If men could become pregnant, would the right to an abortion be under threat?

[AlonzoMourning23]

If men could become pregnant, would the right to an abortion be under threat?

[Pookie]

No. But they think they rule over women, and when was the last time you heard about battered men compared to battered women?
Purrs,

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, I've heard a lot about battered men. Though you don't stumble on that stuff, you have to go looking for it. Men are too ashamed.

It's odd, every time I mention that in a discussion women are almost always interested, while men think it's funny, don't care or blame the man. The only real exception are the 2 men I've known who were beaten by ex lovers.

[Pookie]

Well then maybe you guys better speak up because last I saw, our shelter was full of battered women.
Purrs,

[AlonzoMourning23]

The vast majority of battered men don't report it, they're ashamed. I think it's about 10-20% of victims are estimated to be men, and the symptoms of abuse for the victim are pretty much the same, but men tend to hide it and blame themselves more than women. They're also often not taken seriously by police when they do report it, and many shelters won't take them.

edit: I should be the off topic king. I even take my own threads off topic.

[Pookie]

Well, to be honest, if men were not mostly doing the beatings and abuse, why are there shelters full of women and children?
I was a cop for seven years. Never saw a battered man, but I sure did see a LOT of bloody women and children. Some had life-threatening injuries. Many died.
That is not fun.
Purrs,

[Professor]

edit: I should be the off topic king. I even take my own threads off topic.


I, Professor, in all my power and wisdom crown you, Zo, the off topic king. May your reign be filled with many unforseen and off topic comments.


They're also often not taken seriously by police when they do report it, and many shelters won't take them.


I could understand why the shelters wouldn't take them, for the safety of the women inside. But the police teasing them is unacceptable.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, to be honest, if men were not mostly doing the beatings and abuse, why are there shelters full of women and children?
I was a cop for seven years. Never saw a battered man, but I sure did see a LOT of bloody women and children. Some had life-threatening injuries. Many died.
That is not fun.
Purrs,


More than 830,000 men fall victim to domestic violence every year, which means every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey. While more than 1.5 million women are also victims, everyone -- no matter their sex --deserves help.

"Domestic violence is not about size, gender, or strength," says Jan Brown, executive director and founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. "It's about abuse, control, and power, and getting out of dangerous situations and getting help, whether you are a woman being abused, or a man."

There are more than 4,000 domestic violence programs in the U.S., but Brown says very few actually offer the same services to men as they do women. So where can a man turn for support when he is being abused? Domestic violence experts offer advice for men who may be falling through the cracks.

Abuse Against Men
"Domestic violence against men is very similar to domestic violence against women," says Brown. "It can come in the form of physical abuse, emotional, verbal, or financial."

As with abuse against women, Brown explains that abuse against men can mean a partner or spouse will:

Withhold approval, appreciation, or affection as punishment

Criticize, name call, or shout
Take away your car keys or money
Regularly threaten to leave or to make you leave
Threaten to hurt you or a family member
Punish or deprive your children when angry at you
Threaten to kidnap the children if you leave
Abuse or hurt your pets
Harass you about affairs your spouse imagines you are having
Manipulate you with lies and contradictions
Destroy furniture, punch holes in walls, break appliances
Wield a gun/knife in a threatening way
Hit, kick, shove, punch, bite, spit, or throw things when upset
In one instance, Brown received a letter from a woman who said her brother was being abused by his wife, who would scratch him, throw things at him, point a gun at him, break his eyeglasses, and flush his medications down the toilet -- among other things.

"The sister said in her letter that her brother stitched a cut on his arm himself, with a thread and needle, because his wife had cut him and he didn't want to go to the hospital," says Brown. "Can you imagine being so embarrassed that your wife hits you that you do that?"

That is a distinguishing factor between battered women and battered men, explains Brown: Men -- like this one -- are more likely to be embarrassed by their abuse, making them less likely to report it, according to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men web site, which states men often worry, "What will people think if they knew I let a woman beat up on me?" and "I don't want to be laughed at; no one would believe me."

Another distinguishing factor is that while women who are abused are more likely to be pushed or shoved, beat up, or threatened with a gun, the women who do the abusing are more likely to throw something, kick or bite, hit with an object, threaten with a knife, or actually use a knife, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey.

And perhaps the most important difference is that women who batter may have a greater ability to use the "system" to their advantage.

