Sunday, March 26, 2006

---Women are better parents because they are 'naturally' protective of children....

Yea, right.

Ever notice how when a man abuses a child, it's all over the media? Now I am not saying that it shouldn't but I often wonder why it is almost always men. We know that women can be just as violent as men, it has been proven, regardless of what the femikooks say.

Lately we have been seeing a lot of "Teacher Has Affair With Child" stories. Of course, just by the title, one can assume that in this particular story, the 'teacher' is female. You see, when the story says "Male Teacher Molests 14 Year Old Student", you know what it's about. But when a woman does it, they (the media) somehow gloss over it like it's no big deal. Well it is. Molestation is molestation, and it is wrong. Call it an "affair" if you want, but it is still wrong. And by the way, it is no epidemic either. Just as rape (real rape, not the new catch-all version) is not and never was an epidemic. It is just being reported more.

This brings The Man On The Street to his next point. Homosexual parenting. Now, being a heterosexual and a non-scholar in the sexuality of homosexuals, I cannot in good conscience begin to explain how it feels to be a homosexual. I DO know in my small little male mind that it is not BIOLOGICALLY sound to label it as ‘natural’. But that is not the point of this post. You can argue until the sun comes up; it still isn’t natural, as in NATURE, as in a penis and a vagina, as in procreation. But as usual, I digress.

Some would say that a homosexual partnership is as solid an environment as any heterosexual partnership. Well, I have an issue with that. Two males will not, and CANNOT be considered a wholesome environment for a child, male or female. Why? Well, how is a young lad supposed to understand the whole biological prospective of procreation, as well as the sexual dynamics of male to female relationships if he has two male parents? Lets not even get into the concept of these two men bringing up a young girl.Granted, two males would more than likely be able to teach a child, male or female, sensitivity, caring, and respect. Any good household can do that, so I am not saying that there is something evil about them. No. I am merely stating that the sexual dynamics of male-female interaction would be an issue. If you do not find a woman sexually attractive, then how the hell can you teach a child (again, male or female) how to interact with the opposite sex? Would you? Or would you go as far as to say that heterosexuality is wrong, and homosexuality is right? Who knows? I am sure it can be done, but I assure you, it would be difficult. With my own children (a boy and a girl), I had a difficult time explaining that ‘birds and the bees’ stuff. When it came to homosexuality, it was a rough road to travel. It all came down to one sentence. Heterosexuality = biological = procreation, homosexuality = preference or choice. Agree to disagree if you’d like.

So that brings The Man On The Street to the real reason for this post. Lesbian relationships. To be more precise, lesbians as parents. We all know that old tired song and dance that women are more nurturing, caring, shit just plain ole better than any man could ever be, right? So it would stand to reason (based on the ridiculous assumption above) that lesbian parents, especially if one is the biological parent of said children, would be just as good, if not better an environment for children. Whether the children are male or female, right? Ahem. Please take a look at the following link. I’ll wait. When you are done reading it, come on back.

“But Mr. Man On The Street, it may be boring and I don’t want to waste the 2 seconds it takes to click on it”, you say? Well, here is a taste, a teaser if you will… Just to get you started.
__________________________

Four-year-old Jandre Botha disobeyed an order to call his mother's lesbian lover "Daddy''.


So the lover, Engeline de Nysschen (33), viciously assaulted Jandre while demanding that he must call her "Daddy".

Jandre died from his injuries, which trauma expert Professor Mohammed Dada said were similar to those of a person who had fallen from a double-storey building.

Yesterday Vereeniging Regional Court magistrate Rita Willemse found De Nysschen and the mother, Hanelie Botha (31) - who did nothing to protect her child - guilty of murder.

Jandre's father, Jan Botha, sat in court holding the hands of his fiancée, Yolanda Deysel, and listened attentively to Willemse, who, in her judgment, accepted evidence that among the reasons that led to Jandre's brutal ordeal was his refusal to call De Nysschen "Daddy".

Here is the link with rest of the story:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=3171828
__________________________

How is that for ‘sexual dynamics’? Now that there is some good old fashioned nurturing type motherly love right there! Yep! No hatred of the male species either!

