the person ordered to attend was found to be unsuitable or
failed to
attend. In all, 30% of the orders made did not result in the parent
actually
attending a program. It is therefore clear that much more commitment
is needed
from Government to enable these programmes to work.
/UNQUOTE
Oh dear! No wonder fathers are feeling frustration when the family
court has the power to apply santions to women who thumb their nose at
the system but wont.
If the figure of 71 seems small it is because he is only refering to
cases which go to a full court hearing and are not dealt with at a
lower
level.
Bev Armstrong
tssk
> In article <1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>, tssk
> <tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
> >
> >No, I'd say that there are some cases of female/male abuse but I'd say
> >its pretty rare.
>
> Not rare at all. These links might be helpful -
>
> http://www.vix.com/men/domestic-index.html
> http://www.landwave.com/family/
I have bookmarked these to read later.
Thanks
tssk
tssk
> children, it is very rare for the father to be awarded custody, unless the
> mother is proved to be a positive danger to the children. The family courts
> are incredibly sexist.
>
> Also, unmarried fathers don't even get PR (parental responsibility, ie
> parental rights) for their own children, unless and until it is granted by
> the mother or a court. They do of course have the obligation to financially
> support their children. However the government have promised to change this
> and grant PR to all fathers automatically.
There are still some archaic laws that need to change. Recently in WA
a widow recieved less compensation than she was due thanks to an
acient clause that ruled if a widow was attractive enough, she might
find it easier to find a new husband. Needless to say she isn't
pleased.
tssk
tssk
Women tend to live a couple of years longer. With crime, it depends on
the crime. Women tend to get sexually assualted more than men and
there has been a disturbing trend towards gang rape recently.
Male cancers are starting to be screened for but there does need to be
more done in the field of informing men how to self screen.
And for sentences, it depends on the judge. But I can't remember
hearing of too much disparities. Although, most women who are jailed
here are in for drug related offences.
tssk
tssk
> >No, I'd say that there are some cases of female/male abuse but I'd say
> >its pretty rare.
>
> You'd be wrong. It's about as common.
>
> I can provide a great deal of evidence to support that statement.
>
> I know that you can't provide any evidence to support yours, because
> there isn't any.
>
> Prove me wrong any time you like.
>
> [..]
Ah, but show me the sources. Point me to books or sites. Someone on
this thread has already done this and as soon as I have the time I'll
be looking at the info he/she has pointed me to. (Apologies, but this
is the net. I could be talking to a dog. Or I might even be a dog.)
tssk
michael price
> arms...@my-deja.com (Bev) wrote in message news:<c55fe1b4.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > tssk...@my-deja.com (tssk) wrote in message news:<1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
> > > >
> > > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
> > >
> > > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
> > > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
> > > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
> > > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
> > > of this country.
> > >
> > > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > > asking for it'.
> > >
> >
> > Oh I see you actually believed the dodgy reports that said one third of
> > Australian women had been raped at some time, that all men were potential
> > rapists and constantly beat their wives and girlfriends. Funny how some
> > people had to back peddle when the statistical lies on which the reports
> > were based came to light.
> >
> No, I don't believe in dodgy reports, I've done enough stats to know
> that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
> women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
> this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
> views somewhat.
1/8 of the women huh? And what proportion of the men? _All_ the male
members of my family have been attacked at least once and we are white and
middle class.
> >
> > No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
> > but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
> > surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
> > elsewhere.
>
> We do have a smaller population base, but yes I think we have it
> better than the US at least.
>
> > Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
> > when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
> > want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
> > have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
> > in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
> > from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
> > back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
> > but it was despite the system not because of it.
>
> No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system.
But you condemn those who report it as appologists.
> I
> believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
>
> > So you go ahead and believe the "fairy stories" and take your "black
> > arm band" view of Australian history. That is until you run foul of the
> > system and realize what the truth REALLY is.
> >
> > Bev Armstrong
>
> As tempting as it is to quote "better a black armband than a white
> blindfold" I have to admit having no experience with the court system
> as of yet. I have heard stories from my mother who is studying law at
> the moment but the picture she paints is one of the disadvantaged
> being the party with less money or as she puts it "poverty has no
> prejudices." I'll still stick to my views on prejudice in the streets
> but will endeavor to keep my mind open on family court matters.
Why would the mother have more money.
>
> tssk
>
>
> tssk
Bev
> news:1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > It doesn't, of course. But I still maintain that while there are some
> > problems that men have to sort out we are still luckier than other
> > groups in society.
>
> So in your country, do men or women live longer?
Women live on average 7 years longer.
> Are men or women more likely to be victims of violent crime?
Have to chase this one up but I believe the figure is somewhere
in the range of 6:1 (men are 6 times more likely to be the victims
of violent crime) Despite this we has a Government sponsered program
dreamed up by feminists called "Take back the night" which takes as
it premise that only women are the victims of violence.
> Do you have screening programs for both male and female cancers?
No! There has been large amounts of money spent on breast cancer and
cervical cancer research. The government has a very large and expensive
education program for both of the above cancers and free breast screening
program for all women over 45. None of which I begrudge it is afterall
saving lives.
Until recently breast and prostrate cancer killed approximately the
same number of men and women. Now breast cancer numbers are down but
prostate cancer is still climbing. Despite this the research money
applied to breast and cervical cancer as opposed to prostrate cancer
is still in the ratio of 8:1.
There was an attempt to increase research into prostrate cancer however
it was vetoed by the feminist lobby who said that it would detract
from research into womens diseases. There is little attention paid
to prostrate cancer and although there is an education program it
is extremly low key.
> Do men or women recieve longer prison sentences for the same crime?
The same sorry tale I'm afraid. Women kill their husband and children
and in many cases walk away from the courts free or on suspended sentences.
The same defences the "battered woman syndrome" and "post natal depression"
work just as well here as elsewhere. Aided and abetted the same vocal
feminists as you see elsewhere.
Bev Armstrong
tssk
> The only other 'group' relevant in the scope of this discussion is WOMEN
> (singular) - and we MEN are NOT "luckier" far from from it.
>
> Phil
> |
bad time of it at all. IMHO of course.
tssk
tssk
> It is interesting to note that the court had no problem with
Its a pity I missed DIY Law which screened onthe ABC recently, I'm
hoping they repeat it soon. Thanks for the reference, I'll check it
out. The only family court case I can remember is on where the mother
won custody and the father then shot her dead on the steps of the
Family Court here in Sydney. (The shooting element probably being the
reason I remember it clearly.)
Anyway, off to read the link.
tssk
tssk
> > that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
> > women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
> > this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
> > views somewhat.
>
> 1/8 of the women huh? And what proportion of the men? _All_ the male
> members of my family have been attacked at least once and we are white and
> middle class.
I'd say all my male friends have been attacked but in all but two
occassions these attacks were carried out by men. And I only know of
one man who has been raped, strangly enough by a man.
> > >
> > > No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
> > > but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
> > > surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
> > > elsewhere.
> >
> > We do have a smaller population base, but yes I think we have it
> > better than the US at least.
> >
> > > Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
> > > when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
> > > want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
> > > have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
> > > in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
> > > from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
> > > back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
> > > but it was despite the system not because of it.
> >
> > No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system.
>
> But you condemn those who report it as appologists.
Hmm. You may very well be right. It just seems IMHO that her stories
are skewed, maybe though I should find the original article to read
and see if it was an opinion piece or presented as a neutral newspaper
story. B Arndt does seem to get me riled up though for some reason.
But from my observations at school, a lot of girls did better than
boys because they knuckled down and did the work while a lot of the
boys just faffed about. (Not all, some managed to get into uni.) I
just don't see the curriculum down here as being anti male.
