~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

If you wish to be informed whenever there is a new post added to this blog

please go to the dark grey bar, top left, and click on “follow”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As promised in my last posting before Christmas, I am sending details about the last four studies in Volume 1 of the new journal. In case you might have missed that post I repeat the various contact details at the end of this post.

But Are the Kids Really All Right? Egalitarian Rhetoric, Legal Theory and Fathers

Katherine K. Young, Paul Nathanson

 

Abstract

The underlying but disguised premise of a widely acclaimed recent movie, The Kids Are All Right, is that children do not need fathers. Because fatherhood is the only remaining source of masculine identity, however, this premise damages not only children (especially boys) and men but also, by implication, society as a whole.

 

Meeting Men: Male Intimacy and College Men Centers

Miles Groth

 

Abstract

Given the ongoing trend of declining enrollments of males in college (currently at 40%), it is essential for educators and parents to understand its causes. As the issue becomes better understood, in the meantime the important part played by men’s groups on college and university campuses to support young males has become evident. The functions of such groups are varied, but their basic value is to provide a safe space for an experience of genuine intimacy with other males.

 

 

Manliness, Gentlemanliness, and the Manhood Question in George Eliot’s Adam Bede

Dennis Gouws

 

Abstract

Adam Bede revisits topical changes to English manliness and gentlemanliness at the turn of the nineteenth century. In her novel, written almost sixty years into the 1800s, George Eliot recognizes how new thinking about these gendered concepts changed the traditional ways men governed their manhood. Arthur Donnithorne and Adam Bede most prominently represent contending late-eighteenth century and early nineteenth-century forms of manhood in the novel, and they fittingly test their mettle by boxing, which many contemporary Britons thought fostered manly and gentlemanly qualities. Both men are profoundly affected by their fight. Each learns the limits of his particular form of manhood: Arthur realizes that traditional gentlemanliness no longer entitles him to unaccountable behavior; Adam discovers that attaining manhood requires a commitment to managing manly conduct attentively.

 

 

Boaz Behaving Badly

Malina Saval

 

Abstract

Temper tantrums, emotional meltdowns and screaming fits in public venues are everyday events in the life of Boaz, a feisty and affectionate five year-old boy with behavioral issues and developmental delays. The wondrous yet sometimes thorny world of boyhood is presented from the perspective of a mother who feels the incessant need to leap to her young son’s defense.

 

To go to the site click here        http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/about

Notes from the site:

We encourage readers to sign up for the publishing notification service for this journal. Use the Register link at the top of the home page for the journal. This registration will result in the reader receiving the Table of Contents by email for each new issue of the journal. This list also allows the journal to claim a certain level of support or readership. See the journal’s Privacy Statement, which assures readers that their name and email address will not be used for other purposes.

 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal page for the journal’s section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the five-step process.

 

We encourage research librarians to list this journal among their library’s electronic journal holdings. As well, it may be worth noting that this journal’s open source publishing system is suitable for libraries to host for their faculty members to use with journals they are involved in editing (see Open Journal Systems).

NEW MALE STUDIES to be launched in January 2012

As feminism continues its decline into inevitable oblivion it is about to join the other two “isms” of the Twentieth Century which are now regarded as costly and damaging failures in social engineering. Any of the few ageing “thinkers” who now voice any  support for  this trio of travesties are now regarded as collector’s items by the rest of society.

As is to be expected, the social pendulum is now swinging back the other way and, over the past decade, men are now getting better treatment due in part to the rise of a number of men’s movements bringing pressure to bear on governments and politicians who are traditionally the last members of any society to “get it”.

The good news is that in January 2012 there is to be launched a new journal, “New Male Studies”,  which will consider the plight of men and point out to society what must be urgently done about it. By way of introduction I print below some brief items and quotes from the website:

Misandry and Emptiness

Masculine identity in a toxic cultural environment.

 Paul Nathanson and Katherine K.Young

Abstract

 Masculine identity has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past ten thousand years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem by equating sexual equality with sexual sameness, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued–that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity at all. No solution will be possible without challenging pervasive assumptions about both boys andmen.

