At math, girls are as good as boys!?

July 30, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Girls = Boys at Math

By David Malakoff

ScienceNOW Daily News
24 July 2008

Zip. Zilch. Nada. There’s no real difference between the scores of U.S. boys and girls on common math tests, according to a massive new study. Educators hope the finding will finally dispel lingering perceptions that girls don’t measure up to boys when it comes to crunching numbers….

…The results “essentially confirm” earlier studies–and they should finally put to rest the idea that girls aren’t going into technical fields because they can’t do the math, says Ann Gallagher, a psychologist who studies testing at the Law School Admission Council in Newtown, Pennsylvania. But she still thinks there may be cultural or psychological reasons for why girls still tend to lag behind boys on high-stakes tests such as the SAT. Among students she’s observed, she says “the boys tend to be a little more idiosyncratic in solving problems, the girls more conservative in following what they’ve been taught.”
______________
Comments by Fathers for Life: Girls are as good as boys at math!? Bunk!!

Neither David Malakoff, of ScienceNOW Daily News, nor apparently the five women authors of the study he wrote about didn’t stress the fact that obviously the student test results that were examined were conflated to produce the results that the authors intended to find.

Neither David Malakoff nor apparently the five sympathizing women authors were able to explain away the reality of the math-achievement differences between girls and boys.  At the prodigy level, in math, boys excel over girls by a factor of close to seven.  Certainly, some girls may become as good at math as many boys are, but there simply aren’t as many girls, by far, as there are boys who are top performers.  (Nor are there even any women who are world-class chess champions.)

As usual in feminist “research”, it appears that the five discoverers of the surprising truth of girls doing as well as boys do in math presented statistics in such a way that they provided the answers they were after.  That is not objective science and the truth.  It is advocacy research.

Here is an objective study report on the subject:

The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception — an article by Judith Kleinfeld, Professor of Psychology, University of Alaska (unfortunately, some of the tables and graphs in thatPDF file are for unknown reasons no longer being displayed)

Here is the reference to the report on the study done by five women who found the surprising news announced in the ScienceNOW Daily News:

Diversity: Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance
Janet S. Hyde,1* Sara M. Lindberg,1 Marcia C. Linn,2 Amy B. Ellis,3 Caroline C. Williams,3

Standardized tests in the U.S. indicate that girls now score just as well as boys in math.

1Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA

2Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

3Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA

*Author for correspondence. E-mail: jshyde{at}wisc.edu

Read the Full Text

It is somewhat useless to follow that link, as access to the full text of the study report is denied unless an AAAS membership subscription is purchased first, and that ranges from US$75 to US$310, depending on academic standing or qualification.  Nevertheless, a free summary of the study report is alleged to be available.  However, the free “summary” consists of nothing more than the title of the study report and a list of its five women authors (exactly as shown above).  Mind you, for ten dollars it is possible to gain 24-hour access to the article.  That may not be worth the effort and expense.

According to Wikipedia, AAAS may refer to:

* American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an organization dedicated to scholarship and the advancement of learning
* American Association for the Advancement of Science, an organization that promotes cooperation between scientists

According to information available at http://www.sciencemag.org/index.dtl, AAAS stands for “American Association for the Advancement of Science”.

Christopher Jones wrote the following thoughts on the announcement of the study report by Hyde at al. (in a letter hat went, amongst others, to a number of members of the AAAS):

Ladies & Gentleman,

Undoubtedly this will seem very non-PC, but I am I the only one who suspects some agenda in this headline?

I am not a subscriber so I do NOT have access to the full report (I read the Supporting Online Material) but what struck me immediately in this article was the apologetic tone of David Malakoff - admittedly defensive for suggesting the unlikely promotion of  a “feminist” agenda that appears to have taken hold of higher education.

20 years ago the caveat for this report was “little difference at age 12-14 (or middle school)” as girls are perhaps 2 years or more ahead of boys in physical development at that cohort.  Nothing has really changed in that time - they are still neck and neck and no one seriously disputes there is a difference ON AVERAGE.  But clearly the “tail” distribution is thicker for boys - hence they out-number girls 2:1 in tougher questions!  How is it that this USEFUL interpretation was avoided?    Of course once boys have caught up to girls in physical development (by 18) they tend to do better as evidenced by SAT scores - which was acknowledged.

