Friday, March 24, 2006

From Scott Adams

These are some quotes which caught my eye. They're included in a Scott Adams "Diblert" blog posting here.

  • A woman thinks her feelings are important. A man knows his aren't.
  • Oddly enough the gender differences spring from the one thing men and women have in common. They're both trying to impress women.
  • I don't think that women consider men to be defective women, otherwise they would keep trying to "fix" us...wait...oh dang!
  • You want to be left alone? Date a bisexual woman. When women actually date other women, they start to really empathize with men, because they finally see how crazy they can get...
  • The most likely to be true statement is: "First world women are defective." It's not a male or female thing at all. It's a culture sickness and we have it.
  • I went on a date where the girl didn't eat a thing. She ordered a glass of tea and didn't drink it. I, on the other hand, ate a full meal (keep in mind, this was a dinner time). Now, which one of us is deffective?

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Male Pay Dating Services

This article caught my eye:

Dating firms fight gender price bill

"TORONTO -- Two major online dating services have hired an influential Liberal lobbyist to stop legislation that would outlaw gender-based price discrimination."

These firms have telephone dating services where men pay and women get the service for free. I'm against these telephone dating services as they are sexist, discriminatory and do not do the job they claim to do: The women who are worth marrying do not use such services as such women have enough pride in themselves that they would not take advantage of a woman's right to discriminate against males.

What bothers me is the attitude of the Bill's sponser Lorenzo Berardinetti (Lib). Mr. Berardinetti seems to think that such male-pay and female-free services would not be covered by his Bill. He seems to think such services are fine and fair.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission agrees with Mr. Berardinetti. They form that opinion on the basis that men must get something for their money. They do not mention that women get something for the men's money.

Let's look at a similar legal case. Many bars have male only cover charges. The Human Rights people say that these are accpetable because men get women into the bar, which is something for their money. Again they ignore the fact that women get something for the man's money.

Let's take it a little further though. How about a gay man who simply wants to listen to the band? He pays, he gets nothing extra for his money. How about a lesbian? She does not pay and gets to listen to the band for nothing. The same thing applies to a married men and women who just want to listen to the band: She gets the band for free, he pays for both of them.

What we're really talking about here is the right of women to force a male to pay for her pleasure. That is the heart of the matter.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Men and Reproductive Rights

There are more than a few good arguments about choice for men:

Cathy Young: Roe v. Wade for men
neo-con: Men's rights and Child support
The Green Knight: Good for the Goose is good for the Gander
The National Center for Men's Choice for Men Project

All center on the male & female have sex and she gets pregnant, "Does he have any rights to not be a father?" point of view. I think this does not go far enough.

We all should know that sometimes women molest boys and occasionally rape men. It happens, we know it. Oh I agree, many will loudly scream out that no female can rape a male. Sexism is alive and well in society ... So let's rephrase it, occasionally a female will use force to get sex and often a female will get a male drunk to get sex from him. Plus, sometimes women will intentionally use the date rape drugs to get sex. Any of these conditions may result in pregnancy. Happy now?

The law as it exists in most jurisdictions says that the male is a father and will pay child support: The fact that he had zero choice in becoming a father is not relevant. The law also, in most places, says any child born to a married woman is the child of the husband.

We know that at least ten percent of babies born to married women are fathered by a man other than her husband. That's been known for sometime. Under some social conditions this rate goes over 30%.

We also know that vasectomy is very hard to get without a female's permission. Most doctors are worried about lawsuits (by women) and so will not do a vasectomy on a man without a woman's permission. The idea long floated around that a man can donate to a sperm bank and have a vasectomy is not really possible as a single man would need a woman's permission to get the vasectomy. He would also have to take the chance that the sperm bank would simply give away all of his sperm: They do have that right.

Condoms are not very good as contraceptives. The Sex Project say that the condom failure rate is 10% when used as contraception.

