Taking A Look At Men's Studies
John Bailey
Issue date: 9/28/07 Section: Focus
"Feminist," "misogynist" and "women's studies" are concepts familiar to the average college student. Less familiar, though, may be concepts like "misandrist" or "male-positivist." Dr. Dennis Gouws, a professor of English, presented these ideas to a talkative and insightful audience in the Shippee Pit at his "Last Lecture" Thursday evening.
"I'm not actually retiring," joked Gouws as he took the podium. The "Last Lecture" series invites professors to lecture as if it were the last time they would ever do so, as if they had one chance to give students the most important thing they would ever teach.
Gouws' interest in "men's studies," as he described the field, developed during his stint at graduate school. The classroom environment, said Gouws, sometimes enabled bigotry under the guise of feminism with nasty consequences. During a class on gender sociology, the instructor presented a paper describing a female 'wild zone' that represented an area of thinking that women alone could experience due purely to their sex.
"Is there a complimentary 'wild zone' for men?" he asked. "The resounding response from the professor was 'no,' and I took exception to that."
Pairing this experience with his concern for undergraduate education, Gouws attempted to redress the issues that he saw with the classroom environment. The way he understood it, many students - both men and women - felt uncomfortable with the framing of the gender debate. What if, Gouws asked, one agrees that misogyny is wrong but can find no acceptable point of view in traditional feminist discourse? What if one disagrees with patriarchy but also with misandry - the hatred of men? Or, as one student asked, "What if I'm a peopleist?"
The solution that Gouws found was the idea of "male-positive" discourse. A male-positive outlook, as described by Gouws, is one that allows men to define their masculinity without the pressure to conform to a societal idea of manhood. Certainly, said Gouws, there are well-known societal pressures on women. The issue of pressures on men, however, pressures that exist entirely due to their gender, is one that hasn't been adequately explored in the classroom. Gouws raised the issue of competition as an example: from an early age, men are expected and sometimes forced to compete, and as a result will find it acceptable to take extreme measures in order to compete. Male-positivism accepts that these concerns exist, and allows men to define themselves outside of the prevailing social pressures.
Gouws was sensitive to the history behind these issues as well. He agreed that feminism is "a positive agenda for women," and that men by no means have a sovereign claim to victimhood.
"There's something perverse about a group in power claiming to victims," Gouws said.
The primary problem, regardless of which group purports to be the victim, is one of exclusion. This exclusion can happen from any direction and target any victim. He posed the question to the audience: is it hypocritical for men to talk about women's issues, or vice versa? The prevailing sentiment in the audience, and one echoed by Gouws, was that any gender issue, if it affects the society in which one lives, can and should be discussed openly by everyone.
The idea of manhood as a cultural construct leads to a new method for understanding literature in particular, said Gouws, who has previously taught a Men in Literature course. But what might be offered by such a course?
Using feminist interpretations of literature as a springboard, he described the central conceit of a male-positive literature class.
"[It's about] asserting our right to liberate new and possibly different significances from the same text."
The importance of male-positive masculinities cannot be understated, said Gouws. "The manhood question" - how men define themselves in relation to their gender - is an essential one, and it deserves the same attention that "the woman question" has received. And since he's not retiring just yet, Gouws and his students will have plenty of time to delve further.
John.C.Bailey@UConn.edu
Source: here
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Blood test
Hospital Lab Worker Bit Boy, Parents Say
Worker Fired
POSTED: 8:30 am EDT September 26, 2007
UPDATED: 10:22 am EDT September 26, 2007
INDIANAPOLIS -- A hospital lab technician bit a boy's shoulder as she used a syringe to draw blood from his arm, his parents told police.
The technician, who worked for a subcontractor that does blood work for St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis, was fired after last week's incident involving 3-year-old Victor Buntin, the hospital said.
"Taking a bite out of him like he's an apple -- this is heinous," Victor's father, James Buntin, said Tuesday.
Victor's mother, Faith Buntin, took him to St. Vincent on Friday for a blood test because of recent recalls of toys involving lead, WRTV-TV in Indianapolis reported.
She said she saw the worker put her mouth on Victor's shoulder.
"I looked at her like that was the craziest thing that I'd ever seen," Faith Buntin said. "She looked at me and smiled and said, 'Oh, it was just a play bite. He's not hurt.'"
Faith Buntin said she let it go because her son was crying, ostensibly over the testing. Back at home, she said, she saw teeth marks on his left shoulder.
Her husband drove the child back to the hospital, where he was prescribed antibiotics.
The family filed a report with Indianapolis police and is seeking criminal charges. A detective has been assigned to the case, the television station reported.
St. Vincent spokesman Johnny Smith said the hospital is "reviewing the capabilities" of the employees of the subcontractor, Mid-America Clinical Laboratories.
"We're tying to determine the best approach," Smith said. "It's just an unfortunate and sad situation, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the family."
Victor will be tested over the next few months to see whether the bite transmitted any disease, his parents said.
Source: here
Worker Fired
POSTED: 8:30 am EDT September 26, 2007
UPDATED: 10:22 am EDT September 26, 2007
INDIANAPOLIS -- A hospital lab technician bit a boy's shoulder as she used a syringe to draw blood from his arm, his parents told police.
The technician, who worked for a subcontractor that does blood work for St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis, was fired after last week's incident involving 3-year-old Victor Buntin, the hospital said.
"Taking a bite out of him like he's an apple -- this is heinous," Victor's father, James Buntin, said Tuesday.
Victor's mother, Faith Buntin, took him to St. Vincent on Friday for a blood test because of recent recalls of toys involving lead, WRTV-TV in Indianapolis reported.
She said she saw the worker put her mouth on Victor's shoulder.
"I looked at her like that was the craziest thing that I'd ever seen," Faith Buntin said. "She looked at me and smiled and said, 'Oh, it was just a play bite. He's not hurt.'"
Faith Buntin said she let it go because her son was crying, ostensibly over the testing. Back at home, she said, she saw teeth marks on his left shoulder.
Her husband drove the child back to the hospital, where he was prescribed antibiotics.
The family filed a report with Indianapolis police and is seeking criminal charges. A detective has been assigned to the case, the television station reported.
St. Vincent spokesman Johnny Smith said the hospital is "reviewing the capabilities" of the employees of the subcontractor, Mid-America Clinical Laboratories.
"We're tying to determine the best approach," Smith said. "It's just an unfortunate and sad situation, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the family."
Victor will be tested over the next few months to see whether the bite transmitted any disease, his parents said.
Source: here
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Mangina guide
September 25, 2007
Don’t be the work-flirt
Debrett’s guide to men’s manners advises that your relationship with other women is vital to the one you have with your girlfriend
E. Jane Dickson
YOUR COLLEAGUES
The evolved male will refer to his female colleagues as “women”, not “ladies” and never “girls”. In an office where there are more men than women, you should go out of your way to promote an inclusive atmosphere; the important discussion of Chelsea v Arsenal/ Porsche v Ferrari/suspenders v hold-ups is better saved for the pub.
In all but the most strait-laced environments, a little light flirting among equals will not go amiss, but care must be taken that special attentions to junior colleagues are not seen as an abuse of your position. You may think it the most natural thing to boost a young coworker with a fatherly pat or encouraging squeeze; she may see it differently and your partner, should she hear of it, is likely to have her own strong views on the matter.
Similarly, the “office wife” syndrome needs to be carefully managed. It is not uncommon to build a particularly close and confidential relationship with a female colleague, but the boundaries of this supportive friendship must be clearly delineated. Your girlfriend will not appreciate it if your evenings alone together are consistently interrupted by long, intense phone calls with another woman, however impeccably professional the context.
YOUR (FEMALE) BOSS
Manners towards a female boss are important as this is a relationship that quickly exposes male insecurities and chauvinism. Your partner may not have the opportunity to observe you in the workplace, but the way you talk about your boss is revealing about your attitudes to women and their place in society. It is imperative, for the good of your career and your relationship, that you show precisely the degree of respect and professionalism towards a female superior as you would to a male.
Ascribing questionable executive decisions to the effects of PMT/sexual frustration/the menopause won’t secure your advancement in either boardroom or bedroom.
Successful women are frighteningly alert to any hint of chippiness from male juniors. In fact, the only thing worse than a chippy junior is a junior who thinks he can condescend to, or seduce, his boss. Even flirting with a superior is out of the question (unless you actively wish to be branded “office totty”). Some modification may be necessary (or at least prudent), during office hours, to your customary gallantry. On occasions where you meet your boss in a purely social context, feel free to be your usual chivalrous self; the alteration in your manner will serve only to point out your careful observation of office protocol and can do you no harm at all. No one ever said chivalry was for the benefit of just one sex.
