I really don't think your self-esteem/identity is based solely on "the history of great white men". I think you are smarter than that.

And ftr - the term "PC" has been twisted to refer to anything that might refute the idea that people should be treated equally, and with respect.

or it could have been they threw a man on the team to get the patent through the "old boys club"... and your point would be?

Feminists often claim that Lady Ada Lovelace was "the world's first programmer." Her accomplishments have been grossly overstated, for reasons of ideology. Read an article debunking the feminist 'Ada myth'. "All of the programs cited in her notes," writes Allan Bromley of the University of Sydney, "had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier."

So, either the "men in the media/academia" are too stupid to do the research themselves to refute, or are molly-coddling their colleagues instead of treating them with the same professional standards?

The point of the women's movement was to give all citizens the same rights - and the fact that we even had to DO that, is a sad fact indeed.

Men and women are biologically different - but that does not negate the fact that we are all created equal, and should have equal opportunity.

The article is saying that the "romantically appealing image" is a fiction. Not the woman herself, nor her accomplishments.

Ada has recently been granted such grandiose monikers as "the world's first programmer," "the mother of computing," "the mother of the modern computer," "inventor of the first computer language" and "mathematical genius."

A Victorian countess is widely credited today as the first
....programmer -- but historians say that doesn't compute.

Oh and here's another couple of "immaterial inventors" for you to disregard:

I have yet to see one of you able to manufacture that which is the most perfect invention of all... another human being!!!

You can come on here posting from your angry men's websites and beaking off about feminists if you want to BlahBlah but you've yet to demonstrate that you have anything more than your hatred of female advancement as your singular credential. I bolded the area in that posting intended for your intake but of course, you prefer to think that it had to have been written by a feminist group because you're just plain old stuck in your hateful thinking.

http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/16feature.html

Ada Lovelace

A Victorian countess is widely credited today as the first
....programmer -- but historians say that doesn't compute.

BY MICHAEL MATTIS

Augusta Ada Byron King, Countess of Lovelace, mathematician and English society hostess, daughter of the poet Byron, is today revered as something of a prophet. She's been the subject of at least three biographies, numerous articles, essays and, most recently, a movie starring Tilda Swinton. By one account, visitors to Ada's grave outnumber those to her father's.

That's not as surprising as at first it seems: Today, technology means more to most people than poetry, and Ada's fame derives from her collaboration, in the 1840s, with Charles Babbage -- the cantankerous intellectual who tried, and failed, to build what might have been the world's first computer, the Analytical Engine.

For her work with Babbage, Ada has recently been granted such grandiose monikers as "the world's first programmer," "the mother of computing," "the mother of the modern computer," "inventor of the first computer language" and "mathematical genius." She's been distinguished by the United States Army, which named its universal programming language Ada in her honor in 1983. The book "1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium" ranks Ada at number 960, coming in for the show right behind John von Neumann's 959. (Babbage himself galloped ahead of both to place at number 351. Bill Gates got lost in the backstretch.) She was even profiled in the official companion book to last year's Lilith Fair.

She's frequently portrayed as a sexual libertine, a compulsive gambler and a drug addict who despised her children -- a veritable one-woman Thelma and Louise of primitive computation. "Cyberfeminists" like Sadie Plant, author of "Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture," hold her up like a torch, a Byronic martyr to the struggle against a brutal and oppressive patriarchal technocracy who was intentionally "disappeared" from history.

The image of Ada Lovelace has coalesced into a potent and popular myth, one in which a complicated personality from the 19th century gets boiled down into an archetype for the dispossessed of the 20th. This Ada is wild and powerful and alluring. There's only one problem: According to the experts, she's a fiction. "This romantically appealing image," writes one scholar, "is without foundation."

n 1809, Mary Dixon Kies received the first U. S. patent issued to a woman. Kies, a Connecticut native, invented a process for weaving straw with silk or thread. First Lady Dolley Madison praised her for boosting the nation’s hat industry. Unfortunately, the patent file was destroyed in the great Patent Office fire in 1836.

Until about 1840, only 20 other U.S. patents were issued to women. The inventions related to apparel, tools, cook stoves, and fire places. Patents are the proof of "ownership" of an invention and only the inventor(s) can apply for a patent. In the past, women were not allowed equal rights of property ownership (patents are a form of intellectual property) and many women patented their inventions under their husband's or father's names. In the past, women were also prevented from receiving the higher education necessary for inventing. (Unfortunately, some countries in the world today still deny women equal rights and an equal education.)

