Tag Archives: men

It’s official: women as likely as men to assault their partners–Government studies say so

From PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:

Studies of spousal and dating violence indicate that women are as likely as men to assault their partners physically. This investigation examined the issue of the initiation of physical assaults by women on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Response from 978 female college women indicate that, within a 5-yr. period, 29% (n = 285) admitted to physical aggression against their male partners. Younger women in their 20’s were significantly more likely to aggress physically than women who were 30 yr, and above. Women stated that they expressed aggression toward their male partners in part because they wished to engage their partner’s attention, particularly emotionally. Also assaultive women did not believe that their male victims would be seriously injured or would retaliate.

There you have it: women are as likely as men to physically assault their male partner. Another feminist myth busted.


The hidden side of the gender wage gap

Feminists always complain about women earning lower wages than men due to ”discrimination”, ignorant to the fact that only full-time women earn less than full-time men–and that’s not for every job that’s out there. Food preparation, serving workers, dining room & cafeteria attendants, bartender helpers, file & postal service clerks, secretaries, administrative assistants, and corporate directors (a male-dominated job) are just a couple jobs in which women actually do earn more than men [1, 2].

The real display of bias, here, is that part-time men earn less than part-time women. Feminists never mention this. Probably out of ignorance, or because of their extreme prejudice(s) against men.

The latest study conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found out that the weekly earnings for female part-time workers were $213, compared to $192 for their male counterparts [1]. But it’s not like this is something recent; even back in 2000, part-time women earned more than men [3]. (2000 is the oldest data the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics possess.)

Yet… feminists have always, and continue to, mention the gender wage gap as proof of continued covert misogyny. Feminists who always mention discrimination against women being the main cause (or one of) of the wage gap is either; clearly ignorant of the reality of things, or prejudiced against men. Women can be sexist, too, and men aren’t the only employers. Feminists seem to forget this.

One last interesting thing. Asian women out-earned White women, and Asian men out-earned White men. So much for feminists’ claim that ”Discrimination against minorities is still rampant.”

References & Sources
[1] Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2006
[2] Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study
[3] Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2000

See Also
blognews: The Lie of the Gender Wage Gap

Men and their Y chromosomes are soon parted

The article Homo erectus extinctus on the Times Online can be summed up in one phrase: ”men and their Y chromosomes are soon parted”, according to senior scientist Lois Rogers. Lois is determined to prove men have become useless in modern society. She uses social and political trends to lend weight to her ”theory.” Mistake #1: biologists don’t look at social or political trends in research.

According to Lois, due to technology that can produce artificial sperm, or even create offspring from 2 females, men have become redundant. She has no idea we have the technology to create artificial wombs to create babies in. It seems women are as redundant as men, now. [1]

The Y chromosome has scant function other than the production of sperm, and in many men it is not performing well. Male infertility is already surprisingly common: about 7% of men, or 1 in 13, are affected, often as a result of a defect in the coding mechanism for sperm production on the Y chromosome.

So is female infertility. In fact, women are more likely to be infertile than men. Women account for more than 40% of fertility problems, while men, only 30-40%. (10-20% of infertility cases are unassigned to any particular cause. They are most likely due to environmental pollutants, and occupational hazards, such as working in nuclear power plants.) [2]

Then, she says:

There is considerable evidence that sperm counts are declining overall […]

And attributes it to men’s defective Y chromosomes, when in fact, it’s due to the hormone estrogen, found in female chickens, and our drinking water [3]. Both are common ingredients of our diet. Estrogen counters the hormone testosterone, which is necessary for sperm production. A highly likely, logical explanation for men’s decreasing sperm count.

Then, the article switches to Oxford University Professor Bryan Sykes, who happily claims that ”Many species become extinct because their Y chromosomes apparently disintegrate.” Keywords: many species. This means humanity will become extinct if men’s Y chromosomes were to ”wither away”, as Bryan Sykes so aptly puts it.

Thank God that ”Others are keener to help keep men going.”