YOUR SISTER
Your sister is your earliest source of insight into the feminine psyche. She is also the one who knows where the bodies are buried. As such, she requires careful handling. When your girlfriend is introduced to your sister, it is important that neither should feel that too much is riding on the meeting. Your sister needs to know that she is not being displaced as a comrade in arms. Your girlfriend should never be made to feel that your sister has any “right of veto” on your relationship.
Falling immediately into the rut of childhood jokes and excessive “do you remembers?” is inconsiderate. Your partner may learn to love your family routines but cannot be expected, straight off the bat, to appreciate the hilarity of the time Aunt Mary got stuck on the ski-lift. Conversely, your sister may feel obscurely cross at being “excluded” from your new life as part of a couple (“well, you never used to like sushi!”). It is your job, at such times, to lead the conversation back to neutral ground.
Don’t be hurt if the two of them don’t love each other on sight. They may never be best friends and it is pointless to force an affinity where none exists. If they go toe-to-toe, then chivalry demands that you defend your partner’s corner. If the situation is intractable, you may be better off seeing your sister alone until the bad feeling blows over.
In the happy event that your sibling and your sweetheart get on like a house on fire, allow them space to cement the friendship. Accept that it’s part of the feminine bonding process to gang up on men. Make the most of their friendship; it can only be helpful to have a female perspective on what your consort really likes in the way of birthday presents, surprise outings or underwear. The positives of this useful alliance overwhelmingly outweigh the fact that every time you see them laugh together, you’ll think they’re laughing at you. And you’ll probably be right.
YOUR MOTHER
Freud had a point. All men are mummy’s boys au fond. Success with women depends largely on how you manage this crucial relationship. The way a man treats his mother sends clear signals to a potential mate about his attitude to women in general.
Accept that, to your mother, you will always be a child (you can rail against it, but it won’t make a blind bit of difference). Your partner, on the other hand, has signed up for a man. It is a conundrum only you can solve.
The filial image you want to project is one of affectionate independence. It will not enhance your profile as an alpha male if your mum still washes your clothes and cuts your hair. Nor is it attractive in a man to be constantly seeking maternal approval (particularly in the matter of whom you choose to go out with and how you conduct your life as a couple).
Respect, however, or at the least kindness, is due to mothers. Even if you are not close, it is your adult responsibility to keep in touch and look out for her comfort.
In the event of a clash between your mother and your love interest, it is best to avoid the appearance of siding with either party. Try to discuss the problem, in private, with each of them. “Having it all out in the open” rarely helps, as any momentary satisfaction that your mother or girlfriend may feel in publicly trumping the other will be cancelled out by many long, painful years of pretending it never happened. Above all, if you wish to maintain any kind of erotic life, you should avoid treating your lover like your mother. Oedipus, you will recall, confused the two most important women in his life – and all he ended up with was a complex.
YOUR GIRLFRIEND’S BEST FRIEND (GBF)
The GBF can make or break your relationship. Suspicion and criticism are often her default position, so you’re going to have to work hard at getting her on-side.
First, you should concede unreservedly that she knows your girlfriend better than you do. You will get nowhere with the GBF until this important point is settled. If she doesn’t like you, redouble your efforts to please, but make sure your charm offensive is not confused with attempted seduction as this will play very badly with both GBF and girlfriend. Even if you have good reason to suspect the GBF of real malevolence, bite your lip as a feud will only make your girlfriend miserable and an ultimatum (“it’s her or me!”) can only ever sound hysterical.
Going out in a foursome with the GBF’s other half is one way of spreading the emotional overload. Otherwise keep an impeccably friendly distance and let your girlfriend see the meddling harridan on her own. Should you gain her good opinion, however, the GBF is a sound ally. She is the one your girlfriend is going to moan to when things are less than perfect in your relationship and her positive intervention is invaluable.
However well you get on, remember whose best friend she is. It is a mistake for you to moan about any aspect, however trifling, of your love life to the GBF - not least because it will go straight back to your girlfriend before you’ve even had time to add the bit about how much you adore her anyway.
There will inevitably be occasions when you are obliged to witness the GBF’s romantic crises. While you should give every impression of support, your role, here, is essentially nonspeaking. Expressions of blokeish solidarity (“look at it his way”, “the chap has a point”) are unwanted and irrelevant. Far better to pour two large glasses of wine and leave before it is noticed that if all men are emotional cripples you must be one too.
— ©Debrett’s Limited 2007. Extracted from Manners for Men: What Women Really Want by E. Jane Dickson published by Debrett’s, £12.99. Available from Times BooksFirst for £11.69, free P&P. 0870 1608080, timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
These bad habits do not impress us
Nobody’s perfect and not all bad habits are deal-breakers. That said, any man honing his seduction skills will do well to avoid:
ARROGANCE
The dangerous delusion that your needs, desires or opinions are, without exception, more important than the next man’s is the No 1 turn-off for women. Arrogance should never be confused with confidence. If you’re boasting to impress us, it is likely to have the opposite effect. Ladies know that quality is discreet. We wouldn’t pick a handbag that shouts too hard and we won’t pick you.
BEING DRUNK
Drink is a great disinhibitor. The snag is that it disinhibits only the drinker. Once you are disinhibited to the point of declaring your love for barmaids/bus drivers/lampposts, we will be less than receptive to any more advances. If getting oiled is part of the night’s fun, gauge it carefully so you are never drunker than we are. We do not want to be responsible for getting you home.
TANTRUMS
Losing your temper, particularly in public, shows a worrying lack of self-control. Shouting at people you don’t know and who are not in a position to shout back (eg, waiting staff, juniors) is particularly unattractive, as is any degree of physical aggression.
SMOKING
If you smoke and we don’t, we will mind the smell. We’ll mind it on your clothes and your hair and we’ll mind it even more on ours. Crucially, we will never want to slip between your malodorous sheets.
PATRONISING BEHAVIOUR
Modern women do not take well to being “corrected” in their dress, speech or opinions. You may see yourself as Pygmalion. We just see the pig.
Source: here
And how are you going to talk to women after reading this article?
In the only manner they seem to understand.
Don’t be the work-flirt
Debrett’s guide to men’s manners advises that your relationship with other women is vital to the one you have with your girlfriend
E. Jane Dickson
YOUR COLLEAGUES
The evolved male will refer to his female colleagues as “women”, not “ladies” and never “girls”. In an office where there are more men than women, you should go out of your way to promote an inclusive atmosphere; the important discussion of Chelsea v Arsenal/ Porsche v Ferrari/suspenders v hold-ups is better saved for the pub.
In all but the most strait-laced environments, a little light flirting among equals will not go amiss, but care must be taken that special attentions to junior colleagues are not seen as an abuse of your position. You may think it the most natural thing to boost a young coworker with a fatherly pat or encouraging squeeze; she may see it differently and your partner, should she hear of it, is likely to have her own strong views on the matter.
Similarly, the “office wife” syndrome needs to be carefully managed. It is not uncommon to build a particularly close and confidential relationship with a female colleague, but the boundaries of this supportive friendship must be clearly delineated. Your girlfriend will not appreciate it if your evenings alone together are consistently interrupted by long, intense phone calls with another woman, however impeccably professional the context.
YOUR (FEMALE) BOSS
Manners towards a female boss are important as this is a relationship that quickly exposes male insecurities and chauvinism. Your partner may not have the opportunity to observe you in the workplace, but the way you talk about your boss is revealing about your attitudes to women and their place in society. It is imperative, for the good of your career and your relationship, that you show precisely the degree of respect and professionalism towards a female superior as you would to a male.
Ascribing questionable executive decisions to the effects of PMT/sexual frustration/the menopause won’t secure your advancement in either boardroom or bedroom.
Successful women are frighteningly alert to any hint of chippiness from male juniors. In fact, the only thing worse than a chippy junior is a junior who thinks he can condescend to, or seduce, his boss. Even flirting with a superior is out of the question (unless you actively wish to be branded “office totty”). Some modification may be necessary (or at least prudent), during office hours, to your customary gallantry. On occasions where you meet your boss in a purely social context, feel free to be your usual chivalrous self; the alteration in your manner will serve only to point out your careful observation of office protocol and can do you no harm at all. No one ever said chivalry was for the benefit of just one sex.
YOUR SISTER
Your sister is your earliest source of insight into the feminine psyche. She is also the one who knows where the bodies are buried. As such, she requires careful handling. When your girlfriend is introduced to your sister, it is important that neither should feel that too much is riding on the meeting. Your sister needs to know that she is not being displaced as a comrade in arms. Your girlfriend should never be made to feel that your sister has any “right of veto” on your relationship.
