From the "No duh!" files - Has bias pendulum swung against men?

Monday, February 20, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATTLE OF THE SEXES
Has bias pendulum
swung against men?
Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates,
shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - Watch network sitcoms and you will find the dolts are usually
men.

In TV commercials, it's always the kids or the mothers who know the real
score, not the fathers.


Affirmative-action programs by definition mean women get preference in
hiring, school admissions, contracts and promotions.

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless - or possibly
even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against
women - others are beginning to conclude that men are the real victims of
discrimination so virulent it is shortening their life spans, causing them
to be self-destructive and suicidal, crippling their educational
opportunities and destroying a generation of fatherless children.

Here are some sobering facts:


a.. Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women,
are now dying 10 years earlier.

b.. Boys have inferior reading and comprehension scores and lower
graduation rates than girls.

c.. Men are much less likely to pursue secondary degrees and university
graduate programs.

d.. The suicide rates for boys, young fathers and older men range from
four to 10 times higher than for their female counterparts.

e.. According to Dr. William Pollack of the Harvard Medical School Center
for Men, the general health of American males is in a state of serious
crisis.

f.. Men spend more and more time at work, as compared to women in similar
full-time jobs, and they engage in considerably more demanding and dangerous
career choices.
Those are just a few of the findings of a report of the New Hampshire
Commission on the Status of Men, one of several state panels convened to
re-evaluate assumptions about the role of men in society.

"That men would need help by way of a chartered commission to improve their
status seemed counterintuitive given the popular image of men as
independent, self-sufficient survivors, able to overcome the most difficult
of life's challenges on their own," said the commission in its report issued
in November. "Modern pressures, however, find men and their families
experiencing significant difficulties due to evolving values, health
problems, growing educational deficiencies and new socio-economic family
standards."


The commission found the school drop-out rates of boys much higher than for
girls. It found men treated unfairly by the family court system. It found
men often falsely accused of domestic violence not getting due process. It
found government programs for women getting far more funding than programs
for men.

In matters of health, for instance, breast cancer, a threat to women,
receives far more government funding for prevention and research than does
prostate cancer, a threat to men.

Nationwide, about 9 percent more men develop prostate cancer than women
develop breast cancer. Yet the federal government spends approximately seven
times more on breast cancer research ($550 million) than it does on prostate
cancer research ($80 million).

In fact mortality rates from all causes - cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
injuries, suicide - are significantly higher for men than women. The New
Hampshire commission found men are more than five times more likely to kill
themselves than women.

Perhaps nowhere is the bias against men so obvious than in matters of child
custody and support, the panel found. Fathers get custody of children in
uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time in
contested cases. Women get sole custody 66 percent of the time in
uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

This might make sense, the commissioners suggested, in a society in which
the workforce was dominated by men. However, according to the latest
statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, women now make up 47 percent of
the total labor force.

"Given the plethora of evidence documenting the benefits of involved fathers
with their children, and the present rate of female participation in the
workforce, the custody imbalance between fathers and mothers seems difficult
to justify," concluded the commission. "This commission suggests that the
governor of New Hampshire issue a proclamation declaring that both parents
are equally important for their children."

But the bias against men in the family courts is not limited to custody
cases, according to the commission.

"Men came forward during our public meetings to allege unfair treatment in
family court domestic violence proceedings and to allege that
unsubstantiated charges of domestic violence were being improperly used as
tools to place them at a distinct disadvantage in civil matters before
family court," the New Hampshire commissioners reported.

The word on the street, the commissioners learned, was that a woman could
readily gain immediate possession of children, home and other assets by
filing an "emergency" ex-parte domestic violence petition, claiming to be in
fear of her safety. The accused would then have an immediate restraining
order placed against him on a "temporary" basis without any hearing or
defense.

The commission also cited studies that show more than half of all domestic
violence is actually directed against men. It points out that the American
Judges Association website notes solemnly: "Every 15 seconds a women is
battered somewhere in the United States." What the website doesn't mention
is that every 14 seconds women batter their partners.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
BATTLE OF THE SEXES
Has bias pendulum
swung against men?
Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates,
shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Posted: February 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - Watch network sitcoms and you will find the dolts are usually
men.

In TV commercials, it's always the kids or the mothers who know the real
score, not the fathers.


Affirmative-action programs by definition mean women get preference in
hiring, school admissions, contracts and promotions.

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless - or possibly
even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices
against
women - others are beginning to conclude that men are the real victims of
discrimination so virulent it is shortening their life spans, causing them
to be self-destructive and suicidal, crippling their educational
opportunities and destroying a generation of fatherless children.