Towards an Integrated Perspective on Gender, Masculinity, and Manhood

John A. Ashfield

Abstract

For decades our understanding of gender, masculinity, and manhood has arguably been bedevilled by uninformative pseudo-academic gender ideology. Detached from biological reality, and crediting culture with almost autonomous causation, this ideology of gender feminist social constructionism has exhibited a dogged self-preserving reflex of disconfirmation, whenever faced with knowledge challenging its dogmatic assertions. Its unashamed devaluation of thought, through resort to propagandist mantras of global male aspersion and political correctness, underscores not only its fundamentalist nature—disqualifying it from any serious consideration as a basis for understanding gender and social relations, but also the urgent need for a perspective, unfettered by ideology, that reflects current interdisciplinary knowledge, and is actually useful.

The Bold, Independent Woman Of Today and the “Good” Men and Boys in Her Life: A Sampling of Mainstream Media Representations

Peter Allemano

Abstract

For decades, there has been an abundance of negative portrayals of men and boys in mainstream media, but here and there, especially in recent years, ostensibly “positive” portrayals have also been presented of exemplary men and good little boys who devote themselves to fulfilling females’ wishes and expectations. Although we cannot help but notice the “good” male’s existence (in movies, for example), we nevertheless pay little attention to him as an individual. Such representations of the “good” male do merit our attention, because upon examination, his psychological mindset is peculiar and ought to perplex us. We need to ask some hard questions about this representation. How does the “good” male image influence our attitudes toward the male sex in general? What does it teach boys about their futures, in adulthood? One unusual recent mainstream movie challenges the prevailing “good” male image and strongly suggests that there exists a far better and more realistic way to affirm the male sex’s best qualities.

Moral Panic: Male Studies and the Spectre of Denial

Robert A. Kenedy

Abstract

The absence of male studies programs in Canada is both a result of and clear evidence that political correctness along with moral panic and gender feminism or third wave feminism have a grip on academe, creating an adversarial schism. Over the last three decades, this has marginalized a more inclusive, multi‐perspective “male studies” discipline to the periphery of academe. It has resulted in mainly feminist and pro‐feminist men’s studies programs and research that focus on men as primarily being violent victimizers, as well as secondary and disengaged parents. Male studies programs and a journal are necessary to reveal the “lived male experience.”

These are the first four studies in the journal. Their length varies from about four pages to twenty or so. They can easily be downloaded from the website as pdfs and you also have the option of downloading the whole journal as a 120 page pdf. To go to the site just click here:     http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/about

There are some brief notes for readers, writers and librarians which I append below. In the next post I shall deal with the other four studies which are available.

We encourage readers to sign up for the publishing notification service for this journal. Use the Register link at the top of the home page for the journal. This registration will result in the reader receiving the Table of Contents by email for each new issue of the journal. This list also allows the journal to claim a certain level of support or readership. See the journal’s Privacy Statement, which assures readers that their name and email address will not be used for other purposes.

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal page for the journal’s section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the five-step process.

We encourage research librarians to list this journal among their library’s electronic journal holdings. As well, it may be worth noting that this journal’s open source publishing system is suitable for libraries to host for their faculty members to use with journals they are involved in editing (see Open Journal Systems).

MEN NOW SUFFER MORE COERCIVE CONTROL THAN WOMEN

In an article in the National Post on 21st December Barbara Kay revealed that men were 50% more likely to have experienced coercive control than women. This revelation follows hard on the heels of the Home Office announcement that the main crime of women in the UK is now violence. This quote from her article reveals other truths that are being comprehensively ignored by local authorities and the UK Government.

“One of first-wave feminism’s great achievements in the 1970s was to end the denial surrounding wife abuse in even the “best” homes. Resources for abused women proliferated. Traditional social, judicial and political attitudes toward violence against women were cleansed and reconstructed along feminist-designed lines.

“But then a funny thing happened. The closet from which abuse victims were emerging had, everyone assumed, been filled with women. But honest researchers were surprised by the results of their own objective inquiries. They were all finding, independently, that intimate partner violence (IPV) is mostly bidirectional.

“But by then the IPV domain was awash in heavily politicized stakeholders. Even peer-reviewed community-based studies providing politically incorrect conclusions were cut off at the pass, their researchers’ names passed over for task force appointments and the writing of training manuals for the judiciary. Neither were internal whistle-blowers suffered gladly. Erin Pizzey, who opened the first refuge for battered women in England in 1971, was “disappeared” from the feminist movement when she revealed what she learned in her own shelter: She committed a heresy by asking women about their own violence, and they told her.