We will never know all the women who deserve credit for their creative labor, as the Patent and Trademark Office does not require gender, racial, or ethnic identification in patent or trademark applications. Through diligent research and a few educated guesses, we can identify trends in patenting by women. Here are a few highlights of recent statistical analysis to ponder, to celebrate, and to give reason to encourage girls and women to pursue science-, math-, and technology-based courses and careers.

The women inventor patent share of annually granted U.S. origin patents rose from 2.6 percent in 1977 to 10.3 percent in 1998. The majority of the U.S. origin woman-inventor patents are in the chemical technologies.

In 1996, 11.2 percent of the U.S. origin patent grants which were owned by the Federal Government at the time of grant included a woman inventor. In the past 20 years, about 83 percent of the U.S. origin patent grants to women were for utility patents, 16.5 percent for design patents, and 0.5 for plant patents. About 35 percent of the U.S. origin women inventors patents granted during the 1977 to 1996 period originated from California, New York, or New Jersey.

Today, hundreds of thousands of women apply for and receive a patent every year. So the real answer to the question "how many women inventors are there?" is more than you can count and growing. About 20% of all inventors are currently female and that number should quickly rise to 50% over the next generation.

The only reason most things were invented by men (not even sure this is really true but for the sake of argument lets say it is)....
....the reason is because we were busy getting pregnant raising umpteen children prior to contraception being in OUR control and you did nothing but go out and do your thing.

Now that we are having 1, 2 or none just watch us catch up. maybe since we spent so much time creating life we wont make so many destructive things either. One can only hope.

Beauty of women has nothing to do with how men treat women.

Ignorance and low self esteem and fear of womens power most certainly do.

To be honest, because I considered myself a feminist at one time and because I've had P.C. thought jammed down my throat for so long, *I* even find what you say a bit disconcerting.

It isn't men vs. women, unless you make it so.
And it's only "feminist garbage" because you don't agree, and do not want to lose the power you think you have.

The matriarchal societies of the world and world history might beg to differ.
As might also the creators of the x-ray, the disposable cell phone, the windshield wiper, non-reflective glass, White-out....

BUT - Men also created war.

It isn't about taking over, sir.

When PEOPLE change their mindsets from "DNA specific" abilities to "Person" specific abilities, we might get somewhere.

I don't care, and it doesn't threaten me.
But apparently it threatens you.
Some evolve faster than others, I guess.

A PERSON made the things I use, created the systems I live in... that PERSON happened to be a man.

... not because of a chromosome that designates my sexual reproductive system.

A difference in physiology does not NECESSARILY a difference in ABILITY make.

I wanna be able to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules, because I am a citizen of this country - because I have the inalienable right to do so.

What's your point...this is not about you!We'll see how safe you feel on the street when you remove all the male police officers that risk their lives everyday to at least give you some level of comfort...

...others are strictly hanging on to their old destructive beliefs to make things worse by continuing to promote hatred without ever achieving any equality whatsoever and like one of my female friends who works for a small new women's group called "Real Women" said..."Men are not the enemy...it's women in our own ranks".

And msg 439 It has nothing to do with feminism or any other crap. Generalizations you want to make in your head and make it sound right, well it isn't.

Women just are not programmed by nature to think of men as being treated unfairly regardless of whether or not men are getting the short end of the stick . Women as a group will take as much power as they can from men as a group , because women will always feel vulnerable.

http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1323

Spreading Misandry
The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young


A probing inquiry into the pervasiveness of negative male stereotypes in popular culture.
Paper (0773530991) 9780773530997
Release date: 2006-03-22

Subjects:
Cultural Studies Sociology


Table of Contents and Preface


Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young argue that since the 1990s men have been portrayed in popular culture as evil, inadequate, or honorary women, from Designing Women, Home Improvement, Oprah, and Cape Fear to Hallmark cards, comic strips, and the New York Times columns of Anna Quindlen. The first of a three-part series, Spreading Misandry offers an impressive critique of popular culture to identify a phenomenon that is just now being recognized as a serious cultural problem - misandry, the sexist counterpart of misogyny.

