And some more about MensReality.com. I choose a new thread because the original was somehow more about bob....

Interesting posts from that side:

MensReality

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist."

I was born in 1950. At the age of 10, I would sit and watch the civil- rights movement on television. I watched as Martin Luther King Jr. walked down the middle of a street with a lot of people following him. They were merely just walking. But those who lined the streets threw things at them, called them names, and hit them with sticks, and spiat on them. When King and his followers tried to enter a building, the police attacked them with sticks. I asked my father, who was also watching with me, what was going on. "I don't know, son" was his reply. But dad, I said, "you have to help those people." What he said next made me feel somewhat better. "I can't help those people, but I can help the black people I work with." He was a steel worker, and his best friend was a black man, whom I called Mr.Washington

Our family had a lot of good times with him and his family. Still do. I realized eventually that my father helped him simply by being his best friend, and not hiding that fact. Mr.Washington sobbed when my father died, as I did when Mr. and Mrs.Washington died.

In 1969, I enlisted in the Marine Corp, by the end of 1971, I was on a commercial airline with 256 other Marines and on my way home from Vietnam. I was, happy to be alive and proud to have helped the people of South Vietnam. And I could hardly wait to get home. We landed in Seattle, as we left the plane, I noticed a crowd waiting for us. What a great welcome, I thought. As we entered the terminal, they surrounded us. Suddenly, they started throwing things in plastic bags at us, spitting on us, hitting us with signs that said, "baby killer," "rapists," and "murderers."

I had done none of those things. I knew of no one else who had done those things. What was going on? I saw security officials here and there, but their job was not to protect us from the hostile crowd; on the conmtrary, it was to protect the hostile crowd from us. I refused to run. Running away, I supposed, would appear I was actually guilty of something. Eventually, though, I pushed my way through to the rest room and spent 30 minutes cleaning my uniform as well as possible.

When I stepped out, the crowd had moved on to welcome another planeload of veterans. This event poisoned my return. It left me feeling angry at all Americans. And I made many decent people pay for what some vicious ones had done to me.

Thirty-seven years later, nothing has changed except the groups involved. I'm still unable to defend myself from those who charge me with crimes that I've never committed.

To some of the most radical feminists, including the most influential ones, my personal guilt or innocence is of no importance at all. What's important is my collective guilt, my biological identity, my maleness. This makes me an inate threat to society, that is, to women. National Socialism relied on the same idea, of course, but it identified different targets. For the Nazis, Jews and Gypsies were the "subhumans." It's true that feminists are not Nazis; even the most radical feminists, with a few exceptions, don't want to exterminate men. Besides, they've discovered a much easier and cleaner way to achieve their goals within the framework of a democratic and generally liberal society: convincing the public that men have deliberately oppressed women since the dawn of history. In that case, they have a supposedly legitimate reason for urging legislators establish a "level playing field" even if doing so means punishing innocent individual men for the crimes of their ancestors. These men aren't guilty of creating patriarchal oppression, say radical feminists, but they are guilty of continuing to benefit from the godlike power and privileges that patriarchy gives to men. Collective guilt, they argue, deserves collective punishment. The means, in short, justifies the end. This is men's reality in modern America.

Our government has enacted a new double standard. Discrimination is bad when it victimizes women and minorities but legitimate when it victimizes men. Prejudice is bad when it undermines women and minorities but legitimate when it undermines men. Self-defense is reactionary or even cowardly for men (cowardice being men's version of women's "fate worse than death") but progressive or even heroic for women and minorities.

If you believe in true sexual equality, please spend the time to read this entire web-site. Then, please join me in our National Protest and the upcoming celebration of United Men's Day.

Mission: To give insight into misandry, the demonizing of men and the new double standard that exists in our society.

Male bashing has gone above and beyond common gender jokes and teasing. It has become a full blown relentless attack on all males.

The big deal are the blatant hypocrisy, the invalid logic, the social acceptance of the condemnation of all men by virtue of them being men, particularly when it is painfully obvious men are the only group in this country for whom it is socially unacceptable for them to defend themselves..

One of the most obvious reason men are being ridiculed this way is because we've made ourselves easy targets by virtue of doing nothing about it for the last 4 decades. Is it because men believe the lies?

Whatever the reason, male bashing is causing damage to men and most don't realize just how severe the damage is to all males of all ages.

This site will be especially helpful to men considering, Marriage, Divorce and Children. I hope that men will take the time to read this entire site that is full of true facts, stats and real life experiences of thousands of men for over 25 years. It's time for men to defend themselves and if you can't do it for yourself then do it for your sons.

Demonizing All Men

The strategies that people use to demonize men are stereotyping, or labeling, and lying. The portrayal of men as violent is so common that few people challenge or even notice it.

Consider domestic violence. The worldwide campaign against domestic violence is to some degree a massive campaign to demonize men. President Clinton unwittingly used his authority to support the demonization process by telling Americans on March 21, 1995 that, according to the FBI, a woman is battered every 12 seconds. But the FBI did not keep figures on domestic violence. Within hours, therefore, White House secretary Michael McCurry was forced to apologize. But the damage, as usual, had been done.

All decent people abhor domestic violence, but ideological feminists have simultaneously exaggerated the number of men who engage in it and denied the fact that women engage in it. Most governments have by now come to accept uncritically the notion that domestic violence is simply a matter of violent men abusing helpless women and children with permission or even encouragement from a "patriarchal" society. In other words, it is evidence of an enduring conspiracy among men to oppress women. Not so. Studies show that most men who resort to domestic violence have wives or girlfriends who do the same thing-and are even more likely to initiate the violence (although they are more likely also to be seriously injured as a result).

Demonizing the male race-a biologically defined group-has been critical in mobilizing support for feminism since the 1980s. As a result, we have sexism in two flavors: misogyny (hatred toward women) and misandry (hatred toward men). Some egalitarian feminists, especially those with sons, now see misandry as a serious practical and moral problem. Other egalitarian feminists ignore misandry, explain it away as the lamentable byproduct of a noble cause, or refuse to believe that men can suffer serious harm from it. Ideological feminists offer no apologies.

Sexual equality is now the moral and legal norm. Our society will no longer tolerate exceptions this is a good thing as long as we understand that "sexual equality" refers by definition to the needs and rights of both sexes; the common expression "women's equality," after all, makes no sense.

For well over a century, and especially for the past half century, people have been scrutinizing the gender expectations of women. Now, at least some people are scrutinizing those of men. To this day, though, universities use "gender studies" as a synonym for women's studies (and often for gay studies as well). They assume that men (except for those of "visible minorities") are not only immune to serious problems (which would make it unnecessary to study them) but also morally responsible for the problems of all other groups (which would make them unworthy of study). Ideological feminists, who adopt that approach, are interested in political results, not the ambiguities that scholarship reveals-and certainly not in facts that conflict with their own beliefs.
We must challenge the stereotypes and lies that prevent reconciliation between men and women.

In doing the research for this site I came across a very interesting site that defines five types of feminism. It's worth a look.

http://www.feministissues.com/

The Double Standard

Double Standard; standard applied unfairly: a principle, rule, or expectation that is applied unfairly to different groups, one group usually being condemned for the slightest offense while the other is treated far more leniently.

When judicial processes are applied more strictly to some people more than others, such double standards are seen as unjust because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.

I started out calling this page the "new" double standard.Then, I realized the double standard for men as been around a long time. A prime example is, men have always paid higher insurance premiums. I believe this same double standard is the root cause of male bias and misandry.

It seems strange to me that as a male I would be subject to higher insurance premiums as a result of my possession of characteristics commonly held by males of our species even though I had committed no prior acts to warrant such a slap in the face. The irony seems lost on many, and how this double standard continues to exist dumbfounds me. How come no one is claming gender discrimination here? The principle between these two examples is exactly the same: A risk is anticipated, so action, whether appropriate or not, is taken to try to neutralize it. However, one is deemed OK and one is racist! I hope this shocks you as much as it does me.

Such random implementation of profiling is discriminatory in itself. Solutions? Perhaps doing away with profiling altogether. As a result, I wouldn't have to pay more for car insurance. I would be happy with that. Or we could apply such profiling equally among all groups that pose such a risk to society. That means more scrutiny of Middle Eastern men everywhere in addition to me paying more for car insurance. Whatever path our society takes on this issue in the future, I sincerely hope it is fair and applies equally to everyone. The system of double standards in place today, as I have outlined, is wrong and shouldn"t exist. If one group of any race, gender or faith is targeted for a perceived risk so should another for the same reasons. Uneven application leads to discriminatory practices. Think about it, perhaps you are being wrongfully discriminated.

Double Standards at Duke and in the Courts

Recently, Stuart Taylor wrote about sexual double standards at Duke University. Duke paid $3,500 to finance a performance by strippers and prostitutes co-sponsored by the Duke Women's Center at which scatological obscenities were hurled and audience members were exhorted to chant "I take it up the butt." But earlier, Duke administrators denounced the Duke men's lacrosse team, claiming that even if they were guilty of nothing more than hosting strippers at a private off-campus party, that that was an "appalling" act "bad enough" to warrant their condemnation.

This sort of double standard is, unfortunately, common among politically-correct academics and judges in the northeast. A good example is Harvard, my alma mater, which tolerates sexually graphic and insulting speech from women and minorities, even while punishing mildly off-color comments by heterosexual males. Alysse McIntyre, a writer for the Harvard Law Record, alternated in her weekly columns between graphically boasting about her sexual exploits, both with her partners and her vibrator, and condemning men (like Clarence Thomas) who were accused of similarly boasting about their own sexual exploits (she was a big advocate of expanding the reach of sexual harassment law to broadly regulate speech). A gay activist boasted in an undergraduate newspaper about organizing and attending public "jack- and jill-off parties" at which he and other gay activists would publicly masturbate. But straight male undergraduates would receive a stern warning and "counseling" for creating a "hostile educational environment" after being overheard telling relatively tame sexual jokes (akin to the story of the traveling salesman and the farmer's daughter) that were overheard by female students.

This double standard also exists in court. In sexual harassment cases, courts in New York treat sexually offensive materials as harassment based not on whether they are aimed at an employee based on her sex - as the civil rights laws' language requires - but based on the prejudicial factor of whether the accused belongs to a politically correct group. The New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals is quick to hold private employers liable for "sexual harassment" when their heterosexual male employees view pornography, as it did in Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2007), where an employee was allowed to sue her New York City employer because the man she worked under often looked at porn in his own office. But when it's gay porn, it's a different story. In Brennan v. Metropolitan Opera, 192 F.3d 310 (1999), the court held that continual public display of gay pornographic depictions of men in the plaintiff's workplace was not sufficiently pervasive to constitute harassment or create a "hostile work environment," even though it admitted that the plaintiff "was exposed to them every working day."

Politically-correct double standards aren't unique to sexual harassment law. Glaring disparities also exist in how New York and New Jersey courts handle cases in areas ranging from family law to privacy law and employment law.
Hans Bader. Published by the Manhattan Institute. Center for legal policy. CLP

Why any male would attend Duke is beyond me.

The Double Standard of statutory rape, Female teachers vs Male Teachers.

The bias against male victims of sexual abuse.

The latest chapter in the infamous saga of mary kay letourneau, the seattle schoolteacher who had a sexual relationship with her student, Vili Fualaau, when she was 34 and he was 12, ended last month when Fualaau and his mother, Soona Vili, lost their civil case against the school district and the local police. The jury refused to award them damages, deciding that the school and the police bore no responsibility for allowing the sexual abuse to happen. Commentators who followed the case said that Fualaau and Vili undermined their own case. He gave contradictory testimony at different times; she was easily painted by lawyers for the defense as a greedy and negligent parent. Yet one has to wonder if there is a gender angle here as well. Do many people, including jurors, still find it difficult to see a male victim in such a case as a true victim?

A few days after the verdict in Fualaau's lawsuit, a controversy in New Jersey provided a shocking illustration of this bias. Pamela Diehl-Moore, a former teacher who repeatedly had sexual relations with a male student when she was 40 and he was 13, was sentenced to probation by Judge Bruce Gaeta. What drew public attention was not the light sentence but the comments made by the judge in explaining it. "It's just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship," Judge Gaeta said. "I really don't see the harm that was done, and certainly society doesn't need to be worried."

It's almost pointless to add that such a reaction would be unthinkable if the sexes were reversed. In 1993 in Virginia, a male teacher who had sex wit h three teenage female students was sentenced to 26 years in prison - while the next day, a female swimming coach who had an "affair" with an 11-year-old boy and sexual encounters with two others got 30 days.

To many men's rights advocates, this double standard reflects an egregious form of political correctness: the refusal to take seriously the victimization of a male by a female perpetrator. (Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is seen very differently.)

But there are those - such as Bill Maher, host of the soon-to-be-extinct television show "Politically Incorrect" - who see political correctness gone mad on the other side. What's ridiculous, they say, is not that grown women who have sex with underage boys are punished less severely than male offenders, it's that the women are punished at all. They scoff at a fixation on gender neutrality which has supposedly led us to ignore basic differences between men and women, such as the "fact" that men and boys are always after sex.

Judge Gaeta seemed to endorse this view when he commented that sex with the teacher might have been an opportunity for the boy to "satisfy his sexual needs."

Do many adolescent and pre-adolescent boys have romantic and sexual fantasies about their teachers? Of course. Do they, in some cases, participate willingly and even eagerly in the "relationship"? Yes. But plenty of girls, too, fantasize about teachers and willingly get involved with adult men. And both girls and boys can be ultimately harmed by an experience they initially regarded as a thrill.

One could argue that older teens should not be presumed incapable of sexual consent (though few would attribute such a capacity to 11- and 13-year-olds). One could ask whether, in some instances, statutory rape laws are too rigid - particularly in states where the law requires no minimum age difference between the perpetrator and the victim, so that a young man just over the age of consent can theoretically go to prison for having sex with a woman a couple of weeks his junior. But gender shouldn't be a factor in these debates.

In this instance, the bias against male victims stems from traditional sex stereotypes, not feminist ones. Indeed, before the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s, sexual contact between a woman and an underage male did not legally qualify as statutory rape in most states.
Cathy Young.

Double Standard of abortion.

Forgotten Fathers by Marshall Allen

There are many victims of abortion: the unborn child snuffed before it can reach his potential; the mother who must endure a physically, emotionally and spiritually devastating procedure; and society in general, where a life is worth less than the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. But perhaps no victims of abortion have been more ignored than the fathers of the aborted.

There are about 1.5 million abortions every year in America in large part because it's presented as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. The stereotype surrounding men in unwanted pregnancies is that they are in favor of abortion. And indeed there are plenty of men who coerce, manipulate and pressure the mother into an abortion. But it's simplistic- and wrong -to pretend this is always the case. Many fathers involved in unwanted pregnancies are ready to accept responsibility for their children.

My friend Nick (names have been changed in this story) is one of those guys. Allow me to share his story.

Nick was 22 years old and a junior at a small Christian college when he met "The Freshman." He and his buddies had given Samantha that nickname because she was the best-looking newcomer to their school that year. The school's dating pool was small and Nick and Samantha connected because they shared a home state. In a matter of months they were a couple. The two decided to drive home together for Spring Break; that decision changed their lives forever.

During Spring Break, Nick crashed on the living room couch at Samantha's parents place. A Christian guy who was trying to do the right thing (although he had been sexually active in the past), Nick wasn't looking for sex. But he and Samantha quickly found it when she crawled into his sleeping bag early one morning. Even though both of them knew this wasn't God's design for their relationship, they had sex for the first time that morning. "It wouldn't surprise me if the child was conceived that first time," Nick says.

About six weeks into the relationship Samantha told Nick she was pregnant. In that instant, the whole dynamic of their relationship radically changed. One night they had been discussing the trivialities of dating-do we go to the movies, to dinner, or to shoot pool? Now they were asking, "What are we going to do about this pregnancy?" and "What are we going to tell our parents?"

Nick was sure about one thing: he would accept full responsibility for the pregnancy and provide for his child. He would love the baby, take care of it, and even raise it if he had to. He would support Samantha through the pregnancy, too. "The way I was brought up, you always accept the consequences of your actions," Nick says. "You mess around and get pregnant, you don't just do away with the consequences." Meanwhile, Samantha wanted an abortion. "I was dead set against it, I always was," Nick says. "I said, 'I can't support you in that.' I said that countless times."

But Samantha didn't need Nick's support because the decision about the abortion was hers to make, her body, her choice. Thanks to Roe v. Wade, fathers of unborn children have no legal right to decide if the child they helped conceive will live or die.

The double standard confronting men is that they're to take responsibility for the child, but the woman doesn't need to consult them to abort that same child, says Linda Dean of the Women's Resource Center of Southern Nevada. Dean has seen a lot of cases like Nick's. She has a master's degree in Marriage and Family therapy and has worked with thousands of women and men who are dealing with abortion. In her 20 years of counseling, she's often had men call her, saying their partner wants to abort their child. She can counsel them, but there's really nothing that can be done to enforce a father's right to be a father.

At the end of the school year, Samantha told Nick she didn't want to see him anymore and ended the relationship. But not before asking him to pay for the abortion. "I'm not going to pay for something I don't believe in," Nick told her. "I'd rather pay for raising the child." Samantha called Nick within weeks to give him the news-she had aborted their child. She didn't come back to school the next fall and Nick never saw her again.

While abortion's effect on millions of men is palpable, so far it's been virtually ignored by society. "There's a societal pressure on men not to whine and cry," Dean says. Moreover, she adds, after an abortion men and women are assured that they shouldn't feel bad and that they did the right thing. These assurances that they're OK, given to people after they've gone through an abortion, actually produce the opposite result. "We're telling people who are experiencing these feelings that they shouldn't be feeling these things," Dean says. "So they must be crazy - right? We've done this to men for decades."

Double-standard exists in the way that men and women donors are valued by the fertility industry.

When Sociologist Rene Almeling decided to look into the operations of U.S. sperm banks and egg agencies, the UCLA Ph.D. candidate in sociology thought she knew what she would find.

She figured that any discrepancies in compensation rates for the building blocks of assisted reproduction could be explained by either market forces or the biological differences between female egg donors, who must undergo hormone therapy and outpatient surgery, and their male counterparts, who, as one recruitment ad put it, "get paid to do what you already do."

Instead, Almeling, whose findings appear in the June issue of the American Sociological Review , uncovered a topsy-turvy market that often defies not just conventional wisdom but also the basic law of supply and demand.

Almeling's findings are part of a growing body of research on the sociology of markets in life-saving and life-giving material, including blood and organ donations and life insurance payouts. But Almeling's study, which is based on interviews with 25 staff members at two sperm banks and two egg agencies, is believed to be the first detailed comparison of gender-based differences in U.S. compensation rates for reproductive material. Almeling has been gathering data on the medical market in genetic material for the past five years.

Almeling found that it is not unusual for egg donors in large cities to make upwards of $5,000 per donation - no matter the outcome. Agencies also encourage recipient couples to provide female donors with thank-you notes, small tokens of appreciation and even cash bonuses.

In contrast, sperm banks do not pay as well or encourage such displays of gratitude. Male donors make between $50 and $75 per donation, and they are paid only when their samples meet the high fertility standards required for freezing. Over the length of their contracts - generally, an entire year - sperm donors may make as much as their female counterparts do over the course of a single six-week cycle, but only if they donate more than the required one sample per week. Invariably, however, earnings of sperm donors fell short, either because donors missed weekly sessions or their samples failed to meet fertility standards. Women also may donate as many as three times in a year, and their fees increase with each completed cycle.

So an egg donor actually stands to make far more during the same period of time than even the most diligent and fertile sperm donor.

Moreover, men work much longer for their pay than women, and their activities are much more restricted as a result. In addition to requiring weekly donations for a year, sperm banks instruct men to refrain from sex for two days prior to donation or risk the possibility that their samples will fail to meet fertility standards. Being sick or stressed also has a negative effect on sperm count.

"Even the doctors who were working with infertile couples were surprised when they learned just how demanding the process is for men," Almeling said. "Sperm donors basically have to schedule their sex lives for a year."

Here we have a another prime example of not only the double standard but how some men hurt all men.

Double-standards cripple our military.

Double-standards cripple the fight against terrorism

Carey Roberts
August 30, 2006

It is a sign of cultural confusion when the most-heralded account of individual bravery in the Iraqi war centers around a teenage girl who did nothing that could be considered heroic.

When her convoy made a wrong turn behind enemy lines, 19-year-old Jessica Lynch passed out during the ensuing ambush. For that she was rewarded with fawning media coverage, an official biography, and a made-for-TV movie.

PFC Lynch didn't thwart the enemy attack, save anyone's life, or even fire a single shot. So what amazing feat of valor qualified Lynch for the Bronze Star? Get ready for this: she fell to her knees and started to pray. And then she smiled for the camera.

The chivalrous adulation that greeted Lynch's return covered over a dirty truth: Feminist double-think permeates the military more than any other institution in our society.

It's what Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, calls DSIW: double standards involving women. That dual standard now threatens the readiness and morale of our military services which must now cope with the surging threat of Islamofascism.

Women have long played an important and indispensable role in the military. And 20 years ago, different requirements weren't a concern when women were assigned mostly to nursing and stateside desk jobs. But shortfalls in military recruitment goals and demands by Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado to assign the "real plum jobs" to the gals changed all that.

Soon women were being tapped to work as pilots, ordnance handlers, and grease monkeys; just like their daddies used to do. Everything seemed to be on track for the imminent arrival of the gender utopia.

Then the 1990 Gulf War came around and 40,000 females were ordered to report for duty. That's when the ladies began to rediscover their inner-mom. Long-barren women became rapturously pregnant, and military mothers were suddenly the reincarnation of Madonna-with-child.

Newspapers wailed because "thousands of American mothers are saying good-bye to their families to face the unknown dangers in the Gulf." Some G.I. Janes claimed their recruiters had promised they would never be sent to war.

Gender-integrated basic training, which came along three years later, proved to be an even bigger jolt. The Sergeant Furies wondered how the female trainees would be able to survive, much less pass, the hand-grenade exercise, given the fact that most women couldn't heave the thing beyond its 35-meter burst radius.

Soon the requirement was changed so just dumping the grenade over a cement wall gave you the green light. After all, grenade-throwing is simply a confidence-building exercise, and the key is to try your hardest, right?

Battle-hardened drill sergeants were ordered to remake themselves in the manner of Mister Rogers, and obstacle courses were modified to resemble a Romper Room set. Navy trainees were urged to wave a "stress card" to settle frayed nerves. And mothers were consoled with infant nursing breaks and assorted child-bonding activities.

Despite all the gender-norming and hand-holding, Stephanie Gutmann documents in The Kinder, Gentler Military that women in training suffer 2-3 times more stress fractures, back sprains, and broken ankles. And at the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Va., last year's female candidates washed out three times more often than the guys.

George Orwell once wrote, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." That aphorism rings true in many of the official statements on women in the military.

"All soldiers, regardless of gender, train to a single standard, the Army standard," proclaims one regulation. "Differences in performance requirements between the sexes, such as Army physical fitness testing scoring, are based on physiological differences and apply to the entire force."

How's that for twice-around-the-block double-talk?

Then we have those politicians who gush about "the men and women in uniform who are fighting for our country." Apparently these well-intentioned souls don't realize that a woman who slings an M-16 over her shoulder for a couple hours of guard duty does not qualify as "fighting."

And remember Lt. Kara Hultgreen? Her jet crashed and burned on the USS Abraham Lincoln because she approached the flight deck at too sharp an angle; an error she had committed twice before. Then Navy officials tried to pin Hultgreen's death on "engine failure."

Put that one in the "cover-up" category.

Six years ago Stephanie Gutmann asked, "Can America's gender-neutral fighting force still win wars?" Some found her question to be provocative; to others it was merely amusing.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it's time that we seriously ponder that question.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Double Standard in Domestic Violence.

Even the most open-minded find it difficult to imagine that husband battering could take place. Although feminism has opened many of our eyes about the existence of domestic violence, and newspaper reports often include incidents of abused wives, the abuse of husbands is a rarely discussed phenomenon. One reason researchers and others have not chosen to investigate husband battering is because it was thought to be a fairly rare occurrence. Police reports seemed to bear this out by showing a ratio of 10 to 15 female victims for every one male victim. Another reason for this is that women were seen as weaker and more helpless than men, whereas men were seen as more sturdy and self reliant.

The image of a battered wife is firmly established in the public consciousness. In the aftermath of the Nicole Simpson murder (and the nearly forgotten Ron Goldman), the national media almost exclusively portrayed the male as the brutal, overpowering, must-be-stopped perpetrator of domestic violence and the female as the helpless, innocent victim, deserving our collective sympathies. That situation may be accurate in some instances and should not be tolerated. However, to consider the possibility of a battered husband is so far from our universal image of men, it is hard for some to accept. Nevertheless, many studies have been done to demonstrate the reality of the husband who has been assaulted and seriously injured by his wife or girlfriend.

In 1975 and again in 1985, researchers Murray A. Straus, Ph.D., and Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., conducted the National Family Violence Survey, one of the largest and most respected studies on family violence ever done in America. Their findings confounded conventional beliefs on the subject. Not only are men just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women, but also the study showed that between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women decreased from 12.1% to 11.3%, while women's violence against men actually increased from 11.6% to 12.1%. In 1991, to avoid accusations of gender bias, Straus recomputed the assault rates based solely on responses of the 2,947 women in the 1985 survey. The new results confirmed that even according to women, men are the ones more likely to be assaulted by their partners. When I saw this data, I admittedly was skeptical so I decided to look for other sources and found several which reported similar results.

In 1993, the Children's Rights Coalition, a children's advocacy and research organization in Austin, Texas, reviewed every state's child protective services annual report and found that overall, mothers physically abused their children at a rate twice that of biological fathers. They further found that the second highest percentage of abusers were mother’s boyfriends or new husbands. Similar findings were released by the U.S. Justice Department in July 1994 in a report entitled "Murder in Families." The report finds that in the majority of cases of child murder, they are murdered by their mothers, with their boyfriends and new husbands being the next highest group of perpetrators. Biological fathers accounted for only a small percentage of familial child murders.

Further evidence supporting the Straus-Gelles study appeared in the November 1986 Journal of the Association of Social workers. In their report on adolescent dating relationships, they found that girls were violent more frequently than boys. As well, a 1986 study done by the Family Violence Research Laboratory of the University of New Hampshire reported that 3.2% of elderly persons had been abused. 52% were abused by men and 48% by women.

The idea of women being violent is a hard thing for many people to believe. It goes against the stereotype of the passive and helpless female. This, in spite of the fact that women are known to be more likely than men to commit child abuse and child murder. In the 1988 Daly & Wilson Report, 54% of parent child murders, where the child is under 17, were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983. The Statistical Abstract of the United States in 1987 reports that of child reported maltreatment cases, between 1980 and 1984, between 57% and 61% of these were perpetrated by the mother. It should be noted that because mothers tend to have more access to children than do fathers, these results should not be interpreted to mean that if there was equal access, women would still commit more abuse.

Violence takes various forms. There is no question that since men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women, they can do more damage with their fists. However, research shows that the average man's size and strength are usually neutralized by weapons such as guns, knives, scissors, lamps, frying pans, boiling water, bricks and other tools. A 1984 study of 6,200 cases of domestic assault found that 86% of female-on-male violence involved weapons while only 25% of male-on-female violence did.

According to many women's rights advocates, female violence against a man is purely a self-defense response to male violence. Several studies, however, show that women initiate about one quarter of all domestic assaults, men initiate another quarter, and the remaining half are classified as "mutual." Other research, attempting to discredit the findings on men as victims, claims that since women are physically weaker and do less damage, only "severe assaults" should be compared.

The results of that analysis show that men are only slightly more likely to initiate the violence. Overall, Dr. Straus found that whether the analysis is based on all the assaults or is focused exclusively on dangerous assault, about as many women as men attack a spouse who has not hit them in the past year. Clearly, then, the claim that women's violence is purely "self-defense" is unsubstantiated.

If female violence against men is so widespread, why haven't we heard more about it in the discussion of domestic violence? There are several reasons. First, men, in general, are extremely reluctant to report that they have been victims of any assaults. After all, men are supposed be tough and able to take care of themselves. And what would people think? Men are trained not to ask for help and a man not being able to solve his own problem is seen as a sign of weakness in our society. According to a 1990 U.S. Department of Justice Survey of Criminal Victimization, men report all types of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.

Save Our Son's

When was the last time you asked your son how things were going at school?

Your son suffers the affects of male bashing every day in school and he has to do it alone because as a male he is not allowed to defend himself, if he acts out and becomes disruptive he is labeled as ADD and put on medication with some very sever side affects. Dr Laura said it best "prozac turns little boys into little girls."

Four boys are diagnosed as emotionally disturbed to every one girl; two boys are learning-disabled for every one girl; six boys are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder to every one girl; two teen boys die for every one girl. (Source: Dr. Michael Gurian's book, The Wonder of Boys.)

Is this what you want for your son? Your son needs your help now dad. Their are many good books to help you (The Wonder of Boys) make sure you check out the Must Read page. I can't stress this enough to Fathers, your son needs your help desperately and you must be their for him. Young boys look for role models and usually try to find them on television but as we all know, there are no positive role models for young boys on television. You Dad are the only one that can Save our Son's. Don't ignore his problems when he come's to you for help.

Fathers did you know;

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics:

Boys are 30 percent more likely than girls to flunk or drop out of school;

When it comes to grades and homework, girls outperform boys in elementary, secondary, high school, college, and even graduate school;

Boys are four to five times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD);

Women outnumber men in higher education with 56 percent of bachelor's degrees and 55 percent of graduate degrees going to women.

According to the U.S. Department of Education:

Boys make up two-thirds of the students in special education and are five times more likely to be classified as hyperactive.

Again I ask, is this what you want for your son? You must get more involved in your son's everyday life. You must understand how tough he has it in school. You must defend your son, he is depending on YOU.

Did you know you son is forced to put up with this at school?

Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! is a slogan on a T-shirt by Florida company David and Goliath. The slogan is printed next to a cartoon image of a boy running away from five stones flying in his direction.

The T-shirt and its success

The T-shirt was designed by company founder Todd Goldman, who started David and Goliath in 1999 with Boys are Smelly T-shirts. It now features clothes with a variety of slogans, such as Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes! or The stupid factory, where boys are made.

BoysAreGoobers...Drop Anvils On Their Heads." Boys are stupid ... has evolved into a successful object for merchandise, which includes all types of clothes, mugs, key chains, posters and other items. In 2005 Goldman published a book with the same title. In 2006, it was translated and published in Russia.

People magazine ran a story on the T-shirt, opening with a quote from a then 10 year-old girl, "I want to make boys feel bad because it's fun."

Ten years ago girls lifted their heads and raised their voices that schools needed to address the ways in which they learn. Naysayers said at the time that there couldn't be change. In 1999, girls have all but caught up with boys in the critical areas of math and science where for so long they lagged behind.

It is completely possible in the here and now to make positive change for boys, and we can start by doing for boys what we have done for girls. We can teach teachers about boys' learning styles and help them adapt their teaching methods and curricula accordingly. We can help parents and teachers learn to connect with boys. Boys communicate and express in their own ways. The more we understand this, the smaller a unit is in which a boy participates, the better he is known in his group, the more clear the connection he has with his peers and his teachers, the more likely a boy is to be successful in school and in life.

Dr. William Pollack is a Harvard Medical School psychologist and director for the Center for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School. His recent book is Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood.
Source: Henry Holt

To give insight into misandry and the demonizing of men

An interesting page. And there is a blog as well. Go there and read.