Men are discriminated against in the following areas:
Health - Circumcision - Suicide - Domestic violence - Local council - Public libraries - Radio - Newspapers - Advertising - Marriage - Lifestyle Opportunities - Family courts - Parental Alienation - Mother-headed households - Education - Politicians - Passports - Taxes - Pensions and benefits - Safety - Defence - Employment - Criminal law - Wealth - Men
Screening programs are provided for women related cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. However there is no screening of equivalent cancers affecting men such as prostate and testicular cancer. This is very unfair because deaths from prostate cancer are almost as high as deaths from breast cancer and 6.7 times higher than deaths from cervical cancer. The bias is further tilted because research spending overwhelming is in favour of women cancers. The most up to date health targets for the UK include: B1 - reduction of breast cancer by 25%, and B2 - reduction of cervical cancer by 20%. There is not even a mention of prostate, or testicular cancer targets. Men need to demand that more is spent on male health and prevention programs.
Health leaflets published by the NHS and other groups are available in doctors surgeries. Many of these leaflets target women only issues such as breast and cervical cancer. Visitors to doctors surgeries in the UK will be hard pressed to find even a single leaflet targeting men only conditions. Some of the leaflets are obviously persuing an 'agenda' . The leaflet 'Your Health: A guide to services for Women' published by the Department of Health has a whole page on Domestic Violence: "Domestic violence includes emotional, as well as sexual or physical abuse of women in their homes by partners" it then goes on to give the phone number of Women's aid and Rape crisis lines. This is classic 'male-bashing' in it's purest form. The leaflet makes no mention that serious studies into this area have shown that women are more likely to commit domestic violenceagainst their partners or children. The leaflet contains no phone numbers to help men who experience domestic violence, or to help women who are abusive or violent to their male partners.
"I didn't know what my sons had endured until, as a nursing student years later, I saw the surgery for the first time. Nothing could have prepared me for the experience of watching a new-born baby, strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board,scream helplessly as the doctor tore the baby's forskin from the head of his penis (an attachement that is normal in infancy), crush and then cut the foreskin lengthwise, insert the circumcision device, crush the foreskin around, and finally amputate it. The piercing screams were so devastating that I began to cry uncontrollably. The doctor looked into my face and said. 'There is no medical reason for doing this'!"Male circumcision has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid. Few human rights organisations help, indeed the UN has been heavily criticised for campaigning against female mutilation but doing nothing to help males UN criticised for doing nothing against male mutilation
All serious studies into domestic violence show a roughly equal balance between the genders. Some studies have shown that there is a higher rate of domestic violence amongst lesbian than heterosexual couples. A poll undertaken by MORI and commissioned by Here and Now had these main findings:
Following is a quote from Erin Pitzey (received in a personal email) who as the founder of the world's first women refuge should be qualified to comment. She said:
"...it saddens me that we even have to have a women's movement and a men's movement but really there was no choice. I couldn't stop the feminist movement from hi-jacking my work in London at my refuge in Chiswick. They wanted funding and my work, twenty-five years ago - as the first refuge in the world seemed heaven sent for them. No matter that I told them that out of the first hundred women that came into Chiswick sixty-two were as violent as the men they left. I couldn't get any coverage for the truth. 'All men are bastards and rapists' is the only truth that the women's movement were prepared to hear....Now, with the help of this evil movement father's role in family life seems to be irrelevant....."
These seem to be very wise words but Erin received death threats from women just for standing up and speaking out against anti-male hatred propaganda.
This work from:
The truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue by R.L. McNeely and G. Robinson-Simpson
Social Work 32(6)485-490 1987
"Yet, while studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence as often as are women, both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as 'suprising, if not unreliable, the sterotype being that men are agressive and women are exclusively victims.'"
This work from:
Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: a longtitudinal analysis by K. O'Leary, J. Barling, Arias, Ilena, A. Rosenbaum, J. Malone and A. Tyree
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57(2):263-268, 1989.