“But Mr. Man On The Street, it took place in South Africa! They have different morals and their culture is so different than ours”, you say?

Then may I direct your attention to the following?
__________________________

Two lesbian mothers in Ohio were sentenced to 30 years in prison on Tuesday for the horrific abuse of their five sons.

Mary Rowles, 31, the biological mother of the boys, and her partner, Alice Jenkins, 28, pleaded guilty to charges that they beat, starved, locked the children in closets for months at a time, and forced them to eat human and animal faeces.


The rest of the story:
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5663
__________________________

Again, some real old fashioned motherly love right there, eh?

Did anyone else notice the word 'girl' in there? Yep, 5 boys were abused and a girl... Was not. Notice how SHE wasn’t abused... Any guesses as to why?

I am so glad that only men are rapists, molesters, and abusive towards children. I am also VERY thankful that homosexuals, specifically lesbians, can be just as good at parenting as heterosexual parents… what with twice the amount of maternal, caring, and nurturing genes.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

---Is There a Batterer in the US Congress?

Is There a Batterer in the US Senate?
By Glenn Sacks

There is a batterer in the United States Senate. This abuser's spouse has suffered repeated violent attacks, yet there has been no condemnation of this Senator's violence. Ironically, this Senator, who is one of the most controversial people in American public life today, has somehow escaped reproach for the one thing that both detractors and admirers should agree is genuinely inexcusable--domestic violence.

Who is this perpetrator of domestic violence? New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

The evidence against Ms. Clinton is strong. According to Hillary's admiring biographer Gail Sheehy, author of Hillary's Choice, one of the domestic assaults upon Bill Clinton occurred in 1993, when Hillary slashed Bill Clinton's face with her long fingernails, leaving a "mean claw mark along his jawline."

The incident was first explained as a "shaving accident" and a subsequent attempt was made to pin the blame on Socks the cat. Because of the gouge's size, neither explanation was accepted by observers. Dee Dee Myers, the White House spokeswoman at the time, later explained to Sheehy that it had been singer Barbara Streisand's visit to the White House that had sparked Hillary's jealous, violent rage.

According to Christopher Andersen, author of Bill and Hillary, Hillary also assaulted Bill on August 13, 1999, after the Monica Lewinsky revelations. Andersen writes:

"...the President...weeping, begged her forgiveness. Much of what transpired next between Bill and Hillary Clinton was plainly audible to Secret Service agents and household staff members down the hall. In the past, Hillary had thrown books and an ashtray at the President -- both hitting their mark...Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face -- hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room. "

‘You stupid, stupid, stupid bastard,' Hillary shouted. Her words, delivered at the shrill, earsplitting level that had become familiar to White House personnel over the years, ricocheted down the corridor."

Sheehy's account of the incident is similar, adding that Hillary's friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomasen, who was staying with her husband in the private quarters nearby, "thought it was great that Hillary ‘smacked him upside the head.' "

The US Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime classifies these types of attacks--scratching, slapping, hitting, throwing objects, and inflicting bruises or lacerations--as "physical abuse" and domestic violence.

Bill Clinton handled the incidents in a manner reminiscent of the way many female victims of domestic violence did in the pre-feminist era. Ashamed, he tried to cover the incidents up, even ordering his representatives to publicly alibi his wife's violence. He probably blamed himself for "provoking" her, as if marital infidelity warrants physical assault. And he almost certainly never considered calling the police or formally charging his abuser.

The public's reaction has been of the "what did he do to set her off?" variety--a "blame the victim" mentality that would immediately be recognized and condemned were the genders of the perpetrator and victim reversed. Media coverage of the incidents has almost entirely consisted of jokes on late night TV and talk radio. In narrating these assaults, neither Sheehy nor Andersen mention ‘domestic violence' or even write disapprovingly of Hillary's attacks. Needless to say, the reaction would be quite different were it the president's wife who appeared in public with lacerations on her face.

Nor were the incidents mentioned during Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign. In fact, it was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who was publicly pilloried as a bad spouse for his failing marriage, while the fact that his electoral opponent was a known abuser merited little or no mention.

