I know, I know. I now have TWO open topics that I have yet to finish. I will soon post the follow-up including my plan for raising funds to finance support for male victims of domestic violence. I will likely post something a little later discussing the Male Abortion topic (and if you haven't filled out the questionnaire then please do so by clicking on the post from AUGUST to the right). But I heard something tonight that got me so upset that I just had to comment on it here. It involves the now infamous case of Biurny Peguero.
In 2005, Dominican immigrant Biurny Peguero spoke to police who responded to a drunken altercation outside a New Jersey night club. They found Peguero with noticeable bruising after having recently returned from leaving the club with 3 men. When asked, she claimed in a drunken stupor that she had been raped. As a result, William McCaffery, one of the men involved, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for several charges related to the incident including rape and false imprisonment. In reality, she had received the bruising during a fight with some friends AFTER she had returned to the club.
In the spring of this year, Peguero confessed to a priest (in the confessional) that she had made up the story about the rape and that a man was serving a sentence for something he hadn't done. The priest (and yes, there are still good ones out there) convinced her to come forward and admit what she had done. He helped her contact an attorney and together they contacted the District Attorney's Office to rectify things. McCaffery is currently out on bail awaiting the final dismissal of the charges. Within that last couple days Peguero pled guilty to 2 counts of perjury and now faces 2.5-7 years in prison.
Now, it's no secret that men's rights activists hold false rape claims as a huge platform for their beliefs. Since rape is a crime for which the incarceration rate for males is much higher than it is for women AND given the destructive power of even an unjudicated rape claim, men's rights groups often speak about these issues. This particular case seems to have a lot of people talking about the problem and how to handle people who make false rape allegations. To tell the truth, I'm a little torn on this one...
The debate seems to be whether or not to charge these "victims" with very harsh punishments or to be a bit lenient with them. Some say we should throw the book at people who make false claims of rape given the lives that they tend to ruin. In this case, the man lost 4 years of his life for something he never did! This argument certainly holds water even if it does kind of feel like an eye-for-an-eye type of policy.
Others have argued that imposing very harsh penalties on these women (or men) will deter others from coming forward and admitting having falsely accused anyone of a crime. This theory is that women may say, "I don't want him to have to do prison time for something he didn't do, but it's better than the alternative of ME having to serve time." I think this one seems to make some sense too.
My issue is a little different. The plain truth is that rape is a very difficult crime to prove to begin with. The conviction rate for sexual assaults in this country is exceptionally low. Since most of the time it involves a "he said, she said" type of situation, evidence is often hard to come by and much of it is subjective. If we begin to doubt every victim in theses cases (and we may already) we make it much easier for the REAL sexual predators out there to comit these crimes and get away with them. Cases like Peguero's do irreparable damage to a victim's integrity.
MY SOLUTION: Although my heart bleeds for the men out there who are falsely accused and serving time (as it does for all people in that situation), I can't totally agree that we should show leniency toward people who make false claims of sexual assault. Lives truly are altered forever by these allegations, whether they are ever proven or not. Just ask the Duke lacrosse team. I think that we should likely hold these accusers fully responsible for their lies in order to prevent anyone in the future from sending more innocent men to prison. Feel free to disagree in the comments section if you like.~~STEVE
I am currently researching ways to obtain funding for my cause of male domestic violence victims. When I reach a conclusion there, I will be sure to post that plan as a follow-up to that post. And, once again, if you haven't done so please fill out the make abortion questionnaire so we can FINALLY get that out into the world.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
On DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (I have an idea...)
So in light of the way the Tiger Woods situation is being treated, I have been asked multiple times if I would write something about female-on-male domestic violence in this blog. The truth is we are likely not ever going to learn whether or not Tiger got beat up by his wife Elin over his numerous "bad choices" lately. I won't push the issue. But the truth is that the country is talking about the possibility and the problem of male domestic violence victims for the first time in a long time. I just wish they were talking about it SERIOUSLY. Tonight I saw a skit on SNL about it. This past week I have seen many jokes having been made about the situation. I have even heard Mike Francesa, my favorite radio talk show host, telling us that this idea is ridiculous and that there really isn't anything to worry about. Is there? I think there might be....
