If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
Dang, I was hoping it was me this year. Oh well, better luck next year.
Anyway, congratulations!! ---------------------------------------------------- http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/30/...orrectness-is/ Carey Roberts Drum Roll! The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is. 2008-12-30 It's that time of the year - Christmas carols, shiny-wrapped presents, surprise visits by long-lost in-laws. And of course, our announcement of the annual Award for Political Incorrectness. Previous winners of this highly-sought after prize include California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who took up the dicey issue of paternity fraud; columnist Phyllis Schlafly ("Shame on members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages."); and Mark Inglis, the double-amputee who conquered Mt. Everest. Last year's unanimous winners were Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, the former Duke lacrosse players who bravely overcame a firestorm of rape hysteria unconscionably fanned by the media and university activists. Let's open the envelope for 2008. This year's award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive. When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor's assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed - women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence. When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression. There was a problem, but not with the research itself. The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem's breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well. So what's a good feminist to do about the good professor's research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right? So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.) In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor's wife: "I have never met a woman who looked so victimized." But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize. When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day - recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him. In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks. In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are "justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world." Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics. Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have "let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments." Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper he http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-ge...ethod%208-.pdf . Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:37:22 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:
Dang, I was hoping it was me this year. Oh well, better luck next year. Anyway, congratulations!! ---------------------------------------------------- http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/30/...orrectness-is/ Carey Roberts Drum Roll! The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is. 2008-12-30 It's that time of the year - Christmas carols, shiny-wrapped presents, surprise visits by long-lost in-laws. And of course, our announcement of the annual Award for Political Incorrectness. Previous winners of this highly-sought after prize include California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who took up the dicey issue of paternity fraud; columnist Phyllis Schlafly ("Shame on members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages."); and Mark Inglis, the double-amputee who conquered Mt. Everest. Last year's unanimous winners were Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, the former Duke lacrosse players who bravely overcame a firestorm of rape hysteria unconscionably fanned by the media and university activists. Let's open the envelope for 2008. This year's award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive. When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor's assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed - women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence. When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression. There was a problem, but not with the research itself. The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem's breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well. So what's a good feminist to do about the good professor's research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right? So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.) In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor's wife: "I have never met a woman who looked so victimized." But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize. When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day - recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him. In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks. In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are "justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world." Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics. Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have "let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments." Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper he http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-ge...ethod%208-.pdf . Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness. For more information about this, see a piece by Wendy McElroy at http://www.ifeminists.com/introducti...2002/1112.html. As is, I think, brought out in Christina Hoff Sommers's book "Who Stole Feminism?" Straus -- as one of the very few people researching this issue -- was the darling of the feminists until his research produced results they didn't like. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:37:22 +0100, "Dusty" wrote: Dang, I was hoping it was me this year. Oh well, better luck next year. Anyway, congratulations!! ---------------------------------------------------- http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/30/...orrectness-is/ Carey Roberts Drum Roll! The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is. 2008-12-30 It's that time of the year - Christmas carols, shiny-wrapped presents, surprise visits by long-lost in-laws. And of course, our announcement of the annual Award for Political Incorrectness. Previous winners of this highly-sought after prize include California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who took up the dicey issue of paternity fraud; columnist Phyllis Schlafly ("Shame on members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages."); and Mark Inglis, the double-amputee who conquered Mt. Everest. Last year's unanimous winners were Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, the former Duke lacrosse players who