Here are some sobering facts:


a.. Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women,
are now dying 10 years earlier.

b.. Boys have inferior reading and comprehension scores and lower
graduation rates than girls.

c.. Men are much less likely to pursue secondary degrees and university
graduate programs.

d.. The suicide rates for boys, young fathers and older men range from
four to 10 times higher than for their female counterparts.

e.. According to Dr. William Pollack of the Harvard Medical School
Center
for Men, the general health of American males is in a state of serious
crisis.

f.. Men spend more and more time at work, as compared to women in
similar
full-time jobs, and they engage in considerably more demanding and
dangerous
career choices.
Those are just a few of the findings of a report of the New Hampshire
Commission on the Status of Men, one of several state panels convened to
re-evaluate assumptions about the role of men in society.

"That men would need help by way of a chartered commission to improve
their
status seemed counterintuitive given the popular image of men as
independent, self-sufficient survivors, able to overcome the most
difficult
of life's challenges on their own," said the commission in its report
issued
in November. "Modern pressures, however, find men and their families
experiencing significant difficulties due to evolving values, health
problems, growing educational deficiencies and new socio-economic family
standards."


The commission found the school drop-out rates of boys much higher than
for
girls. It found men treated unfairly by the family court system. It found
men often falsely accused of domestic violence not getting due process. It
found government programs for women getting far more funding than programs
for men.

In matters of health, for instance, breast cancer, a threat to women,
receives far more government funding for prevention and research than does
prostate cancer, a threat to men.

Nationwide, about 9 percent more men develop prostate cancer than women
develop breast cancer. Yet the federal government spends approximately
seven
times more on breast cancer research ($550 million) than it does on
prostate
cancer research ($80 million).

In fact mortality rates from all causes - cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
injuries, suicide - are significantly higher for men than women. The New
Hampshire commission found men are more than five times more likely to
kill
themselves than women.

Perhaps nowhere is the bias against men so obvious than in matters of
child
custody and support, the panel found. Fathers get custody of children in
uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time
in
contested cases. Women get sole custody 66 percent of the time in
uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

This might make sense, the commissioners suggested, in a society in which
the workforce was dominated by men. However, according to the latest
statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, women now make up 47 percent
of
the total labor force.

"Given the plethora of evidence documenting the benefits of involved
fathers
with their children, and the present rate of female participation in the
workforce, the custody imbalance between fathers and mothers seems
difficult
to justify," concluded the commission. "This commission suggests that the
governor of New Hampshire issue a proclamation declaring that both parents
are equally important for their children."

But the bias against men in the family courts is not limited to custody
cases, according to the commission.

"Men came forward during our public meetings to allege unfair treatment in
family court domestic violence proceedings and to allege that
unsubstantiated charges of domestic violence were being improperly used as
tools to place them at a distinct disadvantage in civil matters before
family court," the New Hampshire commissioners reported.

The word on the street, the commissioners learned, was that a woman could
readily gain immediate possession of children, home and other assets by
filing an "emergency" ex-parte domestic violence petition, claiming to be
in
fear of her safety. The accused would then have an immediate restraining
order placed against him on a "temporary" basis without any hearing or
defense.

The commission also cited studies that show more than half of all domestic
violence is actually directed against men. It points out that the American
Judges Association website notes solemnly: "Every 15 seconds a women is
battered somewhere in the United States." What the website doesn't mention
is that every 14 seconds women batter their partners.

And you're going to see that number climb. Why? Because men are well aware
that even though they MIGHT be successful in getting domestic violence
charges against their significant other to stick, they are also aware of the
fact that the subsequent separation will result in financial devastation;
something they are reluctant to experience. Thus they remain in the
relationship. And the battering women know this too.

The reason why it has become a matriarchy is because spineless men allow the
women which they have authority over to run amuck. Such disorder originates
in the home and eventually manifests itself in politics, law enforcement,
and others with the biggest guns.

As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

"Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when
needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now.

Interesting priorities.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already
way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their
own health care, and go see the doctor when needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers
there are now.

Interesting priorities.

More likely Moonie, it's because of the constant, incessant whining and
complaining from self-centered, egotistical little bitches (like the one's
at N.O.W., for example) that keep the spotlight directly on their so-called
"problems" - to the exclusion of all else. The radfems have plied their con
job on everyone for so long that people actually started to believe the bull
**** these fembots have spewed for the better part of the last 40 years.
And because females are such an oppressed people, they have a "need" to have
health care, just like damned near everything else, handed to them on a
silver platter.

Because these self-centered, self-obsessed females simply refuse to allow
any real issues to come to light, the plight of men and children will remain
in the shadows.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already
way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their
own health care, and go see the doctor when needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers
there are now.