> > I
> > believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> > out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> > and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> > this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
> >
> >I have heard stories from my mother who is studying law at
> > the moment but the picture she paints is one of the disadvantaged
> > being the party with less money or as she puts it "poverty has no
> > prejudices." I'll still stick to my views on prejudice in the streets
> > but will endeavor to keep my mind open on family court matters.
>
> Why would the mother have more money.
>
I was conceding here that the system might not be pro man or woman but
more skewed to those who can afford better misrepresentation.
tssk
Scott Gilbert
[snip]
> No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system. I
> believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
In fact, it can be disaster for the wealthier party if the other party
qualifies for legal aid, having to use your own dwindling resources
while your ex has what seem to be limitless resources at their
disposal can lead to the complete destruction of your own wealth if it
is unable to outlast the governments resources.
[snip]
Mike
>hearing of too much disparities. Although, most women who are jailed
>here are in for drug related offences.
>
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf
--
Mike
Mike
>a widow recieved less compensation than she was due thanks to an
>acient clause that ruled if a widow was attractive enough, she might
>find it easier to find a new husband. Needless to say she isn't
>pleased.
>
--
Mike
Angilion
You made the initial statement about what you think. The onus is
on you to support it, especially since you have already been given
sources to show that your statement is wrong.
Show me any evidence from any non-sexist study which indicates
that M>F DV is significantly more common than F>M DV. You think
it is many times more common, so I'm not even asking you to go
as far as supporting your belief.
Angilion
>nini...@yahoo.com (michael price) wrote in message > > No, I don't believe in dodgy reports, I've done enough stats to know
>> > that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
>> > women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
>> > this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
>> > views somewhat.
>>
>> 1/8 of the women huh? And what proportion of the men? _All_ the male
>> members of my family have been attacked at least once and we are white and
>> middle class.
>
>I'd say all my male friends have been attacked but in all but two
>occassions these attacks were carried out by men.
Ah, the old "it doesn't matter when they do it to themselves" line
of argument. You don't realise how prejudiced that is, do you?
[..]
tssk
Down under its a bit different though. Even if you can get legal aid
there is a limit to how much of the taxpayers money you can spend. You
can't just use the legal strategy of outlasting.
tssk
tssk
Something else to add to my reading list.
Thanks :)
tssk
tssk
Its a bit insulting though isn't it? Lets put the shoe on the other
foot. If you were married and your significant other died and you were
due some compensation, wouldn't you find it offensive if a female
judge lowered the ammount of compensation you recieved because "You
are quite handsome, you'll find another bride to replace you love in
no time."
I know I wouldn't be amused.
tssk
tssk
Yes I do, and I'll concede my views are colored by experience. Maybe
my views would be different if the gender of the the assailants was
more even. Still, I'd have to say that one of the female/male attacks
was one of the most brutal I had ever heard of.
tssk
tssk
> >Ah, but show me the sources. Point me to books or sites. Someone on
> >this thread has already done this and as soon as I have the time I'll
> >be looking at the info he/she has pointed me to. (Apologies, but this
> >is the net. I could be talking to a dog. Or I might even be a dog.)
>
> You made the initial statement about what you think. The onus is
> on you to support it, especially since you have already been given
> sources to show that your statement is wrong.
>
> Show me any evidence from any non-sexist study which indicates
> that M>F DV is significantly more common than F>M DV. You think
> it is many times more common, so I'm not even asking you to go
> as far as supporting your belief.
Fair enough. Check out this report
http://www.qisu.qld.gov.au/bulletins/issue048.pdf
Look at the section under domestic violence. In the case of partner
abuse 80% of the victims are women.
tssk
Mike
OTOH, bereaved men usually receive less "compensation" than bereaved
women. Here (UK) AFAIK there is no such thing as a widowers pension but
there is a widows pension. The idea AIUI is that women are incapable of
supporting themselves - that's something I do find insulting. In the
case you mention, I suspect the a men would have received even less
compensation for the loss of his wife than she did for the loss of her
husband. The unfairness works both ways.
--
Mike
tssk
> Show me any evidence from any non-sexist study which indicates
> that M>F DV is significantly more common than F>M DV. You think
> it is many times more common, so I'm not even asking you to go
> as far as supporting your belief.
Here is an interesting gem from
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_09_061100/romans/romans.html
"Problems with research on perpetrators
Published research on perpetrators has been variable in quality.
Methodological deficiencies include biased samples (often using only
those perpetrators who have been referred for treatment),
retrospective designs, and inadequate or absent control groups.
Gortner and colleagues have made a strong plea for including
control-group subjects who have non-violent but unhappy
relationships.8
Results generated by research instruments such as the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTS)11 can distort our understanding of domestic violence.
These studies, which rely on counts of aggressive acts (slaps, kicks
and punches), find that women are as violent towards their partners as
men.5 However, such studies fail to consider the degree of force
inflicted, disparity in size, and the psychological power wielded by
those who have control of income and resources.
In two substudies on partner violence involving a cohort of nearly
1000 men and women, questions about partner violence were asked in two
separate interviews. One, using the CTS, found equal male-female rates
of aggressive behaviour during interpersonal disagreements.12,13 The
other, which asked about physical assault by partners, identified
three times as many male partners as females as the aggressors.5 While
women do perpetrate domestic violence, especially emotional violence,
in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, the greatest need, on
a numerical basis, is to identify and intervene with male offenders."
What do other people think of this? I agree with the second paragraph
in a sense, a male slap is generally harder than a female slap, but
both approachs ignore the emotional hurt caused by the slap. Which is
of course unmeasurable.
tssk
Mike
>news.freeserve.net>...
>> Show me any evidence from any non-sexist study which indicates
>> that M>F DV is significantly more common than F>M DV. You think
>> it is many times more common, so I'm not even asking you to go
>> as far as supporting your belief.
>
>Fair enough. Check out this report
>http://www.qisu.qld.gov.au/bulletins/issue048.pdf
>
>Look at the section under domestic violence. In the case of partner
>abuse 80% of the victims are women.
>
late here in the UK). Something I did notice, from quickly looking, was
that the 80% are _reports_: other studies have found that men are very
unwilling to admit to being abused by a woman. This alone could account
for the difference.
--
Mike
tssk
http://www.infoxchange.net.au/mrg/
tssk
tssk
> > It would appear from his address to the lastest Law conference that
> > his
> > views have changed little. He makes on two direct references to
> > men(fathers).
> >
> > http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/stateofnation2002.html
> >
> > Food for thought : the State of Family Law and the Family Court of
> > Australia 2002
> >
> > By the Honourable Justice Alastair Nicholson, Chief Justice,
> > Family Court of Australia, Law Council of Australia, Family law
> > Section, 10th National Conference, 18 March 2002
> >
> > /QUOTE
> > The lives of many mothers and children are blighted, even endangered
> > by the violence they experience directly or witness in the home.
> > /UNQUOTE
> >
> > The assumption here is quite clear women dont commit violence or abuse
> > their children only men do that.
He later says
"The need for the law to protect children from abuse and persons in
relationships from violence is an acute need and must not be
forgotten."
All of the langauge past your first quote is gender neutral, I think
that the first quote was an unfortunate slip, the later quote is very
gender neutral.
Interesting address though and it mentioned DIY Law. I'm most eager
now to track down a copy. Maybe a visit to the State Library is in
order.
tssk
michael price
> > > that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
> > > women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
> > > this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
> > > views somewhat.
> >
> > 1/8 of the women huh? And what proportion of the men? _All_ the male
> > members of my family have been attacked at least once and we are white and
> > middle class.
>
> I'd say all my male friends have been attacked but in all but two
> occassions these attacks were carried out by men. And I only know of
> one man who has been raped, strangly enough by a man.
So by your (admittedly ancedotal) evidence men are 8 times more
likely to be attacked? Why focus on attacks against women then?