The Clinton incidents demonstrate that, despite the overwhelming body of research which shows that men and women initiate and engage in domestic violence equally, the public still largely holds the outdated and discredited view that domestic violence is synonymous with wife-beating.

Ironically, Senator Clinton herself has spoken out on domestic violence on many occasions, and has supported the Family Violence Prevention Fund's $100 million anti-Domestic Violence campaign. The campaign's slogan is "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence."

What's Senator Clinton's excuse?

Thursday, March 09, 2006

---The 76-cent myth

The 76-cent myth

Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn't the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 21, 2006: 5:51 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - When you have a legitimate point to make, it can undercut your argument to rely heavily on a sound-bite statistic that easily can be misinterpreted.
When it comes to pay discrimination, the one statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.

To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position.

But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it.

It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked.

The wage gap, in short, "is a good measure of inequality, not necessarily a measure of discrimination," said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Unequal doesn't always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, "parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do."

Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.

Why that's the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society's primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.

However, while those factors account for a good portion of the wage gap, actual pay discrimination likely accounts for the balance, experts say.

Hartmann believes discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap. Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does.

Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination -- however unconscious -- still exists. For instance:

A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.

A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.
Then there's the phenomenon of wages going down when more women move into a field.
Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. "Not at all," he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they're paid about 20 percent less.

Why? "That's the million-dollar question," he said. "There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination."

A few years back, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that its women scientists were routinely given less pay, space, funding and rewards than their male colleagues.
"Did anyone intentionally give them smaller offices and labs? Probably not. It's just one of those things (that) accumulate and add up to barriers and institutional discrimination," Hartmann said.

Even though discrimination may not be intentional, Hartmann said, companies should be intentional about regularly reviewing their compensation structures and promotion records to correct for patterns of discrimination.

But maybe there can never be absolute parity because often there are many non-discriminatory variables that cause a differential in pay. What determines someone's pay isn't just a title and job description, but also performance, tenure and market forces -- e.g., what it takes to get a desirable job candidate to accept a position.

And then there are situations in which a company may do well by a female employee but still be vulnerable to charges of discrimination and reverse discrimination.

In an article, Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It," tells of a company that promoted good women employees faster than men. But consequently the women moving into the higher positions often were paid less than men in the same position because the men had greater tenure at the company.

Or, Thornton noted, a man's request for pay equity is more likely to fall on deaf ears if he finds out a newly hired female colleague is paid more. But if a woman made the same request, it's more likely to be treated seriously, due to fear of a lawsuit.

If anything is clear cut, it's that pay equity can be a complex issue. And it's one that a single, overly generalized statistic does little to elucidate.

Please, knaw on that for a while......

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

---Making a stand against mysandry is not just men's work...

Olympian Thompson rejects UNH award
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS & The Union Leader - Manchester, NH
Tuesday, Mar. 7, 2006

DURHAM (NH) – Swimmer Jenny Thompson, America’s most decorated Olympian, is rejecting a high honor from the University of New Hampshire to protest the school’s decision to cut its men’s swimming team and other sports.

Thompson is turning down the annual Charles Holmes Pette Medal, the highest honor given by UNH’s Alumni Association.

“How can the university honor me for accomplishments in an endeavor which they clearly do not respect,” said Thompson, who grew up in Dover.

The university also is eliminating men’s and women’s tennis and women’s crew as it tries to erase a $1 million shortfall.

Thompson said she could not have achieved her dreams if she had not had the opportunity provided by swimming teams.

“Having the men’s swimming team and other Olympic sports, such as crew and skiing, cut means less opportunity for people to achieve their dreams, not just for the current student-athletes but for future generations,” she said.

Thompson, a graduate of Stanford University, is studying at Columbia’s School of Medicine.
A group of UNH alumni, parents and students planned to give a copy of Thompson’s statement to Gov. John Lynch and House Speaker Douglas Scamman at the Statehouse on Tuesday.
The also planned a rally to protest the sports cuts.

_____________________

Good for you Miss Thompson. The statement you have made will help women AS WELL AS MEN in the long run. Sports are just as vital to education as the three r's. Sports teaches teamwork, dicipline, respect, and of course sportsmanship... Or in your case sportsWOMANship! Bravo Jenny!