The SURPRISE was this statement:

Hyde suggests that cultural and social factors, not gender alone, influence how well students perform on tests.

Why?  Is this meant as a backhand way to banish any thought that “The Bell Curve”, Philippe Rushton and Helmuth Nyborg were right and there are significant differences in racial intelligence?

In the very next sentence Hyde stretches (to confound any criticism) by calling well documented evidence from the College Board “illusory”.  Really?  A professional organization that has been dedicated to rigorously testing and evaluating standardized testing for 40 odd years was sloppy and we never noticed?   How can such idiocy go unchallenged or unpunished?

Then comes the political “fear-mongering” gambit which trots out that familiar chestnut - much loved by teachers and professional “educators” (and who support the Democrats) - that politicization of education under No Child Left Behind has lead to “teaching to the test” strategies by dropping level 4 questions.

Perhaps the best news in this article - girls now have no excuse why they don’t pick STEM fields (unless they perhaps do not conform to the stereotypes assigned by feminists?).  That is GREAT NEWS because we can now drop all those targeted programs that enhanced girls esteem and discriminated against boys merely because they did better.

Yet strangely, boys are still unfairly advantaged according to Ann Gallagher, a psychologist who studies testing at the Law School Admission Council in Newtown, because she still thinks there may be cultural or psychological reasons for why girls still tend to lag behind boys on high-stakes tests such as the SAT.   It’s not fair that “the boys tend to be a little more idiosyncratic in solving problems” while “the girls more conservative in following what they’ve been taught.”  Boy use more successful strategies. How unfair!  Hobble them.

I wonder if Hyde thought to add 2.5 men to the group in order to broaden her conservative sisters with more idiosyncratic thought?

That so many broad based statements with nothing more that feminist ideology behind it could be made and blindly parroted, is remarkable for a popular entertainment magazine - which it must be to abandon all pretense of rigorous inquiry, for surely this is NOT science.

Here is the offending article
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/724/1

And here is what I consider to be a helpful non-science discussion that touches on most of the troubling issues:

• Is There Anything Good About Men? By Roy F. Baumeister
• Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man? By Christina Hoff Sommers
• also, SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE; Prodigy Journal

–
Christopher Jones

Posted in Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Harriet Harman criminally hates men

July 29, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

There is nothing wrong with having women politicians, as long as they are honest, objective, and not of the man-hating feminist kind.

I came into this world living in a totalitarian regime.  I was born into and raised during Hitler’s regime.  I experienced the destruction and human misery deliberately caused by that regime.

After the Hitler Regime was defeated, there was then in all developed nations a short interval of democracy during which we became promptly and intensely indoctrinated to adhere to materialism and consumerism.  The all-out drive toward that resulted in another form of totalitarianism that brought us the systematic implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family. That was to achieve the liberation of women under the guise of freeing them from the slavery of the family.

That brought women into the workforce, intensified materialism and consumerism, and that made the vast majority of us on average very poor, spiritually and economically. It also created escalating totalitarianism that is as bad and just as deadly, even far more deadly and destructive — demographically — than any other totalitarian regime was throughout the history of mankind.

There has never been another totalitarian regime that systematically and deliberately destroyed the population that supported it.  Not enough children are being born to maintain our population levels critically necessary to ensure our survival.  Within about three generations, at the most four, the people of the West and their cultural heritage will have vanished.  As Lenin said, if you destroy the family, you will destroy society.

It now appears that just as I was born into and raised in a totalitarian regime, I will be leaving this world while firmly in the grip of a totalitarian regime that is worse than the one I came into when I was born.  Not only that, but hatred of a visible minority (this time is is all men who are being targeted) drives and controls this regime to a far greater extent than the one I was in when I was a child.  There is a major difference between the totalitarian regime then and the one we are in now.  This time around there will not be any war trials to bring the radical extremist ideologues to justice that, for the sake of gaining absolute power and control, exploit and harm us.