"Systemic abuse can occur when a woman who is abusing her husband or boyfriend threatens that he will never see his children again if he leaves or reports the abuse," says Philip Cook, program director of Stop Abuse for Everyone. "A man caught in this situation believes that no matter what his wife or girlfriend does, the court is going to give her custody, and this greatly limits his ability to leave. While this can occur when a woman is being abused, it is more likely to happen when a woman is abusing."

Women, explains Cook, who is author of Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, may also be able to use the system to their advantage in that they are less likely to be arrested if police are called as a result of a domestic dispute.

"There is no national data on average arrest rates for women in domestic disputes," says Cook. "My best guess is that it's about 20%. But we do know anecdotally that there are many men who, when the police arrive, clearly have the most serious injury, clearly when interviewed separately indicate the female started it, and nonetheless, the man gets arrested. This does indeed happen."

So where can men who are being abused turn for support, and what steps should they take to get out of dangerous situations?

Getting Help
The first step in getting help is reaching out.

"The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men is the only one in the nation that offers support and help in finding resources specifically for men," says Brown, of the not-for-profit helpline. "We'll provide options and support and help a man understand that the abuse is not his fault and it is not acceptable. The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men can be reached from anywhere in the nation, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by calling (877) 643-1120 and entering PIN number 0757."

Other helplines, such as the National Domestic Violence Hotline, can also offer support to men but aren't as tailored to do so as the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men.

"What people should know is that abuse is about power and control, and regardless of whether the victim is a man or a woman, it is never OK," says Havilah Tower-Perkins, media relations coordinator for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. "We urge anyone whose relationship scares them to call the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) at (800) 799-SAFE (7233) or the TTY line for the deaf: (800) 787-3224. The Hotline is staffed 24 hours a day, year round with live advocates who can answer questions, discuss safety options, and connect callers to resources in their local area. Every call to NDVH is anonymous."

Stopping the Abuse
Other steps for men who are being abused to take include:

"Never allow yourself to be provoked into any kind of retaliation," says Brown. "We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested."
"Document everything," says Cook. "Go to your doctor and tell him what happened, even if he doesn't ask how you were injured. Take photographs of your injuries, and make sure if the police are called that they take a report, and get a copy of the report for yourself."
"Work with an advocate from a domestic violence program to get a restraining order," says Brown. "Not only will this help protect you from an abusive partner, but it will also allow you to ask for temporary custody of your children in order to protect them from the domestic violence."
Get counseling so you can start healing, and get legal advice, says Cook.
Talk with your family and friends who can help support you. "They will understand," says Brown.
"Abusers are good at making you feel isolated and alone, but you're not," says Brown. "We get calls from all types of people -- doctors, lawyers, laborers, people in the military. The biggest hurdle they face is finding someone who believes them. If they are believed, they can get help, and that's why we're here."


http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/help-for-battered-men?page=2

[Pookie]

How many died last year?
Purrs,

[AlonzoMourning23]

Pookie, you're doing a good job of illustrating my point that people don't take domestic violence against men seriously. That's the reason why you never hear about it, though the numbers indicate that such silence is not justifiable.

But, in response to your question:

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

The homicide statistics where taken from here: Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003

[Buck Laser]

Well then maybe you guys better speak up because last I saw, our shelter was full of battered women.
Purrs,


It does happen that women abuse men, and the results can be devastating. On another forum where I post, we had a regular member who claimed that his wife abused him. He wasn't very open about the details, but one specific thing he was very forthright about was that his wife had an abortion when he wanted her to carry the baby to term. Though he was otherwise quite liberal, he grew irrationally angry on the subject of abortion--so angry, in fact that abortion was his only issue. He was eventually banned from the forum for refusing to stop attacking pro-choice posters on the Forum.

So yes, I think men can be battered, at least psychologically, in a marriage. And verbal/psychological abuse can produce real pain.

[Pookie]

I don't know, Buck -- it seems that guy had an anger management issue if he was that bad. God only knows what he was doing to his wife with that kind of anger. Seems there was only one side of the issue. To properly judge, you really need both sides.
Purrs,

[Professor]

This is a problem, though not as common as the women being abused. I still don't think the men should be housed in the same shelter as the women either.

Buck, I'm sorry for the other member. Do you know what happened to him? I hope everything is okay.

[Pookie]

Plus, this is the computer. You never really know what what really happening in real life to that woman whose man was upset and had an anger issue over it. Forums are a field day for many liars, honey. You have to understand that -- I've seen it.
Purrs,

[wonder cow]

There is no right to an abortion in the constitution as far as I can tell. So yes, there would still be a threat to overturn Roe v Wade considering it was an absurd ruling and a perfect example of a court interjecting its opinion of "goodness" into the constitution. Some like to use the quaint term "judicial activism".