>
> > > >
> > > > No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
> > > > but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
> > > > surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
> > > > elsewhere.
> > >
> > > We do have a smaller population base, but yes I think we have it
> > > better than the US at least.
> > >
> > > > Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
> > > > when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
> > > > want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
> > > > have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
> > > > in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
> > > > from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
> > > > back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
> > > > but it was despite the system not because of it.
> > >
> > > No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system.
> >
> > But you condemn those who report it as appologists.
>
> Hmm. You may very well be right. It just seems IMHO that her stories
> are skewed,
In other words you don't agree with her but can't cite a provable
error. She may well have a greater tendecy to report male-positive
stories but that does not make her an "appologist". An appologist is
someone who makes excuses for the behaviour of a person or group.
Simply pointing out the good things they do or that they deserve is
not this.
> maybe though I should find the original article to read
> and see if it was an opinion piece or presented as a neutral newspaper
> story. B Arndt does seem to get me riled up though for some reason.
> But from my observations at school, a lot of girls did better than
> boys because they knuckled down and did the work while a lot of the
> boys just faffed about.
Dodging the question somewhat, why didn't they "knuckle down"?
Surely it is the job of teachers to motivate _all_ students? I am not
saying that the alleged lack of effort was the fault of the teachers.
But it could be and if girls were failing we'd here that arguement
with genders reversed.
> (Not all, some managed to get into uni.) I
> just don't see the curriculum down here as being anti male.
>
> > > I
> > > believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> > > out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> > > and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> > > this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
> > >
> > >I have heard stories from my mother who is studying law at
> > > the moment but the picture she paints is one of the disadvantaged
> > > being the party with less money or as she puts it "poverty has no
> > > prejudices." I'll still stick to my views on prejudice in the streets
> > > but will endeavor to keep my mind open on family court matters.
> >
> > Why would the mother have more money?
> >
> I was conceding here that the system might not be pro man or woman but
> more skewed to those who can afford better misrepresentation.
And as exidence you post the opinion of a law _student_! If this is
true why is most custody awarded to the (usaully) poorer mother?
>
> tssk
tssk
> > In article <1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>, tssk
> > <tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
> > >And for sentences, it depends on the judge. But I can't remember
> > >hearing of too much disparities. Although, most women who are jailed
> > >here are in for drug related offences.
> > >
> > You might find this interesting
> > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf
>
by English magistrates. However another thing I fond interesting was
the ratio of violent offenders. Out of 6547 offenders only 450 were
women. This is the thing I have never understood, why the disparity?
Why are men wore likely to commit a violent offence than women?
tssk
tssk
> > > more common than antimale sexism in your country.
> >
> > Of course I can't. Prejudice is insideous. Feel free to provide any
> > evidence antimale sexism is so much more common than antifemale sexism
> > in your country.
>
> Well here in the UK there are certainly more sexist laws which discriminate
> against men the against women. Although things are getting better.
>
> > > > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
> > > > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
> > > > asking for it'.
> > >
> > > then told she was asking for it?
> >
> > A lot are. Some of my friends have been told that they were asking for
> > it when they were assaulted. Everything from a slap to sexual assault,
> > the perpetrator always said they deserved it.
>
> The same applies to victims of other crimes. People are always quick to
> blame the victim, from the person who's car gets nicked cos they left the
> keys in it, to the person who gets murdered for their Rolex while walking
> through a rough part of town.
It happened here with that english backpacker whose partner was
shot/killed and never found. After the initial sympathy some of the
media seemed to imply that she herself was the killer. (Even though
she obviously wasn't.)
tssk
Thomas Parker
Have you an equivalent for women?
tparker
tssk
> My comment was a bit TIC.
>
> OTOH, bereaved men usually receive less "compensation" than bereaved
> women. Here (UK) AFAIK there is no such thing as a widowers pension but
> there is a widows pension. The idea AIUI is that women are incapable of
> supporting themselves - that's something I do find insulting. In the
> case you mention, I suspect the a men would have received even less
> compensation for the loss of his wife than she did for the loss of her
> husband. The unfairness works both ways.
Found out more about the case. For those who are curious about the
compensation, it was due to a workplace accident that her husband
died.
And as for a widows pension, my mum used to be on that but they have
phased it ou except for war widows I think. And yes, I was wondering
how much a man would have gotton myself.
tssk
Thomas Parker
Some alternative questions - are women less likely to be sentenced for
the same crime than men? Are women paroled earlier? Do women receive
lesser sentences for the same crime than men?
All these things are true in the US. (cites on request) Perhaps
elsewhere. That may skew the numbers somewhat.
tparker
Bev
Are you aware of the most common cancers which afflict young men?
Skin cancer - well publicised because it affects both sexes.
Testicular cancer - Probably didnt know that did you?
Like all cancer the prognosis is good if caught early.
The point is it can be detected early by self examination.
We have a very up front advertising and education program for breast
and cervical cancer, why are we not educating young men to self
examine?
Testicular cancer afflicts 600 men a year in Australia.
Some facts about suicide you may not know.
http://www.wesleymission.org.au/centres/lifeforce/reports.htm#summary
/QUOTE
Summary Suicide Fact Sheet
THE FACTS ARE:
2,683 people took their own lives in Australia during 1998
Which means an average of seven suicides per day
For every completed suicide there are over 30 attempts
Therefore there are over 210 people a day attempting suicide.
There are 8.5 times more deaths by suicide in Australia than
by homicide (2683 suicides compared to 307 homicides).
There are 1.5 times more deaths by suicide in Australia than
by road accidents (2683 suicides compared to 1713 road accidents).
GENDER FACTS
2,150 of these suicides were males.
Male suicides outnumber female suicides by a ratio of 4:1.
The all-age standardised rates of male suicide registered in
1997 and 1998 were the highest since 1963 and, before that,1931.
Suicide is the leading external cause of death among men.
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 25 - 44
year old males.
Suicide rates for males increased from 16.5 in 1979 to 23.1 in
1998.
Suicide rates for females decreased from 6.6 in 1979 to 5.7 in
1998.
For every completed male suicide there are five attempts.
For every completed female suicide there are 35 attempts.
Homosexuality issues may be involved in up to one third of
young men under 24 who suicide.
YOUTH SUICIDE
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 15 - 24
year olds.
Youth suicide accounts for 16.6% of the total number of
suicides in 1998.
The largest increase in death by suicides was in the 14 - 24
years age group between 1921-25 and 1996-98.14
MIDDLE AGED SUICIDE
Men aged 25 - 44 made up about 40% of total suicides for 1998.
Men aged 25 - 44 have the highest age specific rate of suicide
with an 80% higher suicide incidence rate than that of women
of the same age.
The number of suicides by men aged 25 - 44 has risen by 44%
since 1979.
(This is a couple of years after the family court was set up)
ELDERLY SUICIDE
Men aged over 80 years have a suicide incidence rate six
times greater than that of women the same age.
elderly suicide accounted for nearly 20% of total suicides in
1998.
600 Australians over the age of 55 killed themselves in 1997.
FOUR LEADING EXTERNAL CAUSES OF DEATH 1998
Males Females Persons
Suicide 2,150 533 2683
Motor Vehicle 1,224 507 1,731
Accidents
Homicide 203 104 307
Accidental 187 58 245
drowning and
submersion
Factors Influencing Suicide in Older Men.
MALE HEALTH
Until fairly recently, male health has been a much neglected issue.
Women typically are much more interested in their health, evidenced
by the higher numbers of women who use Medicare services.
Women's health issues have, at least since the 1960s, been widely
discussed in the public domain and women are well represented in
health industries.