Daily Mail [UK]July 29, 2008

Erin Pizzey, champion of women’s rights, says radical feminist plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are an affront to morality

By Erin Pizzey

Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.

The joke caused bewildered looks rather than laughs, partly because of her lack of comic timing, but more importantly because there is nothing funny about her aggressively feminist agenda, which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society….(Full Story)

Comments (34) on Erin Pizzey’s article

About Erin Pizzey — Founder of the Modern Women’s Shelter Movement

Angry Harry puts Harriet Harman (and all others like her, plus the statement that deservedly got Erin Pizzey’s ire) into the proper context.  After all, although what Harriet Harman says and does in relation to men is extremely harmful, it is only a relatively small part of the government-sponsored man-hating enterprise in the developed nations.

Men’s News Daily

Do Not Respect Them

By Angry Harry

In my last piece on MND I suggested that long-time MRAs would do better by focusing less on the outrages that men so often have to endure (family courts, misandry in advertising etc) and focusing more on stirring up fear in the public about the impending awfulness that is going to continue to materialise unless we do something about political correctness and feminism.

But I now want to go further than this, and try to urge all MRAs to spend less time in the future discussing all the bullets that keep coming the way of men, and to spend more time firing some bullets back….(Full Story)

To allow you to assess how harmful Harriet Harman’s political ambition were and still are to millions of people in the UK and elsewhere, you need to delve a little more into her history and ambitions. Why would anyone in his right mind vote for someone who should be prosecuted?

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

Restraining Orders Out of Control

July 28, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The article identified here describes an aspect of domestic violence by women that grew, as the article explains, into sector of the legal domestic violence industry that earns a massive amount of money: “Just the “identifiable costs” — the cost for the state, not the victims — for these false reports was in excess of $18,200,000 in 2006.”

The New American
4 August 2008

Cover Story

Restraining Orders Out of Control
By Gregory A. Hession, J.D.

One day in December of 2005, Colleen Nestler came to Santa Fe County District Court in New Mexico with a bizarre seven-page typed statement and requested a domestic-abuse restraining order against late-night TV host David Letterman. She stated, under oath, that Letterman seriously abused her by causing her bankruptcy, mental cruelty, and sleep deprivation since 1994. Nestler also alleged that he sent her secret signals “in code words” through his television program for many years and that he “responded to my thoughts of love” by expressing that he wanted to marry her.

Judge Daniel Sanchez issued a restraining order against Letterman based on those allegations. By doing so, it put Letterman on a national list of domestic abusers, gave him a criminal record, took away several of his constitutionally protected rights, and subjected him to criminal prosecution if he contacted Nestler directly or indirectly, or possessed a firearm….(Full Story)

Posted in Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Climate Swindle film did not mislead public

July 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The Register [U.K.]

Monday 21st July 2008

Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence

So says Ofcom

By Andrew Orlowski

British regulator Ofcom has rejected complaints that the popular polemical film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, misled viewers. The regulator said it was paramount that the public received alternative points of view - even if these were not endorsed by institutions or the major political parties….

The hour long programme, directed and narrated by Martin Durkin, was screened in March 2007, and has subsequently become a hit on DVD. Environmental activists blame the film, and the broadcaster Channel 4, for undermining public confidence in the theory that human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for increasing temperatures in the late 20th century….(Full Story)

_________________
Comments by F4L: Apparently, in the UK, as elsewhere, it is not as important for the public to know the truth as it is that the public’s beliefs in the assertions of man-made global warming, under-pinned by years of all-out propaganda, not be shaken.

As to alternative points of view that Ofcom wishes the public to know about, Ofcom should have mentioned that its decision was most likely and very importantly influenced by an earlier October 2007 decision by the High Court in London that pertained expressively to the lack of veracity in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, showing it to violate the UK’s racketeering laws — which “The Great Global Warming Swindle” did not.

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

By Lord Monckton, UK [Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, science advisor to Margret Thatcher when she was in office]

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children….

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion….(Full Story)

Notice that the finding by the High Court in London implies that Al Gore does deliberately mislead the public, even to the extent of unlawfully indoctrinating children, whereas the Ofcom adjudication merely states that the film The Great Global Warming Swindle “treated interviewees unfairly, but did not mislead audiences…”.