Interesting priorities.

And you claim to not be sexist.
"In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of
sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in a
*large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend
to seek medical attention where none is needed.
Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men
or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men?

Phil #3

"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already
way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their
own health care, and go see the doctor when needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers
there are now.

Interesting priorities.

And you claim to not be sexist.
"In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version
of sexism, you failed to mention that. You also failed to mention that in
a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they
tend to seek medical attention where none is needed.
Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate
men or is it just too comfortable to blame all ills on men?

Phil #3

Oddly enough, in what she says, Moonstruck has a tiny part of the answer
to this question right. There IS evidence that men endanger their health by
being unwilling to go for checkups. Remedying this reluctance is part of
what responsible groups like the Men's Health Network are about. However,
Moonstruck's nasty comments about Viagra are only another indication of her
hatred of men. In fact, there is growing evidence that ED problems are an
indicator of other nonsexual health issues for men. So they SHOULD pay
attention to these problems.

Phil's comment about the underlying Moonstruck motivation is very much
to the point. Suppose it were women who were reluctant to go to the doctor.
We would see a huge amount of attention and taxpayer funding being devoted
to fixing the problem. Why? Because there are effective feminist interest
groups and women are the politically correct sex. No one would say that
women themselves were to blame.

The great disparity between the amount of resources directed at women's
health problems and those directed at men's is overwhelmingly the result of
the crudest kind of gender politics. It's a phenomenon that parallels
closely what happens in the domestic relations, educational, and quite a few
other areas. It's just another illustration of Warren Farrell's comment
that "in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up."

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already
way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their
own health care, and go see the doctor when
needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers
there are now.

Moonie - I have to admit you are right on about this issue. Your comment
above is one of the sad outcomes of feminist ideology. Once women rejected
the "Ozzie and Harriet" lifestyle and adopted the feminist attitudes to be
hostile and demeaning toward men, women stopped being "erection-helpers."
So to compensate for the way the "new woman" treated men, medical science
was forced to develop products and medications to replace the role women
used to play in male sexuality.

The feminist woman demands perfection from men or he is criticized for his
shortcomings if he doesn't measure up to her expectations. If you haven't
noticed, all the advertising for ED medications feature women encouraging
their men to go see their doctor so the women can get what they want from
the men. The message is clear - Men need to perform up to women's
expectations and anything less is unacceptable.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already
way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their
own health care, and go see the doctor when
needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers
there are now.

Interesting priorities.

Which proves my point. If men start being more responsible, then such
outcomes would be reversed. Women lack the ability to be responsible for
their own care, thus requiring government to take care of them. Whereas men,
who DO have the ability, ought to take care of themselves. Instead, the men
with the biggest guns are attacking the other men which forces them to spend
more time defending themselves as opposed to watching their health.

As for "erection-helpers"; perhaps if men had better lookin' wimmen, they
wouldn't need such aid.
Is your knowledge regarding such "erection-helpers" based on personal
experience?

"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when
needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now.

Interesting priorities.

And you claim to not be sexist.
"In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You
also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek
medical attention where none is needed.
Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame all
ills on men?

I blamed no ills on anyone - simply proposed a "maybe".

If men want more health care, why don't they just go get it? How did it become the women's fault that men don't seek
and obtain their own healthcare?



Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Chris" wrote in message news:gURKf.4181$Sp2.1801@fed1read02...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Monday, February 20, 2006

snip



As for health care, you hit the nail on the head. Why women, who already way
outlive men, get the lion's share of health care escapes me.

Maybe, at least in part, because men don't take responsibility for their own health care, and go see the doctor when
needed?

Unless it's to get viagra, or cialis, or whatever other erection-helpers there are now.

Interesting priorities.

And you claim to not be sexist.
"In part", women are the same, perhaps worse but to promote your version of sexism, you failed to mention that. You
also failed to mention that in a *large* part, women are quick to waste medical resources because they tend to seek
medical attention where none is needed.
Have you ever considered seeing a professional to discover why you hate men or is it just too comfortable to blame
all ills on men?

Phil #3

Oddly enough, in what she says, Moonstruck has a tiny part of the answer to this question right. There IS evidence
that men endanger their health by being unwilling to go for checkups. Remedying this reluctance is part of what
responsible groups like the Men's Health Network are about. However, Moonstruck's nasty comments about Viagra are
only another indication of her hatred of men.

That would be incorrect. I don't hate men. I found it mildly amusing that so many insurances, in the past, wouldn't
pay for birth control pills, but would pay for erection pills, however