“The most extreme IPV is certainly male-on-female, but hard-core batterers and outright killers are rare. In violence of the mild to moderately severe variety that constitutes most of IPV — shoving, slapping, hitting, punching, throwing objects, even stabbing and burning — both genders initiate and cause harm in equal measure. . .

“Every major survey has borne out this truth. In fact, the most reliable, like Canada’s 1999 General Social Survey, found not only that most male and female violence is reciprocal, but also that the younger the sample, the more violent the women relative to men. A meta-analysis of more than 80 large-scale surveys notes a widening, and concerning, spread — less male and more female IPV — in the dating cohort.

“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just published its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey to great fanfare. The survey’s central finding is — yep — that men and women inflict and suffer equal rates of IPV, with 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women experiencing partner aggression in the past year. More men (18%) suffer psychological aggression (humiliation, threats of violence, controllingness) than women (14%). Feminists often define IPV as a “pattern of power and control,” but the survey finds that men were 50% more likely to have experienced coercive control than women (15.2% vs 10.7%).

“In Rethinking Domestic Violence (2006), his third in a series of comprehensive interdisciplinary reviews of IPV and related criminal justice research, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton cuts through the politicized clutter in this domain. Dutton concludes that personality disorder, culture and a background of family dysfunction, not gender, are the best predictors of partner violence. To further IPV harm reduction, Dutton recommends individual psychological treatment or couples therapy to replace the ideology-inspired thought-reform model, imposed only on male abusers, that has been common (and largely ineffective) practice for many years.

“Ironically, and unjustly, abused men today are where women were 60 years ago: their ill-treatment is ignored, trivialized or mocked; there are virtually no funded resources for them; and they are expected to suffer partner violence in silence. Which most of them do.

“Who will have the courage to bell this politically correct cat? When will revenge end and fairness begin?

One leading men’s charity in the UK is preparing to help to do just that. The ManKind Initiative is organising a national conference with the title MEN ARE VICTIMS TOO on 22nd February 2012 in Taunton UK.  For more details such as a leaflet of information and a booking form,  please click here. For a comprehensive account of the truth about domestic violence and details of the ManKind helpline for victims just visit the ManKind Initiative website.

TWO RADICAL FEMINISTS ADMIT THAT WOMEN ARE VIOLENT

When we realise that the two radical feminists, Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett, are responsible for the words quoted below then men’s organisations will rejoice  that the pendulum has forsaken its feminist side and is rapidly swinging back the other way.

This duo are responsible for saying that there is very little difference between men and women, even downgrading the very idea to that of a myth. The study of DNA has now proved the idea to be a solid fact.

The difference in DNA between a man and a women is 2%. Doesn’t sound much does it? But when you consider that the DNA difference between a woman and a female chimpanzee is also 2% you begin to get the picture. You would not expect the same abilities and behaviour of a woman and a female chimpanzee; well, OK maybe a few of them but not in general.

But read below to see just how fast these two fish can backpedal on their bicycles:

 

“Most likely we will never know exactly how or when it became okay to

talk about female aggression–female-to-female aggression and

female-to-male aggression. Whatever its origins, this new narrative is

challenging the once omnipresent scenario of the male violent

aggressor and passive female victim scenario. It is now increasingly

acceptable to talk openly about female aggression and to conduct

serious research on this topic.

 

“We now know that women-on-women aggression is far from rare and that

women are often the initiators of male-female aggression. Surveys of

U.S. households have found rates of wife-to-husband violence

“remarkably similar” to those of husband-to-wife violence.

And an early cross-cultural survey did not find that men were

significantly more aggressive than women.

 

“Aggression, as opposed to anger, conveys an intent to hurt or harm and

can be expressed physically, verbally or by withdrawing. There is

general agreement that men exhibit higher levels of physical

aggression than women, but the differences are small to moderate.

After a thorough review of the literature on who initiates violence in

couples, Murray Straus, of the University of New Hampshire, reports:

“It is painful to have to recognize the high rate of domestic

assaults by women. All six major studies which have investigated this

topic found that women initiate violence in a large proportion of the

cases.”

 

“For example, of the 495 couples in a 1985 National Family Violence

Survey for whom one or more assaults were reported by a female

respondent, the man was the only violent partner in 25. 9 percent of

the cases, the woman was the only one to be violent in 25. 5 percent

of the cases and both were violent in 48.6 percent of the cases. Of

446 women who reported that they were involved in violent

relationships, their partners struck the first blow in 42 percent of

the cases. The women hit first in 53 percent of the cases, and they

could not remember who hit first in the remaining cases.”