[AlonzoMourning23]

Plus, this is the computer. You never really know what what really happening in real life to that woman whose man was upset and had an anger issue over it. Forums are a field day for many liars, honey. You have to understand that -- I've seen it.
Purrs,


It's kind of interesting, someone says a guy is abused and the next thing it's turned around into the guy being abusive. Wonder why men don't think they'll be taken seriously.

[lily]

Pookie........you can't mean that you think that there isn't a woman out there who would beat their husband, after seeing what some can do to their children?

But yes, I think if men had to make the decision about abortion, it would stay legal. If they had to carry the fetus for 9 months, go through labor, then end up raising the child all on their own, you betcha they would want it to stay.

[Pookie]

Thank you, Lily, that was a great point!
Purrs,

[Pookie]

Also, I have something else to say. Dang right people do not believe men are abused. If men are abused, then what is their problem? Abused women have gotten out there and made their voices heard and they have gotten things DONE as far as abusers.
Now where are the guys? Hello?
Pardon me, but if there are abused men and you don't speak out and raise hell like the women, there is one word for that. It has to do with being wimpy.
Purrs,

[AlonzoMourning23]

Also, I have something else to say. Dang right people do not believe men are abused. If men are abused, then what is their problem? Abused women have gotten out there and made their voices heard and they have gotten things DONE as far as abusers.
Now where are the guys? Hello?
Pardon me, but if there are abused men and you don't speak out and raise hell like the women, there is one word for that. It has to do with being wimpy.
Purrs,


Wow that's just completely and utterly disgusting. I can't imagine the reaction if someone came out and attacked women like that for not speaking up about their abuse. If someone said that they'd never hear the end of it, yet somehow it's acceptable to say that about men.

Seriously, that's what I'd expect stoner to say, not you.

I'm going to post these again:

More than 830,000 men fall victim to domestic violence every year, which means every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey. While more than 1.5 million women are also victims, everyone -- no matter their sex --deserves help.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/help-for-battered-men?page=2

In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

[lily]

Also, I have something else to say. Dang right people do not believe men are abused. If men are abused, then what is their problem? Abused women have gotten out there and made their voices heard and they have gotten things DONE as far as abusers.
Now where are the guys? Hello?
Pardon me, but if there are abused men and you don't speak out and raise hell like the women, there is one word for that. It has to do with being wimpy.
Purrs,



hmmmm..........then what is your opinion of women who don't report a rape?

You are stero-typing both men and women with this comment. Women must be demure and feminine at all times, men must be the strong bousterous ones. As Zo has mentioned, this is why men don't report abuse. I mean no offense, Pookie.....but I would think someone with your training would have picked up on this sometime and not noticed it?

[Keramac]

In all honesty I think that this off-topic discussion is quite a bit more interesting than the original one. I have often thought that men are made out as inferior to women, in terms of needing help. Even in this post, we have seen brutal and unwarranted attacks on men in need of help, and the minimization of a problem, just because it was happening to men. Battered women? They are in horrible situations and need as much help as they can get. Battered men? Well, they don't exist. Oh, they do? Well, then they're just wimps. Who, besides me, finds this disgusting?

I am not a sexist. I believe that women should be equal to men. But I don't believe that men should be belittled, stripped of rights (pursuit of happiness, anyone?), humiliated and degraded in comparison with women. Women should be equal, not greater.

When did Women's Liberation become the Dehumanization of Men?

Another interesting topic this brings up is that of the "Feminization of Education." I am too tired to write up about it right now, but here's an article to get you guys started:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html

[lily]

Interesting article Keramac. In just a generation it seems the roles have been reversed. Men went to college, women stayed home and raised families. A generation earlier and women were rare in college and men were prominent.

[Keramac]

I have noticed that exact phenomenon in my everyday life. Classic gender roles that shortchanged women have not just been equalized, they have been inverted. I truly believe men are being given the short end of the stick in many parts of our society. Also, I was reading over my last post, and I think one of the sentences could have been worded better:

"I want gender equality, not just a reversal of past biases."

is a much better wording.

Cheers

[AlonzoMourning23]

Men are more likely to do physical labor and that is often a respectable job. Jobs women are more likely to enter are much less likely to be respectable without a degree.

But most of the studies I've seen, and most of the professors and teachers I've had, it's easier to be taken seriously if you're male. It's easier to get away with certain behavior, such as talking to other students or not paying attention, if you're male.