Falling immediately into the rut of childhood jokes and excessive “do you remembers?” is inconsiderate. Your partner may learn to love your family routines but cannot be expected, straight off the bat, to appreciate the hilarity of the time Aunt Mary got stuck on the ski-lift. Conversely, your sister may feel obscurely cross at being “excluded” from your new life as part of a couple (“well, you never used to like sushi!”). It is your job, at such times, to lead the conversation back to neutral ground.
Don’t be hurt if the two of them don’t love each other on sight. They may never be best friends and it is pointless to force an affinity where none exists. If they go toe-to-toe, then chivalry demands that you defend your partner’s corner. If the situation is intractable, you may be better off seeing your sister alone until the bad feeling blows over.
In the happy event that your sibling and your sweetheart get on like a house on fire, allow them space to cement the friendship. Accept that it’s part of the feminine bonding process to gang up on men. Make the most of their friendship; it can only be helpful to have a female perspective on what your consort really likes in the way of birthday presents, surprise outings or underwear. The positives of this useful alliance overwhelmingly outweigh the fact that every time you see them laugh together, you’ll think they’re laughing at you. And you’ll probably be right.
YOUR MOTHER
Freud had a point. All men are mummy’s boys au fond. Success with women depends largely on how you manage this crucial relationship. The way a man treats his mother sends clear signals to a potential mate about his attitude to women in general.
Accept that, to your mother, you will always be a child (you can rail against it, but it won’t make a blind bit of difference). Your partner, on the other hand, has signed up for a man. It is a conundrum only you can solve.
The filial image you want to project is one of affectionate independence. It will not enhance your profile as an alpha male if your mum still washes your clothes and cuts your hair. Nor is it attractive in a man to be constantly seeking maternal approval (particularly in the matter of whom you choose to go out with and how you conduct your life as a couple).
Respect, however, or at the least kindness, is due to mothers. Even if you are not close, it is your adult responsibility to keep in touch and look out for her comfort.
In the event of a clash between your mother and your love interest, it is best to avoid the appearance of siding with either party. Try to discuss the problem, in private, with each of them. “Having it all out in the open” rarely helps, as any momentary satisfaction that your mother or girlfriend may feel in publicly trumping the other will be cancelled out by many long, painful years of pretending it never happened. Above all, if you wish to maintain any kind of erotic life, you should avoid treating your lover like your mother. Oedipus, you will recall, confused the two most important women in his life – and all he ended up with was a complex.
YOUR GIRLFRIEND’S BEST FRIEND (GBF)
The GBF can make or break your relationship. Suspicion and criticism are often her default position, so you’re going to have to work hard at getting her on-side.
First, you should concede unreservedly that she knows your girlfriend better than you do. You will get nowhere with the GBF until this important point is settled. If she doesn’t like you, redouble your efforts to please, but make sure your charm offensive is not confused with attempted seduction as this will play very badly with both GBF and girlfriend. Even if you have good reason to suspect the GBF of real malevolence, bite your lip as a feud will only make your girlfriend miserable and an ultimatum (“it’s her or me!”) can only ever sound hysterical.
Going out in a foursome with the GBF’s other half is one way of spreading the emotional overload. Otherwise keep an impeccably friendly distance and let your girlfriend see the meddling harridan on her own. Should you gain her good opinion, however, the GBF is a sound ally. She is the one your girlfriend is going to moan to when things are less than perfect in your relationship and her positive intervention is invaluable.
However well you get on, remember whose best friend she is. It is a mistake for you to moan about any aspect, however trifling, of your love life to the GBF - not least because it will go straight back to your girlfriend before you’ve even had time to add the bit about how much you adore her anyway.
There will inevitably be occasions when you are obliged to witness the GBF’s romantic crises. While you should give every impression of support, your role, here, is essentially nonspeaking. Expressions of blokeish solidarity (“look at it his way”, “the chap has a point”) are unwanted and irrelevant. Far better to pour two large glasses of wine and leave before it is noticed that if all men are emotional cripples you must be one too.
— ©Debrett’s Limited 2007. Extracted from Manners for Men: What Women Really Want by E. Jane Dickson published by Debrett’s, £12.99. Available from Times BooksFirst for £11.69, free P&P. 0870 1608080, timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
These bad habits do not impress us
Nobody’s perfect and not all bad habits are deal-breakers. That said, any man honing his seduction skills will do well to avoid:
ARROGANCE
The dangerous delusion that your needs, desires or opinions are, without exception, more important than the next man’s is the No 1 turn-off for women. Arrogance should never be confused with confidence. If you’re boasting to impress us, it is likely to have the opposite effect. Ladies know that quality is discreet. We wouldn’t pick a handbag that shouts too hard and we won’t pick you.
BEING DRUNK
Drink is a great disinhibitor. The snag is that it disinhibits only the drinker. Once you are disinhibited to the point of declaring your love for barmaids/bus drivers/lampposts, we will be less than receptive to any more advances. If getting oiled is part of the night’s fun, gauge it carefully so you are never drunker than we are. We do not want to be responsible for getting you home.
TANTRUMS
Losing your temper, particularly in public, shows a worrying lack of self-control. Shouting at people you don’t know and who are not in a position to shout back (eg, waiting staff, juniors) is particularly unattractive, as is any degree of physical aggression.
SMOKING
If you smoke and we don’t, we will mind the smell. We’ll mind it on your clothes and your hair and we’ll mind it even more on ours. Crucially, we will never want to slip between your malodorous sheets.
PATRONISING BEHAVIOUR
Modern women do not take well to being “corrected” in their dress, speech or opinions. You may see yourself as Pygmalion. We just see the pig.
Source: here
And how are you going to talk to women after reading this article?
In the only manner they seem to understand.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Knock,knock,knocking on Russia's door
Polish women party posts nude election posters Friday, September 21, 2007-->Web posted at: 9/20/2007 3:28:54Source ::: AFP
WARSAW • A new Polish women’s political party risks shocking the majority Catholic country by plastering nude posters of their female candidates for the upcoming October 21 parliamentary election.
Seven women, including Women’s Party (Partia Kobiet, PK) founder and president, writer Manuela Gretkowska, have launched their campaign with nude posters of themselves with the logo “The Party of Women. Poland is a Woman” masking their private parts.
The poster also incorporates their electoral slogan: “Everything for the future... and nothing to hide.”
“This poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics, which is more often dominated by uncommunicative men with their black tie outfits,” Gretkowska said.
“We are beautiful, nude, proud. We are true and sincere, body and soul. This is not pornography, there is nothing to see in terms of sex, our faces are intelligent, concerned, proud. We do not have our mouths open nor our eyes closed,” she said.
“All that interests us is the future, the position of women in society. We will open the archives of the former secret communist agents, we will make known their corrupt affairs,” said Gretkowska.
The pursuit of former communist secret police agents and the business of corruption has remained at the heart of Polish political life since the twin brothers Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski came to power in 2005.
Founded at the beginning of the year, the Women’s Party has 1,500 members today. Many party members include female celebrities, such as actress Krystyna Janda or women’s boxing champion Agnieszka Rylik.
“The last debate launched by the League of Polish Families (LPR) regarding stiffening of the anti-abortion law is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Gretkowska, regarding her decision to enter the political arena.
According to the latest poll made on September 16 by the TNS OBOP Institute, the Women’s Party received three percent of voter’s intentions, less than the five percent needed to hold a seat in parliament.
“It’s a good result, with room to grow,” she said.
Source: here
WARSAW • A new Polish women’s political party risks shocking the majority Catholic country by plastering nude posters of their female candidates for the upcoming October 21 parliamentary election.
Seven women, including Women’s Party (Partia Kobiet, PK) founder and president, writer Manuela Gretkowska, have launched their campaign with nude posters of themselves with the logo “The Party of Women. Poland is a Woman” masking their private parts.
The poster also incorporates their electoral slogan: “Everything for the future... and nothing to hide.”
“This poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics, which is more often dominated by uncommunicative men with their black tie outfits,” Gretkowska said.
“We are beautiful, nude, proud. We are true and sincere, body and soul. This is not pornography, there is nothing to see in terms of sex, our faces are intelligent, concerned, proud. We do not have our mouths open nor our eyes closed,” she said.
“All that interests us is the future, the position of women in society. We will open the archives of the former secret communist agents, we will make known their corrupt affairs,” said Gretkowska.
The pursuit of former communist secret police agents and the business of corruption has remained at the heart of Polish political life since the twin brothers Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski came to power in 2005.