In the eyes of an objective observer that is a substantial and very important difference in legal opinions with respect to the two films under discussion.  Truth trumps fiction, even if Ofcom is mealy-mouthed about it, and Al Gore stands exposed as a propagandistic opportunist. The chance that An Inconvenient Truth is a collection of deliberate lies is at least 34 billion to one.

Then there is this item in the (Canadian) National Post:

Do as Al says, not as Al does

Lorne Gunter, National Post

Editorial Page: Monday, July 21, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=668476

How about this one, global warming? What global warming?

Global Warming Reality Check

June 12, 2008

None of the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) tell anything about reality, against which all of them must be validated. Yet, the GCMs are the primary source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.

Reality check: UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature variations since 1979 as measured by NOAA and NASA satellites.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

Woman Accused Of Putting Newborn In Toilet Sentenced To Probation

July 26, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

KWTX

(July 21, 2008)—Falls County District Attorney Jody Gilliam wanted to try a former prison guard accused of stuffing a newborn baby in a toilet tank for capital murder, but a lack of evidence has forced prosecutors to accept a plea to a lesser charge….(Full Story)

Posted in Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Chilean mother kills daughter over homework

July 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Chilean mother kills daughter over homework-Police

Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:33am EDT

SANTIAGO, July 22 (Reuters) - A Chilean woman beat her daughter to death after she refused to do her homework, police said on Tuesday….(Full Story)

Posted in Education, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Tennessee: Mandatory paternity testing at birth

July 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Tennesee Paternity Bill HB2964 - SB3717

Gerard Levesque pointed out this bill.  The bill has the potential to increase identification of natural fathers of children.  It has another potential, to reduce paternity fraud, as it provides that no man’s name can be put on a birth certificate unless it has first been established through a DNA test that a given man is the natural child of whom the man is to be identified as the father.  Adoptive parents are to be an exception to that rule.

The bill is scheduled to become law on January 1, 2009, but it seems that as of now it has not yet passed through all stages of the legislative approval process.  (Someone from Tennessee may be able to shed more light on why not.  If you know why not, please respond to this blog entry.)

For more detailed information on the Tennesee Paternity Bill HB2964 - SB3717 check the menu options at the website of the Tennessee General Assembly.

Feminists heatedly object to mandatory paternity testing.  For example:

Mandatory Paternity Testing in TN, Because, You Know, Women Are Sluts

Posted on February 17, 2008 by archcrone

Via my weekly legislative updates from the Tennessee Women’s Political Caucus, (Senator Tate) SB3717HB2964 (Rep. Hardaway) has been placed on the House subcommittee calendar Public Health and Family Assistance of Health and Human Resources for Wednesday Feb. 20, 2008.

Basically, this bill provides that each child born in the state of Tennessee will be tested for paternity before the father’s name can be placed on the birth certificate. The state will take up the cost of paternity testing when parent’s are unable to afford the test. Oh, and married couples are not excluded, making the overt presumption that women are “unfaithful.”

If your husband died in Iraq, Afghanistan, or was killed in anyway after conception but before birth, too damn bad. Your child would be a bastard, should this be enacted, simply because the father is no longer available for that mandatory paternity test. Your word that you have not had sex with anyone else is not enough. Thus, your bastard would NOT be entitled to your now dead husband’s Social Security benefits.

How the hell this measure got this far is beyond me. Well, I shouldn’t say that, since too many not-so-bright-stars, that are so absolutely anti-woman, seem to get elected to the state legislature over and over here.

Contact your legislators. Let them know just how heinous this measure is. A woman’s assertion of who her child’s father is, can be trusted.

Comments are closed.

Archcrone is wrong, not the least because her assertion that “Comments are closed” is most certainly false.  Mind you, it is obvious that her mind is closed to the truth.  Archcrone will maintain her lies as to women’s faithfulness at all and any costs.  Nevertheless, the truth proves her to be wrong, and the truth is a strong ally of any man falsely alleged to be the natural father of a given child.