When we examine the statistics, men's problems become painfully
obvious. Huggins states:
Our prisons are full of men (90%), they are not full of women (10%);
Our juvenile detention centres are full of boys, not girls;
Approximately 90% of our school suspensions and expulsions are
boys, not girls;
Our remedial reading classes are full of boys, not girls;
Well over 80% of our drug and alcohol abusers are boys and young
men, not girls and young women;
The rate of suicide in the 15-24 year age group for males is nearly
seven times the rate for females in the same age group;
Injury rates for males are three times the rate for women;
The perpetration of violence and abuse is approximately 95% male.65
Mental Health/Depression
The issue of male suicide in the middle-aged group was made more
public earlier this year following the suicide death of a prominent
Labour MP in his early forties, who had been suffering from
depression following his marriage break-up. This tragic suicide
shocked the Australian community, a community so accustomed to
hearing that suicide was a 'youth issue'. Why would a man, at his
stage in life, take his own life?
Marital Status
Marriage breakdown is a significant characteristic of male suicide in
the 24-39 age bracket. The anxiety and emotional pain of separation
and divorce appear to effect men differently.
(The news is not all bad. After the death of a fedral MP the
government finally acknowledged there was a problem. Before
this the government set up the youth suicide prevention program and
a program for women because the feminist lobby said women should
also be helped because they "tried to commit suicide more often".
Middle age men were totally ignored!)
The Howard Government has acknowledged the problem of male
suicide, particularly following relationship break-ups.
It has agreed to fund a $16.5 million initiative focusing
on men and family relationships. With the state governments,
it continues to fund the Labor initiated mental health strategy.
/UNQUOTE
Yup I would say apart from a few problems with the family court
Australian men are doing great!
Bev Armstrong
Philip Lewis
"Andy Pandy" <spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
|
| Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
| >
| > "Andy Pandy" <spamspamspamspam...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
| > |
| > | Angilion <angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
| > | news:3cb9b336...@news.freeserve.net...
| > | > >Good article Phil. Note that it was written by a woman. Most
articles
| > | like
| > | > >this that I've read seem to be written by women, including a couple
| by
| > | > >feminists [please wipe the spit off your screen] such as Fay
Weldon.
| > Why
| > | do
| > | > >you think this is?
| > | >
| > | > A few reasons, I think:
| > | >
| > | > 1) Most people writing about sex&gender issues are women, which is
| > | > to be expected after decades of feminism.
| > | >
| > | > 2) Editors may well be wary of printing such articles if they are
| > written
| > | > by men, because they may think (probably correctly) that publishing
| > | > material opposing antimale sexism and written by a man will be
| > | > interpreted as supporting antifemale sexism.
| > |
| > | Indeed, and the same I'm sure would apply to a male MP making a speech
| or
| > | announcing a measure which countered anti-male sexism. Which is why it
| is
| > | usually female MP's that make the few such announcements/speeches
we've
| > seen
| > | from this government.
| > |
| > | Also male judges probably feel similarly constrained to discriminate
in
| > | favour of women in custody and other family court issues.
| > |
| > | > 3) Men are strongly socialised to *not* complain about anything
that
| > | > adversely affects them.
| > | >
| > | > Probably some more.
| > | >
| > | > >Do you think it makes a difference whether sexism against men is
| > | highlighted
| > | > >by male or female writers, politicians etc?
| > | >
| > | > Yes.
| > |
| > | Agreed.
| > |
| > | > >Do you think it is men or women
| > | > >who are more likely to be criticised or ridiculed for highlighting
| > sexism
| > | > >against men?
| > | >
| > | > Perhaps neither, but the criticism and ridicule will be more
effective
| > | > against men.
| > |
| > | Agreed. Comments like "he's a bitter whinger who can't get a shag"
would
| > be
| > | hard to use against a woman!
| > |
| > | > >Do you think it is men or women who are more likely to be
| > | > >listened to?
| > | >
| > | > Women, partly because of the prevailing gynocentrism and
| > | > partly because it's not as easy to dismiss it as whining when a
| > | > woman's doing it.
| > |
| > | Exactly.
| > |
| > | > >Do you think a female MP with views like Bettina's would be
| > | > >able to do more or less to tackle sexism against men than a man
with
| > the
| > | > >same views?
| > | >
| > | > More.
| > |
| > | Which I think proves my point (which I raised in the other thread
| > | crossposted to uk.legal "BBC anti-men policy") that more women in
| > positions
| > | of power is actually *good* news for men.
| >
| > No it doesn't prove anything of the kind - UNLESS you can show that the
| > MAJORITY of those women in positions of power would be female MP's "with
| > views like Bettina's".
|
| The majority won't. The point is, that any female MP's who *do* recognise
| that sexism against men exists and needs tackling, will feel *far less
| constrained*
By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her seat
she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
'logic'.!
Phil
in expressing those views than a male MP, for the reasons
| above. A male MP who expressed such views would probably be committing
| political suicide, especially in a heavily male dominated government. So
| they don't. In other words, male MP's are useless at tackling sexism
against
| men. Female MP's are our only chance!
|
| The possible downside, of course, is that we could end up with lots of
| misandrist bigots, however I've seen very little evidence of that in any
of
| the current government's female ministers or MP's (indeed, more from the
| male ones).
|
| --
| Andy
|
|
|
Alexander Baron
>>
>Finished reading through it, very interesting insight into sentencing
>by English magistrates. However another thing I fond interesting was
>the ratio of violent offenders. Out of 6547 offenders only 450 were
>women. This is the thing I have never understood, why the disparity?
>Why are men wore likely to commit a violent offence than women?
Institutionalised sexism of course; ask Doreen Lawrence.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/2634/ITMA.html
http://www.financialreform.20m.com/index.html
Mike
>posting.google.com>...
>> Mike <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<INcY0AAcJTv8Ewh6@fenlandsoftw
>are.demon.co.uk>...
>> > In article <1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>, tssk
>> > <tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
>> > >And for sentences, it depends on the judge. But I can't remember
>> > >hearing of too much disparities. Although, most women who are jailed
>> > >here are in for drug related offences.
>> > >
>> > You might find this interesting
>> > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf
>>
>Finished reading through it, very interesting insight into sentencing
>by English magistrates. However another thing I fond interesting was
>the ratio of violent offenders. Out of 6547 offenders only 450 were
>women. This is the thing I have never understood, why the disparity?
>Why are men wore likely to commit a violent offence than women?
>
with a violent offence, especially when her victim is a man. In DV
cases, the usual practice is to always take the woman's side. Several
(many) years ago I was the victim of a violent (female) partner.
Despite suffering injuries and being attacked, on occasion, in front of
witnesses, the police refused to take any action against her - they
would just fob me off with "it's a civil matter, Sir" or "there are no
witnesses" (even when there were). I even had a police officer come to
see me in hospital, after one of her attacks, to inform me that I wasn't
being charged on that occasion but, if it happened again, I would be
charged. Witnesses to that attack told me later that they had told the
police how she had launched a completely unprovoked attack on me. The
police had attempted to get them to say that I had attacked her but,
when they refused to lie, the police didn't even take witness
statements.
Perhaps your question should be "Why are men more likely to be charged
with a violent offence than women?"
--
Mike
Mike
price <nini...@yahoo.com> writes
> And as exidence you post the opinion of a law _student_! If this is
>true why is most custody awarded to the (usaully) poorer mother?
>
she can easily get legal aid for divorce (and similar) proceeding
whereas her (employed) husband will have to fund his case himself. I
know a one woman who was advised by her solicitor to resign from her job
(using the excuse that she couldn't continue working as a single mother)
in order to be able to claim legal aid to get the divorce to make her a
single mother.
--
Mike
Mike
<NotTe...@You.com> writes
>| The majority won't. The point is, that any female MP's who *do* recognise
>| that sexism against men exists and needs tackling, will feel *far less
>| constrained*
>
>
>By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her seat
>she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
>'logic'.!
Quite possibly. They're not the most logical of creatures. :)
--
Mike
John Jones
Huh? If she was never found, how do they know this person was
shot/killed?