This report notes that 31% of men and 44% of women in a study reported that they aggressed against their partner in the year before marriage. Eighteen months after marriage, 27% of the men and 36% of the women reported being violent towards their partner.
This information is a precis taken from an article that appeared in the Washington Post July 1994 by Armin A. Brott. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that more than half of US married women (over 27 million) will experience violence during their marriage. Asked where these figures came from Rita Smith the group's coordinator, told me the figures were only "estimates". From where? "Based on what we hear out there". Out where? Battered women's shelters and other advocacy groups. When there is a sensational story to run, common sense and intellectual honesty are rarely taken into consideration.
Even those who have a public responsibility to be accurate on these issues sometimes falter. According to Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, for example, 4 million women are 'battered' each year by their male partners. But where did she get her figure? From a 1993 Harris poll commissioned by the Commonwealth Fund. Two percent of the 2,500 women interviewed said they had been "kicked, bit, hit with a fist or some other object". Apply that to the approximately 55 million women married or living with a man and you get a total of 1.1 million. So where did the other 2.9 million come from? They were women who said they had been "pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped". That's a form of abuse, to be sure, but is it what most people would call battering?
By far the worst distortion of the numbers of battered women comes from Miami talk show host Pat Stevens, who appeared on a CNN show called "OJ on the Air" in June. She estimated the true number of battered women is 60 million. No one bothered to tell Stevens that 60 million is more than 100% of all the women in the entire country who are currently in relationships with a man.
Probably one off the best studies on domestic violence has been in the US. Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available - the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS) sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health. This survey found that 84% of American families are not violent. In 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in severe violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon. Straus and Gelles estimate that about 188,000 women are injured severely enough to require medical attention. That is a horrifying number of victims, but it's a far cry from 4 million, or 18 million, or 60 million.
Another common myth about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Straus ad Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the women in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. Straus' latest findings , released earlier this month, that men's violence against women - even as reported by women- has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, reported assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. The 95% figure comes from the US department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. Department studies have shown that men report all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.
A Justice Department study released earlier this month showed that 41 percent of spousal murder victims were male. Battered women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense. But in an extensive study of women imprisoned for murder, Coramae Richely Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington found that only 59% claimed self-defense and that 30% had previously been arrested for violent crimes. A recent Los Angeles Times article quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.
So why are these statistics being battered? Not everyone who manipulates data does so for personal gain. Some are simple trying to get people to sit up and pay attention to the plight of battered women - a truely important goal. Is it OK to lie shamelessly if your cause is a noble one?
On the one hand Congress is about to pass the $1.8 billion Violence Against Women Act which, among other things, will fund toll-free hotlines, battered women's shelters, and education and training programs. It's certainly possible that none of this would be happening if advocacy groups stuck strictly to facts.
On the other hand Members of Congress, seeing a golden opportunity to appease a large block of voters, have chosen a quick solution rather that attempting to correct their constituents' misapprehensions. The violence Against Women Act, for example, doesn't devote a nickel to the same kind of special protection for men. Women too, are being hurt by the lies. Having fought so hard to be taken seriously and treated as equals, women are again finding themselves portrayed as weak and helpless. Worst of all, the inflation of domestic violence statistics produces a kind of ratchet effect. The same people complain that no one listens if they don't exaggerate only find it that much more difficult to get people's attention the next time around - which in turn seems to justify another round of exaggeration. Eventually, the public either stops listening altogether, or finds the statistics too absurd to believe.