 

The forty-year pile of junk under the carpet is now seeing the light of day. Inevitably we’re going to see a lot more in the days ahead.

                           ADVICE TO MEN

1) Beware of anyone who can make up their face but not their mind.

2) When anyone says “they’re worth it”, always ask “How much?”

3) Take life with a pinch of salt – A wedge of lime, and a shot of tequila.

4) In need of a support group? – A beer with the boys does it.

5) Go on the 30 day diet.- I’m on it and so far I’ve lost 15 days.

6) I know I’m in my own little world, but it’s OK. – they know me here.

7) Lead me not into temptation. – I can find it myself.

8) When life gives you lemons, turn it into lemonade then mix it with vodka.

9) Remember wherever there is a beautiful, sweet, single or married woman – There is probably some man tired of her behaviour.

10) Keep your chin up: Only the first 40 years of fatherhood are the hardest.

11) If it has a clutch or a clitoris it’’s going to give you trouble.

12) Behind every hard-working, successful man there is a woman who tries to claim the credit.

Bob McCoskrie is one of those rare writers who is not afraid to speak the truth. In 24th November issue of The New Zealand Herald he wrote an article “Why I won’t be wearing the white ribbon”.

Below are several quotes from the article with a few of my own comments in red. The bold type is my own.

“Domestic violence is not a gender issue, writes Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First NZ.

I won’t be wearing a white ribbon on Friday. Don’t get me wrong – I would be the first in line to condemn violence against women, and the first to be held to account for my own actions. . .

If we’re serious about reducing family violence, we need to open both eyes – and tell the truth.

The website says “Violence is endemic within New Zealand. One in three women are victims of violence from a partner”. The first part is right – the second misrepresents the facts. . .”

Even the first part is not entirely correct. Some of those “partners” who perpetrate the violence are female partners. Invariably, media commentators never fail to point out that some of the violence against men is by male partners, they never say that women perpetrate violence against other women.

“The claim is based on research which the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has already ruled as being exaggerated when it was used by the Women’s Refuge for their annual appeal television commercial last year. . .”

“Under the banner of Intimate Partner Violence, emotional violence includes: insulting or making them feel bad about themselves, belittling or humiliating them in front of other people, or scaring or intimidating them on purpose.

But will the researchers ask men to what level they have been victims of intimate partner violence?

How many men would say they, too, have been physically assaulted, or made to feel bad, humiliated in front of others or intimidated by their partner?

We may never know. Only women are victims of intimate partner violence – apparently. . .”

“New Zealand researcher Professor David Fergusson says “the discovery of domestic violence in the context of the concerns of the women’s movement has meant that domestic violence has been presented as a gender issue and used as an exemplar of patriarchy and male dominance over women”.

He argues that we need to broaden our perspective “away from the view that domestic violence is usually a gender issue involving male perpetrators and female victims and towards the view that domestic violence most commonly involves violent couples who engage in mutual acts of aggression.

His research found that men and women are equally to blame in dishing out domestic violence and both suffer similar degrees of mental harm.

And that’s backed up by government statistics. Ministry of Justice statistics from 2007 show that the prevalence rate for confrontational offences by a partner in 2005 was virtually the same for men and women. . .”

“And this isn’t just a Kiwi trend. In Britain, data from the Home Office statistical bulletins showed men made up about 40 per cent of domestic violence victims each year between 2005 and 2009.

In Australia, a University of Queensland study of newlyweds showed female violence was at least as common as male violence, the most usual patterns being female-only violence, followed by both partners being violent.

In the US, a report last year from California State University examined 275 scholarly investigations, 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses with an aggregate sample size exceeding 365,000. It showed women were as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.”

The year 2010 in the UK was the first time in the history of crime in the UK that the main crime committed by women was violence.

“The Family Violence Research Programme at the University of New Hampshire found that the overall rates of violence for cohabiting couples was twice as high and the overall rate for “severe” violence was nearly five times as high for cohabiting couples when compared with married couples.

Perhaps family structure should be the focus rather than gender. . .

The research shows that women are just as likely to abuse children as men. The Families Commission’s 2009 Family Violence Statistics Report revealed that 48 per cent of child abuse – including emotional, physical, neglect, sexual and multiple abuse – was committed by … women. Yet the commission also perpetuates the perception that it’s only men.”