This topic was not in any way sparked by the Tiger Woods issue. I saw an article in my GlenSacks.com e-mail newsletter talking about how men's rights groups are becoming succesful in limiting legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. I mentioned it in my last blog and I won't go through that again. I will say that it sparked me to do some serious research on domestic violence laws and statistics. I even interviewed a few of the leading authorities in the area. (Yeah, I take it that seriously.) I saw some startling statistics and heard some interesting points of view. This, however, was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I could go on about this for hours. But I won't. It proves, if nothing else, that neither men nor women take this issue seriously. Let's just note that no one seems to think that the man needs protecting from the woman. Also, the ones who do notice all seem to think that the men deserve it... (sigh)
So I did some checking. The lady interviewed is right. According to most studies, women initiate violence slightly more often than men do but women are often injured more often. I have stated earlier that biology does seem to make men bigger and stronger than women on average. But I'm sure many of us know couples in which the woman is larger, stronger or possibly better trained in martial arts and could likely cause serious injury to the man. Let's also remember that weapons are the great equalizer in violence. Nothing cancels out that size difference faster than a common kitchen knife.
According to a Justice Department/Center for Disease Control survey, about 1.3 million women report being victims of domestic violence compared to about 835,000 men. That statistic suggest that about 39% of the victims are male. Some studies say it's from 4%-6%. Some say over 50%. But for my purposes I will use the one that was actually used to make policy in the Violence Against Women Act passed by congress and signed into law by Preasident Bush.
So if the number is so big then why isn't there more of an outcry? The simple truth is that men are less likely to come forward. I have discussed in my previous blog "On RAPE" exactly how much more shame there is for men to be subdued in cases of violence and sex crimes. Our society teaches men that we have to be tough guys and to be subdued by a woman is simply unforgiveable. This is a big problem.
In talking to the executive director of a local battered women's shelter I discovered that male victims that come forward to their organization are transferred to Battered Women's Services. Naturally, my next conversation was with the head of THAT office. She was a very nice lady. She assured me that male victims are treated very similarly to the women that come forward. They provide counseling, shelter, food if necessary and much of the aid that is offered to female victims. Where they fail to be truly equal (aside from the name itself) is that there are no local battered men's shelters, no support groups and MUCH WORSE there is very little information in circulation that there are even services available to abused men.
She seemed excited to meet a man who had taken such an interest in male victims and stated clearly that she would support any efforts I made on their behalf. She gave me ideas on people to talk to and suggested that I myself could get a support group started for abused men in the area. I'm not sure I have the necessary tools or skills to do that but I would like to see if I can help out in some way. When I asked just how something like that could be accomplished, she looked at the floor in dismay and sighed. "Everything costs money." she said. "Our resources are stretched so thin as it is that there isn't enough money to get more information for the male victims. We are a small organization and can't do much with our limited resources."
The solution seems simple: Get them more money specifically to help these guys.
HOW DO WE DO THAT?:
We take some of the government funding that has been earmarked for charities that serve exclusively women and give it to Battered Women's Services specifically to help the male victims of domestic violence in the area. Not only do I think this is a good idea but I think I have found a way to do it.....
(To be continued)
This topic was not in any way sparked by the Tiger Woods issue. I saw an article in my GlenSacks.com e-mail newsletter talking about how men's rights groups are becoming succesful in limiting legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. I mentioned it in my last blog and I won't go through that again. I will say that it sparked me to do some serious research on domestic violence laws and statistics. I even interviewed a few of the leading authorities in the area. (Yeah, I take it that seriously.) I saw some startling statistics and heard some interesting points of view. This, however, was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I could go on about this for hours. But I won't. It proves, if nothing else, that neither men nor women take this issue seriously. Let's just note that no one seems to think that the man needs protecting from the woman. Also, the ones who do notice all seem to think that the men deserve it... (sigh)
So I did some checking. The lady interviewed is right. According to most studies, women initiate violence slightly more often than men do but women are often injured more often. I have stated earlier that biology does seem to make men bigger and stronger than women on average. But I'm sure many of us know couples in which the woman is larger, stronger or possibly better trained in martial arts and could likely cause serious injury to the man. Let's also remember that weapons are the great equalizer in violence. Nothing cancels out that size difference faster than a common kitchen knife.
According to a Justice Department/Center for Disease Control survey, about 1.3 million women report being victims of domestic violence compared to about 835,000 men. That statistic suggest that about 39% of the victims are male. Some studies say it's from 4%-6%. Some say over 50%. But for my purposes I will use the one that was actually used to make policy in the Violence Against Women Act passed by congress and signed into law by Preasident Bush.
So if the number is so big then why isn't there more of an outcry? The simple truth is that men are less likely to come forward. I have discussed in my previous blog "On RAPE" exactly how much more shame there is for men to be subdued in cases of violence and sex crimes. Our society teaches men that we have to be tough guys and to be subdued by a woman is simply unforgiveable. This is a big problem.
In talking to the executive director of a local battered women's shelter I discovered that male victims that come forward to their organization are transferred to Battered Women's Services. Naturally, my next conversation was with the head of THAT office. She was a very nice lady. She assured me that male victims are treated very similarly to the women that come forward. They provide counseling, shelter, food if necessary and much of the aid that is offered to female victims. Where they fail to be truly equal (aside from the name itself) is that there are no local battered men's shelters, no support groups and MUCH WORSE there is very little information in circulation that there are even services available to abused men.