Nathanson and Young urge us to rethink prevalent assumptions about men that result in profoundly disturbing stereotypes that foster contempt. Spreading Misandry breaks new ground by discussing misandry in moral terms rather than purely psychological or sociological ones and by criticizing not only ideological feminism but other ideologies on both the left and the right.


Review quotes
"Genuinely intelligent and insightful. Spreading Misandry is provocative in the very best sense and will help point the way toward social harmony and away from bickering and fingerpointing." Donna Laframboise, columnist for The National Post and author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality

"An important book. Nathanson and Young do a good job on introducing the average reader to the positions of various intellectuals as they relate to this moral issue and to moral issues in general." Charles H. Long, emeritus, religious studies, University of California at Santa Barbara

"Spreading Misandry turns the tables on the gender wars. It's not men ganging up on women. It is just the reverse--a long and gradual cultural attack on men. This book is a brilliant and perceptive overstatement, but one that is needed to discover the truth that will heal the rift between the sexes." Don Browning, University of Chicago and co-author of From Culture Wars to Common Ground



Paul Nathanson is a researcher, religious studies, McGill University, and author of Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America.

Katherine K. Young is James McGill Professor, religious studies, McGill University. She has published extensively on women's issues and ethics.

Domestic Violence

http://www.xyonline.net/womencanthear.shtml

Review of the book by Warren Farrell (the Putnam Publishing Group, 1999)

Review by Trish Wilson.

This review was originally published here at www.feminista.com. Trish Wilson's website is here.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

The family violence issue has been distorted and politicized by the
gender wars. Believing what gender activists say about family violence
is like believing what the tobacco companies say about cancer.
Unfortunately, almost all information available to the public comes in
the form of political propaganda from "Men's Rights" groups or
"Women's Rights" groups.

This misunderstanding of the family violence issue is so pervasive
that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement,
prosecutorÌs offices, mental health clinics, and other tax supported
agencies are now funding programs based on gender politics rather than
responsible scientific studies.



Why We Don't Know the Truth

How could we all be so mistaken about family violence? Have we been
conned? Have we been taken in by one of the slickest "stings" ever
executed? Here is how the truth has been hidden.

Use of misleading statistics for political and financial gain:
* Men do not usually report their violent wives to police.
* Children do not usually report their violent mothers to the police.
* Women are far more likely to report violent men to the police.
* Police statistics describe the activities of the police departments
and are grossly misleading as to the nature of family violence.

One study done of emergency room patients shows that only 1% of men
who were injured by women reported the incident to police. That should
be enough to be suspicious of police statistics on spousal violence.
There are other reasons police statistics are dramatically
misleading.

Some women call the police because there is a real need for
intervention. However, there are other reasons for a woman to report a
man, whether he be violent or not.

* Women are encouraged to report spousal violence by countless
media reminders. Propaganda always includes the female victim and
the male perpetrator. Men are discouraged from claiming to be
victims of violent women.
* Some women call police because they are frightened by a minor
incident. Perhaps she thought calling the police was a "trump card"
in an argument. These women do not realize that with one phone call
they have invited the government and gender politics into their
homes.
* Some women make false reports because there are legal, financial,
and child custody rewards for making a false report. Some divorce
attorneys and gender activists specialize in encouraging false
accusations, and actively coaching women how to falsely accuse.

Several researchers have documented that one of the common adaptive
tools of human females, used to compensate for smaller size and social
power, is to mimic victim behavior, including false accusations
against a power figure (boss, parent, counselor, teacher, husband,
lover, police, etc.). Adolescent girls are the demographic group most
prone to this adaptive tool.

These factors, and others, distort police statistics beyond usefulness
to anyone who is sincerely looking for the truth about family
violence.

However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic
for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions
scientific studies. This misuse of distorted police statistics to
push a "female victims" agenda is widespread and very misleading.
Gender activists have high jacked the legitimate issue of family
violence and turned it into "AmericaÌs Most Successful Fundraising
Fraud".

The promotion of family violence myths and misleading statistics
detracts from the importance and scope of the family violence problem.
If we are misled about the nature of family violence we will be misled
about solutions.

A falsely framed issue skews understanding and jeopardizes justice.
For example, former Massachusetts Bar Association President Elaine
Epstein stated, "It has become essentially impossible to effectively
represent a man against whom any allegation of domestic violence has
been made."