Founded at the beginning of the year, the Women’s Party has 1,500 members today. Many party members include female celebrities, such as actress Krystyna Janda or women’s boxing champion Agnieszka Rylik.
“The last debate launched by the League of Polish Families (LPR) regarding stiffening of the anti-abortion law is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Gretkowska, regarding her decision to enter the political arena.
According to the latest poll made on September 16 by the TNS OBOP Institute, the Women’s Party received three percent of voter’s intentions, less than the five percent needed to hold a seat in parliament.
“It’s a good result, with room to grow,” she said.
Source: here
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Double standardism revealed
Female sex offenders reveal cultural double standard
By Rebecca Morris
Special to The Seattle Times
It all seems so terribly familiar.
A trusted, even respected or beloved teacher is accused of having a sexual relationship with a student.
What used to shock us, but is now much too commonplace, is that the teacher is a woman.
Their names become tabloid headlines: Mary K. Letourneau, Debra Lafave, Pamela Diehl-Moore and others.
And now two more cases, both local.
Jennifer Leigh Rice, a 31-year-old former Tacoma teacher, was charged with having sex with a 10-year-old boy who had been in her fourth-grade class. The boy's father says she lavished the boy with attention until she was told not to come to their house anymore.
So she abducted the boy, police say, drove him to a highway rest stop outside Ellensburg and had sex with him. After her arrest in early August, Rice said she'd had sex with the boy four or five times, including once when she sneaked into his house as his parents slept.
Earlier this year, former Tenino math teacher Dawn Welter, 38, was charged with second-degree sexual misconduct after spending the night at a motel with a 16-year-old female student. Her lawyer explained her relationship with the student as "horseplay that became sexual."
The decadelong wave of sexual offenses committed by women — teachers in particular have exposed a cultural double standard: The public is more willing to accept the female abuser's claim that she had a "relationship" with the victim. And in cases in which the male is a teenager, the sexual abuse is more likely to be dismissed as a rite of passage. The questionable, yet overriding assumption, is that women predators are somehow different from men.
"Men are demonized, women are diagnosed. Men are beasts, but women are troubled or mentally ill," said media scholar Matthew Felling in an interview with Fox News. In fact, accounts of women sexual offenders are often more titillating than harsh. Felling calls the news coverage of young, attractive teachers involved with their students "part crime drama, part Penthouse letter."
About 25 percent of women and up to 17 percent of men say they experienced sexual abuse as children, ranging from seeing someone exposing themselves to intercourse. Boys are less likely to report abuse.
Despite the troubling news accounts, the National Education Association says schools are still among the safest places for children to be. The number of cases of sexual abuse by teachers, male and female, is less than 10 percent of all sex crimes against minors.
The current awareness of women predators began with Mary K. Letourneau, a 34-year-old elementary-school teacher and a married mother of four, who in 1996 began a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old former student, Vili Fualaau. Letourneau eventually had two children with him and served more than seven years in prison. She resumed contact with Fualaau, by then an adult, after she was released. While a male offender might have been publicly shunned, Letourneau's 2005 wedding to Fualaau was covered by "Entertainment Tonight."
Female predators' crimes are often attributed to marital problems, depression, loneliness, immaturity or self-esteem issues. Letourneau was reported to have "a loveless marriage" and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
Spiritual "relationships"
Not only do we look at female offenders differently, so do the offenders themselves. Women predators are more likely to see the abuse as a romantic relationship. Letourneau told CNN's Larry King that she and Fualaau had a "deep spiritual oneness" before they were ever sexual, and that she did not consider herself a sexual predator.
Dr. Leigh Baker, a clinical psychologist in Colorado, interviewed hundreds of male and female predators for her book "Protecting Your Children From Sexual Predators." All were incarcerated at the time, and their stories help form her theory that there are four types of predators: inadequate, narcissistic, anti-social and pedophile.
An inadequate adult (and predator) has trouble forming attachments with other adults and is most comfortable with children, she says. A narcissist loves him- or herself to the detriment of others; someone who's anti-social doesn't abide by society's rules; and a pedophile is sexually aroused by children.
While some women are pedophiles and some men do profess their love for the children they sexually abuse, women are more likely to "couch it as a relationship," according to Baker. Men are more likely to be serial pedophiles; women seek that "deep spiritual oneness" that Letourneau says she found.
The traits women predators exhibit — seeing themselves as a victim, low self-esteem, a sense of inadequacy, needing to be the center of attention, putting their own need for a connection before common sense — probably place most women predators into two of Baker's four categories.
"My suspicion is if you took a large enough number of female predators, they would fall into all four types. But, we know women are less anti-social than men, and there are fewer female pedophiles, so I think most women are narcissistic or inadequate types of predators."
There are signs of the inadequate, the narcissist and the anti-social predator in Letourneau. She formed an inappropriate bond with a 12-year old, ignoring society's mores and the well-being of her own four children.
While a mental illness may produce hypersexuality, impulsiveness and poor decision-making, such a diagnosis for a sexual predator is rare, according to Baker. They are more likely to have a personality disorder (such as a anti-social, or narcissistic) or to have been sexually abused themselves.
The "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome"
To watch NBC's "To Catch A Predator" you'd think all predators are men. The series uses decoys on the Internet to lure men hoping to hook up with underage teens. Robert Weiss, executive director and founder of the Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles, who provided his expertise in one of the episodes, says sexual compulsions on the Internet are male-dominated.
But female predators are beginning to use the Internet — not in an anonymous way to find children but to stay in close touch with those they are involved with. Rice, the former Tacoma teacher, communicated online often with the 10-year-old she had sex with, according to court records.
Then there is the ultimate double standard: The wink wink, nudge nudge, of boys getting their sexual initiation from grown women.
"Society sees it as they got 'lucky' " to receive a sexual initiation from a woman, according to Dr. Keith Kaufman, chairman of the department of psychology at Portland State University. "But their brain maturation isn't complete. Boys aren't in a position to give consent to a sexual relationship. Girls see it as abusive much more quickly. Boys won't want to see themselves as a victim."
There is a prevailing sense that boys are not harmed by sexual liaisons with older women. It's called the "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome," after the character in the 1967 film "The Graduate." But Benjamin, Mrs. Robinson's target, wasn't a child; he was in his 20s, had just graduated from college and was contemplating that career in plastics.
"We tend to see the female teacher-male student relationship as less abusive and less harmful psychologically," according to Dr. Susan G. Kornstein, a psychiatrist and director of the Institute for Women's Health and the Mood Disorders Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. "But in fact, a sexual relationship between a female teacher and a male student can be just as harmful and can have both short- and long-term consequences on the child's emotional stability and psychological and sexual development."
Boys who have sex with grown women are anything but "lucky." "It is always abuse," says Dr. Kaufman.
Rebecca Morris has been a broadcast and print journalist for 33 years. She teaches journalism at Bellevue Community College.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
I believe this is a liberal (pro-feminist) newspaper too.
Some thoughts
It seems that women play keeping the pussy in short supply and have us go through hoops for just a sample of it yet men are expected to give the chivalry up to every woman,EVERY WOMAN. Now what would happen if men decided to keep the chivalry in short supply? How fast would things change? Think about it. Things would change and I'll bet real quick too. Keep the chivalry in short supply. No more of their double standards,no more putting up with their cowshit. No more Mr.Fucking Nice Guy about it.
I bought it. I'll just fucking say it and lay it out for the world to see;I fucking bought the lie. Back in the '70's I bought into the lie that women were pure and good. I didn't see it first hand but I was hoping some place in some way it would be true,that these guys who wrote these love songs in rock music knew what they were talking about. I mean it's the Doobies who said,"I listen to the music" and I thought that I could somewhere find that woman (sweet,loving,compassionate and a joy to be around) who was unlike the others. It took many years and a few knives to the back before I realize she is just a mythological creature. It is worse than that it is the LIE. The lies that a lot of guys have bought into and now have hell to pay,married or not. Bitter? Fair assessment. Is it "bitter" you want to say or is it "unjustified". No one in their right mind can say the latter. But anyway the final straw was the false sexual harassment claim that got me fired. Seeing women in the cold light of day and seeing the black hearts that truly exist is truly a very dark journey and a lot of my beliefs were shattered along the way but that's okay because the cold light of day shown through and although very ugly it was honesty. An honesty that was gut wrenching. But that honesty led me to one conclusion and that is women are truly demonic creatures. I'll tell you you can hear the sounds of your beliefs being shattered but it is reality and there is no hiding from reality. So I accepted and adapted and shed some other false beliefs along the way too but I have adapted to my new environment and that is why I glad I found some MRA publications to help me and other men adapt to our new environments. There is a past but it was a lie,a feminist lie to brainwash men. Women have talked big and backed none of it up. The present sucks but we can change that to bring a better tomorrow. It's like Billy Joel said,"the good old days weren't always so good,tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems".