Jen Larson
Mike wrote:
> >By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her seat
> >she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
> >'logic'.!
> Quite possibly. They're not the most logical of creatures. :)
Fuck you sexist assholes. You pathetically assume that all women who
have made any achievement have done it ONLY via pro-fem sexism, which is
where you fail and bang your nose on the pavement. Some people are not
as idiotic and stunted as you.
Mike
writes
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> >By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her seat
>> >she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
>> >'logic'.!
>
>> Quite possibly. They're not the most logical of creatures. :)
>
>Fuck you sexist assholes. You pathetically assume that all women who
>have made any achievement have done it ONLY via pro-fem sexism,
If there were no pro-fem sexism we could be sure that those women who
achieve anything have done so by their own efforts. It's the pro-fem
sexism itself that demeans these women.
> which is
>where you fail and bang your nose on the pavement. Some people are not
>as idiotic and stunted as you.
--
Mike
Mike
>http://www.qisu.qld.gov.au/bulletins/issue048.pdf
>
>Look at the section under domestic violence. In the case of partner
>abuse 80% of the victims are women.
>
1) The statistics are broken up into "bite sized" pieces. We can easily
see that, if 76% of assault victims are male, 24% must be female.
2) The shows that 40% of assaults on females (sic) were by a spouse or
partner: it doesn't give a comparison figure for assaults on men. I
immediately wonder what the authors are trying to hide.
3) If we accept (which I don't) the figure of 80% of DV victims are
female, it follows that 80% of non-DV assault victims are male. A man
is 4 times a likely to be assaulted on the streets as a woman. What is
the government doing to make the streets safer for men?.
4) The authors state that "The partner abuse injuries reported here must
be treated with some caution...." so they accept the figure might be
inaccurate. The data gathering method leaves much to be desired:
guesswork on the part of medical personnel! Other studies (the ones
I've already referred you to) have found that women are more willing to
report spousal abuse than men. Also (IME) if a man says, for example,
"my wife pushed me and I fell" the incident is likely to be logged as an
accident. If the sexes are reversed, it will be logged as DV.
5) The Brisbane study deals only with DV against women and the figure of
24% is meaningless without a comparative figure for men.
This report doesn't prove much at all IMO except that the 95% female DV
victim figure so often quoted is way too high.
--
Mike
Mike
The authors admit women are also perpetrators of DV but in the next
breathe refers to them as victims. Aggressive acts (slaps, kicks and
punches) are assaults, the effect of such doesn't change that. The
other study relies on subjective definitions of assault so the ratio
(male/female assailants) doesn't surprise me. If a woman slaps a man,
he is less likely (IMO) to consider it an assault than if a man slaps a
woman _USING EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FORCE_ (caps. purely for
emphasis).
--
Mike
Mike
>
>http://www.infoxchange.net.au/mrg/
>
never be solved when half the abusers are treated as victims. Is it
"the man's responsibility to stop his [the] violence and abuse" when his
wife is beating him unconscious with a baseball bat?
"The safety of women and children is always rule number one". So a
woman can attack her husband safe in the knowledge that he must not
defend himself.
Spherical objects!
--
Mike
Jen Larson
Mike wrote:
> >Fuck you sexist assholes. You pathetically assume that all women who
> >have made any achievement have done it ONLY via pro-fem sexism,
> If there were no pro-fem sexism we could be sure that those women who
> achieve anything have done so by their own efforts. It's the pro-fem
> sexism itself that demeans these women.
No it's ignorance on the part of sexists, spewing over like boiling shit
pots. (Unless you have proof that they are incompetent and have
accomplished through no effort of their own). In the UK you have your
gov't that I don't understand completely, hence won't comment.
nonetheless, in the USA there is no quota system operating so it's
false.
kluf
>tssk...@my-deja.com (tssk) wrote in message news:<1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
>> > /QUOTE
>> > The lives of many mothers and children are blighted, even endangered
>> > by the violence they experience directly or witness in the home.
>> > /UNQUOTE
>All of the langauge past your first quote is gender neutral, I think
>that the first quote was an unfortunate slip,
I believe the term is 'Freudian slip'
Kluf
Mike
writes
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> >Fuck you sexist assholes. You pathetically assume that all women who
>> >have made any achievement have done it ONLY via pro-fem sexism,
>
>> If there were no pro-fem sexism we could be sure that those women who
>> achieve anything have done so by their own efforts. It's the pro-fem
>> sexism itself that demeans these women.
>
>No it's ignorance on the part of sexists, spewing over like boiling shit
>pots. (Unless you have proof that they are incompetent and have
>accomplished through no effort of their own). In the UK you have your
>gov't that I don't understand completely, hence won't comment.
The all-women shortlists ensure that only a woman can stand as a
candidate for the party. AFAIK only the Labour party (left wing) use
all women shortlists, the other two major parties don't. My MP is a
woman member of the Conservative party and she was selected as the best
_person_ to be a candidate, achieving election on her own merit. When
an all women shortlist is used, the best _woman_ is selected. If that
woman were the best _person_ for the job, the all woman shortlist would
be unnecessary: should would have been selected anyway.
>nonetheless, in the USA there is no quota system operating so it's
>false.
AIUI you do have a sexist Selective Service (?). Is this because women
are deemed incapable of defending the country?
--
Mike
Jesus Marley
"Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3CBEFC3E...@udel.edu...
You are correct that not every female acheives their position due to
pro-female sexism, BUT while Pro-female sexism exists and is employed
rampantly, the natural conclusion is to assume that females did not earn
their positions but were granted them. hence, the only real way to eliminate
these assumptions about females is to eliminate the cause. Do away with
quota systems and preferential hiring practices and give positions to the
most qualified be it male or female. Do you agree or disagree with this and
why?
--
-=Jesus Marley=-
Here's to the Sun God!
He's a real fun God!
Ra! Ra! Ra!
Jen Larson
Mike wrote:
>
> In article <3CBF1E04...@udel.edu>, Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu>
> writes
> >No it's ignorance on the part of sexists, spewing over like boiling shit
> >pots. (Unless you have proof that they are incompetent and have
> >accomplished through no effort of their own). In the UK you have your
> >gov't that I don't understand completely, hence won't comment.
> The all-women shortlists ensure that only a woman can stand as a
> candidate for the party.
Is there any other requirement to get on a shortlist? Must have
political sci. degree, anything?
AFAIK only the Labour party (left wing) use
> all women shortlists, the other two major parties don't. My MP is a
> woman member of the Conservative party and she was selected as the best
> _person_ to be a candidate, achieving election on her own merit.
Really. How special that she isn't just taking advantage of the sexism
in order to do anything.
When
> an all women shortlist is used, the best _woman_ is selected. If that
> woman were the best _person_ for the job, the all woman shortlist would
> be unnecessary: should would have been selected anyway.
I agree an all woman shortlist is retarded and I thought so the minute I
heard of it (on here).
so infact you don't agree with Phil's wholesale sexist prediction:
By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her
seat
she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
'logic'.!
You then retract this:
Quite possibly. They're not the most logical of creatures. :)
Implying that any woman MP has gotten there through sexism and hence
logically will not challenge pro-fem sexist laws being passed and
enforced?
> >nonetheless, in the USA there is no quota system operating so it's
> >false.
> AIUI you do have a sexist Selective Service (?). Is this because women
> are deemed incapable of defending the country?
As far as I can tell it's "because we have enough men if we have a
draft".
Mike
writes
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>>
>
>> The all-women shortlists ensure that only a woman can stand as a
>> candidate for the party.
>
>Is there any other requirement to get on a shortlist? Must have
>political sci. degree, anything?
>
There are two stages effectively, and two "governments" - local
(council) and national (parliament). Local government has two "layers" -
town/borough/district and county (there are also parish councils but
let's ignore them it's complicated enough already).