One of the world leaders in the field, Karim Nayernia, professor of stem-cell biology at Newcastle University, has already shown that unlimited sperm can be derived from early stem cells present in an embryo. He has also proved that it is possible to overcome the shortage of donor sperm by using the stem cells stored in bone marrow, generally destined to provide replacement blood cells on demand.

Such manufactured sperm would initially be used to restore fertility in men made sterile by cancer treatment, but the technology has other possibilities. Nayernia is awaiting ethical approval to see if he can also produce synthetic sperm cells from women’s stem cells. “We want to see if we can test the functionality of female sperm produced in this way,” he said. “There would be no possibility of using it for human reproduction. We want to use it to make other tissues.”

It gets even more absurd from then on:

The social trend that we are witnessing indicates many more women than expected could be migrating towards lesbianism.

Oh, the ignorance! Homosexuals are born, not socialized.

This on is a killer:

….there is growing evidence that women are outstripping men intellectually. Sociologists and education specialists are bemoaning the continuing triumph of girls over boys at every level of the education system […]

”Sociologists and education specialists…” So much for ”this is a scientific study.” You can tell it’s not geneticists, or evolutionists, who have conducted the research, as these wannabes know nothing of evolution; if boys out-performed girls in the education system 60 years ago, when schools were separated, then women have not ”evolved” to be smarter than men in a mere 60 years. I wonder what they think of the fact that boys used to out-perform girls at school, in the past. They seem to have left this out. Further evidence of these biased fools’ agenda. One thing worth mentioning that they also have left out, is that recent research points out men have an IQ of 5 points higher than women. This is supported by another study concluded by scientists and psychologists alike, but they didn’t mention that. Wonder why… Anyway, these IQ tests were probably biased in men’s favor, just like girls out-performing boys in the U.K. school system is due to bias towards boys. (Remember ”boys are stupid, throw rocks at them?”) Need proof feminists don’t want equality? They fought hard against helping struggling boys in schools. See the article Stop helping boys, says equality watchdog. (The report in the above mentioned article was written by feminist professors Becky Francis and Christine Skelton.)

A number of academics think that if you remove men’s higher earning power and their unique ability to father children, more women will inevitably choose to live with other women.

These ”academics” are most likely not scientists. Even if you were to remove these male ”abilities”, many women would still choose to live with men. Pardon me for my upcoming sexist statement, but if you were to remove women’s higher cleaning power and their unique ability to mother children, men would still choose to live with women, as can be seen today; we have dishwashers and washing machine, and men can adopt, but men still choose to live with women nonetheless. This is because homosexuals are born, not socialized.

Even if their findings were, indeed, correct, it doesn’t mean men will die off–a gravely incorrect assumption on Bryan Syke’s part. What it means is that men will evolve into women, but with only one X chromosome instead of two, making these new ”men” slightly more prone to genetic deceases. Furthermore, these ”researchers” have not found any change in women’s X chromosomes. Meaning that men are evolving too fast for women, and as a result, women will become extinct along with men, if men were to ”die off.” (They might survive a couple centuries more, due to sperm banks, but that’s it.)

References & Sources
[1] Men redundant? Now we don’t need women either
[2] Reproductive Infertility: Prevalence, Causes, Trends and Treatments (PDF)

Circumcision–a Human Rights violation

That’s right; circumcision, when performed on a non-consenting child, is a Human Rights violation, and just like F.G.M., it’s genital mutilation. Only the victim should have the choice over their body. Women have control over their bodies and reproductive organs, and men want the same right. It’s completely unfair to force someone to do something to their body against their will.Let’s compare the two for a second:

  • Circumcision was invented to stop young boys from masturbating, as it was ‘’sinful.” F.G.M.’s intent is to keep women virgins until marriage, so both are somewhat similar in this regard.
  • Both remove nerve endings, therefore feelings. (Although F.G.M. does remove almost all nerve endings, whereas circumcision removes a good portion.)
  • Both remove a body part.
  • Both are done on a non-consenting person.