We're dealing with a different generation here, but I remember in high school all the girls who participated in junior hig participated less and less as they advanced through high school.

Though I think I'd probably qualify as more of a feminist than many others here. And feminism isn't about devaluing men, it's about equality. Still is, and mostly always was.

[Keramac]

I have nothing against feminism. Equality is great. It's when the tables turn and feminism turns into devaluing men that I have a problem with it. Although in many areas men are taken more seriously than women, when it comes to education, schools are increasingly pampering girls. I am in Junior High right now, and I can assure you that the rules and restrictions of the classroom are tuned more towards boys than girls. Boys get less time to talk then girls, on a per capita basis, and they get off much easier for the same delinquent actions. On a national level, girls score much higher than boys in High Schools. When boys score higher on the SAT, feminist organizations across the country cried out that SATs are biased towards boys, because girls scored higher in school. What's wrong with this picture?

The idea of the feminization of education is a very relevant topic and I urge everyone to read up on it. Once again:

EQUALITY = GOOD

INVERSION OF PAST TRENDS = NOT GOOD

[AlonzoMourning23]

Ker, I'm confused about whether you're saying boys score higher on SAT's or used to:

2006 scores:

Critical Reading Scores
Men 505
Women 502

Mathematics Scores
2005 2006
Men 536
Women 502

Writing Section
Men 491
Women 502
SOURCE: The College Board


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:XUVCPwVlOwIJ:chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i03/03a00101.htm+sat+scores+men+women&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

What's this about women outperforming men on SAT's?

And do you know of any studies that show teachers and professors have changed and now favor women?

[Keramac]

The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although females earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT I scores were 39 points lower in 20002 (34 on the SAT-Math and 5 on SAT-Verbal). College Board research has shown that both the Verbal and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males scored 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses.

All the images in the classroom are of women, and as one feminist noted "perhaps for the first time, boys are the ones looking through the window."{20} While each student is required to perform a dramatic dialogue in the author's voice, the boys are forced to do works by women. One little boy attempts to lip-synch a song by blues singer Etta James, and when the other boys giggle they are chastised for their insensitivity.{21} During a history class the girls are encouraged to discuss how boys are sexual predators. The teacher is excited to see how angry the girls are getting. Although one boy tries to defend his gender, another admits to an interviewer, "I couldn't really defend myself, because it's true. Men are pigs, you know?"{22}

Here’s a fact that has received little attention. On American college campuses, the ratio of women to men is approaching 60 – 40. Of every 100 students who entered college last fall, 58 were women. That isn’t a one-year anomaly either. The trend of more women and fewer men in college has been going on for decades. UNC-Chapel Hill is typical. The incoming class of 2010 was only 41.6 percent male

The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Miseducation of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.

The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ‘sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.

Boys are in trouble. Yet despite glaring inequities, the tired myth of the shortchanged girl remains strong enough to seize another $2.9 million from taxpayers last year for an outdated federal program.

Seems as though boys are getting shortchanged, doesn't it?

I will not and am not saying that girls should be discriminated against, I am just saying that there are glaring biases towards girls in the education system, and these biases need to be fixed.

Sources:

http://www.iwf.org/pdf/IWFPolicyPaper604_web.pdf
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/fem-schools.html
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=775
http://fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/old-WILLA/fall95/DeSimone.html
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm190802.htm

[AlonzoMourning23]

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/fem-schools.html- blatant religious and conservative agenda
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/a...php?id=775-opinion article
http://fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm- not relevant to the issue of inequality
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/old-...imone.html- unrelated article about charlotte gilman
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm190802.htm - opinion article

This is the only halfway decent one: http://www.iwf.org/pdf/IWFPolicyPaper604_web.pdf , a summary of certain studies done by an organization that disputes any sort of real gender gap in education, work etc.

But none of these even address the points I'm getting at. There is a lot in the culture that influences male and female behavior and the lack of academic success by males, and some traditionally male jobs pay decently and don't require a degree. Though males begin getting close to female when it comes to masters degrees, and are more likely to get a PHD, as was even pointed out in one of your links.

I'm asking for studies that show that when a male and a female student both behave the same way in class, they are, unlike previous studies, treated equally or the female is favored.

[crimzonsol]

Al, The problem is that males and females don't act the same in class. No study could show that, because no way to accurately test bias exists, short of actually going in to a class and recording everything that happens. Plus when it comes to bias there is to many things that could ruin the test. Things like the teacher having a bad day, previous interactions with the student and many other things would skew the results of any test that attempted to see the bias in schools.