To stand for election to any of the above, one must be over 21, eligible
to vote and be proposed by (IIRC) ten electors: no other qualifications
are required. In the case of parliamentary candidates, a deposit of
5000 GBP (?) is also required. This is refunded if the candidate gets
12.5% of the votes cast. Theoretically a candidate could win the
election with less than 12.5% - I don't know what would happen to the
deposit then.
Theoretically we vote for a person (not a political party) to represent
the electorate of the constituency (parliament) or the ward (council).
Note that a candidate does not have to be a member of a political party
- quite a few "independents" stand for election.
Before the final stage (above), the parties select someone from their
respective ranks to stand for election under the party flag. (Again, in
theory, to represent the people, not the party). Each constituency's
Conservative party selects a person to stand on behalf of the party.
The same is true, I believe, of the Lib-Dem party. The Labour party
however, forces some of its constituencies to select a woman to stand.
This doesn't prevent a man standing as an independent (although shortage
of money might) but it does mean that a man can not stand for the Labour
party in that constituency. Any male Labour party member who stood as
an independent would be expelled from the party.
The figures I've given 12.5%, 5000 GBP might be inaccurate but I
believe they're roughly correct.
> AFAIK only the Labour party (left wing) use
>> all women shortlists, the other two major parties don't. My MP is a
>> woman member of the Conservative party and she was selected as the best
>> _person_ to be a candidate, achieving election on her own merit.
>
>Really. How special that she isn't just taking advantage of the sexism
>in order to do anything.
I don't understand that. The Conservative party doesn't use all women
shortlists. She is a damn good MP (IMHO).
>
> When
>> an all women shortlist is used, the best _woman_ is selected. If that
>> woman were the best _person_ for the job, the all woman shortlist would
>> be unnecessary: should would have been selected anyway.
>
>I agree an all woman shortlist is retarded and I thought so the minute I
>heard of it (on here).
>
>so infact you don't agree with Phil's wholesale sexist prediction:
>
>By using and taking advantage of an exteremly SEXIST system to get her
>seat
>she is then going to cut the branch she is sitting on.... interesting
>'logic'.!
>
Phil makes a valid point. Why should anyone who gains an advantage from
a particular system want to change that system?
>
>You then retract this:
>
>Quite possibly. They're not the most logical of creatures. :)
>
I do find it difficult to understand the logic employed by _some_ women
and the comment was meant to be light-hearted - hence the :)
If you still consider it offensive, I retract it.
>Implying that any woman MP has gotten there through sexism and hence
>logically will not challenge pro-fem sexist laws being passed and
>enforced?
>
>> >nonetheless, in the USA there is no quota system operating so it's
>> >false.
>
>> AIUI you do have a sexist Selective Service (?). Is this because women
>> are deemed incapable of defending the country?
>
>As far as I can tell it's "because we have enough men if we have a
>draft".
You'd have twice as many personnel if you included women. You could
then have the best people for the job instead of just the best men.
--
Mike
Andy Pandy
Philip Lewis <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message
Whereas your 'logic' appears to be the same as the feminists. They think men
in power only look after men's interests, which is complete bollocks. You
seem to think women in power just look after women's interests. I can see an
early feminist equivalent of you, 90 years ago, complaining about the
blatant sexism when it comes to selecting ship's captains. Obviously a male
captain selected by a sexist system isn't going to put women's interests
first if his ship sinks, is he?
--
Andy
tssk
> >news.freeserve.net>...
> >> Show me any evidence from any non-sexist study which indicates
> >> that M>F DV is significantly more common than F>M DV. You think
> >> it is many times more common, so I'm not even asking you to go
> >> as far as supporting your belief.
> >
> >http://www.qisu.qld.gov.au/bulletins/issue048.pdf
> >
> >Look at the section under domestic violence. In the case of partner
> >abuse 80% of the victims are women.
> >
> late here in the UK). Something I did notice, from quickly looking, was
> that the 80% are _reports_: other studies have found that men are very
> unwilling to admit to being abused by a woman. This alone could account
> for the difference.
Yes. After deciding to put my money where my mouth is, I'm finding it
very difficult to find information that puts the figures of abuse side
by side. I have a friend who is digging through her old notes but due
to the secretive nature of abuse its hard to get solid figures. I'd
really like to see side by side figures of abuse in terms of
perpertator/victim. I'd suggest though that women are just as likely
to hide abuse as men.
tssk
tssk
Angilion
>angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote in message news:<3338c0b2.02041...@posting.google.com>...
>> tssk...@my-deja.com (tssk) wrote in message news:<1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > Bettina Arndt is a staff writer.
>> > >
>> > Bettina Arndt is also an apologist.
>> >
>> > I am constantly surprised, living in Australia that she cannot see the
>> > racism and sexism that permeates the country. I can see her point, as
>> > everyday as a white male I cop abuse but nowhere near the abuse that
>> > women in this country cop everyday, let alone the original inhabitants
>> > of this country.
>>
>> Feel free to provide any evidence that antifemale sexism is so much
>> more common than antimale sexism in your country.
>
>Of course I can't. Prejudice is insideous. Feel free to provide any
>evidence antimale sexism is so much more common than antifemale sexism
>in your country.
That is not the point - you asserted that antifemale sexism is vastly
more common than antimale sexism in your country.
You admit yourself that you have no evidence to support your belief, but
you believe it anyway. It is, therefore, your faith and impossible to
argue against. Faith is innately irrational and therefore immune to
rational argument, discussion or evidence.
I, however, do have evidence that antimale sexism is more common
tha antifemale sexism in my country. The former is normal, the latter
is not. It goes from the highest part of the government, which has
two Ministers who exist explicitly to ensure that consideration is
given to women only, on through all aspects of society. Walk into
any card shop and you will find numerous products ridiculing men
and none ridiculing women. Ridiculing men is normal, ridiculing women
is socially unacceptable. That alone would demonstrate the relative
degree of antimale and antifemale sexism. Then you have the law, which
in some cases explicitly discriminates against men but in no cases
explicitly discriminates against women. Then you have healthcare, in
which 88% of the resources for adults go to women and only 12% to
men. When you look at diseases which are or are perceived to be
sex-specific, the disparity is immense. Breast cancer and prostate
cancer are the best examples - the former is perceived to be about
women and therefore has the highest possible profile in the media, an
entire month of each year devoted to raising its profile even higher and
a vast fortune poured into combatting it, while the latter might get a
column-inch or two per year and a few resources. If it got just 1% of
the money thrown at breast cancer, researchers in it would be pleased
because that's a lot more than it gets now. The reason for the disparity
is that prostate cancer only kills men, who are deemed to be of far less
worth than women. Back to the law again, it is now legal to openly
prevent a man from becoming an MP and put a woman in his place, solely
on the basis of sex. Consider violence - in this country, a woman can
attack a man in public, secure in the knowledge that witnesses will
consider her attack on him as proof that he is an abuser and she is
a brave victim - which is even worse than simple victim-blaming. To give
an example, a woman I used to work with attacked her manager in a pub.
While she was beating him and he was trapped in a corner just keeping
his arms up so that most of her punches didn't hit his face, passersby
threatened *him*. When she beat him to the ground and sat on him,
punching him, the bouncers came over and threw him out. When she
sobered up, she didn't even know why she attacked him. Nothing was
said of it. She didn't even get a verbal warning at work.
I could go on and on, but you have your faith and there is no point
giving any evidence to counter it because evidence is irrelevant
to faith.
>> > In other words, I might cop some nasty words for being male or white
>> > but it is nothing compared to being raped and then being told 'I was
>> > asking for it'.
>>
>> Are you seriously arguing that every woman in Australia gets raped and
>> then told she was asking for it?