Monday, March 06, 2006

---4th grade education is all that's needed to get into Yale evidently.

Oh, and of course a minority or protected group, anti-American, liberal, femikook, and now, A Taliban Officer. NICE!

Can someone please tell me what the fuck is going on here? Does this even remotely make any sense? Yale wont allow Military Recruitment (ROTC) because of the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy of the military. Straw man argument if I ever saw one. It's actually just a nice little way of not saying what they actually mean, which is "Patriotic Military MEN need not reply". Yet, they allow an individual that is PROVEN to be anti-gay and an enemy of the UNITED STATES in. Now if that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Thank GOD for John Roberts!

It would be one thing if this fucking rag head assassin asshat (yes, I said it, and he is) had at least finished primary and secondary school or even had taken the SATs, but to allow him for no other reason but 'diversity'. What the fuck is that? So a diverse environment within an educational institution (supposedly one of the best at that) means allowing assassins, killers, racist bigots, and evildoers in without the PROPER CRUDENTIALS all in the name of 'diversity'. Oh, wait.... as long as they are not white heterosexual men I guess.

Well, miss Ivy League, Here is what is supposed to happen; if you accept GOVERMENT MONIES, then you must follow the laws that the likes of you set into place. You know, those pesky non-discriminatory laws that you hold so dear to your blackened hearts. Here, let me remind you, non-acceptance based upon race, creed, color, sexuality (or choices thereof), and religion (now there is a funny one), is illegal.

Of course, you have bastardized the law with a 4 foot brush to translate in academic speak to actually mean "any other protected class (read anyone except while hetero males) that we deem such, is illegal"!

Read the excerpts below...

____________________________
Friday, March 03, 2006

Yale University: Taliban Yes; US Military No
by Jim Kouri, CPP

While most American parents can only dream of sending their kids to a first-tier university such as Harvard and Yale, a former ambassador for the oppressive and brutal Afghan Taliban is enrolled at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, even though he possesses none of the qualifications to attend such an institution for higher education.

"Yale University enrolls the Taliban's former spokesman as a student, but continues to prohibit other students from organizing a Reserve Officer Training Corps chapter on campus and also seeks to deny students the right to hear from military recruiters about employment opportunities," say members of the student group Young America's Foundation.

Under the guise of alleged sex discrimination as a result of the military's so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals, Yale and other universities have blocked their students from partaking of ROTC training on campus.

"Yet Yale University is allowing a member or former member of a group that not only discriminated against gays, but actually stoned them to death," says one outraged Yale student.

On February 26, the New York Times Magazine reported that Yale admitted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the Deputy Foreign Secretary of the Taliban, into a non-degree program, with a chance to gain full degree status by 2006.

"In some ways I'm the luckiest person in the world," Hashemi told the Times. "I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."

Prior to his arrival as a student, Hashemi was imprisoned at Bagram Air Base. He had been a member of the Taliban government, serving both in Afghanistan and in the United States as Second Foreign Secretary and Ambassador-at-Large. Yale has not commented on why the university, which accepts only ten percent of all applicants, granted admission to this former Taliban officer. One Yale official claims it's part of creating diversity on campus, but opponents of having a Taliban officer attend a premier college say that excuse has been used by colleges and universities to invite everyone including cop-killers to their campuses.

Hashemi possesses a 4th grade formal education, never took the SATs and advocated violence against homosexuals. As the mouthpiece for the Taliban, Hashemi advocated the oppression of women, gays and non-Muslims. The Taliban are known associates and allies of Al-Qaeda. Not surprising, one intelligence report indicates Hashemi attended an Al-Qaeda terrorism training camp in Afghanistan.

Yale alumnus, and former Army Captain Flagg Youngblood said, "That my alma mater would embrace an ambassador from one of America's declared and defeated enemies and in the same breath keep ROTC and military recruiters off campus shows where Yale's allegiance falls. Yale's actions show that they consider the US military more evil than the Taliban."
_______________________

Read the rest of the story by clickin on the title link above.