DNA-paternity-test results by the American Association of Blood Banks from more than 300,000 paternity tests, annually, show that “a woman’s assertion as to who her child’s father is” cannot on average be trusted, as the chances are on average almost one in three that a child is not the genetic offspring of a given man fingered as the father of that child.

Here are more details on paternity-fraud issues and statistics.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Australian Government’s official target for destruction: The traditional nuclear family

July 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Provided by Roger Eldridge
Aussie Sex Discrimination Commissioner has difficulty with words

No seriously, don’t laugh. It’s not her fault if she doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “equality”. She’s only a poor feminist - as well as being the Aussie government’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

Having just completed a nation-wide tour of the whole of Australia she has just published her report titled, “A plan of action towards gender equality”.

I present below extracts from her own website where she explains what she means by “equality” and what she sees as her job. - (And you thought government are not ‘bending’ the rules to put women in control of our money?)

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/action.html
“It is a guiding principle in Commissioner Broderick’s work to recognise a diversity of experiences. This is being inclusive of Indigenous women, women with disabilities, culturally and linguistically diverse women, same sex attracted women and low paid women. The Commissioner is committed to including both men and women in her efforts to promote gender equality”.

A plan of action towards gender equality

from Elizabeth Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Based on the Listening Tour findings, Commissioner Broderick will focus on  the following areas:

Women and leadership
Commissioner Broderick will promote the importance of women’s  representation in leadership and decision making roles across the  community, government and business, with a particular focus on Indigenous  women. This will include promoting and facilitating opportunities for women  to have their voices heard at a national, regional and international level.  The Commissioner will also encourage dialogue between Indigenous women and  corporate Australia.
Click here for a factsheet on women and leadership http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/fact_sheets/factsheet_1.html

Balancing paid work and family responsibilities
Commissioner Broderick will continue to challenge the way Australians think  about work and family balance by promoting the value of family friendly  work practices. The Commissioner will lead and contribute to achieving a  national scheme of paid leave for parents in Australia. She will work with  key stakeholders and advocate to government and other policy makers on the  need for a world class scheme of paid maternity leave, supporting parent  leave and paid parental leave.
Click here for a factsheet on balancing work and family responsibilities http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/fact_sheets/factsheet_2.html

Sexual harassment in Australia
Commissioner Broderick will conduct a national telephone survey to track  trends in the incidence and nature of sexual harassment. The research will  inform an education strategy using new technologies, aimed at employees and  employers to drive down the incidence and impact of sexual harassment. The  Commissioner will work to increase the number of employers taking a  leadership role on sexual harassment.
Click here for a factsheet on sexual harassment http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/fact_sheets/factsheet_3.html

The gender gap in retirement savings
Commissioner Broderick will work with experts to investigate the factors  contributing to the gender gap in retirement savings and inform solutions  for increasing women’s economic independence over their lifetime.
Click here for a factsheet on the gender gap in retirement savings http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/fact_sheets/factsheet_4.html

Laws to address sex discrimination and promote gender equality
Commissioner Broderick will contribute to a review of the federal Sex  Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to ensure that the law is effective to  address sex discrimination and sexual harassment experienced by  individuals, as well as promoting gender equality in Australian society.
Click here for a factsheet on the review of laws to address sex discrimination http://www.hreoc.gov.au/listeningtour/launch/fact_sheets/factsheet_5.html

Roger Eldridge Executive Director, Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon familyrightsinstitute@eircom.net 07196-67138    086-8180146

Posted in Health, Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Fatherlessness and same-sex parenting

July 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

OneNews.com

2008 06 17

Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist - 6/17/2008

Reluctant Rebel logoIt’s been many years since the late Senator Patrick Moynihan tried to sound the alarm about the problem of fatherlessness in the black community and its long-term implications.  Not only did his words fall largely on deaf ears, he was harshly criticized for speaking up about it.