The Other Police Statistics You Don't Hear About

Men and children may not report when they are injured by a woman,
however, the dead bodies of the men and children who are the victims
of violent women are usually reported. Murder statistics are far more
reliable than reported abuse statistics. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics released a report of family homicides in 33 urban counties.
Some gender activists claim that violent women are acting in self-
defense. These quoted statistics represent convictions for murder.

1. "In spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers."
2. "In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for
55 percent of killers."
3. "Among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to
murder their husbands as husbands were to murder their wives: 47
percent of the victims of a spouse were husbands and 53 percent
were wives."

This is a long way from the claim that "men are responsible for 90% of
family violence". Those who quote law enforcement statistics to
support the "male villain-female victim" dogma are either misled or
deliberately attempting to mislead.


The Hidden Victims

The scientific data shows that both men and women are violent to a far
greater extent than police statistics reveal. This scientific data
shows that spousal violence is mostly unreported. In fact, some degree
of violence occurs at a rate of 113 incidents per 1000 couples per
year (husband on wife) and 121 incidents per 1000 couples per year
(wife on husband).

Many local women's shelters emphasize female victims reported to the
police, and ignore much larger numbers of women, children, and men who
are also victims of family violence. We quote from a brochure from a
battered womenÌs shelter: "What Is Domestic Violence? Domestic
violence is an increasingly visible social and legal problem wherein
women are abused by their partners." Notice that it doesnÌt say that
this is one aspect of domestic violence, or that this is the aspect
that they deal with, but rather that this is domestic violence.
Surely domestic violence is violence which takes place at home, the
word ÇdomesticÌ referring to the definition "of or relating to the
household or the family. Female violence against children is another
taboo topic among gender activists.

From our experience with shelter personnel, this is a typical
attitude. And after using Çphysical abuseÌ as the topic to begin the
discussion of abuse, (more accurately, "the physical abuse of women by
men"), many shelter workers go on to mention all the other types of
abuse men do to women, like emotional and psychological. The
conversation seldom turns to look at any type of abuse by women to men
even though dozens of scientific studies indicate women are at least
as violent as men in "domestic" settings.

Most leaders in the women's shelter movement are fully aware of the
broader scope of family violence but hold fast to the villain/victim
dogma. The directors of women's shelters almost always know that they
are deliberately misleading the public. Why? They must maintain their
power and fund raising base. If they lose their special "victim
status" they will rapidly go out of business. They do not want to be
replaced with a gender neutral, family friendly, community service
agency that implements policy on the basis of scientific studies
rather than gender propaganda.


Feminism Vs Science And The Law

There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about
spousal violence. On one side we have gender activists who rely on law
enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientists
who rely on scientifically structured studies.

Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies do not receive media
attention. AmericaÌs press is seemingly more interested in political
correctness than scientific accuracy. Therefore, the public
perception, and the perception of many well-intentioned domestic
violence activists, is radically skewed away from the more balanced
perception of social scientists.

Many abuse shelter personnel below the executive level are unaware of
the scientific studies, even though they claim to be "domestic
violence experts" and often conduct "training" sessions for government
agencies. There are towns and cities in our country where the entire
legal establishment, including law enforcement, family law attorneys,
and judges, are making decisions about family violence based on
political propaganda rather than well established research.

Here is a comment on the subject from a judge who asked for our
report. We have rescued him from any consequences resulting from his
candor by disguising his identity.

Dear Revs. Sewell

Thanks for the interesting information. I am a judge in xxxxx who
regularly hears requests for domestic violence orders of
protection. The DV issue has been politicized big time in our area.
We judges are ordered to attend "consciousness raising" seminars
where we are harangued by feminist "experts". Supervising judges
have been courted and won over, and now we have annual breakfasts
honoring judges who cooperate with the feminist "agenda".

As a former prosecutor and divorce lawyer I know that the best
deterrent to violence by human beings is arrest, prosecution and
appropriate consequences. With well-prepared cases, vigorous
prosecution, and no nonsense consequences the cycle of abuse can be
broken, no matter who the abuser is. Humans become habitual abusers
because they get away with it. It is impossible to make progress in
reducing domestic violence until we recognize that women are
violent.