[Keramac]

OK, here's the honest truth. I am a junior open beginner debater at my school, and one of the topics was about standardized testing. I asked my teacher what she thought about the subject, and she told me to look up the feminization of the education system. It interested me, so I did. Some of the things I saw and read really shocked me, and had hard and solid evidence to back them up. One problem though: I can't find all the websites that I looked at before. So, I'm sorry that I can't present you with that information. The variety of quotes i gave you before were compiled in about eight minutes by Googling "feminization of education". Now, about the sources.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/f...ools.html- blatant religious and conservative agenda
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/a...75-opinion article
http://fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm- not relevant to the issue of inequality
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/old-...imone.html- unrelated article about charlotte gilman
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm190802.htm - opinion article


If you take a quick look at my name, it says "Proud Atheist" and "Liberal". I am quite non-religious, to the point of anti-religious. So, I was mortified to learn that one of my sources was strongly conservative and *gasp* religious. However, this does not mean that all of the information on that site should be immediately disregarded either. While it is not the best source, I don't think that it should be shrugged off so nonchalantly.

You say that the second one is an opinion article. It is a perspectives piece, yes, but that does not mean that the information contained therein is not reliable. In fact, the author of the article is the Executive Director of the Institute of Higher Learning, placing him fairly high on a scale of credibility.

I included the FairTest link because it clearly stated that boys received lower scores in High School and College. The purpose of including it was too show you that girls do, in fact, receive higher marks, on average, in the school system.

The biography of Charlotte Gildman was included by mistake. When I was compiling my sources, it popped up in my history, so I included it. If you look, there are five quotes and six sources. This is the sixth source. Sorry for any confusion.

You also stated that pws.prserv.net... was an opinion piece. It is an article written by Melanie Phillips, a fairly well-known London-based author and columnist. It was written for the Daily Mail, not as an opinion piece but as a factual article. I think that newspaper articles fall into the category of reliable sources.

So, I think that schools shortchange boys and that my sources are, with the exception of one, still valid. You also asked for a study stating that girls received different treatment when committing the same indiscretion as a boy. I am sorry to say that I cannot find you one at the present time, but I still think that the other information I have presented is solid enough to make a fairly convincing case for the shortchanging of boys by the school system.

One last thing, Zo. I would just say that I've been reading some of your posts, and I must say you've impressed me. You're an intelligent and well-written person. If only my school were populated with people with your skills, going there everyday might be halfway interesting!

Cheers,

PS: About the idea of men being able to get manual labor jobs - yes, men can work in construction and other physically based occupations, but these jobs are usually low paying with very few benefits. Imagine what it would sound like to make the same argument the other way around: Well, we shouldn't worry about the fact girls are shortchanged in school because they can get jobs in low-paying traditionally female jobs like as a nanny or maid. Doesn't quite sound right, does it?

PPS: Sorry about all the long posts. I'm not very succinct in my writing.

[stannis]

How is infanticide a 'right', anyway?

[Pookie]

Back to the topic:
So, if so many men are being abused, let them speak out!
We seem to forget that many women who have spoken out were killed. Men have often killed their entire families, the famous one being Dr. Jeffery McDonald, who claimed a bunch of hippies killed his family a la Mason style.
Let the wimpy-assed guys come forward and put their rights, just like our mistreated, battered, hated, and beaten women and children
It is the man's fault that this goes unnoticed.
Four words for you boys:
Get off your asses.
Purrs,

[AlonzoMourning23]

OK, here's the honest truth. I am a junior open beginner debater at my school, and one of the topics was about standardized testing. I asked my teacher what she thought about the subject, and she told me to look up the feminization of the education system. It interested me, so I did. Some of the things I saw and read really shocked me, and had hard and solid evidence to back them up. One problem though: I can't find all the websites that I looked at before. So, I'm sorry that I can't present you with that information. The variety of quotes i gave you before were compiled in about eight minutes by Googling "feminization of education". Now, about the sources.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/f...ools.html- blatant religious and conservative agenda
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/a...75-opinion article
http://fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm- not relevant to the issue of inequality
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/old-...imone.html- unrelated article about charlotte gilman
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm190802.htm - opinion article


If you take a quick look at my name, it says "Proud Atheist" and "Liberal". I am quite non-religious, to the point of anti-religious. So, I was mortified to learn that one of my sources was strongly conservative and *gasp* religious. However, this does not mean that all of the information on that site should be immediately disregarded either. While it is not the best source, I don't think that it should be shrugged off so nonchalantly.