Sadly, what Moynihan saw happening in the black community has now happened in American society as a whole.  With celebrities leading the way, it is now no big deal for women to have babies out of wedlock.  The very phrase “out of wedlock” sounds positively old-fashioned.  Accidental pregnancies can be aborted — or not — take your pick.  And these days, eyebrows are barely raised over intentional pregnancies by single women.  The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story called “Looking for Mr. Good Sperm” a while back on the trend among single women, tired of waiting for Mr. Right, to seek out instead the right sperm donor.  The author writes, “As recently as the early 60’s, a ‘respectable’ woman needed to be married just to have sex, not to speak of children.”  Imagine!  What a ridiculous notion that sex was anything more than mere recreation.   And as for procreation, who needs it?!  The sex part that is.  Technology’s come a long way, baby.   So guess who’s become obsolete in an ever-growing number of households headed by single women or lesbian couples?  You got it: fathers.  But is that bad?….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Family | Print | No Comments »

Feminist hijackers

July 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Gerard Levesque

I just came across a fascinating article published, a little while ago, in a newspaper from my (almost) hometown: the Ottawa Citizen: “We can’t help the victims of violence if hatemongers hijack the agenda.” (Published: Sunday, May 25, 2008)

The author, Janice Kennedy, informs her readers that an American study, from the Group Health Center for Health Studies, dealing with the “discomforting issue of domestic violence”, is, get this, “breaking new grounds”.

There would be a bizarre thing, “a strikingly less familiar notion” are the words she uses, such as men … “VICTIM” of domestic violence.

Hold the presses!

LIFE DISCOVERED ON PLANET VENUS!

(life of intellectual kind)

Ms Kennedy must inhabit a parallel universe. The wonderful world of left-wing “progressive” journalism, perhaps? The Canadian feminized media? The Venusian feminist society?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have known, in a science based way, for at least THIRTY years now that men are victim of Domestic Violence at the hands of their womenfolk. Even worse, they are MORE victimized than their women.

In practical life, we have “always” known that women beat their men. The angry wife wielding a rolling pin as a weapon to keep her husband in line is a perennial icon of the “battle so the sexes”. In the Middle Ages, a man who let himself ruled by his wife ran the risk of being paraded in the street, riding backwards on an ass, as an object of public ridicule.

In a feminist state, such as Canada, the relentless propaganda instructs people to deny their own common sense.  “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” (George Orwell)

As regards science, according to Murray Strauss, the “primus inter pares” of the authorities on DV in the world,

By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners.

By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming.

There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of Partner Violence perpetration (Fiebert, 2004).

In fact, it is Suzanne Steinmetz who first suggested that women were as equally violent as men in “The battered husband syndrome”. She published it in 1977: THIRTY ONE years ago.

According to Fiebert’s meta-analysis of DV studies:

This bibliography examines 219 scholarly investigations: 170 empirical studies and 49 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 221,300

Strauss, along with Suzanne Steinmentz and Richard Gelles had, in 1980, already informed anybody willing to listen in their “Behind Closed Doors”:

There are as many, and possible more, couples where the female partner is the only one to use physical violence as there are couples where the male partner is the only one to use violence.

Women initiate acts of intimate violence as often as men.

In fact, as Straus readily admits, there is evidence than women initiate MORE than half of the domestic violence:

The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.

Or in the words of J. Archer:

Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.

The evidence has been so overwhelming that even the feminist researchers at Statistics Canada cannot block the publication of the evidence anymore:

One–year rates of spousal violence from the 1999 General Social Survey indicate that an estimated 220,000 women (3%) and about 177,000 men (2%) with a current spouse or ex-spouse had been the victim of some form of spousal violence in the past twelve months. Men and women are exposed to this risk in almost the same proportions.

That men are victimized by their women folk has, for decades, become so clear, that some honest feminists (there are a few), noticed.

Cathy Young (a Canadian, by the way) tells us, in “Ceasefire” (1999) that

The 1975 National Family Violence Survey, concluded that by both men’s and women’s report, women hit their mates as often as did men. Half the violence was reciprocal … Similar surveys in 1985 and 1992 … found just as many men assaulted by wives and girlfriends.

Confronted with these figures, women’s advocates typically cry “backlash”.