I bought it. I'll just fucking say it and lay it out for the world to see;I fucking bought the lie. Back in the '70's I bought into the lie that women were pure and good. I didn't see it first hand but I was hoping some place in some way it would be true,that these guys who wrote these love songs in rock music knew what they were talking about. I mean it's the Doobies who said,"I listen to the music" and I thought that I could somewhere find that woman (sweet,loving,compassionate and a joy to be around) who was unlike the others. It took many years and a few knives to the back before I realize she is just a mythological creature. It is worse than that it is the LIE. The lies that a lot of guys have bought into and now have hell to pay,married or not. Bitter? Fair assessment. Is it "bitter" you want to say or is it "unjustified". No one in their right mind can say the latter. But anyway the final straw was the false sexual harassment claim that got me fired. Seeing women in the cold light of day and seeing the black hearts that truly exist is truly a very dark journey and a lot of my beliefs were shattered along the way but that's okay because the cold light of day shown through and although very ugly it was honesty. An honesty that was gut wrenching. But that honesty led me to one conclusion and that is women are truly demonic creatures. I'll tell you you can hear the sounds of your beliefs being shattered but it is reality and there is no hiding from reality. So I accepted and adapted and shed some other false beliefs along the way too but I have adapted to my new environment and that is why I glad I found some MRA publications to help me and other men adapt to our new environments. There is a past but it was a lie,a feminist lie to brainwash men. Women have talked big and backed none of it up. The present sucks but we can change that to bring a better tomorrow. It's like Billy Joel said,"the good old days weren't always so good,tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems".
Sunday, September 9, 2007
MSNBC and the transexuals
I was watching MS NBC's "Born in the wrong body" which featured transsexuals of both genders. It seems like MS NBC gets a kick out of emasculating men considering they have a habit of it considering they have another show called To catch a predator as long as the predator is a man (even though we've all read shit loads of articles describing how females,especially teachers,have molested their students and some of those students are very young). On this show they have an assorted cast of characters and they're all very nuts. The scary thing is a couple of the male-to-female nut jobs look just like real women: small hands and a small to nonexistent Adam's apple (shoe size I don't know). I saw this cold stone sober in the cold light of day so if some regular hetero guy is tossing a few back in a bar with dimmed lighting and one of the things I saw on TV were to walk in..well..it wouldn't be a pretty picture,especially if the normal guy found out and started going psycho on that fag. I could see and understand that happening. They also had female-to-male transsexuals too and they came off very effeminate,as did the male-to-female transsexuals. One of the female-to-male transsexuals still played on the girl's field hockey team because if "it" were to play on a boy's (those born male) team they would get their ass handed to them,big time. So they have to play on the girl's team because they lack the upper body strength real men have. So I guess the reverse is true of male-to-female transsexuals as well. So it seems that all this surgery is just cosmetic as they can't remove all the things that designate a person to a particular gender. Sure they can give the female-to-male transsexual a mastectomy,hysterectomy and male sex hormones and they can give a male-to-female transsexual female sex hormones,give him breasts and emasculate him but there are things that they can't take away. They don't remove the brain and there are differences in the male and female brains. So a sex change is cosmetic at best because one of the sex differences is in the brain and no one has been able to alter that. One of the things I've heard about is that the "new woman?" had to widen the new hole where "her?" penis was with a dildo device or the wound would close up. I've also heard of where the "new man?" has trouble getting an erection. The reason for this is they graft skin from the abdomen and then make a "penis?" out of this. The problem is that while abdomen skin stretches it is not what one would consider "erectile skin" and the abdomen is hardly a sexual organ the way a normal penis is. A lot of insurance companies require a psychiatrist's and/or psychologist's approval or they won't pay for the operations. I guess this is because of some individuals regrets of the decision they've made and they are holding the insurance companies accountable. In one segment they have a female-to-male transsexual who is talking with a psychologist,who is female-to-male transsexual too and likes men. If that was the case why didn't she remain a "she"? Well,that would apply logic and reason to the argument and these "men?" and "women?" don't get it because they are male (those of us born men) traits. I've heard of cases where the transsexual regrets their decision and end up being attracted to the gender they've reassigned themselves to,which would make them regret getting their plumbing altered.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Boy or girl? Choose
Think you'd like to have a girl? You could try eating chocolate, having sex under a full moon, making sure your baby daddy wears boxers or employing new flow cytometric separation technology to separate the X chromosome-bearing sperm from the Y and using the enriched fraction of sorted sperm to achieve pregnancy. And according to an article in AlterNet (via Women's eNews), more and more parents -- in the interest of "family balancing," in both directions -- are plunking down big chunks of change to do the latter.
The sorting process is often used in conjunction with a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), wherein embryos created via in vitro fertilization may be screened for serious, if not life-threatening genetic disorders, particularly those that parents know they're at risk of transmitting. According to this article (if I understand the rather vague wording correctly), a 2006 report by the Washington-based Genetics and Public Policy Center found that 42 percent of fertility clinics offering PGD made it available for nonmedical sex selection.
And more often than not, according to "fertility professionals," parents are trying to select for girls. (The piece also states that "up to 80 percent of U.S. families choose to try for girls," a stat that clearly lacks a bit of context. Also, one doctor interviewed said that in his experience, it's 50/50.) In any regard, compare and contrast: China, India.
The article states ominously, and predictably, that "ethicists say the practice is on slippery ground" -- but then, oddly, never really gets any ethicists to come out and say so. The American Medical Association has neither endorsed nor condoned it; the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in Birmingham, Ala., says the practice is ethical when the couple does not have "unrealistic expectations about the behavior of children of the preferred gender." One doctor quoted says we need to make sure technology doesn't too far outpace discussion (who would disagree?); another (a clinic director, it should be noted) basically shrugs. "We've been accused of being on the slippery slope for 20 years. The future's maybe a bit scarier than things are right now," he says, referring to the putative day when Gattaca Fertility Associates will be able to sort DNA for much more than gender.
That's it? I'm truly surprised that they couldn't get one person to say, "Hey, it's a free -- slash, expensive -- country, but it's a little questionable to do such somersaults to try to choose Jane over Dick." (Or should I say, Caden over Hayden? Wait, which is which?) Of course, we could acknowledge that, to the degree that they do, it's a sign of ... well, something that certain American parents appear to actively prefer girls. Though I'm guessing that those who do aren't saying to themselves, "I'd like to have a girl so that she can experience the full measure of her equality."
Ethical and sociopolitical considerations aside, my immediate reaction also comes from the gut. I'm uncomfortable with the implication that a child's gender is an -- the -- essential element of his or her identity, the implication that to have a girl, or a boy, is to know what your kid will be like. That's not a political statement about "social construction of gender," it's a personal one about being open to the full mystery and miracle of parenting. I am also inclined to agree with Dr. Shrug, above. We absolutely, positively have to talk, and fast, about what lies close ahead on this slope, and fancy fertility technology as a whole will always have its quite reasonable detractors. Even so, we shouldn't let the availability of -- and perhaps overblown publicity about -- such luxury treatments obscure what the state of the art has made possible for parents who simply want a healthy child -- girl or boy.
-- Lynn Harris
Print Permalink [15:49 EST, Sept. 5, 2007]
Source: here
Here are some less-than-intelligent letters that are in reply to this article:
I tried for a girl and I got a girl.
I used certain folk medicine-type techniques. Did they work? Who knows. I can only say that
I am happy with the results and the only expense I had was a basal thermometer and some vinegar.
I see nothing wrong with the sex selection of future progeny by individual parents. (I would see plenty wrong if this were some sort or government policy or driven by government policy.) Every child should be highly desired and I yearned for a daughter. At the time, I did not really understand the source of my yearning. Now I do. I grew up as the slightly older sibling to three boys. I had enormous responsibility for the care of my younger brothers. I was not really old enough to have such responsibility and certain aspects of it left their mark. For instance, when my brothers did anything wrong, I was often blamed.
Dealing with three active little boys when you are young yourself can be almost traumatic. Always, I had longed for a sister close to my age with whom I could share confidences and who would vote on MY SIDE to watch something besides westerns on television.
If the techniques I used actually had some influence on my having the daughter I wanted, all I can say is that I am not one bit sorry.
-- AKA Smith
[Read AKA Smith's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 01:24 PM
So basically all this bitch cares about is controlling the TV. Hell,she can stay single and childless to accomplish that goal.