If women are able to make the case that they are the victims (victimhood) and that men are the abusers (male-bashing) then what follows is that women are disadvantaged and therefore need special support (entitlement). For example Cambridge City Community Welfare and Development Plan 1995 says:
"Disadvantaged groups include the unemployed and low paid, ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, lone parents and pensioners, those living in overcrowded conditions and lacking amenities".We can therefore expect priority spending on women and lone parent groups, and this is indeed the case. In addition because women are 'victims' they are then entitled to women-only swimming pool sessions, women-only car parking, and women-only library sessions and these already exist is various cities in the UK. We can compare the spending on men-only and women-only groups in Cambridge UK using 1992 and 1996 annual grant figures:
Women /Lone parents (read mothers) 1992 1996 Women's Resource Centre (training and other) 176K 0.25M/year(estxx) Women's refuge centre (choices??xx) 60K (estxx) xx Choices (Incest counselling) 26.9K 5040 Rape crisis centre 500 1146 Corona House (Women's hostel) xx xx Women's aid 20.9K xx Lesbian line 960 xx Women and homelessness 14K xx Gingerbread (lone parent i.e. mother) 1000 12.9K Black women's support group - 19250 Women-only swimming pool sessions xx 575K(Parks)+498K(abbey) Social services dept (xx women's groups) 1.0M Social services/Health cmte (xx women's groups) 2.5M
Men Cambridge Friend (Gay men) xx xx
Libraries are staffed mainly by women and therefore there is an automatic tendency to stock information that favours women. As an example the Cambridge main library information service has computer searches giving details of local groups. Entering the key word 'women' gave about 50 references, typing in 'men' gave 0 references. The library acted swiftly to correct this obvious gender imbalance. A second example was that the library had a 'women's issues' shelf but no 'men's issues' shelf. Again the library acted swiftly to correct this imbalance and with the help of donated books a men's shelf was soon available. This suggests that there was no real intentional bias and that maybe libraries are 'demand-led'.
"...During yesterday's broadcast she (Anna Ford) introduced an item on the treatment of men during divorce cases. There were two participants: Elizabeth Woodcraft a feminist barrister, and Neil Lyndon, author of the uncompromisingly anti-feminist No More Sex War. Lyndon felt that the interview was rather skewed in favour of his opponent, who was allowed to talk for more than two of the piece's three minutes. After the broadcast he received a call from Today's deputy editor, Rod Little, agreeing, apologising and saying Miss Ford had been reprimanded...."
Sunday Telegraph 31-Sep-97
The BBC World service has traditionally had a reputation for excellence. The station features news and documentaries with reporters of world-standing such as Mark Tully and Misha Glenny. A recent drive is under way to feminise the world service (announcement: "calling all our women listeners" BBC 13-Aug-96) a new program called 'Everywoman' targets women listeners and copies the Radio-4 'Woman's Hour' practice of including a liberal sprinkling of male-bashing. New world service reporters such as Julliet Tindell now send back reports from Tokyo (BBC 26-Aug-96) where for example women are illegally imported into Japan to work in the 'entertainment' industry as prostitutes. According to the Japanese newspaper The Yomiuri Shimbun Mon Aug 12 1996 there are 160,836 male and 123,664 female immigrants staying illegally in Japan as estimated by the Ministry of Law (1-May-96). The men work in the so called KKK jobs. In Japanese KKK stands for dangerous, hard, and dirty, i.e. the jobs that no Japanese would want to do. The BBC program failed to mention anything about the fate of these illegal male immigrants. The program also failed to mention anything about men imported to work as male prostitutes. It is tempting to suggest that if immigrant women to Japan were being burnt to death in blast furnaces, or being trapped under agricultural machinery then we would soon hear about it from Tindell. This pattern of 'women-as-victim' reporting is increasingly repeated in many other countries by the BBC world service. The new correspondents have an obvious 'male-bashing' agenda and this is excluding the highly respected and experienced correspondents such as Tully and Glenny.
"....Only in exceptional circumstances a complaint from a third party may be investigated should the Commission consider that a significant issue involving the public interest is raised....the Commissioners do not find your complaint raises such an issue under the Code."
Obviously the fate of 45000 fathers who loose all contact with their children every year is not considered a significant issue. It is according to the press acceptable to present a mother as a heroine and a father as a child snatcher.