As a member of an advisory committee for the local shelter I was
shocked at the attitudes of the ladies who ran the center: The ONLY
solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big
bad male. The committee expressed concern about the underlying
anti-male bias which even showed up in the name of the shelter and
recommended that the name be changed to The Center for Victims of
Abuse - rather than WomenÌs Strength.

Anyway, I forwarded your piece on to a couple of other judges -
some of whom will undoubtedly immediately reject itÌs premise.

Judge xxxxxx

The typical response of the abuse shelter workers upon first hearing
the results of the scientific studies is to "shoot the messenger". You
can almost hear their minds snap closed. There is an almost cult like
"party line" among victim advocates. Much of the belief system of
their "cult" has no more scientific or rational basis than that of
fanatical religious cults.

On the other hand, some abuse agency personnel have not accepted the
"party line"; particularly religiously sponsored family services
organizations. They are eager to have accurate information upon which
to plan and implement rational programs for prevention, intervention,
and treatment for abusers and victims of both genders.

Are the family violence "experts" in your community aware of the
scientific studies? What is happening at the abuse shelter in your
community?


Spousal Violence In Other Countries

We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of
studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification
that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior
has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human
nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most
often the perpetrators in spousal violence in all but one of the
cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals
to conclude that there is something biological about violent females
in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the
"territorial imperative" as a factor in womenÌs violence against men.
Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the
planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience
conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal
the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do
not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide,
women are more violent than men in family settings.

One of the leading researchers in this field did a cross-cultural
comparison of marital abuse entitled "Married Couples from 9 Different
Cultures". These cross-cultural studies yielded results very similar
to family violence studies done in the United States and other
nations. Another survey of couples in Canada found the same familiar
pattern in that the rate of severe husband-to-wife violence was 4.8%,
while severe wife-to-husband violence was 10%.

The Canadian study below is typical of the results of scientific
studies on family violence done in many nations.

Female Vs. Male Perpetrated Violence As A %age Of All Respondents:

Minor Violence % of females % of males
Threw an object (not at partner) 23.6 15.8
Threaten to throw object 14.9 7.3
Threw object at partner 16.2 4.6
Pushed or grabbed 19.8 17.2
Severe Violence
Slapped, punched, kicked 15.8 7.3
Used weapon 3.1 0.9
Violence as self defense 9.9 14.8
Alcohol factor 8.0 16.0
My partner needed medical help 14.3 21.4
Overall Violence 39.1 26.3


The Propaganda Problem

Abuse shelter advocates have severely distorted the picture and
deliberately produce fraudulent statistics and dis-information. Even
when they quote well-grounded statistics, they misuse the information.
Here is an example: One of the favorite statistics quoted by abuse
shelter advocates is that a woman is the victim of spousal violence
every 15 seconds. This statistic is deduced from a well conducted
piece of research which was published in the Journal of Marriage and
Family, a respected professional journal for marriage and family
therapists. The Abuse Shelter advocates arrived at this figure by
using one of the conclusions of the study, i.e.; 1.8 million women
suffer an assault from a husband or boyfriend per year. What abuse
shelter advocates always fail to report is another finding of the same
study, i.e.; 2 million men are assaulted by a wife or girl friend per
year, which translates as, a man is the victim of spousal violence
every 14 seconds.

This is typical of the wide spread deception practiced by abuse
shelter advocates. AmericaÌs press establishment is a party to this
deception, and shares the blame for exacerbating the problem by
helping to perpetuate a false diagnosis.


Acknowledging That Women Are Abusers Leads To Better Solutions

Women usually initiate spousal violence episodes (they hit first), and
women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more
often then men. This combination of violent acts means that efforts to
find solutions to the family violence problem need to include
appropriate focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that
women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that
portray women as perpetrators. Other studies show that men are
becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more
violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be less
violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs.

Any family violence program which accepts the "male abuser - female
victim" paradigm is based on a false premise. These kind of family
violence programs actually perpetuate the problem of abuse and do not
deserve to be supported by private citizens or government agencies.
Many government agencies, and legitimate charities, have been funding
a feminist political cause, rather than funding rational, solution
focused, family violence prevention programs.

What kind of family violence program do you have in your community?
Does your local program encourage the healing of families, or do they
take the "divorce" approach? Does the family violence prevention
program in your community devote as much attention to violent females,
as it does to violent males? If not, why not?