Here is another honest feminist, Patricia Pearson (also a Canadian?) in “When she was bad”, a book published, IN Canada, in 1997:

… research began to reveal that violence in the home actually claimed victims of both sexes. The most significant data came from a survey published in 1980 by three highly respected family violence scholars in New Hampshire, Murray Strauss, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmentz.

… violence was also on a par, with 11.6% of women and 12% of men reporting that they hit, slapped or kicked their partners.

At this point, people working on the subject of family violence had a choice. They could expand the field to include male victims … or they could do what they did: devote an extraordinary amount of energy to shouting male victims down.

SHOUTING down the male victims is what Ms Kennedy is, hypocritically, doing.

Because it has become impossible to deny that women beat men, Ms Kennedy sheds a few crocodile tears on the male victims of female DV. Nevertheless, she stills attempts to minimize the extent of DV against men: women, she claims, would still be MORE victim than men:

“figures (would not be) on the same scale as the ones that tell us about female victims of domestic violence — in cases of spousal homicide, for example, women are victims 84 per cent of the time”

Ms Kennedy attempts to occupy the moral high grounds: these numbers’ games would be “beside the point” as we are supposed to be living in a “civilization where all violence is unacceptable”. “This should not be about comparative figures. Nor should it be about gender gamesmanship.”

Of course not … now that the feminists are starting to lose the game … let’s move the goalpost.

The reader will notice than Ms Kennedy does NOT call for the equal repression or punishment of DV. She knows full well that women are the “favourites of the law” and are literally “getting away with murder”: angry young men’s rightists call this, rather crudely but adequately, the “p—-y pass”.

Ms Kennedy then launches onto her real objective: vilifying the men who have been, for at least two decades now, snapping at the heels of the feminist Leviathan. Such men, she claims, will be “manipulating” the report (the American one she has “just” discovered)

These men, the usual suspects, would be (shudder) vile misogynistic … “hate mongers”.

… that male subspecies — a minority, but a noisy one — that preaches hatred from some deep inner anger that fuels a messianic misogyny.

One would think that Ms Kennedy only interacts with another kind of male sub-species: the neutered Canadian male journalist. Among the “many public purveyors of misogyny”, she says, there would be “one colourfully venomous Canadian example (that) sums them up. Kirby Inwood  (who) operates a website ostensibly offering a lawyer-referral service”.

Well thank you Ms Kennedy for letting me, and the rest of us, discover a fellow MRA. That is the ONE useful thing you have done for men. Mr. Inwood’s site can (I think) be found here: http://www.canlaw.com/

Ms Kennedy continues: Inwood, the “hatemonger”, would have observed that he “…consistently found women lawyers to generally be the scum of the earth”.

Let me see.

Most female lawyers are feminists making a “killing” in the corrupt Divorce Industry. In his latest book “Taken Into Custody”, Stephen Baskerville describes

“… its destruction of families, its violations of the Constitution, its disregard for due process of law, its voracious appetite for children, parents, and families. This … a thoroughly documented study of the most repressive government machine ever created in …” (western societies).

Baskerville tells us that the corrupt Divorce Industry has become a

“… a multibillion-dollar industry … (composed of) … judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, and bureaucratic police. All these people have a professional and financial stake in divorce. In fact… public officials at all levels of government—including elected leaders in both parties—now have a vested interest in increasing the number of single-parent homes.”

The Divorce Industry’s view of men is, well … feminist:

“Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” New Jersey Judge Richard Russell told his colleagues at a training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around…. We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Most female lawyers are feminists, a misandrist ideology based on the hatred of men. The feminist view of men has been codified decades ago:

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.

The above is from the SCUM Manifesto which has been for decades a basic “reading in colleges and universities for women’s studies courses.”

Thus, that Inwood has found that feminist lawyers are SCUM should surprise no one. Neither am surprised to read that Inwood “has long been a favourite target of Militant Feminists who work very hard to suppress him and his views”.

This is dear reader, what Ms Kennedy is shamelessly attempting to do by shouting “hatemonger”. She is attempting to supress and censure and, more importantly, scare away her readers by claiming that “Inwood was convicted nearly 20 years ago of assault on his wife and infant son.”