bravely overcame a firestorm of rape hysteria unconscionably fanned by the media and university activists. Let's open the envelope for 2008. This year's award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive. When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor's assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed - women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence. When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression. There was a problem, but not with the research itself. The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem's breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well. So what's a good feminist to do about the good professor's research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right? So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.) In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor's wife: "I have never met a woman who looked so victimized." But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize. When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day - recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him. In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks. In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are "justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world." Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics. Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have "let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments." Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper he http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-ge...ethod%208-.pdf . Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness. For more information about this, see a piece by Wendy McElroy at http://www.ifeminists.com/introducti...2002/1112.html. As is, I think, brought out in Christina Hoff Sommers's book "Who Stole Feminism?" Straus -- as one of the very few people researching this issue -- was the darling of the feminists until his research produced results they didn't like. Men need to wake up and realize that feminism isn't about getting equal pay anymore! When your wife loots your bank account, shoots you in the back while you're sleeping and claims abuse as a defense and can walk away, that's a scary society to live in. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:11:13 -0800, DB wrote:
Men need to wake up and realize that feminism isn't about getting equal pay anymore! When your wife loots your bank account, shoots you in the back while you're sleeping and claims abuse as a defense and can walk away, that's a scary society to live in. You gotta start dating a different class of women... -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message ... On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:11:13 -0800, DB wrote: Men need to wake up and realize that feminism isn't about getting equal pay anymore! When your wife loots your bank account, shoots you in the back while you're sleeping and claims abuse as a defense and can walk away, that's a scary society to live in. You gotta start dating a different class of women... Well she was a Preacher's wife! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness is.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:07:20 -0800, "DB" wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message ... On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:11:13 -0800, DB wrote: Men need to wake up and realize that feminism isn't about getting equal pay anymore! When your wife loots your bank account, shoots you in the back while you're sleeping and claims abuse as a defense and can walk away, that's a scary society to live in. You gotta start dating a different class of women... Well she was a Preacher's wife! I realize the above is just a jocular comment. However, I think this is an interesting case. It's worth considering how the justice system may work in other similar cases. Yes, this murdering woman WAS a preacher's wife. However, once you read more about the case you find that she herself was a very dubious character, and not merely because she shot her sleeping husband in the back, and then left him to bleed to death, removing the phone so that he couldn't call 911. There are many indications that Mary Winkler is a manipulative sociopath. Don't date such women, even if they are preachers' widows! In fact, without wishing to be rash or dogmatic, I'd go wider than that, and advise against dating any woman who has murdered her husband. If you meet a new woman, ask her about this on the very first date! In addition to Winkler's involvement in what she knew were fraudulent banking transactions, her conduct while out on bail during the trial was disturbing (e.g. being recorded on someone's cell phone out drinking at a bar and making frivolous remarks about the killing). During the trial, she tried to murder her dead husband's reputation by claiming (unconvincingly) to have been an abused wife. What are the wider implications? Winkler got off with a very light sentence for killing her defenseless husband. According to Diane Fanning's "The Pastor's Wife" (http://www.dianefanning.com/truecrim...torswife.html), which I read recently, the light sentence was linked to the make-up of the jury, which was overwhelmingly female. There were only two men on this jury. One of the two male jurors said afterwards, "I was one of two guys and 10 women. And you know the balance there." This juror said the verdict might have been much different had it been a predominantly male jury (http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6406133). Overwhelmingly, the mainstream media ignored the issue of jury composition. Curiously, that issue was ignored even by the fathers' rights newsletters that commented on the subsequent custody dispute (Winkler got the children back). But it looks to me as if the defense won at the point at which the jury was picked. I wonder if prosecutors have factored this element into their calculations about similar murder cases in the future. We know about the court bias against men in custody and "child support" matters. However, this case illustrates that this bias can go further than that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
مسابقة جديده للفتيات والنساء من 15/1 /2008 الى 15/2 /2008 | نانسي عجرم | Child Support | 0 | January 17th 08 04:02 PM |
مسابقة جديده للفتيات والنساء من 15/1 /2008 الى 15/2 /2008 | نانسي عجرم | Child Support | 0 | January 17th 08 04:02 PM |
Review: The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (**) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | September 29th 05 09:12 PM |
"Tarnation" abuse in FC Cannes, Sundance film winner | Fern5827 | Foster Parents | 0 | October 18th 04 03:52 PM |
Kobe Bryant a winner at teen choice awards? | The Smiths | General | 9 | August 24th 03 07:10 PM |