This article is a -little- less biased but just stops short of applauding more girls over boys. But it came really close.
What happens when, even when according to all tests, measurements and assurances, that you've ended up with a boy? There's bound to be a time where, even with the best of medical science, something doesn't go quite right? Eject the boy then, and try again for a girl?
That's where the article didn't touch, and could have. But this is broadsheet, and we all know how broadsheet is when it comes to men vs. women. On one hand it's good to start having more girls to equalize the glut of boys in China,India, and other places where the gender disparity is appalling. Maybe when the boys grow up, it won't be 20 boys for every girl, maybe not - all depends if the women find China or India an attractive place to move to. Or if the boys save up their farm wages, and hop a plane over(thus leaving their families who depend on them to survive). Time will tell.
-- d0k0night
[Read d0k0night's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 01:43 PM
Hey dorko,what about the western men? We're still going to be here.
It has been pretty well established that girls are less likely to suffer genetic diseases such as autism, have higher median IQ[1], and are less likely to kill themselves by doing dumb things.
As such, it's not entirely irrational to shoot for girls in a society where the incentive to choose boys (extra manual help in the rice paddy) no longer exists in any meaningful fashion, if your objective is to maximize your offspring's well being.
BTW, as a guy who channles his inner Man Show from time to time, I'm not sure I'm all that bothered with this particular "slippery slope" where the world will be overwhelming female :-)
[1] Although the high standard distribution of IQ among boys means that they are
over-represented in the "genius" category, and equally, the higher proportion of boys who are clinically retarded.
-- clone12 [Read clone12's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:03 PM
Hey clown,it ain't going to be the playboy fantasy that you think it's going to be. It's going to be a castration camp,but then again maybe you're little mangina ass would love that.
Clone
Thats a very good point.
A society in which women outnumber men 2:1 or more would certainly put the sexual power in the hands of the men.
Sounds like fun to me!
-- Shadow [Read Shadow's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:20 PM
2nd mangina to weigh in.
Always, in these matters, there is come guy chiming in about getting shot at. Not a small consideration, I admit. However, given that the modern nature of combat positions open to women in today's military also put them at risk of getting shot at women who volunteer are also in harm's way.
(No,women are not put in combat units as it pertains to U.S. law.)While it is true that only men register for the draft, does anyone seriously think that that would survive a court challenge for long if the draft were reinstated, which it could be in almost an instant? (I read about one woman,I don't know if she was doing it for a publicity stunt or what,who tried to register for selective service and they threatened her with arrest and legal action if she did not cease and desist,which she did.)Read up if you don't believe me. We will never long have a draft in the future without women also going. It is because our troops are stretched so thin now that, if we do take action against Iran, it will be in the form of a surgical strike that might even involve nukes.
I tell my daughter to be ready for the possibility of a draft in a "national emergency." We may not have a draft now but "the war on terror" is forever, courtesy of the neo-cons. I always tell my daughter this: "If you get a yen to sleep with a woman, please document it. See if you can actually get an affidavit for your future draft board." I suspect we will draft women before the military will ever give up its prejudice against homosexuals. (No,the military will put homosexuals in their own unit before sending women into combat.)-- AKA Smith
[Read AKA Smith's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:26 PM
My friend has a mildly autistic son by the time she was ready for another, she needed IVF, and they did what they could to conceive a girl because autism runs in her family and is more common in males. She did have a girl and has since told me that the girl is way more demanding than the boy ever was, even with his special needs. You never can tell. My girl, who never stops chatting, is far more demanding than my boy (who isn't exactly taciturn).
What I find interesting in reading these letters is how perplexed people seem to be that others might prefer girls, as though preferring boys--the longest-standing preference in history--is the only understandable stance. It seems clear to me that since our society has become increasingly automated, computerized and achievement oriented, the stereotypical female traits of compliance and helpfulness are more valued. No longer do we live in a society where sheer brawn is necessary.
-- BettyBoop [Read BettyBoop's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 04:15 PM
Was this true of 9/11? Or more recently the bridge collapse in Minnesota?
China and India have way more boys than girls
at this point . . . the thinkers who ponder such things have pointed out that this will make these two countries increasingly unstable as the boys age and have no one to marry--too many young males in a society is dangerous to the society.
Only in a matriarchy such as the one we have in the western world.
But my point is: all of you men who think having a surplus of girls will get you laid more,no matter how many girls we breed in this country, we're never going to match the surplus of males in the non-Western world. Maybe by the time this crop grows up, globalization will have calmed racist tendencies, and the American girls will marry the Asian boys, thereby saving the globe from mayhem.
Women aren't going to give a fuck about anything but themselves so it looks like the world is fucked.
-- BettyBoop [Read BettyBoop's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 04:23 PM
Source: here
The sorting process is often used in conjunction with a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), wherein embryos created via in vitro fertilization may be screened for serious, if not life-threatening genetic disorders, particularly those that parents know they're at risk of transmitting. According to this article (if I understand the rather vague wording correctly), a 2006 report by the Washington-based Genetics and Public Policy Center found that 42 percent of fertility clinics offering PGD made it available for nonmedical sex selection.
And more often than not, according to "fertility professionals," parents are trying to select for girls. (The piece also states that "up to 80 percent of U.S. families choose to try for girls," a stat that clearly lacks a bit of context. Also, one doctor interviewed said that in his experience, it's 50/50.) In any regard, compare and contrast: China, India.
The article states ominously, and predictably, that "ethicists say the practice is on slippery ground" -- but then, oddly, never really gets any ethicists to come out and say so. The American Medical Association has neither endorsed nor condoned it; the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in Birmingham, Ala., says the practice is ethical when the couple does not have "unrealistic expectations about the behavior of children of the preferred gender." One doctor quoted says we need to make sure technology doesn't too far outpace discussion (who would disagree?); another (a clinic director, it should be noted) basically shrugs. "We've been accused of being on the slippery slope for 20 years. The future's maybe a bit scarier than things are right now," he says, referring to the putative day when Gattaca Fertility Associates will be able to sort DNA for much more than gender.
That's it? I'm truly surprised that they couldn't get one person to say, "Hey, it's a free -- slash, expensive -- country, but it's a little questionable to do such somersaults to try to choose Jane over Dick." (Or should I say, Caden over Hayden? Wait, which is which?) Of course, we could acknowledge that, to the degree that they do, it's a sign of ... well, something that certain American parents appear to actively prefer girls. Though I'm guessing that those who do aren't saying to themselves, "I'd like to have a girl so that she can experience the full measure of her equality."
Ethical and sociopolitical considerations aside, my immediate reaction also comes from the gut. I'm uncomfortable with the implication that a child's gender is an -- the -- essential element of his or her identity, the implication that to have a girl, or a boy, is to know what your kid will be like. That's not a political statement about "social construction of gender," it's a personal one about being open to the full mystery and miracle of parenting. I am also inclined to agree with Dr. Shrug, above. We absolutely, positively have to talk, and fast, about what lies close ahead on this slope, and fancy fertility technology as a whole will always have its quite reasonable detractors. Even so, we shouldn't let the availability of -- and perhaps overblown publicity about -- such luxury treatments obscure what the state of the art has made possible for parents who simply want a healthy child -- girl or boy.
-- Lynn Harris
Print Permalink [15:49 EST, Sept. 5, 2007]
Source: here
Here are some less-than-intelligent letters that are in reply to this article:
I tried for a girl and I got a girl.
I used certain folk medicine-type techniques. Did they work? Who knows. I can only say that
I am happy with the results and the only expense I had was a basal thermometer and some vinegar.
I see nothing wrong with the sex selection of future progeny by individual parents. (I would see plenty wrong if this were some sort or government policy or driven by government policy.) Every child should be highly desired and I yearned for a daughter. At the time, I did not really understand the source of my yearning. Now I do. I grew up as the slightly older sibling to three boys. I had enormous responsibility for the care of my younger brothers. I was not really old enough to have such responsibility and certain aspects of it left their mark. For instance, when my brothers did anything wrong, I was often blamed.
Dealing with three active little boys when you are young yourself can be almost traumatic. Always, I had longed for a sister close to my age with whom I could share confidences and who would vote on MY SIDE to watch something besides westerns on television.
If the techniques I used actually had some influence on my having the daughter I wanted, all I can say is that I am not one bit sorry.
-- AKA Smith
[Read AKA Smith's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 01:24 PM
So basically all this bitch cares about is controlling the TV. Hell,she can stay single and childless to accomplish that goal.
This article is a -little- less biased but just stops short of applauding more girls over boys. But it came really close.