>
>A lot are. Some of my friends have been told that they were asking for
>it when they were assaulted. Everything from a slap to sexual assault,
>the perpetrator always said they deserved it.
No, really? Of course, that only happens to women who are
assaulted (wrong) and the perpetrator is indicative of social
norms (wrong).
Perpetrators of crimes often say their victims deserved it. What do
you expect?
>> > Or sleeping in a park and waking up to a group of teenagers kicking me
>> > or setting me alight 'for fun'.
>>
>> That happens to every person whom you regard as the original inhabitants
>> of Australia? The original inhabitants have been dead for millenia, btw, but
>> don't let that stop you.
>
>Badly worded by me I'll admit. But some people here see the indiginous
>people as less than them, and some young people see baiting or
>assualting them as sport. Fortunatly this is being taken more
>seriously by the law, a group of young men were charged a couple of
>years ago for assualting a homeless indigenous man in a park.
Some people see people of the "wrong" group as less than them. It's
common, and attitudes like yours help promote it.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
tssk
> > > > that a report can say whatever you want it to. But, about 1/8 of the
> > > > women I've known have been attacked in some way, and I do accept that
> > > > this might not represent the greater community and it does colour my
> > > > views somewhat.
> > >
> > > 1/8 of the women huh? And what proportion of the men? _All_ the male
> > > members of my family have been attacked at least once and we are white and
> > > middle class.
> >
> > I'd say all my male friends have been attacked but in all but two
> > occassions these attacks were carried out by men. And I only know of
> > one man who has been raped, strangly enough by a man.
>
> So by your (admittedly ancedotal) evidence men are 8 times more
> likely to be attacked? Why focus on attacks against women then?
>
Yes, it surprised me too. But its also raised the question, why are
most of the perpetrators men? Is it the way we are socialised or
something else?
> > > > >
> > > > > No Australia does not have it quite as bad as Canada, the UK or the US
> > > > > but thank god we trail the world in these things and the truths now
> > > > > surfacing elsewhere may stop the pendulum swinging as far as it has
> > > > > elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > We do have a smaller population base, but yes I think we have it
> > > > better than the US at least.
> > > >
> > > > > Have you ever had to take your grand children back to their mother
> > > > > when the elder child was screaming to stay with you because he didnt
> > > > > want to go? Called child protection to check the situation only to
> > > > > have them say "they are better with the mother". Fought tooth and nail
> > > > > in the family court to get custody of your grand children (with support
> > > > > from the mothers parents) and find the system still wants to give them
> > > > > back to the mother even after she has thrown them out. We eventualy won
> > > > > but it was despite the system not because of it.
> > > >
> > > > No I haven't and I won't debate your experience of the system.
> > >
> > > But you condemn those who report it as appologists.
> >
> > Hmm. You may very well be right. It just seems IMHO that her stories
> > are skewed,
>
> In other words you don't agree with her but can't cite a provable
> error. She may well have a greater tendecy to report male-positive
> stories but that does not make her an "appologist". An appologist is
> someone who makes excuses for the behaviour of a person or group.
> Simply pointing out the good things they do or that they deserve is
> not this.
Writing in the heat of the moment I may have lashed out rather
blindly. Rereading the article I admit that I was way too harsh. Its
raised some interesting issues though.
> > maybe though I should find the original article to read
> > and see if it was an opinion piece or presented as a neutral newspaper
> > story. B Arndt does seem to get me riled up though for some reason.
> > But from my observations at school, a lot of girls did better than
> > boys because they knuckled down and did the work while a lot of the
> > boys just faffed about.
>
> Dodging the question somewhat, why didn't they "knuckle down"?
> Surely it is the job of teachers to motivate _all_ students? I am not
> saying that the alleged lack of effort was the fault of the teachers.
> But it could be and if girls were failing we'd here that arguement
> with genders reversed.
Part of the problem I think was that the men were encouraged to take
sport more seriously than academic pursuits. Some men were able to
knuckle down but in general the women seemed more disciplined. Most of
the teachers were good except for one math teacher who used to pick on
the girls to the point of bringing them to tears. If a boy couldn't
understand a problem he'd try to help a bit, but with the girls he
couldn't understand why they were "so stupid" (Actual words.) Not to
mention the sexual harrassment in that class. Thats something I never
had to face.
> > (Not all, some managed to get into uni.) I
> > just don't see the curriculum down here as being anti male.
> >
> > > > I
> > > > believe that the family court system has some real problems to sort
> > > > out in Australia, in particular the problem of legal aid. Too many men
> > > > and women due to lack of funds are having to represent themselves, and
> > > > this can only be bad for the poorer party (men or women.)
> > > >
> > > >I have heard stories from my mother who is studying law at
> > > > the moment but the picture she paints is one of the disadvantaged
> > > > being the party with less money or as she puts it "poverty has no
> > > > prejudices." I'll still stick to my views on prejudice in the streets
> > > > but will endeavor to keep my mind open on family court matters.
> > >
> > > Why would the mother have more money?
> > >
> > I was conceding here that the system might not be pro man or woman but
> > more skewed to those who can afford better misrepresentation.
>
> And as exidence you post the opinion of a law _student_! If this is
> true why is most custody awarded to the (usaully) poorer mother?
>
> >
You are right, opinion isn't enough, I'll try to track down
figures/reports.
tssk
tssk
No, but maybe its something thats needed. The problem is that domestic
violence by women is so rare (or maybe reported rarely) that it would
be difficult to gather the resources for such a group.
tssk
tssk
According to the report above which looked at shoplifting, drug
offences and violent offences women were less likely than men to get a
custodial sentence for Shopl' and drug off' but just as likely to have
a custodial sentence for a violent offence. The number of offenders
seemed to be similar except with violent offences. I'm just trying to
understand why? There seems to be an equal distribution of men/women
in the general population, why the huge disparity in violent
offenders?
tssk
tssk
> tssk...@my-deja.com (tssk) wrote in message news:<1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@You.com> wrote in message news:<a9ib9p$3aldn$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > The only other 'group' relevant in the scope of this discussion is WOMEN
> > > (singular) - and we MEN are NOT "luckier" far from from it.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > > |
> > Examples? Apart from the family court I still think men don't have a
> > bad time of it at all. IMHO of course.
> >
>
> Are you aware of the most common cancers which afflict young men?
> Skin cancer - well publicised because it affects both sexes.
> Testicular cancer - Probably didnt know that did you?
> Like all cancer the prognosis is good if caught early.
> The point is it can be detected early by self examination.
> We have a very up front advertising and education program for breast
> and cervical cancer, why are we not educating young men to self
> examine?
> Testicular cancer afflicts 600 men a year in Australia.
Yep, know about TC, there seems to be a growing campaign on self
examination, it will continue to be a problem though as men are less
likely to seek medical aid. Especially in Australia where the attitude
seems to be "She'll be right." My grandfather actually threatened with
violence and warded off attempts to get medical help when he was
suffering from a stroke.
> Some facts about suicide you may not know.
>
> http://www.wesleymission.org.au/centres/lifeforce/reports.htm#summary
[snip]
> 600 Australians over the age of 55 killed themselves in 1997.
>
> FOUR LEADING EXTERNAL CAUSES OF DEATH 1998
> Males Females Persons
> Suicide 2,150 533 2683
>
> Motor Vehicle 1,224 507 1,731
> Accidents
>
> Homicide 203 104 307
>
> Accidental 187 58 245
> drowning and
> submersion
[snip]
> The Howard Government has acknowledged the problem of male
> suicide, particularly following relationship break-ups.
> It has agreed to fund a $16.5 million initiative focusing
> on men and family relationships. With the state governments,
> it continues to fund the Labor initiated mental health strategy.