The car company Nissan recently placed advertisements in women's magazines for a car called the Micra targeting younger women who make up 70 percent of the cars buyers. The heading was 'Hate Male'. The advertisement encouraged women readers to write in and get sent postcard pictures of a man who had been compromised by a women after he had borrowed her car without asking. The pictures are: A man bent in agony holding his crutch, a mans jacket in tatters with both the arms cut off, a male watch being fried in a pan, a man sleeping with half his hair and beard cut off, a women holding a can of opened dog food behind her back and in the background a man is sitting eating, a paper clipping lying on a table of the Bobbitt case entitled: a night to dismember, and a book with the last few pages cut out.
In an advertisement on television by Volkswagen a divorcing husband tries to claim that his VW car is worth a great deal more money than it really is. The wife discovers this overvaluation and gets her own back on the husband by "taking him to the cleaners". The wife is seen crowing over her victory and thanking VW for their cheapness. The husband is left standing at the kerb side and gets his clothes back from the cleaners torn to shreds (presumably by his wife).
A billboard advertisement for Lee jeans features a naked man lying on the floor. A woman wearing Lee jeans is shown with her stiletto above the man's buttocks. The caption reads "Put the boot in".
An advertisement for Wallis clothes featuring in women's magazines, shows men about to be killed because they are staring at women. In one, a man is about to have his throat cut because his barber is staring at a pretty girl.
If a man takes the step of marrying and has children:
If a women takes the step of marrying and has children:
The ideal of maternal-preference originates from the period when two parent families were the norm. Marriage and children are great civilisers and motivaters for men. Women benefit from the man's pay check and from the male qualities he instills in the children. In two parent families the children are mostly cared for by the mother, but this is becomming less common. By contrast a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. For example, one of the best predictors of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or step-father. Some studies have put the rate of abuse as 77 times greater in lone-mother households with a boyfriend / stepfather compared to families where both biological parents are present.
Family court judges are advised by Court Welfare officers who are supposed to make recommendations 'in the best interest of the child'. These officers often operate without a complaints procedure. Since a welfare report cannot be acknowledged as wrong it can only be right. A report that is by definition right can only be endorsed by the court, which as it happens sit in secret. It is almost impossible for fathers to appeal against bad decisions. Even appeals where there is outrageous justice against fathers are very rarely granted.
There is a widespread misconception that children get over the effects of divorce. This is not the case. There is much evidence that children from broken families are severely disadvantaged [Telegraph 01-Dec-96]. In some children these wounds never heal.
A mother inducing alienation may say that the father is always harassing us with phone calls, always trying to bribe us with gifts and toys, or getting solicitors onto us. Inducing parents may often cut off the extended family as well. A common form of critism is how little maintainance money is given. Inducing parents often use baby sitters, with excuses like the non-resident parent can't see the children at these times because it is outside routine. The inducing parent would rather the child be with friends or neighbours or playing outside unsupervised than with the non-resident parent. An inducing parent will not forward school reports, school photographs or want the non-resident parent to go to school concerts etc. Inducing parents often wont cooperate in joint interviews or mediation and they are often blinded by rage and don't appreciate the emotional damage they are doing to their children. They are often convincing and are master manipulators.
Children who grow up without their biological father do less well at school. The issue here is one of status and total control since the children are the automatic passport to benefits. Mother-custody is often a misnomer since the children are very often left with a childminder or with relatives. This is often the case even when the biological father is available and willing to care for the children.
There are 4.7 times as many female teachers in primary (aged 5-13 years) schools compared to male teachers. In secondary schools (aged 13-18 years) the teacher ratio is about even. It is often stated that there are no male teachers at the primary level because the pay is so bad. This is only half the story, there are now many unemployed male teachers. It is still an accepted predudice by men and women that the raising of young children is 'womens work'.
UK Schools have many barriers to involvement by fathers. Some fathers report that they are excluded by other mothers when they collect their children. The school timetable is not helpful to fathers who work, there are frequent holidays that may not coincide with the fathers own holidays. The school may often be sited an inconvenient distance away from where men traditionally work.