The "male pill" has been in human testing. Severe side effects drove it off the testing market; once the known side effects were explained, there were no men left willing to take it. It is highly unlikely to ever make it to the market as research funds go to female contraception, not male. Creating a male pill is very expensive as it is a more difficult task that creating the female pill. But, there is far less funding for the male pill.

Put this all together and we have a nasty situation. Men are the father of any child born to any woman who gets a sample of their sperm, regardless of what level of force was used to get pregnant. Men are the father of all children born to their wife. Men have no reasonable contraception available to them.

So, what the law really says is that no male has any right to choose to be or not to be a father. Males' "rights" belong to any female who wants to own them. We live in a society which says that males are not human enough to be worthy of making the choice to be or not to be a father. Slavery: That's what we are talking about here.

We need to make changes so that males have some reasonable level of choice in reproduction.

I think that there should be a specific requirement in the law which goes like this:

- Given that a male can show there is reasonable grounds to believe that a pregnancy is the result of HER violence, fraud or other criminal behavior:

A male is required to make one of the following choices:

- to assume full legal custody himself
- to place the baby up for adoption
- to appear bedfore a family law judge to plead other arrangements

In this the female has no rights nor say.

Something like that at any rate ... There must be an excemption to stop women from profiting from their own violence and other criminal behavior.

After that? I don't pretend to know what is right. I do know that some level of rights must be applied to males. The current thinking that no male is human enough to have rights is wrong!

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Sex: Men need to ensure consent

This article from Britain caught my eye:

Ensure consent for sex, men told
Men should make certain that a woman has consented to sex to avoid being accused of rape, a new campaign launched by the Home Office is to warn.

So men need to ask "Do you want to have sex?" A male who fails to ask is a rapist under this plan and the laws which support it.

What about the women? Why do women have no responsibility? Do they think there is no sex between sober females and drunk males? They're wrong if they do! Cindy Struckman-Johnson PhD showed that young women commonly get their young man drunk for purely sex reasons.

This goes to the heart of the biggest problem we have in society: Women have protection and rights, men have duties and responsibilities. Worse, far worse, most social action groups demand we go further and ever further along the path of "no male is a human."

This is the very heart and soul of the "Men are machinery and not humans" which is the greatest threat to our society and our children.

You think terrorism is the biggest threat we face? NO! Not at all, not even close. Dehumanization of males is by far a larger threat. Dehumanization of males is always a forerunner of war or worse. The less we see our males as human, the greater the chance that we will not have the chance to see females as human.

The further we go down the road of no-male-is-a-human the greater the odds that the terrorists (or others) will win and win easily.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Four year old boy seduced her

This article caught my eye: "Sources tell us in what amounts to a bizarre confession that the suspect is actually accusing the four-year-old boy of seducing her. But police are not buying that explanation as they investigate several instances of rape and sexual abuse inside the day care center over a six-week period. "

OK, let me get this lady ... a four year old boy seducd you? GET REAL!

With female sex offenders this lady's attitude is common: Female sex offenders think they are the victim. This is a lot less common in male sex offenders.

We have a big problem with female sex offenders. Oh there's not as many as there are male, but there are still a lot more than most people realize. To make the situation worse there are a lot of people who think that no female ever rapes a male. These, very common people, twist all cases and all data in amazing feats of mental gymnastics.

This boy is lucky, in one way, he's from New York and will have access to some of the best treatment for sex assault survivors. If the boy were Canadian? Ah now, then he'd be in big trouble. Canada doesn't allow help for male survivors. Canada is very strongly opposed to helping any male victim of violence. Canada is very bigoted and hateful in its treatment policies. You think I'm wrong? Try getting help for a male survivor: Then you'll know I'm right.

The entire field of sex crime research and treatment is a field of broken rocks without a single clear path. There are so many agendas that simple humanity is forgoten. Add in the definition of all males as non-human and the thing becomes a nightmare.

