How many months of probation?

Remove all ads!

mordea, I agree with what you had said about women being unjustly privileged in ways that are just plain irrational. As I said a few times before, it is men who are the discriminated gender nowadays - and I believe the main reason behind this state of things is the fact that very few people seem to understand that males can be (and often are) victims of abuse. A man can be beaten, a man can be raped, a man can be psychologically abused - not only 'can', but thousands of them are.

Sadly, very few of them will talk about it due to the absolutely ridiculous social notion that having a penis will magically protect it's bearer from all mistreatment. And even if they get the courage to speak up for themselves, it will take a lot more to endure the taunts of those who believe such men deserved it for being weak.

As for your views on breeding - nihil novi sub sole. Such theories are frightfully popular these days. Despite of personal opinions about them, I believe everyone getting offended by some of these facts should acknowledge that it applies to women and men in general. Expecting any individual to behave in a certain way just because they happen to have a set of certain organs would be folly.

However, I do believe that labeling males as either 'beta' or 'alpha' is part of the discrimination I mentioned earlier. Such descriptions are plain examples of reification (for the record, I am not a fan of Marx, just found this term fitting).

And about the term that had caused so much controversy - mordea, it seems that you are misinterpreting the reactions of people who found the crude wording inappropriate. It is most probably not a case of 'aaaaargh, you hurt our bourgeois, decadent, snobbish eyes with your unpretentious manners and honesty, make it stop, make it stop!'. Again, I agree in full with the main point you make - still, it does not stop me from noticing that the poor rhetorical choices you have made cause you sound like a frustrated teenager with no sense of decorum. You have said something important and truthful - it is a shame to see your post losing all credibility because of a five letter word.

 

Mothers are more likely to abuse (and kill) their children than fathers. The fact that some of you are claiming the opposite without being challenged on your factual inaccuracy just shows how badly brainwashed the men of today are. The government has done its job well.

(By the way, I'm *not* referencing this, since no one else has gone to the effort).

 

I've seen all kinds of statistics concerning child murders by biological parents, ranging from massive male bias to massive female bias, but all have paled in comparison to any step-parent statistics. The largest distribution for biological parents I saw was 60% mothers and 40% fathers (women being 50% more likely), but that's nothing compared to a 1,000% increase when you go to step-fathers. The book I referenced put biological parents at a 45%/55% divide, but I can't remember which side which gender fell on.

One thing that everyone does seem to agree on (from about 10 results on a google filicide statistics search) are the ages. Almost all mothers who murder their children do it at very early ages (2 or younger), whereas the majority (though not as large of one) of fathers who murder their children do it between 15 and 18 years old. Kids between about 2 and 15 are the least likely to be murdered by far.

So, since I've referenced my source, care to reference yours, Mordea? It must be pretty good since you appear to take it as Yon Holy Graille, mass-brainwashing, and a government conspiracy all in one.

 

My reference is Gavin DeBecker. He developed software to help police determine the risk level a woman or child was in from an abuser. His data was gathered from many sources from local police departments across the country to the FBI.

What I've seen is that under the age of five the numbers are 50/50 (each parent equally likely to kill). Above the age of five the numbers heavily skew to the father. Non biological parental deaths of children are very heavily skewed to male offenders for all ages of children.

 

Everything you know is wrong: the Disinformation guide to secrets and lies
By Russell Kick

Note that he references his claims.

 

Ah. Yes. That explains it. I particularly loved this bit of the discription:

Really?
*Looks around his home with his wife, the home in which he was raised, the home in which his wife was raised, the churches he's attended since he was born, the Christian camps, the Bible study groups, the youth activities, the seminaries, etc*
Nope, don't see it.

 

NOG, perhaps you don't, but many Christians do exactly that. The bible isn't exactly what you'd call a feminist work, either, so any argument that your holy book doesn't call for the subjugation of women will be a losing one -- unless of course you wish to argue about the contemporary meaning of the word "subjugation." I initially took issue with the broad brush used in that statement until I re-read it and noticed a very crucial operator -- major. I can find a whole bevy of minor religions or religious sects that do not subjugate women in some way, but no major ones.