You say that the second one is an opinion article. It is a perspectives piece, yes, but that does not mean that the information contained therein is not reliable. In fact, the author of the article is the Executive Director of the Institute of Higher Learning, placing him fairly high on a scale of credibility.

I included the FairTest link because it clearly stated that boys received lower scores in High School and College. The purpose of including it was too show you that girls do, in fact, receive higher marks, on average, in the school system.

The biography of Charlotte Gildman was included by mistake. When I was compiling my sources, it popped up in my history, so I included it. If you look, there are five quotes and six sources. This is the sixth source. Sorry for any confusion.

You also stated that pws.prserv.net... was an opinion piece. It is an article written by Melanie Phillips, a fairly well-known London-based author and columnist. It was written for the Daily Mail, not as an opinion piece but as a factual article. I think that newspaper articles fall into the category of reliable sources.

So, I think that schools shortchange boys and that my sources are, with the exception of one, still valid. You also asked for a study stating that girls received different treatment when committing the same indiscretion as a boy. I am sorry to say that I cannot find you one at the present time, but I still think that the other information I have presented is solid enough to make a fairly convincing case for the shortchanging of boys by the school system.

One last thing, Zo. I would just say that I've been reading some of your posts, and I must say you've impressed me. You're an intelligent and well-written person. If only my school were populated with people with your skills, going there everyday might be halfway interesting!

Cheers,

PS: About the idea of men being able to get manual labor jobs - yes, men can work in construction and other physically based occupations, but these jobs are usually low paying with very few benefits. Imagine what it would sound like to make the same argument the other way around: Well, we shouldn't worry about the fact girls are shortchanged in school because they can get jobs in low-paying traditionally female jobs like as a nanny or maid. Doesn't quite sound right, does it?

PPS: Sorry about all the long posts. I'm not very succinct in my writing.


I think what this comes down to is that the issues you raise I don't see as a result of schools favoring girls, but that the reasons are due to the society outside of school. Until I see studies showing schools themselves are favoring girls that's what I'll continue to believe, as that is what previous studies have shown, and what my experience, not that I'm saying that that's a reliable gauge, has shown.

How is infanticide a 'right', anyway?

I'm not sure you understand what an infant is:

infant: baby: a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=infant

Back to the topic:
So, if so many men are being abused, let them speak out!
We seem to forget that many women who have spoken out were killed. Men have often killed their entire families, the famous one being Dr. Jeffery McDonald, who claimed a bunch of hippies killed his family a la Mason style.
Let the wimpy-assed guys come forward and put their rights, just like our mistreated, battered, hated, and beaten women and children
It is the man's fault that this goes unnoticed.
Four words for you boys:
Get off your asses.
Purrs,

I stared at this for 10 minutes. I thought up many responses, responses that were cruel, sarcastic and serious. But I don't think this deserves a response. Even this non-response response is more than your opinion on this deserves.

Maybe there's something in your history that explains this, maybe there's some substance you're on, I don't know, and I can't assume anything. This is just at odds with everything I've seen you post, and I have to take it seriously because trolling is also at odds with everything I've seen of you.

[Keramac]

I guess that our little debate has come to a stand-off and we will have to agree to disagree. It was a pleasure discussing this with you.

Quote:
Back to the topic:
So, if so many men are being abused, let them speak out!
We seem to forget that many women who have spoken out were killed. Men have often killed their entire families, the famous one being Dr. Jeffery McDonald, who claimed a bunch of hippies killed his family a la Mason style.
Let the wimpy-assed guys come forward and put their rights, just like our mistreated, battered, hated, and beaten women and children
It is the man's fault that this goes unnoticed.
Four words for you boys:
Get off your asses.
Purrs,

I stared at this for 10 minutes. I thought up many responses, responses that were cruel, sarcastic and serious. But I don't think this deserves a response. Even this non-response response is more than your opinion on this deserves.

Maybe there's something in your history that explains this, maybe there's some substance you're on, I don't know, and I can't assume anything. This is just at odds with everything I've seen you post, and I have to take it seriously because trolling is also at odds with everything I've seen of you.


HEAR, HEAR!!

I just think for the sake of fairness I should write the inverse of this post: So, if so many women are being abused, let them speak out!
We seem to forget that many men who have spoken out were killed. Women have often killed their entire families, the famous one being Mary Ann Cotton, who killed 15-21 of her relatives.
Let the wimpy-assed girls come forward and put their rights, just like our mistreated, battered, hated, and beaten men and children
It is the woman's fault that this goes unnoticed.
Four words for you girls:
Get off your asses.