People hurt other people. What's between the offender's legs has nothing to do with the fact that people hurt other people. Sadly we here in Canada are so into making sure that only females are sufficiently human to be worthy of help that we've forgotten the simple message that males are also human.

Why do you, my fellow Canadians, deny that this little boy is a human?

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Family: Men?

Steve Janke has two posts on "Angry in the Great White North" which bother me.

In Children have no value he writes of the drop in the number of child births without including male reluctance to marry or have children. This, increasingly common problem for middle class males, is crucial to understanding dropping birth rates. It is also almost never mentioned. SAD!

Young middle class men are shying away from marriage in ever greater numbers for the very good reason that family law has become increasingly anti-male. That's one thing: We also have the problem of dropping sperm count to bring into the equation.

In Mothers he speaks of Michael Coren's Toronto Sun article on mothers in the home. Again Steve leaves out the men. Without understanding the reality of the first world male there is no understanding of any part of our family structure. Without understanding that fathers are indeed part of our family structure there is no understanding of any part of family.

We have problems in the family and with numbers of children. We ensure we cannot solve those problems when we leave out the men. We demand more problems when we try to solve a problem involving males without including males. Males are either part of society or we have no society. That is a message too many people seem incapable of understanding.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Violent Again

On Saturday Ian Gillespie wrote a column to which I complained. My complaint is here:

Here is Ian Gillespie's response to men's complaints, including my complaint.

My response to Mr. Gillespie follows.


Decades ago, I was “The most dangerous man in Canada.” That's how I was described by assorted feminists and pro-feminists. Back then, I advocated for the right of men with custody of small children to access the female only single parent programs: I advocated against the starvation of children and was “dangerous.” Now, after all this time, nothing has changed. I complain about hatred of men and am described as “violent” and “opposed to equality.”

Life is funny. I, who stand for equality and decency for all, am violent. I, who have written against discrimination all too many times, am described as opposing equality. The common factor is that I believe that males and females deserve equality. I believe all people deserve decency as a basic human right.

I could, with ease, produce an argument blaming women for a great number of evils. Putting the blame for abused children onto women's shoulders would be quite easy: It would also be wrong. Putting the blame for male on the job deaths onto women's shoulders is a piece of cake: It is also a poisonous piece of cake.

Here's the thing, the heart and soul of the feminist/pro-feminist movement is male collective responsibility and female innocence. I reject collective responsibility as hatred and state, openly, that women are people and as such, often behave atrociously. That is fact. People usually behave quite well. That said, sometimes men behave badly and sometimes women behave badly. People sometimes behave badly: We are human.

If there is any collective responsibility for violence it goes to all adults. To say all adults share the blame for Canada's violence problems may have merit. To say that men, and men only, share collective responsibility for violence is hate: It is an attempt to harm innocents and nothing more. There is nothing of an effort to solve violence related problems in collective male responsibility. There is only an attempt to harm all of society.

Let me be clear: The violent are responsible for their violence. The non-violent may share some responsibility for allowing the conditions under which violence grows. To put any more to the matter assigns blame where none exists. This is not the message of Katz and Gillespie. They assign to men responsibility for the violence itself and in so doing –in taking on the role of God– they breach all the learning our culture has built up over the centuries.

Contempt breeds violence. This we know, the hated are more likely to become violent. By breeding hate, by assigning to the innocent the responsibility of the violent, the pro-feminist seeks to breed violence. Oh the seeking is unconscious! Oh yes. I do not believe that the pro-feminist argument is one of intent to harm. Yet, the harm is there. The massive error remains.

Reducing violence is something we can do; removing all violence is beyond our capabilities. A reduction in violence will require us to look at our behavior: This is obvious. That look must be one of all adults looking at their actions, their thoughts and their assumptions. For violence is a phenomena with a great many causes. Violence comes from many sources and will only be reduced by carefully targeting all of the sources. Adding contempt for men to the mix ensures no reduction in violence, for it requires that any looking will be through a dark glass.