We need a family-friendly agency in our community that delivers
services to all family members and works to preserve families, not
tear them apart. We donÌt need gender activists with an anti-marriage,
anti-family political ax to grind.

We need to separate gender politics from the issue of family violence.
We need to look at the full spectrum of family violence, not just
female victims. We need to consult scientific studies when we make
policy decisions. We cannot hope to implement rational, solution-
focused programs and policies until we face the fact that "behind
closed doors" women are at least as violent as men.


Some Exceptions To The Usual Media Silence On Science Based Stories On
Family Violence.

Spouse Abuse a Two-Way Street
By Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
USA Today, June 29, 1994

Just as bad cases make bad laws, so can celebrity cases reinforce old
myths. The biggest myth the O.J. Simpson case is likely to reinforce
is the myth that domestic violence is a one way street (male-to-
female), and its corollary, that male violence against women is an
outgrowth of masculinity.

When I began seven years of research into these issues in preparation
for "The Myth of Male Power", I began with these two assumptions since
I had been the only man in the United States to have been elected
three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization of
Women in New York City, and these assumptions went unquestioned in
feminist circles.

My first finding - that in the U.S. and Canada more than 90% of the
domestic violence reports to the police were by women, not men -
seemed to confirm these assumptions. But, then the picture became more
complex. About a dozen studies in the U.S. and Canada asked BOTH sexes
how often they hit each other, all of them found that women hit men
either more frequently or about as often as the reverse.

Two of the main studies - by Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus and
Richard Gelles - assumed men hit women more severely, so they divided
domestic violence into seven different levels of severity. They were
surprised to discover that, overall, the more severe levels of
violence were conducted more by women against men.

A caveat, though. Men hitting women did more damage than the reverse.
However, this caveat carried its own caveat: it was exactly because
menÌs hits hurt more that women resorted to more severe methods (i.e.
tossing boiling water over her husband or swinging a frying pan into
his face). These findings were supported by the Census BureauÌs own
survey: As early as 1977, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the
National Crime Survey, surveying 60,000 households every six months
for three and one half years. They found women use weapons against men
82% of the time; men use weapons against women 25% of the time.
Overall, they found that even the women acknowledged they hit men more
than men hit women.

The key issue, though, is who initiates this cycle of violence.
Steinmetz, Strauss and Gelles found to their initial surprise that
women are more likely to be the first initiators. Why? In part, the
belief that men can take it - - they can therefore be a punching bag
and not be expected to hit back.

I was still a bit incredulous. I asked thousands of men and women in
my workshops to count all the relationships in which they had hit
their partner before their partner had ever it them. and vice versa.
About 60% of the women acknowledged they had more often been the first
to strike a blow: among the men, about 90% felt their female partner
had been the first to strike a blow.

I still felt violence was an out growth of masculinity. I was half
right. Men are responsible for most of the violence which occurs
outside the home. However, when 54% of women in lesbian relationships
acknowledge violence in their current relationship, vs. only 11% of
heterosexual couples reporting violence, I realized that domestic
violence is not an outgrowth of male biology.

Why do we vigorously denounce domestic violence against women and not
even know about domestic violence against men?


Women Abuse Men: ItÌs More Widespread Than People Think
By Armin A. Brott. M.D.
From Special supplement to The Washington Post, 12/28/93

Despite all the evidence about female-on-male violence, many groups
actively try to suppress coverage of the issue. Suzanne Steinmetz
received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from radical womenÌs
groups threatening to harm her children after she published "The
Battered Husband Syndrome" in 1978. She says she finds it ironic that
the same people who claim that women- initiated violence is purely
self defense are so quick to threaten violence against people who do
nothing more than publish a scientific study.

SteinmetzÌs story is not unique. Ten years after that study, R.L.
McNeely, a professor at the School of Social Welfare at the University
of Wisconsin, and Gloria Robinson-Simpson published "The Truth About
Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue." The article examined
various studies on domestic violence and concluded that society must
recognize that men are victims "or we will be addressing only part of
the phenomenon."

Shortly thereafter, McNeely received letters from a Pennsylvania
womenÌs organization threatening to use its influence in Washington to
pull his research funding. Robinson-Simpson, who uncovered some of
the most important data, largely was left alone. According to
McNeely, "she, a young assistant professor, was assumed to have been
"duped" by the senior male professor."