 

I'm sorry but the disinformation guide series is not what I would call a credible resource. The books are simply a compilation of articles which come from a hodge-podge of writers (some of whom are credible -- but only some) and often go into the realm of conspiracy theory. I will always take the word of noted experts over "provocative" journalists who are simply out to make a buck.

NOG: Drew beat me to it but I'll still add that at least 99% of all Christian, Judaism, Muslin, and Islam religions are patriarchal. Women cannot hold high positions of authority (in every case even a woman in position of authority is accountable to a man). In that way women are nearly always in an inferior role to men in these religions. Some religions were greatly influenced by the feminists movement and those may actually have women in charge -- but those in a distinct minority.

 

I suppose that depends on what you call 'major'. There are several major denominations of Christianity that will allow women to do anything and everything men do, including becoming ranking officials. There's strong scriptural backing for this, too. The Old Testament get's complicated, and I don't want to get into the myriad of details (on top of which you and I have already had a very heated discussion on it some years back), but the New Testament is very relative to the cultures it was speaking too. At the same time Paul is telling one church women shouldn't speak in church, he's telling another that women can be deacons and pastors. In the first church's city, women were considered little more than property, and Paul's words were both to protect the reputation of the church and to protect the women in the church from retribution. In the second, women enjoyed all the rights and priveledges men did, and a woman was even the mayor of the city. People are quick to jump on the first, either as evidence that women have no place in authority or as evidence that women are oppressed by Christianity, but few bother with the second.

Back to the point, though. "Christianity" as a whole does not oppress women. Nor does it raise them to equality. "Christianity", as a whole, is simply not whole on the issue. Catholicism oppresses women, at least to some degree (in that they can't do or be all the things men can). The Episcopals, on the other hand, don't. Baptists are heavily divided on the issue.

 

you're having a laugh right?

alright... lets twist the bill a bit.. what about pay discrimination?

 

LOL. I don't care what you think is a credible source. All of the book's statements are referenced, and are in line with the sourced observations made by other authors and scholarly articles.

You're welcome to believe whatever nonsense you want. Just note that I'm not buying into your snake oil. There is no conclusive evidence that fathers are more likely to kill their children than mothers, and indeed, evidence suggests that mothers may be more prone to committing child abuse. So, trying to deny fathers custody on such rationale is dishonest and sexist.

But I have come to expect no less from 'feminist' men.

I won't be arguing this point any further. My mind is made up. I'm right, you are wrong.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 49 seconds later... ----------

Does not exist. Yet another lie by feminists and beta males.

 

You are the one selling snake oil. I had custody of my kids. Custody is not being denied to anyone because of these statistics. And yes, pay discrimination is a fact (but probably not referenced in the periodicals you read .. it's only in Money, Forbes, Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, scientific journals like Chemical and Engineering News, etc.) -- of course for jobs like McDonalds and Burger King the pay is the same, perhaps that's where you gathered your opinion.

You really think the disinformation guides are in line with other scholarly resources? My turn ... ROFL. I gotta admit I've not been called "feminist" before, that's a new one.

 

Well.....you do have a pretty mouth.

 

Another way of saying "got" I assume.

 

Actually, not necessarily. As I pointed out, step-mothers are massively more likely to murder children than even step-fathers. With that in consideration, and the fact that a biological mother is not very likely to marry a step-mother for the children, you could argue that even a biological mother's slightly increased abuse rate (comparatively) is overshadowed by the threat posed by a step-mother.

 

"Had", past tense, which is quite appropriate since the children from my first marriage are now adults.

I had custody of them ... the judge awarded full joint custody (as was requested) and I was primary custodian. They are out on their own ... flown the coupe ... left the nest ... in places of their own ... mostly. Can I stop leading you by the hand now?

 

Haha! Now I understand your hesitation to name the source. Seriously... does anyone expect to find anything of value behind such a sensational and tabloid-like title?

That aside (for obvious reasons, I do not have many experiences concerning Christian social circles), yet another issue: Why would a cultural concept that is thousands of years old be held to modern standards? Of course, it is different for institutions based upon the aforementioned religions, but judging the religion an sich that way is just plain unreasonable.

 

hihihihi he thinks something is a credible source because it uses references and doesn't contradict scholarly articles. I don't know why I am not allowed to use wikipedia as a source for my papers. I mean, they use references right?

 

Michael Moore uses references, but I dont see every politician being arrested like his books would warrant.