What happens when, even when according to all tests, measurements and assurances, that you've ended up with a boy? There's bound to be a time where, even with the best of medical science, something doesn't go quite right? Eject the boy then, and try again for a girl?
That's where the article didn't touch, and could have. But this is broadsheet, and we all know how broadsheet is when it comes to men vs. women. On one hand it's good to start having more girls to equalize the glut of boys in China,India, and other places where the gender disparity is appalling. Maybe when the boys grow up, it won't be 20 boys for every girl, maybe not - all depends if the women find China or India an attractive place to move to. Or if the boys save up their farm wages, and hop a plane over(thus leaving their families who depend on them to survive). Time will tell.
-- d0k0night
[Read d0k0night's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 01:43 PM
Hey dorko,what about the western men? We're still going to be here.
It has been pretty well established that girls are less likely to suffer genetic diseases such as autism, have higher median IQ[1], and are less likely to kill themselves by doing dumb things.
As such, it's not entirely irrational to shoot for girls in a society where the incentive to choose boys (extra manual help in the rice paddy) no longer exists in any meaningful fashion, if your objective is to maximize your offspring's well being.
BTW, as a guy who channles his inner Man Show from time to time, I'm not sure I'm all that bothered with this particular "slippery slope" where the world will be overwhelming female :-)
[1] Although the high standard distribution of IQ among boys means that they are
over-represented in the "genius" category, and equally, the higher proportion of boys who are clinically retarded.
-- clone12 [Read clone12's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:03 PM
Hey clown,it ain't going to be the playboy fantasy that you think it's going to be. It's going to be a castration camp,but then again maybe you're little mangina ass would love that.
Clone
Thats a very good point.
A society in which women outnumber men 2:1 or more would certainly put the sexual power in the hands of the men.
Sounds like fun to me!
-- Shadow [Read Shadow's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:20 PM
2nd mangina to weigh in.
Always, in these matters, there is come guy chiming in about getting shot at. Not a small consideration, I admit. However, given that the modern nature of combat positions open to women in today's military also put them at risk of getting shot at women who volunteer are also in harm's way.
(No,women are not put in combat units as it pertains to U.S. law.)While it is true that only men register for the draft, does anyone seriously think that that would survive a court challenge for long if the draft were reinstated, which it could be in almost an instant? (I read about one woman,I don't know if she was doing it for a publicity stunt or what,who tried to register for selective service and they threatened her with arrest and legal action if she did not cease and desist,which she did.)Read up if you don't believe me. We will never long have a draft in the future without women also going. It is because our troops are stretched so thin now that, if we do take action against Iran, it will be in the form of a surgical strike that might even involve nukes.
I tell my daughter to be ready for the possibility of a draft in a "national emergency." We may not have a draft now but "the war on terror" is forever, courtesy of the neo-cons. I always tell my daughter this: "If you get a yen to sleep with a woman, please document it. See if you can actually get an affidavit for your future draft board." I suspect we will draft women before the military will ever give up its prejudice against homosexuals. (No,the military will put homosexuals in their own unit before sending women into combat.)-- AKA Smith
[Read AKA Smith's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:26 PM
My friend has a mildly autistic son by the time she was ready for another, she needed IVF, and they did what they could to conceive a girl because autism runs in her family and is more common in males. She did have a girl and has since told me that the girl is way more demanding than the boy ever was, even with his special needs. You never can tell. My girl, who never stops chatting, is far more demanding than my boy (who isn't exactly taciturn).
What I find interesting in reading these letters is how perplexed people seem to be that others might prefer girls, as though preferring boys--the longest-standing preference in history--is the only understandable stance. It seems clear to me that since our society has become increasingly automated, computerized and achievement oriented, the stereotypical female traits of compliance and helpfulness are more valued. No longer do we live in a society where sheer brawn is necessary.
-- BettyBoop [Read BettyBoop's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 04:15 PM
Was this true of 9/11? Or more recently the bridge collapse in Minnesota?
China and India have way more boys than girls
at this point . . . the thinkers who ponder such things have pointed out that this will make these two countries increasingly unstable as the boys age and have no one to marry--too many young males in a society is dangerous to the society.
Only in a matriarchy such as the one we have in the western world.
But my point is: all of you men who think having a surplus of girls will get you laid more,no matter how many girls we breed in this country, we're never going to match the surplus of males in the non-Western world. Maybe by the time this crop grows up, globalization will have calmed racist tendencies, and the American girls will marry the Asian boys, thereby saving the globe from mayhem.
Women aren't going to give a fuck about anything but themselves so it looks like the world is fucked.
-- BettyBoop [Read BettyBoop's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, September 5, 2007 04:23 PM
Source: here
Prosecutor sways judge
Fri Sep 7, 10:31 PM ET
CASTLE ROCK, Colo. - A former prosecutor faces up to a three-year suspension of her law license after admitting to having sex at the Douglas County courthouse with a judge before whom she prosecuted at least two cases.
Laurie Hurst, 29, admitted misconduct and agreed to a three-year suspension, with the understanding she would serve only serve six months with the rest of the suspension stayed upon successful completion of 2 1/2 years of probation, according to documents submitted Thursday to the Colorado Supreme Court's Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero.
Lucero will decide whether to accept the recommendation from a panel of lawyers.
Hurst, previously known as Laurie Steinman, was fired on Dec. 22. Grafton M. Biddle, 57, resigned his position after Hurst was fired.
A complaint filed in April said the affair began in the spring of 2006. Both admit to having sex in the judge's chambers and "on a number of occasions Judge Biddle would `sneak' into the women's shower facilities in the courthouse early in the morning," the complaint said.
A message left after business hours for Hurst was not immediately returned.
Allegations of misconduct in Hurst's case include misuse of judicial officer chambers, disrepute upon the judiciary and the district attorney's office, and potential tainting of bias in the two trials.
Biddle's case is still pending.
Source:here
CASTLE ROCK, Colo. - A former prosecutor faces up to a three-year suspension of her law license after admitting to having sex at the Douglas County courthouse with a judge before whom she prosecuted at least two cases.
Laurie Hurst, 29, admitted misconduct and agreed to a three-year suspension, with the understanding she would serve only serve six months with the rest of the suspension stayed upon successful completion of 2 1/2 years of probation, according to documents submitted Thursday to the Colorado Supreme Court's Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero.
Lucero will decide whether to accept the recommendation from a panel of lawyers.
Hurst, previously known as Laurie Steinman, was fired on Dec. 22. Grafton M. Biddle, 57, resigned his position after Hurst was fired.
A complaint filed in April said the affair began in the spring of 2006. Both admit to having sex in the judge's chambers and "on a number of occasions Judge Biddle would `sneak' into the women's shower facilities in the courthouse early in the morning," the complaint said.
A message left after business hours for Hurst was not immediately returned.
Allegations of misconduct in Hurst's case include misuse of judicial officer chambers, disrepute upon the judiciary and the district attorney's office, and potential tainting of bias in the two trials.
Biddle's case is still pending.
Source:here
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Confessions of a feminazi
I want to thank DCM for originally posting this and Outcast Superstar for bringing it to my attention and that is why I'm promoting it here as well.
As I write this, I am aware that I am probably going to offend some readers, but, then again, I have found that we in society are afraid and unaccepting of the truth, therefore taking offense. I can not apologize for what I am about to say, however I can only hope to attempt to undo the wrong that I have done.
To start with, here is a little bit about myself. Before I was married, I was an extreme feminist, with the hopes and dreams of equality, having the same thoughts and beliefs as others in the fight for true equality. It wasn't like the feminists of today, who only want to gain complete control, power, and to have revenge, destroying everything that the true feminists have fought so hard for (true gender equality). (Feminism is not about gender equality and it never has been,it is only about female supremacy. The feminists of her time were the ones to help usher in the ones that came later. So if this woman thinks that feminism is about genuine equality then she is either hoodwinked or she's trying to do that to us.)It is my hope that by posting my story and comments, that it will encourage other women, (we/you know who you are), to come forward and to tell the truth about themselves and their experience. Here is my story, as shameful as it may be.
I am a single mother of two. When I decided to leave my marriage, (I was bored), I went to three different lawyers for advice. I was asked by all 3 of them if I was ever abused by my husband. My answer was, never in any way shape or form was my husband abusive towards me. To my utter disbelief, all of them told me the same thing. Unless I accused my husband of abuse, I would not gain sole custody of my children. They also told me that by making these allegations against him, that I would get EVERYTHING and more. When I asked them how we would prove the allegations, I was told that the courts don't require proof, and to go to a women's shelter, and that they would help me, and that it would support my allegations of abuse.