The reason there are only so many women in the corps is simple, although apparently you need it explained to you... There are NOT that many women interested in joining the corps.

Same reason there's not an "equal representation" of women in the Garbage collection industry.... women are not interested.

http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html
Of the 25 worst jobs, as ranked by the Jobs Related Almanac based on a combination of salary, stress, security, and physical demands, 24 of them are predominantly, if not almost entirely, male,

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

Domestic Abuse: It Ìs Not Always His Fault
By Betsy Hart, Scripps Howard News Service 8/18/97

Not long ago members of Virginia's General Assembly considered a bill
meant to keep husbands from abusing their wives: putting a warning
label at the top of marriage licenses! It didn't get far. (Possibly
calmer heads prevailed and pointed out that itÌs non marital
relationships that are a major risk factor for abuse.)

Still, this attempt highlights the prevailing notion in domestic
violence circles that "it's always his fault." That, in fact, is the
title of the cover article in the summer issue of "The Women's
Quarterly, " published by the Independent Women's Forum, an
increasingly high-profile group that's kind of an antidote to the
National Organization for Women.

Author Sally L. Satel, psychiatrist and Yale medical school lecturer,
shows how accepted Gloria SteinemÌs assertion that "the patriarchy
requires violence in order to maintain itself" has become. I.e.,
abusive men aren't criminals, or drunks, or particularly troubled
people some of whom may be redeemed. They are just men.

The Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network explains: "Battery
is a fulfillment of cultural expectation, not a defiant or sick
behavior." This view pervades the activist groups dealing with this
issue, and the bureaucracies that fund them with federal dollars.

Today a dozen states basically preclude treatment other than feminist
therapy of domestic batterers, Satel notes, and more are following.
Forget joint counseling when appropriate and desired. Involving the
batterer's mate in treatment amounts to "blaming the victim .

That, despite the fact that many abuse experts unhindered by feminist
blinders recognize abuse is often part of a "dance of mutual
destructiveness" as psychologist Judith Shervin writes. And that women
initiate violence in cohabiting relationships as often as men (often
using weapons to make up for physical differences) according to
leading abuse researchers-widely respected across philosophical lines
- Richard Gelles and Murray Straus.

No matter. "Don," a college administrator arrested for once slapping
his wife (they are still together) was required to attend a typical
"abuse" program. Every week "the message was clear," Don told Satel.
"Whatever she does to you is your fault, whatever you do to her is
your fault. It would have been a lot more helpful if they taught us to
recognize when we felt ourselves being driven into a position where we
lash out. The message should have been "recognize it, deal with it,
and quit hitting." All Don got was guilt about his maleness.

Hand in hand with this agenda are feminist backed "must arrest" and
similar legal policies which exist in hundreds of jurisdictions. These
require police to arrest one partner-almost always the man-when called
to a domestic dispute. Even when things have completely cooled down,
there was no hitting, and the woman doesnÌt want the man arrested.

Common "no-drop" polices do not allow a woman to drop abuse charges
once they're filed, even if her motive was anger, not fear. In
California, it is mandatory for judges to issue a restraining order
separating the parties in all domestic violence cases.

Such practices treat women like children, and ensure that if couples
stay together-and most in fact do-nothing really changes, Satel
writes, though the woman might mistakenly and dangerously be led to
believe it has. While there is virtually no convincing data that this
feminist approach to male violence is effective, Satel notes, several
respected studies suggest that these typical legal practices can
escalate spousal violence in some men by further enraging them.

The goal of these feminist treatments and legal responses, Satel says,
is to separate women from their abusive partner -no matter what the
circumstances, and no matter how fervently the women wish otherwise.

These "one size fits all" policies might make a bit more sense if
"abuse" always meant serious, systematic violence. But the feminist
politicization of the term "abuse" renders it virtually meaningless. A
typical check-list, this from the Westchester Coalition of Family
Violence agencies, tells women that if their partner behaves in "an
overprotective manner," "turns minor incidents into major arguments"
or "insults you," then "you might be abused."

Sometimes, of course, no redemption is possible, and leaving, or
ensuring the violent spouse is locked up (preferably for good), is the
only answer. And Satel rightly notes that the feminist agenda in this
area has forced law enforcement to take domestic abuse seriously.