Access courses are 'back to work' initiatives for mainly mothers paid for by government. So while funding is being withdrawn from our brightest university students who now have to 'pay as they go'. Mothers receive free entitlement to be educated not once but twice.
Women 'resource centres' receive generous local and EEC funding. For example the Cambridge Women's Resource centre currently receives 250K a year grant to offer training courses to women that exclude men. Many of these women-only courses are provided in areas of record male unemployment which is often three times the unemployment rate of women. Such apartheid practices in South Africa provoked an international boycott.
John Major (Con) the prime minister has a son who was reported to be involved in the breakup of a marriage of Mr Jordache (Standard 10-Oct-96). Before even the divorce was finalised the reports were of Mrs Jordache being welcomed into the household of John Major. Major has in the past campaigned on back-to-basics and family values. However there are no reports of him publicly speaking out and condemning the behaviour of his son in breaking up a marriage.
When Glenda Jackson (Lab) herself a single mother, was provided in 1994 with a briefing paper describing the discrimination against fathers in family law, she replied that she found the paper "an attack on women".
During a presentation of a 1000 signature petition to Anne Campbell (Lab) asking for release from prison of a jailed father and or equal rights for fathers to care for their children. She refused to sign the petition because the father had broken the law. The father had taken his daughter to the US. This was after the mother had abducted the daughter away from school and the family home, which was later sanctioned by the British courts. It was pointed out to Campbell three times that she could exclude the jailed father clause and still sign for the other father equal treatment clauses. Again she refused. She in fact sent a letter to about 120 of her constituents stating her reasons for not supporting the petition as because the father "had deliberately broken the law". However Anne Campbell did support Nicky Ingrams a drug taker who during the burglary of an elderly couples home in the US had taken them outside at gun point, had tied them to a tree and tortured them for about an hour before finally shooting them both in the head [Times 1-Apr-95]. The US sentenced Ingrams to the electric chair. Campbell wrote a letter to the Prime Minister [Times 4-Apr-95] and was reported to be seeking a parliamentary debate to help Ingrams [Times 31-Mar-95]. Now Campbell possibly believes that a drug crazed neighbour killer is a more deserving cause than a loving father who wants to stay in the life of his children. However 45 fathers and children have died so far as a result of suicide attributed directly to pressure from the Child Support Agency. Why is there only talk about 'responsibilities' and never any talk about the 'equal rights' of fathers to stay in the lives of their children. It is time to see that a father ordered out of his family and onto a lifetime of slavery can in some cases actually be a death penalty.
Judith Church (Lab) is the mother of two children who makes capital out of being a single parent. However her ex-partner of 12 years brought those children up while she was trying to get into politics. Now Church hardly lets him see them. The newspaper report quotes the father Peter Mitchell as saying "it's hypocritical" [Express 6-Oct-9]). Church has even hired a live in full-time au pair and is now refusing to allow Mr Mitchell to spend more than one night a week with their sons. It is amazing that Church brings in a hired stranger to care for the children when the father who wants to care for his children is denied by Church.
Rod Richards (Con) has a duty to help his constituents. However one father Dennis Williams has been shut out from the life of his daughter because of claims by his ex-wife [Express 20-Oct-9]). Richards has done nothing to assist this father despite a personal visit to his surgery and a worldwide fax campaign. However Richards does approve of helping persistent truants at Welsh schools by sending them on free holidays in Scotland. "It reflects our commitment to doing everything within our power to help authorities raise standards in our schools" (Telegraph xx find ref). These persistent truants are often the product of fatherless families whose father-expulsion Richards refuses to help. An effective way to improve behaviour in schools is to reduce the number of fatherless families. Richards also has been reported to be involved in an affair (xx) despite belonging to a party that has promoted back-to-basics and family values.
A mother does not need the fathers permission to apply for a passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother.
Despite repeated applications to the Equal Opportunities Commission, a body that has been specifically setup to redress descrimination, they have refused to assist in this matter.