As you can see, there are fairly similar, although F.G.M. is worse, but not done on mass scale like circumcision is. Circumcision may also cause vaginal dryness, and lead to painful sex; no foreskin makes it harder for the man to penetrate [1,2]. On the other side, an uncircumcised penis will actually increase sexual pleasure for the female partner. If that’s not a good reason enough not to support circumcision, here are some more facts about it:

  • the nerves located in the foreskin makes it easier to aid an erection [2].
  • Removal of the foreskin can cause premature ejaculation when having sex [2].
  • In a recent survey, 20% of Korean men reported a worsened sex life after circumcision [2].

Circumcision also has it’s own set of complications; reduction in penile sensation, bleeding, damage to the urethra, amputation of the glans, and infection in the blood or septicemia [3]. Even the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) does not agree with circumcision.As for circumcision being ”cleaner”, it is total BS. Caring for an uncircumcised penis is quite easy. Read advice from the CPS about it here. It’s even easier than to teach girls to keep their parts clean.

References & Sources
[1] Recent Medical Studies on Circumcision
[2] Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction
[3] Circumcision: Information for parents

‘Are men really necessary? Good question’

ManA short while ago, while looking-up something on Google, I stumbled upon this article from columnist Minette Marrin from the Times Online: ”Are men really necessary? Good question.”

An excerpt from the article:

I loathe the word celebration, as it is now used, but what we need, I believe, is a celebration of men and masculinity. If feminism is running according to the usual historical rules, we will probably get one: a backlash is overdue. Men have wonderful qualities which women often lack and need. Men are much more likely than women to be of exceptionally high – and exceptionally low – intelligence; they are on average stronger, funnier and have a better three-dimensional sense and they are usually better at techy things. They are much more likely to be architects, composers, mathematicians, joke tellers and orators and are more inventive. As Camille Paglia once said, if civilisation had been left to women, we’d still be living in grass huts.

It’s a very interesting piece of writing. I invite you to read it for yourself.

Feministing.com approves of violence against men

From feministing.com:

Hit Men Poster

This may be my favorite feminist Flickr to date. A translation:

Careful! Women answer back

If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk rubbish or touch her, you have to be aware that she might insult you loudly, a glass of beer is emptied over you or you might be hit in the face. We strongly advise you to refrain from this kind of harrassments.

Women, migrants, homeless people, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assaults. Don’t look away, interfere!

”Violence is never funny.” — A common quote from feminists when violence against women is ‘comical-ized’. It seems however, violence against men can potentially be funny, as in: if he deserves it. The reverse, however, does not seem to hold true; violence against women is never funny.

The only time hitting someone is acceptable is if they touch, assault, or ask you to hit them. However, they also think hitting a man for staring or ”talking rubbish” is OK. Hitting a man, especially for such trivial reasons as the two mentioned above, is a bad idea; most likely, he’ll punch you back and it will hurt you more than it did him. Furthermore, hitting someone for staring or ”talking rubbish” at you is assault, not self-defense since self-defense is: ”the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked” as defined by dictionary.com. Assault is a punishable offense by law.

Is going out of your way to slap a man really worth getting punched back in the face or going to jail? Feministing.com seems to think so, as well as approving of violence against men.

Male nurses face discrimination

Male nurses in the United Kingdom cannot give intimate procedures female patient without a chaperon, yet female nurses can provide such an operation to male patients with no male chaperon present, according to the National Health Service’s policy.

The policy was based on the misandrist assumption that ”all men are sexual predators, untrustworthy, and voyeuristic”, according to this Telegraph article.

Chaperones are routinely offered to female patients when an intimate procedure will be given to them by a male nurse, but not vise-versa (male patients are not offered male chaperones when a female nurse will give them an intimate procedure).

The victim–Andrew Moyhing–sued claiming male nurses are treated like second-class citizens, but his case was denied by the tribunal. He was later backed-up by the Equal Opportunity Commission and managed to successfully alter the court’s decision. Moyhing was awarded £750 in compensation, which he refused as to not divert resources from the NHS.