Having been brought up in a very religious family, I was very uncomfortable with this advice. I was then told by the lawyers, that if I wanted the full support of legal aid, I had no choice but to make the allegations against my husband. Having no money to pay for legal expenses, I did as I was advised. Reluctantly I took my children to a women's shelter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. On the outside, it appears as they want the public and their funders to see it. This is however, far from the truth.
This place was a form of a cult, (for lack of a better term). Male bashing was a top priority, and the administration was very adamant about recruiting yet another woman (me), to join this man-haters club. They even have a game plan on how to win in court. By following their simple plan step by step, I would not only get sole custody of my children, but also the car, house and land, plus finances for the rest of my life.
However, if I did not follow their game plan, but if I played fairly, I would lose everything, and I would be endangering the lives of other women, and would jeopardize any funding for them. The administration must have noticed that their brain washing techniques were not working as fast as they wanted, so I was 'thrown' at the other women staying there.
Terms such as 'sperm donors', and that all men were abusive and must die, were used on a daily basis. They were very convincing, and not wanting to jeopardize my fellow house mates, I went along with their game plan.
As soon as I said that I would follow their game plan, things moved very quickly. I saw the man that I was once married to destroyed emotionally, financially and physically. I was granted sole custody of our children, and because of a restraining order, I gained the house and car, so that our children wouldn't lose everything that they were used to.
Not only was there a restraining order against him, he was also charged with assault. The man who had equally created our children, helped raise them, and who loves them dearly, was ordered to stay away from them, and to pay me, (more than I ever needed), support for them. Like I said, I destroyed him, leaving him with very little to survive.
My brother is now going through a custody battle, where my former sister-in-law is playing exactly the same game that was taught to me by a women's shelter, and my brother is in the same shoes that I once put my ex in.
Knowing how I destroyed my ex, and seeing the wrong that I had committed, I have made it my personal endeavor to help my brother with his fight. He recently joined a men's group, and he receives messages on the net from shared parenting, epoc_news etc.
As he was thrown out of his home, he now lives with me, which gives me the opportunity to read the messages from these groups. I must admit, sometimes there is a message or two that is of great help, but for the most part, these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
Dads On The Air
Bert
Source: here
I believe the following bears repeating over and over again:
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
Got that? You got it straight from the (w)horses' mouth.
I've been saying the same thing for the last 14 years and I get dismissed as some delusion psychopath by manginas who pretend to be MRA's (for only God knows why)and these manginas want to play peace with these feminazis. Feminazis that would send them to their destruction ASAP and laugh about it with their girlfriends. You can't make peace with feminazis you can only prevail against them and here is one backing what I've said since the beginning and hopefully the rest of you can stomach it and fight against them,unlike the manginas that want "peace in our time".
As I write this, I am aware that I am probably going to offend some readers, but, then again, I have found that we in society are afraid and unaccepting of the truth, therefore taking offense. I can not apologize for what I am about to say, however I can only hope to attempt to undo the wrong that I have done.
To start with, here is a little bit about myself. Before I was married, I was an extreme feminist, with the hopes and dreams of equality, having the same thoughts and beliefs as others in the fight for true equality. It wasn't like the feminists of today, who only want to gain complete control, power, and to have revenge, destroying everything that the true feminists have fought so hard for (true gender equality). (Feminism is not about gender equality and it never has been,it is only about female supremacy. The feminists of her time were the ones to help usher in the ones that came later. So if this woman thinks that feminism is about genuine equality then she is either hoodwinked or she's trying to do that to us.)It is my hope that by posting my story and comments, that it will encourage other women, (we/you know who you are), to come forward and to tell the truth about themselves and their experience. Here is my story, as shameful as it may be.
I am a single mother of two. When I decided to leave my marriage, (I was bored), I went to three different lawyers for advice. I was asked by all 3 of them if I was ever abused by my husband. My answer was, never in any way shape or form was my husband abusive towards me. To my utter disbelief, all of them told me the same thing. Unless I accused my husband of abuse, I would not gain sole custody of my children. They also told me that by making these allegations against him, that I would get EVERYTHING and more. When I asked them how we would prove the allegations, I was told that the courts don't require proof, and to go to a women's shelter, and that they would help me, and that it would support my allegations of abuse.
Having been brought up in a very religious family, I was very uncomfortable with this advice. I was then told by the lawyers, that if I wanted the full support of legal aid, I had no choice but to make the allegations against my husband. Having no money to pay for legal expenses, I did as I was advised. Reluctantly I took my children to a women's shelter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. On the outside, it appears as they want the public and their funders to see it. This is however, far from the truth.
This place was a form of a cult, (for lack of a better term). Male bashing was a top priority, and the administration was very adamant about recruiting yet another woman (me), to join this man-haters club. They even have a game plan on how to win in court. By following their simple plan step by step, I would not only get sole custody of my children, but also the car, house and land, plus finances for the rest of my life.
However, if I did not follow their game plan, but if I played fairly, I would lose everything, and I would be endangering the lives of other women, and would jeopardize any funding for them. The administration must have noticed that their brain washing techniques were not working as fast as they wanted, so I was 'thrown' at the other women staying there.
Terms such as 'sperm donors', and that all men were abusive and must die, were used on a daily basis. They were very convincing, and not wanting to jeopardize my fellow house mates, I went along with their game plan.
As soon as I said that I would follow their game plan, things moved very quickly. I saw the man that I was once married to destroyed emotionally, financially and physically. I was granted sole custody of our children, and because of a restraining order, I gained the house and car, so that our children wouldn't lose everything that they were used to.
Not only was there a restraining order against him, he was also charged with assault. The man who had equally created our children, helped raise them, and who loves them dearly, was ordered to stay away from them, and to pay me, (more than I ever needed), support for them. Like I said, I destroyed him, leaving him with very little to survive.
My brother is now going through a custody battle, where my former sister-in-law is playing exactly the same game that was taught to me by a women's shelter, and my brother is in the same shoes that I once put my ex in.
Knowing how I destroyed my ex, and seeing the wrong that I had committed, I have made it my personal endeavor to help my brother with his fight. He recently joined a men's group, and he receives messages on the net from shared parenting, epoc_news etc.
As he was thrown out of his home, he now lives with me, which gives me the opportunity to read the messages from these groups. I must admit, sometimes there is a message or two that is of great help, but for the most part, these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
Dads On The Air
Bert
Source: here
I believe the following bears repeating over and over again:
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
these groups have to stop playing 'Mr. Nice Guy'.
Got that? You got it straight from the (w)horses' mouth.
I've been saying the same thing for the last 14 years and I get dismissed as some delusion psychopath by manginas who pretend to be MRA's (for only God knows why)and these manginas want to play peace with these feminazis. Feminazis that would send them to their destruction ASAP and laugh about it with their girlfriends. You can't make peace with feminazis you can only prevail against them and here is one backing what I've said since the beginning and hopefully the rest of you can stomach it and fight against them,unlike the manginas that want "peace in our time".
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Don't forget
About Angry Harry and he still needs those votes so if you haven't voted then now is the time to do so or if you have friends that are MRA's or have MRA sympathies then tell them about Angry Harry. The voting closes in November and the winners announced in Las Vegas. So let's give a reason for Angry Harry to be in Las Vegas on November 10th to accept his award.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Bounty cunts
There is a show on Court TV called "Bounty Girls" which has 4 females bringing in predominantly male suspects who allegedly violate their bond agreement but with these feminazis with guns who knows what some of these items in the agreement are. From what I've seen they have been known to let female violators go,even those that have committed domestic battery against their husbands while holding male violators accountable. I would love to see what these cunts do when men,whom are heavily armed and have a "fuck you,cunt" attitude,resist being taken in by them. I mean really RESIST,ROYALLY. ROYALFUCKINGLY. What would these cunts do? I'm betting on the men and hopefully they leave none of these cunts living. Some of the tactics these cunts use are deception and when they have the man cuffed they nag them. Who the fuck wants to go through this shit? This is the future,men. Now they are fast becoming their own gestapo and the way society at all levels is slipping into a morass. A morass that is coming for all men. We are losing our rights and it is only a matter of time before courts just openly mock the law without any pretense of respect for it and they will rubber stamp what the matriarchy wants to do and then look for these all female kidnap gangs to spring up all over the United States and other western countries. "Bounty Girls",coming soon for YOU.
MASCULIST REVOLUTION OR FEMINIST CASTRATION CAMP,YOUR CHOICE.
MASCULIST REVOLUTION OR FEMINIST CASTRATION CAMP,YOUR CHOICE.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)