But once again, the radical feminist agenda of "man bad woman good"
has permeated the culture on an a fundamentally important issue, and
once again it has done a terrible disservice to the constituency
feminists are supposed to help-women.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

Violence against children by women is another issue where the public
attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.

* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When
the man is removed from the family the children are at greater
risk.
* Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-
only households.
* Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only
Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more
likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other
than the biological father.
* Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely
to become killers than children raised with their biological
father.
Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:
* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than
they hit their female children.
* Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male
children.
* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first
experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.

Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.
Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each
year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a
divorce or custody case.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY


Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach


Last updated: May 2008


SUMMARY: 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.

http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html

A wonderful expose' of how feminists have sabotaged and hijacked the fight against Domestic Violence, turning it into a weapon for use in their war against men, is found in "Prone to Violence" by Erin Pizzey, who founded the first Domestic Violence shelter in the U.K.

Feminists can only get away with claiming that "domestic violence" equals "men beating up women" because people are unaware of the massive documentation of female-instigated domestic violence.

Facts refuting feminist propaganda on Family Violence by Family Resources and Research.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax
Robert Sheaffer

Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb.

As Christina Hoff Sommers shows, the famous "Rule of Thumb" for Wife Beating is really just a feminist lie. Laura Flanders of a group calling itself "FAIR" (which played a major role in promoting the "Superbowl Battering" hoax) made a big stink, accused Sommers of misrepresenting facts. Read Sommers'devastating reply to Flanders. (To this day, Politically Correct feminists still try to use Flanders' accusations to bash Sommers in attempting to presuade people they believe to be naieve, even though they know the charges aren't true. If you show them that you've read Sommers' refutation of the charges, they'll quickly shut up, or change the subject.)


In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

Women were not better off 50 years ago.

They were restricted from jobs

educational courses

idividual banking

were not protected by law from abusive husbands

did not receive a fair wage

Look at countries today in which women are presently not liberated.

Oh, dear, cedar77! That's where I would most likely fall down on the job.

Can this relationship be saved? (LOL! Isn't that a regular article in Ladies Home Journal or some woman's mag?)

They were originally meeting as potential long term relationship seekers, til she made one sexual remark, then a whole conversation of sex followed, and days later, weeks later the relationship now has an entirely DIFFERENT agenda than she had desired or he had....

I think some men are simply misogynists because they have been hurt and had their heart ripped out in the past.

My ex husband used to say.........."we, men, with an ego as weak as mashed potatoes; be careful with my ego, you know what a manly ego is like...be understanding, I am a man after all."

Actually:


"We, women, love you men, we truly love you dearly, like one loves the village idiot......"


It was a man that told me this joke ( originally created by a comedian, by the way) A brilliant man. He loves the type of woman I am......he must be a feminist and it also seems like he has great success with women. Maybe he understands us ----ROLLING EYES----



It was dry humor, not man bashing, little one!

"We, women, love you men, we truly love you dearly, like one loves the village idiot......"


True...maybe that's why so many women end up with the idiots instead of the good ones...now if they could just take responsibility for their poor choices we'd be getting some place...

... essence of a woman ...


At some point in the distant future, I hope humanity can reach the point where we avoid statements like this. At some point in the distant future, I hope we can all reach the point where we recognise that, man or woman, we are all human beings and need to be treated accordingly.

If by "racism" you're talking about just the attitude that one race is superior (morally, intellectually, or on some other grounds),

Most of us men take the direct route vs. getting too caught up in emotions.

- hungry? - shoot something and eat it - problem solved
- something broke? - fix it - problem solved
- he ask “what is wrong - what can I do to fix it” - then he realizes she don’t want him to fix it - she wants him to - morph into a female so he “gets it”
- he asks “what is wrong” - he hears “NOTHING” (ask/answered) - he turns on the TV - problem solved lol

OP ........ get a *girlfriend* - she would have a better chance at “getting you”

Why wouldn't a white candidate who went to church and had a flavor of Liberation Theology be afforded the same rights? I have certainly heard some disturbing excerpts taken out of context from Cone's books but I always like to reserve final judgment until I've "eaten the whole pie"

^^^ Probably not. But then, there really isn't much history of hateful speech being used to systematically deny the rights and quash the hopes of generations of Europeans or their descendents.

It only makes sense to avoid using terms that make you look like someone who has no regard for the rights of others. --unless you are someone like that. Are you?