> /UNQUOTE
I thought that the main reason more men die committing suicide is that
they are more successful. They are more likely to shoot themselves
(especially in rural Australia) or cut or hang rather than the
solution used by most women (selfpoisoning with pills.)
> Yup I would say apart from a few problems with the family court
> Australian men are doing great!
>
> Bev Armstrong
I will look at the link in greater detail. Thanks
tssk
Mike
>e.demon.co.uk>...
>> Thanks for that. I'll study it more deeply tomorrow (it's getting very
>> late here in the UK). Something I did notice, from quickly looking, was
>> that the 80% are _reports_: other studies have found that men are very
>> unwilling to admit to being abused by a woman. This alone could account
>> for the difference.
>
>Yes. After deciding to put my money where my mouth is, I'm finding it
>very difficult to find information that puts the figures of abuse side
>by side. I have a friend who is digging through her old notes but due
>to the secretive nature of abuse its hard to get solid figures. I'd
>really like to see side by side figures of abuse in terms of
>perpertator/victim. I'd suggest though that women are just as likely
>to hide abuse as men.
>
encouraging women to report abuse whereas man are discouraged from doing
so. If a man does report it, what happens? Is he taken to a "battered
men's" refuge? Will the police help him to rescue his children from the
house so he can take them with him (to whatever place of safety he can
find)? I very much doubt it. If his wife discovers that he has
attempted to report it, but the police would take no action, she learns
that she can assault him with impunity thus making the situation worse
for him.
Contrast that with what happens if a women even mentions that she was
assaulted by her husband.
--
Mike
tssk
> In article <1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>, tssk
> <tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
> >s/hors170.pdf
> >>
> >Finished reading through it, very interesting insight into sentencing
> >by English magistrates. However another thing I fond interesting was
> >the ratio of violent offenders. Out of 6547 offenders only 450 were
> >women. This is the thing I have never understood, why the disparity?
> >Why are men wore likely to commit a violent offence than women?
>
>
> Institutionalised sexism of course; ask Doreen Lawrence.
Really? Please explain. (And thanks for the links, I'll check them out.)
tssk
tssk
> It might not be that simple. UK police are reluctant to charge a woman
> with a violent offence, especially when her victim is a man. In DV
> cases, the usual practice is to always take the woman's side. Several
> (many) years ago I was the victim of a violent (female) partner.
> Despite suffering injuries and being attacked, on occasion, in front of
> witnesses, the police refused to take any action against her - they
> would just fob me off with "it's a civil matter, Sir" or "there are no
> witnesses" (even when there were). I even had a police officer come to
> see me in hospital, after one of her attacks, to inform me that I wasn't
> being charged on that occasion but, if it happened again, I would be
> charged. Witnesses to that attack told me later that they had told the
> police how she had launched a completely unprovoked attack on me. The
> police had attempted to get them to say that I had attacked her but,
> when they refused to lie, the police didn't even take witness
> statements.
>
> Perhaps your question should be "Why are men more likely to be charged
> with a violent offence than women?"
That sounds awful. I know that down here in Australia the police are
reluctant to charge either party unless it comes to violence.
But getting back to your case, what would their motivation be? I just
can't understand why they would refuse to take witness statements.
Maybe the UK police need reforming like the police down here did.
In any case, even though it sounds trite you have my sympathies. The
only other case I have ever heard of was my brother who was attacked
by his SO. He ended up having to just walk away.
tssk
tssk
That wouldn't wash down here though. Legal aid funds are just too limited.
tssk
tssk
Sorry, bad explanation. These two backpackers (names escape me at the
moment) were driving through the Northern Territory when they were
flagged down by another motorist. The male backpacker went to check
the other car and help and was shot, the female then bound. She
managed tofight him off and disappear in the dark an avoid this guy
and his dog. Hours later she flagged down a truckie who drove her into
town. The body of her partner has never been found.
tssk
Mike
>offences and violent offences women were less likely than men to get a
>custodial sentence for Shopl' and drug off' but just as likely to have
>a custodial sentence for a violent offence. The number of offenders
>seemed to be similar except with violent offences. I'm just trying to
>understand why? There seems to be an equal distribution of men/women
>in the general population, why the huge disparity in violent
>offenders?
>
are less likely to charge violent women? It's very rare (perhaps even
unknown) for a woman to be charged with DV. In other cases, especially
where the victim is a man, the police are very reluctant to charge.
Perhaps it's due to a (false) belief that women can't be violent so any
evidence that shows a woman did commit a violent act is just
disregarded.
--
Mike
tssk
> In article <1e17547a.02041...@posting.google.com>, tssk
> <tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
> >Fair enough. Check out this report
> >http://www.qisu.qld.gov.au/bulletins/issue048.pdf
> >
> >Look at the section under domestic violence. In the case of partner
> >abuse 80% of the victims are women.
> >
> I've read the report properly now. Here follows my comments:
>
> 1) The statistics are broken up into "bite sized" pieces. We can easily
> see that, if 76% of assault victims are male, 24% must be female.
>
> 2) The shows that 40% of assaults on females (sic) were by a spouse or
> partner: it doesn't give a comparison figure for assaults on men. I
> immediately wonder what the authors are trying to hide.
There would be a lot of factors. I would say one is that the average
Brisbane man would rather die than admit he was attacked by a woman.
It might be a bit different further south.
> 3) If we accept (which I don't) the figure of 80% of DV victims are
> female, it follows that 80% of non-DV assault victims are male. A man
> is 4 times a likely to be assaulted on the streets as a woman. What is
> the government doing to make the streets safer for men?.
Down here law and order is becoming a huge issue for the next
election. There has been an upturn in shootings and most of the
victims have been men. And Yes, both the opposition and the elected
gov' are taking it seriously.
> 4) The authors state that "The partner abuse injuries reported here must
> be treated with some caution...." so they accept the figure might be
> inaccurate. The data gathering method leaves much to be desired:
> guesswork on the part of medical personnel! Other studies (the ones
> I've already referred you to) have found that women are more willing to
> report spousal abuse than men. Also (IME) if a man says, for example,
> "my wife pushed me and I fell" the incident is likely to be logged as an
> accident. If the sexes are reversed, it will be logged as DV.
I remember when my fiancee a few years ago fell and almost broke her
knee. (She couldn't walk for a year afterwards.) I was partly worried
that people would think I pushed her but my worrying was in vain
fortunatly. And both my work associates and friends were very
supportive.
> 5) The Brisbane study deals only with DV against women and the figure of
> 24% is meaningless without a comparative figure for men.
>
> This report doesn't prove much at all IMO except that the 95% female DV
> victim figure so often quoted is way too high.
I agree with you on the first part, I am finding it difficult to find
comparative studies.
tssk
Mike
<tssk...@my-deja.com> writes
>Mike <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<+5$VJEAQ+nv8EwFo@fenlandsoftwar
>e.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> Perhaps your question should be "Why are men more likely to be charged
>> with a violent offence than women?"
>
>That sounds awful. I know that down here in Australia the police are
>reluctant to charge either party unless it comes to violence.
>
some cases absolutely refuse) to charge women.
>But getting back to your case, what would their motivation be?
In general, charging women with DV would double their workload and
invoke the wrath of "women's groups". It's a political thing.
> I just
>can't understand why they would refuse to take witness statements.
Why do work you can avoid by simply fobbing the victim off?
>Maybe the UK police need reforming like the police down here did.
>
Definitely!
>In any case, even though it sounds trite you have my sympathies.
Thank you. I'm happily married to a non-violent woman now. My ex.
drank herself to death a few years ago.
> The
>only other case I have ever heard of was my brother who was attacked
>by his SO. He ended up having to just walk away.
>
I wonder how many cases you didn't hear of. Your brother has my
sympathies too - having been there I have some idea of how he would have
suffered. It's not just the violence, it's the feeling of total
helplessness when there's no support whatsoever.
--
Mike