Married men are especially discriminated against compared to lone parents. For every level of earnings a lone-parent with children has more left in her pocket than a married man with the same number of children who has to support one extra adult (P. Morgan: Farewell to the Family). This is because lone parents have earnings disregards and extra benefits.
Personal allowances can be transferred from the husband to the wife, but they can not be transferred from the wife to the husband.
Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.
Lone parents (i.e. mothers) have a number of benefits especially since many i.e. 60% do not work, they may be entitle to the following: housing benefit, income support, family credit
In this era of feminist's demands for equality they should get it. If men for example pay 75% of the taxes then they must get 75% of the benefits. Even more useful would be divide funds into two social pots. Then men pay into one social pot and women pay into another. This would then correct the unfairness that men die 7 years earlier than women.
It is interesting to compare the financial treatment of a war veteran injured in the Falklands war by horrific burns, with the fact that laws have been changed to give women large compensations, from the Ministry of Defence, for the loss of earnings as a result of pregnancy when they have voluntarily entered into contracts of employment which regulate this.
The soldier, Simon Weston, was paid nothing in compensation except for his normal pension. The mother was paid £150,000 (typically) for unfair dismissal. In fact the total service personnel employer liability claim for 1994/5 was £14.3M with 298 settled claims where e.g. injury and damages could be proved to be the fault of MOD negligence. However the total refund given to the approximately 300 women who were pregnant totalled £50M.
Men and women have to comply with unequal physical training standards. The MOD reports the following for the Army:
Entry standard Heaves Sit-ups Run Men 2 1 min 1.5 miles in 12.5 mins Women 2 1 min 1.5 miles in 15 mins Physical Training Standard [army] must be achieved on leaving Heaves Sit-ups Run Men 6 3 mins 1.5 miles in 10.5 mins Women 12 modified 2mins 40secs 1.5 miles in 12.5 mins
This story ran on page A21 of the Boston Globe on 08/27/97.
Eight good reasons to oppose women in the military, By Mona Charen, 08/27/97
Most of the opinion-shaping press has presented the spectacle of the Virginia Military Institute's first female cadets as a simple story of feminism triumphant. All people of good will are presumed to be rooting for the plucky little gals as they conquer one of the last bastions of male supremacy - the military. Here are eight reasons that the national consensus on this is wrong.
1.) The male-only tradition at military academies, as in the military services themselves until recently, is not a manifestation of male dominance or an attempt to keep women in second-class status (any more than all-women's colleges are expressions of female chauvinism). It is based on fundamental differences between the sexes that no amount of political pressure can erase.
2.) Men are physically stronger than women. If women object to that reality, their complaint is with God, not VMI. And while war has become more technological in recent years, physical strength is not yet irrelevant. Men are also more aggressive (though not necessarily meaner). Feminists deny this now, but remember back in the '70s, when they were arguing that the world would be so much less warlike if women ran things?
War is horrible, and it is devoutly to be hoped that mankind will someday transcend it, as we have outgrown child sacrifice and (nearly everywhere) slavery. But, until that day comes, do we not want the toughest, hardest, strongest, and most aggressive members of society to fight our wars?
3.) Men do not get pregnant or nurse babies. When a woman becomes an insurance adjuster or a CEO, a pregnancy does not represent a catastrophe. But a woman warrior cannot be pregnant. (That's why the abortion rate is so high on military bases.) Will feminists next argue that keeping babies out of combat constitutes discrimination?
4.) Introducing women into the military complicates morale and discipline problems. A military unit relies on camaraderie and loyalty. The rules against fraternization - widely misunderstood during the recent Kelly Flinn imbroglio - are intended to maintain morale by ensuring that no enlisted man has a close personal friendship with his commanding officer. Friendships can complicate the line of command. If your commanding officer orders you to ''take that hill,'' you must believe he is doing it for militarily sound reasons, not because he dislikes you or prefers to save your tent-mate.