I think that it doesn't sound so politically correct anymore, does it?

[lily]

Back to the topic:
So, if so many men are being abused, let them speak out!
We seem to forget that many women who have spoken out were killed. Men have often killed their entire families, the famous one being Dr. Jeffery McDonald, who claimed a bunch of hippies killed his family a la Mason style.
Let the wimpy-assed guys come forward and put their rights, just like our mistreated, battered, hated, and beaten women and children
It is the man's fault that this goes unnoticed.
Four words for you boys:
Get off your asses.
Purrs,


Sorry Pookie........but Jeffrey McDonald has about as much to do with this discussion as Susan Smith has.

I don't understand why you keep belittling men who get beat up by their wives, it seems that you are giving the same reaction that would keep them from filing a complaint.

As I said, I don't see how this couldn't be a problem, men beat their wives and children.......women beat their husbands and children. It's a part of nature no one wants to talk about.

I honestly don't mean to hurt your feelings, but with this type of attitude and the jobs you have held. I sincerely hope that you didn't come across a male victim and just dismiss it, because you didn't believe it could happen and send him back to his hell hole, just because he was a man. I would hope your training would have told you what the signs were, just as you were probably trained to spot a wife beater and your prejudice didn't get in your way.

[manu1959]

http://www.batteredmen.com/

Battered Men - The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence
835,000 men battered each year, silent too long ...

LOOKS LIKE IT HAPPENS TO A FEW GUYS....

[lily]

Interesting link. Thanks manu. I totally forgot about Phil Hartman.

[Pookie]

My point! Get the men to speak up as women have been encouraged to speak up! Men need to get off their butts and do something just like women have done! THEN we will see a change, and a better change for everyone -- male and female -- caught up in the horrors of abuse. People need to write their congressmen on this issue, as I have already done, plus call them (I did, it's not scary) and raise Cain!
I'll make a deal with you guys who might be going through this -- PM me and we'll talk, and if you can't try to make a change, we'll find a way. It worked for women and children, didn't it? It can work for you guys too.
For anyone -- male or female -- who is/are going through abuse, please please get help.
You just don't deserve it.
I care for all of you.
Pookie

[preservanation]

Are you kidding, if men had to bear children, the human race would have been extinct long ago.:D

[Marley]

If you're a real man, you do "get pregnant."

You become a father just a mother becomes a mother.

Sacrificing and striving to provide for a family is the same whether it's streching your uterus like a Jiffy Pop or working your ass off to cover bills.

[Marley]

And please, women, spare us the BS, you aren't victims of jacksh*t at the hands of men.

The wealth of the world is owned my women, the men who went out and earned it died in the process, leaving you holding the (filled) bag.

Women get whatever they want, whther it's a drink at the bar, or the house at the other bar (i.e. Bar Association)

[1Samuel8]

If abortionists paid for their services (that includes protecting themselves and getting themselves to and from the abortion) entirely themselves, abortion would not be a controversy.

The "right" to abortion is a diversionary comedic fiction. There is no threat to the "right to abortion" in a concrete sense. The only threat is to the right to self-defense and freedom of body or person. The real-life problem is caused by our common acceptance "public" property and "public" services.

Try the following thought experiment: replace "abortion" with "expectoration" and see what you get.
Lo and behold!
You do NOT need permission from anybody to spit on your own property. It makes sense that you have the right to spit on your own property. It makes sense that nobody could object to you spitting on your own property.
You do need permission from somebody to spit on somebody else's property. It makes sense that you do NOT have the right to spit on somebody else's property. It makes sense that somebody could object to you spitting on somebody else's property.
A hypothetical anti-expectoration advocate would be violating your property rights and your right to your body.
Most importantly, you would NOT call on the services of the State to enforce or even arbitrate any of these rights.

Now, replace "expectoration" with "picking your nose and flicking it" just for laughs.

If your right to your body is supremely respected, that includes letting you have an abortion. Unfortunately, in our current State of affairs, people like to hide behind statesmen and bureaucrats to gang up on other people when they do not have the courage to do things face to face. We inconsistently object to violence on the one hand and endorse it on the other without any logical consistency between the two.


Women get whatever they want, whther it's a drink at the bar, or the house at the other bar (i.e. Bar Association)Excellent quote!

[AlonzoMourning23]

If abortionists paid for their services (that includes protecting themselves and getting themselves to and from the abortion) entirely themselves, abortion would not be a controversy.