Figures published by the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children show that 48% of child abuse is perpetrated by women, mainly mothers; fathers commit about 34%.

“In fact, there is an increasing concern that teenagers are becoming more and more violent towards their parents, their teachers and their peers. And the greatest concern is about the rising levels of violence being exhibited by … girls!

If we want to tackle family violence, we all – men, women and children – need to pledge to stop violence towards men, women and children. This is a family violence issue, not a gender issue. We’ll then be telling the full story. And I’ll be first in line to wear the appropriate ribbon.”

Perhaps some fair-thinking person might one day come up with the idea of having  a black and white striped ribbon that we can all wear to show that we are against violence against anybody.

This blog post is appearing by courtesy of the new MANORAMA site for men.

Child Murder and Child Abuse Robert Whiston

WE ALL seem to make the implicit assumption that children are best cared for by women and preferably their mothers. We never question why and never ask whether the assumption is still valid today. Women are seen as better equipped than men to care for young children, and that under their supervision they will come to less harm. Men are seen as lacking the ability to comprehend or adjust to children’s needs and, almost biologically, to lack the necessary patience, commitment and understanding. Our unquestioning conviction pre-determines much of what we do and how we decide matters. This singular blind faith puts the custody of children in divorce permanently out of reach of fathers. It immutably precludes fatherly involvement in child development in the years following divorce. But do the facts bear out our trust, or is it all illusory? Are we prepared to face a prospect where cosy reassuring myths explode into fictions? The truth is: mothers kill more babies and young children than fathers do, and women abuse more children than men do. In fact, the highest probability of being murdered is not as an adolescent in a pub brawl or in your 20s being mugged or attacked in your own home; it’s in the first months and years of life. The likelihood of infant death is 27 per million compared with the national average of 14 per million. Closer examination of the facts reveals that baby boys under 12 months old are more likely to be murdered than girls: 55 and 42 per million respectively. ‘In 1992 only 385 deaths of under one-year-olds were reported as homicides’ (Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1996. Home Office.) This would seem to suggest that further deaths were ascribed to other causes. It is interesting to note that the indictments for infanticide (an exclusively female defence for child murder: i.e. yet another attempt to cover up violence by women) totalled no more than 4 in that year. (Source as above.) Figures for other years from the same source show that in 1995 when there were 754 deaths in England and Wales, initially recorded as homicides, show a clear 66:33 split between male and female victims and one is left to wonder where the infant homicides have gone. In October 1997 surveillance cameras in a baby ward videod 34 women out of 39 attempting to smother or seriously harm their babies. (BBC TV news. North Staffordshire Hospital.) Approximately 60% of all women murderers premeditate their act. (Justice Quarterly March 1988)   The figures for child abuse are similarly disturbing. It is estimated that some 35,000 suffer abuse every year with many thousands being taken into care every year. Of the children on the NSPCC Protection Register, 60% lived either with their mother alone or with their mother and her boyfriend, or father substitute. Not only does 60% of abuse and neglect stem from mothers but the figure seems almost the ‘standard’ in many developed countries, e.g. UK, US, Canada and Australia. At last, some of the few remaining taboos have been broken; researchers are now asking about child sexual abuse by women, now estimated at 35% or more of all reported child sexual abuse. (BBC Panorama Child Sexual Abuse by Women.) This compares with the more openly admitted and traditional non-sexual abuse/neglect of children by women where the incidence rate is about 60%. A seminal British study, the Family Court Reporter Survey 1982 – 88 for England and Wales, confirms that a child is safest when his biological parents are married and least safe when his mother is cohabiting with a man other than her husband. The same report presents concrete evidence that children are between 20 to 33 times safer living with their married, biological parents than in any other family configuration. The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if a child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man. Similar risks apply in cases of fatal child abuse where the overwhelming number of child deaths occurred in households in which the child’s biological mother was cohabiting with someone who was unrelated to the child. This clearly demonstrates how dangerous divorce can be for children.   