Really? That may be true, or untrue, but…

Ms Kennedy is a nimble feminist demagogue. She knows that fear works. Indeed the whole feminist ideology is based on creating fear. She also knows that false accusations of assault are THE prime weapon women use when they want to rid themselves of their husband AND keep his money. This is the first advice they get from their feminist lawyers.

Their lies and perjuries are then accepted by the corrupt legal system. Ms Kennedy has, no doubt, turned a blind eye to the endless stories of men, exonerated by DNA analysis, only now being released, after spending decades behind bars. They were condemned and jailed solely on the basis of false accusations of rape by a WOMAN. Nothing is happening to the lying and perjuring females who put them in jail, and destroyed their lives.

NO THING! See “p—y pass”, above.

Ms Kennedy tells us that “ordinary people of good will, men and women alike” (she means those of her readers still hoodwinked by feminism) will “

“… just dread how the Kirby Inwoods of the world, the “men’s rights” activists, are going to gobble it up and spit it out again in a malignancy of poisonous deceit. They know how the researchers’ findings and recommendations will be drowned out by a cacophony of cries about how this proves bad things happen to men at the hands of Militant Feminists, who conspire in covens to spread their misandry.”

Poisonous deceit, he? Well Ms Kennedy engages in some of her own.

She tells her reader that the “respectable study that should open new eyes to a serious issue, one that has not been discussed nearly enough. “

Ms Kennedy seems to be “truth challenged”!

Feminists have shouted down this topic for decades. It has just, recently, become too obvious for them to deny it.

She also says that

“As a society, we can look at the nature of violence within homes and start addressing some of its broader causes. We can speak up for the principle of equality before the law (which, yup, even Militant Feminists cherish), insisting on zero-tolerance around domestic violence, no matter who the perpetrator.”

Ms Kennedy seems to be suffering from a “veracity handicap”.

She is NOT demanding a stop to the “arrest the man” policies, punishment for female perjuries and equality in punishment of women guilty of DV.

Ms Kennedy then sheds a few more crocodile tears on male victims of DV:

“… cultural norms … have… added an extra layer of shame and difficulty to male victimhood. … (with) increased awareness, we can introduce increased supports — counselling, programs, avenues of escape — for men caught in what has to be a version of hell.”

But she then goes for her real objective: DON’T YOU DARE TOUCH OUR BOOTY!

The new programs should NOT

“happen at the expense of the well-developed awareness and programs that already respond, albeit inadequately, to the tragedy of domestic violence against women. It should happen alongside them.”

Of course. Money will come out of thin air … like it did for the feminists.

Better still, let’s tax the males some more; they only pay 70-80% of the taxes. God, what I am saying, this is ALREADY a feminist proposal.

All the feminist programs finance the lives of the multitudes of feminists who toil (sic) in “women’s shelters” and other parasitic women’s groups, which have covered the West like a plague of locusts for the last three decades.

Ms Kennedy does not want the “latest thoughtful exploration of domestic violence as a piece of gender politics.”

Of course not.

When men were portrayed as the only culprit, there was no problem of describing this as gender politics. Now that women find it difficult to lie their way out of DV, Ms Kennedy wants to move the goalpost.

Of course! Of course!

Ms Kennedy tells her readers that if we don’t do as she says, we “will have missed its point entirely”. It will “become a marginalized rallying cry for rancorous misogynists.” Thus we will “have failed those in the shadows who are finally asking for help.”

Wow!

What Ms Kennedy really wants is for men demanding that their rights be respected, those she deems “hatemongers” and “misogynists”, to stay marginalized, to stay in the shadow, to stay quiet, to remain deferential to their feminist rulers. She wants men to be content, and grateful, for the crumbs that, perhaps, may fall off from the public-financed table where the feminists have been feasting all those years.

Fat chance of these happening!

Gerard Levesque

____________________
Janice Kennedy’s has a column in the Ottawa Citizen

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/janice_kennedy.html

Various emails to the Ottawa Citizen can be found here: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/info/contactlist.html

See also http://levesquegerardpierre.blogspot.com/

Posted in Organizational News, Suicides, Health, Paternity Fraud, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »