.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Location: Jerusalem, Israel

This isn't a dating site. If you wish to propose marriage or to beat me up, leave me a note.

Sunday, November 13, 2005


This letter from 'The National Association of Women and the Law' to the Justice system in Ontario argues many points to undermine the influence of the "loud clamour of the fathers rights lobby" on 'women's rights', and expresses concerns regarding changes in the legal system that may harm women.

I post this letter because it is the quintessential example of everything that is wrong with Feminists today.

It argues regarding the exclusive poverty effect children have on single-mothers, neatly avoiding the fact that men paying child support and alimony are sometimes so poor they are forced to move back with their parents, get their possessions seized, or go to jail. It persistently erases the line between a mother's rights and the 'children's best interests', effectively saying that all that matters to the child is that the woman be supplied with everything she needs to avoid hardships. It keeps mentioning equality but then applies that term only to women (e.g. "NAWL believes that your Department has a constitutional obligation to develop family law legislation that respects and promotes the constitutional equality rights of women and children, in the family and in society. Such a policy would truly be in the children's best interest."). What about a law that respects equality rights of women, children and men?

It then plays the distorted domestic violence and child abuse card, shifting from unfair joint-custody situations to abusive men, thereby insinuating that many men beat their wives and abuse their children whereas women are always saintly caregiving mothers, and men should therefore pay child-support and piss off.

It even argues that women should receive legal aid in this battle to treat fathers as violent wallets and near-useless pariahs.

But one argument in particular caught my eye: "We already see result of badly mediated or court imposed shared custody arrangements: very often, the father gradually loses interest in the children and the mother ends up caring for the children on a full-time basis. In this typical scenario, the father often promises to come for the kids, but cancels at the last minute, or pops up unexpected at his ex-partner's home and disrupts her plans."

For one thing, this is a blatant sexist statement that states that most fathers are bad fathers. Even if this were true, instead of proposing solutions for better mediation and stricter parenting responsibilities, they are arguing to keep fathers out. In other words, we don't wait for fathers to prove themselves to be bad fathers; We must shut them out immediately. The only thing fathers must do is pay and piss off.

The letter also argues that "imposing shared parenting on recalcitrant parents would be a recipe for disaster" but neglects to mention what happens when bad mothers are given children to care for.

Of course fathers are only bad parents after a divorce when the woman wants her child-support, never before.

But the subtler and deeper harm that emerges from this statement is the assumption that parenting is only about baby-sitting and money. In the beginning of the paragraph, the letter claims a "lack of interest on the part of the father to exercise his parental responsibilities altogether" but then says that in a typical scenario of a bad father, they are bad baby-sitters and don't pay child-support. Whatever happened to guidance, role models, discipline, love, advice, friendship? If the letter claimed that in a typical scenario men are bad role models or only hinder their children's progress, then I would understand the logic of the argument.

It then argues that mostly women get custody of children because women are the 'primary caregivers'.

Dozens of studies have proven that most delinquents and teenage gang-members and criminals came from single-parent homes. Fatherly "interest", according to this letter, is defined as baby-sitting the child during the designated times so as not to disrupt the mother's schedule. Perhaps what matters is not that they 'pop-up' unexpectedly, thereby perhaps ruining some of mother's plans for the day, but that they 'popped-up' to father their children? If women are the primary caregivers, then why do children with both parents grow up with a better moral compass? Perhaps fatherhood is being measured by a female ruler?

In other words, fatherhood is defined as male motherhood at best, or by what the mothers see as convenient for them. All men are then bunched together and obviously fail this test, therefore they should pay and piss off.

And if there is any doubt that fatherhood is seen as a purely financial responsibility as opposed to a guidance responsibility, consider that by US law, there is no age of consent for child support. I.e. a boy of 13 can be a victim of statutory rape but still has to provide child support at age 16 for a child that legally he could not have consented to or ethically be capable of raising. If you don't believe me, read the case of Shane Seyer.

Of course, Shane could not be expected to be a good father at age 16 regardless of the consent issue, but he can be sued for money and that's what counts. So he should pay and piss off.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Freak Performance

In other news, scientists have come up with a simple risk-free surgical alteration that increases the average time it takes men to orgasm to several hours. Dr. Phil Atio commented: "We discovered that a minor 'glitch' in our genitalia was holding us back from levels of enjoyment we only dreamed about until now. Coitus can now not only be prolonged, the level of enjoyment has also risen in quality due to this breakthrough procedure. This should also quell any future complaints from the opposite sex regarding performance in bed."

The previously recorded average time it takes a man to orgasm during coitus is 2-4 minutes, whereas for women it's 5-20 minutes. Naturalists have argued that this is due to nature demanding fast and safe coitus, slow encounters being more prone to failures, interruptions and vulnerability to dangers. There was not much men could do about this except train in psychologically gruelling exercises of restraint, control and distraction techniques. It has also been proven from an evolutionary point of view that women retain more sperm if they orgasm during or after a man's ejaculation (as opposed to before). Evidently, a woman's orgasm is not high on Mother Nature's priorities.

Defying nature, thousands of men flocked to the clinic in New Jersey to experience this medically approved procedure, and clinics with newly trained experts have been opening all over the country during the last few months. We tracked down several of these enhanced men and found out that all is not as utopian as it seems:

Some men, like Mark Kohnelingos in San Francisco, seem overjoyed and boastful that they were consistently able to satisfy their partners beyond their expectations. Others have started to grumble and have formed a web site to share experiences and warn men before taking the plunge. They cited lack of interest in their partners to sustain their activity in bed long enough to reach ultimate satisfaction.

"The trouble is, women get tired faster than men, especially after they have attained a handful of orgasms. I've had women suddenly stop and roll over after their third orgasm, claiming exhaustion, soreness and that they 'have had enough' when I was barely starting to build towards my maximum peak of enjoyment" says Ahmed Naeev from New York. Their web site www.NiceWomenStopLast.com offers advice to women on exercises that may prolong their endurance and tips on how to please their new supermen and improve their performance in bed, but there don't seem to be any takers.

"Sure it's fun to be able to keep going for so long and it's not all about the orgasm", says John Blubals from Washington, "but why can't women put in that extra effort to make us happy?". His friend David Waining complained that "...women get what they want then get tired and fall asleep on us". Other men complained that it's now virtually impossible for them to have children.

Marriage Counselor Betty Hipkritt remarked that these men should stop emphasizing their orgasm and focus on the mutual foreplay, enjoyment and eroticism of making love to their wives, and that it would be unreasonable to demand a performance from women that is incompatible with their natural abilities.

Recently, a small group of protesters is growing in front of the New Jersey clinic, demanding its money back and warning men away from this one-way ticket to unfulfillment.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Take Two

After posting the chapter by Warren Farrell on battered men with statistics that show that women are just as violent as men if not more, I also talked about this issue with a few women and the reactions were always the same: A shrug, 'Oh cmon, everyone knows men beat up women much more often', silence followed by a change of topic, etc.

Obviously this is because making such a statement is tantamount to me saying that the Earth is flat and then backing this preposterous statement with 50 pages of statistics and logic. Any proof I would bring is irrelevant; The facts simply don't have a chance.

Well let's go more in depth in any case and try to find holes in Farrell's claim:

First, it must be obvious that if men are being battered, any man who would come forward to complain or tell his story about being hit by his 50kg wife would be ridiculed, ignored, or at best, treated as a freak incident. The Oprah Winfrey Show featured battered men and the audience laughed, TV shows regularly portray battered men as comedic situations, men who tell their pals about being hit by women are treated with ridicule or embarrassment, violent crimes by women against men are seen by the legal system and the public as less severe, school boys are sent to the principal's office but girls that hit are not, and Farrell even cites cases of censorship and threats.

In Hollywood and the media, men respond to everything aggressively and violently and women are the caring, gentle sex who hold them back. When women kick-ass, it's sexy and for a good cause, or it's self-defense against beastly men. This is classic brainwashing. When a trait is portrayed as exclusive to one gender and the other gender is never assigned any blame, this is obvious bias and sexism.

Second, it must be obvious that most men will not report being battered. In addition to the above arguments that would deter men from complaining, most men don't think of being hit by a frying pan as a crime or 'being battered', they see mere bruises as unimportant as they are routinely bruised in sports and similar activities, they are seen as wimps if they don't grin and bear it, and many men simply won't run to expose their private problems as often as women would.

So it should not surprise anyone that if men were being battered, we would not hear of it.

Are men being battered? Can't the statistics, as is often the case, be wrong or twisted to show a different truth? Farrell cites 50 studies in his book that prove that women are just as violent as men, in addition to exposing experiences and witnesses that tell how construction workers and officers were terrorized by female violence or brutalized by their wives with simple weapons. This site lists 174 different studies. When you have 170 studies made by very different people and organizations over a period of 25 years, it's practically impossible to argue the facts. Many of the studies even cite self-reported aggression. I.e. women came forward and said they initiated the violence in the relationship more often than men.

And here is yet another study I found on the internet: The U.S. Justice Department reports in a 1998 study that of the 2,335,000 persons abused annually by their opposite sex partner, 835,000 or 36% of the victims are men. Further, all of the 54 english language studies that have included both men and women have found that women use violence in their relationships more often then men and at every level of severity. In Delaware, where the Forum for Equity and Fairness in Family Issues is most active, the Delaware State Police Statistics Division reports that of all criminal domestic violence cases, in 32% of the cases men are the victim. In non-criminal cases the figure jumps to nearly 50%.

Perhaps men are the ones that initiate the violence? The surveys took that into account and report that this is definitely not the case. Again, even women admitted to being the initiatiors.

Perhaps it's because of the patriarchy and men are somehow instigators of such violence in women? Lesbian violence statistics disagree.

Perhaps women suffer from much more severe violence than men? Surveys show that men are treated to severe violence TWICE as much as women. The numbers vary depending on the kind of violence (hitting, choking, knives, etc) but overall, the figures show that when it comes to injuries, women do not have any kind of monopoly.

And why is this? Aren't women weaker than men? Aren't women more likely to suffer when given a beating? Aren't women easily overpowered and controlled?

But these are fallacies. First of all, it is logical that because women are weaker than men, men get more severe beatings. If you know that the recipient of your wrath is weaker than you, you are more likely to hold back. Sons get beaten harder by parents than daughters. And the opposite effect is true as well: If you are a 50kg woman seeking revenge on a 90kg man, you are more likely to pick up a baseball bat, iron, or frying pan and swing with all your might.

It's very easy to overpower a man. There are literally hundreds of weapons in any given house that will give you an edge, especially when you sneak up behind a man or when he's sleeping. Dozens of horrifying news stories confirm this simple fact. So it all comes down to psychology. Who is more likely to respond with violence when tempers rise? Who is more prone to lose emotional control and commit an act of violence? Who is likely to feel such intense hatred towards their spouse that they will respond with violence? Who has a tendency to panic and snap when under intense marriage pressures or when relationships go bad?

These are the correct questions to ask, not who has the stronger muscles. The mistake that everyone makes is to see women as disadvantaged when it comes to a fight. So when women and men battle it out, who is more likely to get sympathy?

Are men more naturally physically aggressive? I think so. But the way I see it, women have their own weakness which evens out the equation and explains these statistics. Women are subject to stronger emotions which makes them hysterical, and turns them to panic and hate. This will cause them to snap and grab the nearest object that can be used as a weapon and not hold anything back against this physically intimidating male.

In fact I can even argue that men's aggression is what makes women more violent. Yes, you read that right. The argument goes like this: Men are naturally more aggressive and everyone knows this, therefore: a) men are more in touch with violence and can control it better b) men are brought up to curb their aggressive tendencies and are punished and trained by parents and schools to control their violence and act honorably whereas women are allowed to do whatever they want. So when push comes to shove and tempers flare, who is more likely to slap, kick, pull a knife or cut off their spouses genitals? The man who has dealt with aggression all his life, or the highly emotional woman who has never trained her violent reactions? Case in point, men can win a fight with other men by kicking them in the balls, why don't they? Another case in point, if these aggressive men can shut their nagging wives up by beating them up and easily control them with violence, why do so few men beat their wives?

But let's say the numbers are off by a few degrees. Let us assume that women do get beat up much more often than men despite the fact that every study disagrees with this. The fact that men are never seen as victims in domestic abuse issues is a damning fact in itself. Claiming that women are saints and never or rarely beat up men is as preposterous as claiming that the Earth is flat.

As an exercise, let's forget all movies we ever saw, all media stories and rumors about domestic violence, and all violence between men, and concentrate solely on violence between men and women that we know to be true personally and that are not based on hearsay. Here are my personal results: I know of 2 cases where the man hit his woman moderately and one case where a woman got her male friends to beat up her boyfriend severely. I have never raised a hand against a woman but have been kicked by girls both in school and in recent times. And I know of an equal amount of cases where parents of both genders hit their children.

What's obvious to me even without all these studies is that both genders have reasons and impetuses to behave violently, and that muscles or testosterone are not the only sources of violence. Over 150 studies agree with me.