The above report deals only in well established facts and clearly gives the lie to those supporters of lone parenthood. When Claire Rayner and others say that ‘To assume that having two parents together is necessarily better is one of the fantasies’ they are clearly indulging in woolly thinking which flies in the face of these facts. It is this woolly thinking, and the reluctance in the UK to face hard and unpleasant facts, which do not fit society’s preconceived ideas, that prevents research into such subjects as female abuse of children, and, when such research is undertaken, to prevent its publication. However, for those readers who wish to check out the facts for themselves I print below two lists of research papers etc from Canada and the USA which have better track records in such research. Given the fact that in all research into family matters, the similarity in all Western countries is amazingly close, I think we can ignore the fact that the evidence is not UK based.   CANADA: Child abusers are more likely to be women – Richard Gelles 1979 quoted in the Health and Welfare Canada Report 1989, Family Violence: a Review of Theoretical and Clinical Literature. Seven out of ten cases of examined women were the abusers of children – Bonnie & Scalre 1969. Mothers are perpetrators of abuse upon children at least equally with fathers. – Senator Anne Cools (Canada) 1995.   In 1986 a child abuse morbidiity analysis of 100 children (covering the years 1973 – 1982) who suffered abuse and/or neglect and who subsequently died, found that mothers were the largest perpetrators. Mothers accounted for 38 deaths, fathers accounted for 12 and 13 were ascribed to both parents. – Dr Cyril Greenland, University of Toronto. Physical abuse of children is the only form of family violence in which women are the perpetrators as often as men – Brienes & Gordon, The Health and Welfare Canada report 1989, Family Violence: a Review of Theoretical and Clinical Literature. In 50 out of 57 cases, women were found to be the child abuser. -Steel & Pollock 1969. Evidence was found that mothers are more likely than fathers to be abusive. – Bell 1986 Mothers were identified in 38.7% of cases as the abuser and fathers 18.4% rising to 31% where cohabitation i.e. boyfriends or stepfathers were involved. – Benedict et al 1985. Mothers and mother substitutes are suspected abusers in 44% of cases and fathers and father substitutes in 46.5% of cases. -Creighton 1979. In 1993 there were 46,683 child maltreatment investigations undertaken by all 54 children’s aid societies. The study defined child maltreatment as any one of: physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect or emotional maltreatment. The findings are as follows:   Total number of cases substantiated of child maltreatment showed that mothers were responsible for 49% of all cases and fathers 31% of all cases. In the category of child neglect, mother perpetrated 85% of cases. In the category of physical abuse mothers perpetrated 39% of cases and biological fathers 40%. In the category of emotional maltreatment, mothers were found responsible for 79% of all substantiated cases. Mothers were also highlighted as being heavily involved in physical abuse, especially in the newly born (zero months) to the three-year-old category. Significantly, 59% of all cases regarded abuse to boy babies by their mothers. This bias continued through into the age group 4 to 11 where recordings showed 55% of cases involved boy children. The largest single family group/style at 35% was the single mother unit. – Dr Cyril Greenland. University of Toronto. USA: (Compiled 1996) Over one third (36%) of children in America today do not live with their biological father. US Marriage / 6. Children from disrupted marriages were 70% more likely than those living with both biological parents to have been expelled or suspended. – Dawson. Children of divorce are twice as likely as children from intact families to drop out of school. – Zill 1993. Of juveniles and young adults serving in long term correctional facilities, 70% did not live with both parents growing up. – US Marriage / 6 (Age of majority in USA is 21) Appximately 60% of all murderesses premeditate their murder. – Coramae Rochey Mann, Getting Even? Women Who Kill in Domestic Encounters. Justice Quarterly. March