How much more forcefully, then, can romantic love, sexual competition and jealousy affect unit cohesion?
5.) And then there is sexual harassment. In our ideological zeal to see women in the military, we have handed the sexual predators of this world a big, beautiful present. Putting young, vulnerable women into the hands of drill sergeants - who exert practically life-and-death control over their lives for a period of time - is asking for what we've got: An epidemic of abuse.
6.) Feminists are now attacking military life, claiming on the one hand that there are no relevant differences between the sexes that should exclude women and on the other that the trouble with the military is that it is too ''phallocentric.'' Which is it? The feminists do not want strict equality. If they did, they would be protesting the fact that at service academies, women are not required to meet the same training standards as men.
7.) The Israelis tried using women in combat but rejected the policy for several reasons. They found that men were trying to protect the women at the expense of fighting well and that the enemy was fighting harder to avoid the shame of surrendering to women. The culture of one's potential adversary is a relevant consideration. The United States is not likely to fight Canada.
8.) This is not the first time feminists have claimed - in a sensitive realm - that differences between the sexes are illusory. A generation ago, they argued that differences in sexual attitudes and behavior were merely artifacts of cultural conditioning. Women were as randy as men, they argued, and deserved the chance to prove it.
Twenty-five years later, feminists are refining that view. In fact, some have become so sexually phobic that they've defined any unwelcome approach by a man to be ''sexual harassment.'' Women are tough enough to fight wars but not able to handle a dirty joke? Hmmm.
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist.
c Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.
We receive messages from individuals in the military like this one for example...
"I thought you might want to include a few facts that people might not realise about the forces:
Men also take on jobs that are hard, dangerous, and dirty. Industrial injuries at work are overwhelmingly of men. It is very rare to see women working as street cleaners or refuse collectors. These are the so called glass cellar jobs i.e. jobs that women seem not to want.
Suzane Oatley 37 a depressed mother who killed her 11 day old baby by hitting his head against a stair walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that she should be helped not punished. [Times 1-Sep-95]
A father was jailed for taking his daughter and starting a new life with her in America...the 18-month sentence imposed on Martin Hallam at Leeds Crown Court was hailed by his former wife and her lawyer as a powerful deterrent to would-be parental abductors [Telegraph 14-Nov-95]
A mother who tried to throw her five-year-old son off a bridge above a fast flowing river was placed on probation [Telegraph 28-Oct-9])
A cruel mother who deliberately caused agonising injuries to her baby son walked free, because the judge said, her son 'needed' her [Telegraph 18-Mar-95].
A mother who killed her 11-month-old baby daughter to stop her crying was jailed for 18 months, but her drug-addict boyfriend was jailed for 30 months [Telegraph 29-Apr-95].
Women who snatch babies from parents are usually treated leniently and placed on probation (Telegraph 16-Oct-94).
In 1994 a research finding published by the home office concluded that women offenders are treated more leniently than men by the police and courts (Research Findings No 10 Home Office Research and Stats May 1994). Of all women convicted of indictable offences 7% were given custodial sentences. The figure for men was 20% [Telegraph 16-Oct-95].
Date-rape allegations cases have surged. Very often these allegations have turned out to be completely false. A study conducted by the FBI with subjects already in jail for rape used DNA findings to show that 30% of the convicted men were innocent according to the DNA evidence [Newsweek 11-Jan-93]. A study by Eugene Kanin in a small community over a nine year period indicated that over 40% were officially declared completely and wilfully false [Archives of Sexual Behavior]. In 1985 US Air Force Criminal Investigator Charles McDowell [Chicago Lawyer June 1985] studied 1218 cases initially investigated as rapes; 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remained unsolved.
Sarah Thornton stabbed and murdered her husband in cold blood as he lay sleeping and then claimed that he had provoked her because of domestic violence [Guardian 29-Jul-95].
Spending on men and women can be demonstrated by comparing the shop area dedicated to male and female products, alternatively the number of advertisements targeted at each group can be compared.