So you think the violent protestors should get their way? I'm a bit confused by that last response, can't see what you're really arguing.

[1Samuel8]

I am cryptically arguing in support of absolute private property rights and against public property.So you think the violent protestors should get their way?No. People who support abortion should be allowed to own their own property andset up safe-havens for people who want abortions without any influence from anybody else. In a practical sense, these would be like a mini-fortress with their own private security guards. Thus, anti-abortionists would not even be able to come close. [Try to be creative and imagine an abortion center that also provides armed guards to and from your home. They might even include a hotel accomodation before and after the abortion. Something like that.] Right now, these other ancillary costs of abortion are brushed off onto the State and the abortionist and the pregnant women do not bear the full cost of their services. They expect the police to protect them but the police have to be neutral.

The problem we face is that abortionists and anti-abortionists BOTH claim ownership of public spaces and public protection. That is unfair. It is unfair for one side of the debate to use the powers of the State against the other side of the debate.

It is unfair for the government (and anti-abortionist lobby groups) to impose a law which supercedes individual property rights. Unfortunately, that is how we want our government to function. Thus, highly divisive issues like abortion will NEVER be solved peacefully.

[AlonzoMourning23]

They expect the police to protect them but the police have to be neutral.


Since when aren't police supposed to protect people from harm? If people are threatening me outside my home, why aren't I entitled to police protection? I shouldn't have to hire armed guards or get nothing.

I don't see how police protecting people effects their neutrality. If an anti-abortion protestor were being beaten they'd protect them and no one would whine about neutrality.

[1Samuel8]

Since when aren't police supposed to protect people from harm?In most jurisdictions, they never really were supposed to protect people.
Find a law that places a responsibility upon the police to protect.

Let me quote this article at length: Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#2) 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3] (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#3)

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#4) There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5] (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#5) Peter Kasler (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html)

If people are threatening me outside my home, why aren't I entitled to police protection? I shouldn't have to hire armed guards or get nothing.Personally, I think you should pay for it yourself.

I don't see how police protecting people effects their neutrality. If an anti-abortion protestor were being beaten they'd protect them and no one would whine about neutrality.I am not so confident because police are human beings and they can not be physically everywhere at all times. Ultimately, they must make subjective choices.
Let me make the situation more complicated by eliciting your opinion on a violent anti-abortion protestor. If a police officer had to choose between rescuing:
1) a violent anti-abortion protestor brandishing a knife being beaten by a crowd
2) a pregnant woman walking to an abortion clinic being beaten by a crowd
but he can not do both, who would you expect (I am not saying should) him to rescue first?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Do you want to provide a non opinion article that shows where the police aren't required to protect me from a particular person who is threatening me right now if I call them down? If I say a guy is threatening to kill me and he's outside and the police disregard my 911 call are you arguing that is their right?

1) a violent anti-abortion protestor brandishing a knife being beaten by a crowd
2) a pregnant woman walking to an abortion clinic being beaten by a crowd
but he can not do both, who would you expect (I am not saying should) him to rescue first?

A bad example. There's a clear criminal and a clearly innocent person. One of them is being harmed in the process of committing a crime.

[1Samuel8]

Do you want to provide a non opinion article that showsI did.
If you read it you would recognize that it contains references to actual precedents which re-iterate what I said.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The only one mentioned that isn't drawing conclusions beyond what is mentioned is a court case, which states that people may sue in federal court for having their rights violated and essentially to recieve the same result. But the article briefly describes things and then gives an interpretation.

Though even your article states that in some cases police are required to protect, if you look at the citations.

[1Samuel8]

Though even your article states that in some cases police are required to protect, if you look at the citations.I challenge you to show where.

[AlonzoMourning23]

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.


But, again, the interpretation of legal cases by a libertarian website isn't something I find trustworthy. There are sites that argue that you don't have to pay taxes legally either.

[1Samuel8]

But, again,you fall short. That sole example does not prove your point.
It states that the only POSSIBLE exception would be IF the victim was IN CUSTODY of the police -- which was not in that case. Therefore, the responsibility of the police to protect her WOULD BE no different from yours or mine if she was in our custody.

There are sites that argue that you don't have to pay taxes legally either.Find them and show them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

samuel, again, it's an opinion article mentioning a few things.

But:

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

For the tax argument.

[preservanation]

...and if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass while hopping.

[Marley]

Men do become pregnant, but their partners do all the carrying.

Punk assed losers squirt their spunk and walk away, "men" take care of their own.