 

UPDATE

Since the publication of the above article much more evidence has come to light about female crime such as the increase in convictions of female sex offenders and paedophiles. Certainly our nursery school children are by no means as safe as we thought. Parents used to think that because nursery schools are staffed entirely by women their children were in safe hands. This is obviously NOT the case.

As new evidence has come forward about women’s violence in the home it has now been established by experts in the field that 40% of victims of domestic abuse are men. In 2010 for the first time in the history of crime in the UK it has been revealed that the main crime committed by women is violence. Previously it was theft.

Occasionally, very occasionally, there comes along a blockbuster of a book that tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; it annihilates myths, blows away cobwebs and challenges prejudices. Such is WHY BRITAIN HATES MEN by Swayne O’Pie, M.A., B.Sc., B.Ed. a long time student of Feminism and its harmful effects on society.

Because of the wide-ranging research by O’Pie I soon realised that the word “BRITAIN” in the title could equally well be replaced by “America”, “France”, “Germany”, “Australia”, “New Zealand”, and a good many other countries. Wherever you live, if you are a man who takes pride in his manhood, or a woman intelligent enough to realise the gross damage done to the fabric of society by the diktats of Feminism, this will be one of the best literary investments you’ve made in years.

The book asks and answers many important questions such as:

• If we have a Minister for Women, why isn’t there a Minister for Men?
• Why are women still treated as a “minority group” and given special privileges and policy-favouritism?
• If we have Women’s Officers, Women’s Units, Women’s Sections . . . then why are there none for men? Do men not have problems, issues and rights?

Although the book has only recently been published, some of the comments about it include:

• “A reality check for anyone who thinks that feminism is about gender equality.”
• “Surely the most controversial book in Britain today.”
• “I’ll never be able to take feminists seriously again.”
• “An original and important new book . . . an intriguing exposé of feminism.”
• (Emeritus Professor Norman Dennis)
• “Brave. You say what the rest of us only dare think.”

The book is an A4 size paperback of 450 pages and may be ordered by going to: www.exposingfeminism.co.uk  or by sending a cheque for £17.99 + £4.00 p&p (payable to Swayne O”Pie) to: The Men’s Press, P.O. Box 2220, Bath, UK.

As all men in America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe know, over the last 50 years there has been a massive amount of legislation passed to enhance the position of women in all walks of life and to denigrate men. Note that this has been done when MALE politicians were in the majority ! Most politicians are corrupt enough to seek the female vote in this way, that is by selling their fellow men down the river.

Many sections of the media were infiltrated by feminists in its earlier days so that now, despite the fact that feminism has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, some older feminists (feminatrics) are still in positions of influence. In the UK’s BBC for instance it is blindingly obvious that all news bulletins are pro female and anti-male and the “guidelines” for producers make sure that nothing is allowed to appear which could possibly upset a woman; men on the other hand are a different matter. Happily the number of these feminatrics is steadily dropping as more and more are realising that feminism was a great mistake and has caused so much damage to society. Many have admitted it in so many words. The huge number of single mothers who were told by feminists that they could “have it all” now realise that they can’t and look in envy at the secure lives of stay-at-home mothers of the fifties.

When I used to watch some Australian soaps such as Neighbours and Home and Away several years ago it was obvious that the scriptwriters had a strong feminist agenda to put across. The infantile writing made it blatantly obvious. I soon gave up on such trashy TV so I cannot speak for the position today.

Because of the foregoing, many websites have sprung up to help men to get fair treatment and to regain their proper position within society. The leading men’s rights charity in the UK, ManKind,which has the strong support of many women in the country, has made a name for itself by putting very reliable material on its website. Even the BBC, following the lead of ManKind, have used the same material. I quote from one of their articles below:

“Male domestic abuse victim wants equality of treatment

A man who suffered months of violence from his fiancée has joined calls for male victims of domestic abuse to get the same support as female victims.

Ian McNicholl, of Grimsby, was scalded by boiling water and had cigarettes stubbed out on him before his partner was jailed for seven years in 2009.

He said police had “saved my life” but he was not given a safe place to stay.

North East Lincolnshire Safer and Stronger Communities said there were support groups for male victims.

Humberside Police figures show a rise in the number of men reporting domestic abuse to more than one in five cases.

The figures show 2,382 men reported that they were victims of domestic abuse in 2010-11, alongside 8,566 cases reported by women.

That is a 16% increase in the number of men reporting domestic abuse compared with 2009-10.

The figures came from a freedom of information request by national charity Mankind Initiative.

The charity has called on councils, police and other parties to support male victims in the same way as female victims.

‘Nowhere to go’

Despite the rise in cases reported by the police, the charity said it believed the actual number of male domestic violence victims in the area was much higher.

It said the national British Crime Survey showed men accounted for two in every five cases of domestic abuse.

Mr McNicholl’s abuse ended when a neighbour told the police and he said the officers turning up “saved my life”.

But he claimed that in the days following the abuse there was “nowhere to go” and he had to find his own place to stay.

Mr McNicholl said: “All victims should have equal access to support.”

North East Lincolnshire Safer and Stronger Communities, a partnership between agencies including the council and Humberside Police, said there were groups in the Grimsby area that could offer support and advice to male victims.

Details of these groups are available on the partnership’s website.

A spokesman added: “The partnership brings together a number of agencies who ensure that help is available for male victims of domestic abuse.

“An increase in reporting can be seen as a positive as it demonstrates the work we have undertaken to encourage male victims to report domestic abuse.”