She seemed excited to meet a man who had taken such an interest in male victims and stated clearly that she would support any efforts I made on their behalf. She gave me ideas on people to talk to and suggested that I myself could get a support group started for abused men in the area. I'm not sure I have the necessary tools or skills to do that but I would like to see if I can help out in some way. When I asked just how something like that could be accomplished, she looked at the floor in dismay and sighed. "Everything costs money." she said. "Our resources are stretched so thin as it is that there isn't enough money to get more information for the male victims. We are a small organization and can't do much with our limited resources."
The solution seems simple: Get them more money specifically to help these guys.
HOW DO WE DO THAT?:
We take some of the government funding that has been earmarked for charities that serve exclusively women and give it to Battered Women's Services specifically to help the male victims of domestic violence in the area. Not only do I think this is a good idea but I think I have found a way to do it.....
(To be continued)
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Quick Word on Feminism Vs. Masculism
I got my latest Glen Sacks newsletter and started scanning through some of his latest topics. Among them was his interview with a women's magazine about the men's rights movement and its "frightening effectiveness". He claims he was misquoted about a very extreme case in which a man opened fire on a gym full of exercising women. The man's diary was later published in which he had listed a long history of women rejecting his advances (for as much as I can tell). You can read the article here.
Let me start out by saying that I don't ever want to see this movement or even the anger caused therein cause violence. This is an example of a crazy person, pure and simple. I believe that in all causes there are extreme cases and it is unfair to judge a cause based on them. These cases give us all a bad name.
My issue with the article has to do with the characterization of the men's rights movement as "anti-feminist". Perhaps it's just me but I never saw it that way. I always viewed feminism as a desire for EQUALITY between the sexes. That's all I ever saw masculism as. I am wondering if people indeed use masculism as a justification for misogyny. I sure hope not.
In no way do I endorse any kind of hatred toward women nor do I oppose feminism if it is indeed to be used for the purpose of seeking equality. I have mentioned before that one of my arguments will always be that feminism has worked... too well. I see many instances where men are now indeed viewed as the inferior sex. There are injustices everywhere we look. My argument is now, and has always been, that there is no inferior sex.
I cannot speak for all men's rights activists, but personally I don't see myself as anti-feminist but rather pro-equality. It is in that spirit that I write things here.--STEVE
(The Male Abortion Debate is coming. I promise.)
Let me start out by saying that I don't ever want to see this movement or even the anger caused therein cause violence. This is an example of a crazy person, pure and simple. I believe that in all causes there are extreme cases and it is unfair to judge a cause based on them. These cases give us all a bad name.
My issue with the article has to do with the characterization of the men's rights movement as "anti-feminist". Perhaps it's just me but I never saw it that way. I always viewed feminism as a desire for EQUALITY between the sexes. That's all I ever saw masculism as. I am wondering if people indeed use masculism as a justification for misogyny. I sure hope not.
In no way do I endorse any kind of hatred toward women nor do I oppose feminism if it is indeed to be used for the purpose of seeking equality. I have mentioned before that one of my arguments will always be that feminism has worked... too well. I see many instances where men are now indeed viewed as the inferior sex. There are injustices everywhere we look. My argument is now, and has always been, that there is no inferior sex.
I cannot speak for all men's rights activists, but personally I don't see myself as anti-feminist but rather pro-equality. It is in that spirit that I write things here.--STEVE
(The Male Abortion Debate is coming. I promise.)
Sunday, November 22, 2009
On WOMEN-ONLY HOTEL FLOORS (a brief interlude)
I am not ignoring my male abortions debate. We will have it. I am still trying to collect a few more opinions and answers to the questions. If you haven't done so then please click on that entry (from August) and do so. We will continue the topic then. But in the meantime...
I was perusing some videos on YouTube.com the other day having to do with men's rights the other day. To my surprise there are actually several good videos on the site. There are montages, video blogs, news clips and even a few more mainstream things like stand-up comedy clips on the subject. Then I came across this...
Well just take a guess which side I'm on....
I have yet to talk to any woman who feels more at risk at hotels than at other places they may go to. The only person whose view seems to support this in my own life is Kelly who believes that hotel bars specifically carry a certain stigma about them and that women go to hotel bars specifically to be hit on. I'm not sure I agree with her there but I'll let you guys tell me whether or not that's true.
Women seem to still feel that men are the more likely sexual predators and that they are safer if they are on a hotel floor where men are not allowed. There are plenty of female sexual predators out there who would prey upon women who might be drinking in a hotel lounge area. I would argue that this possibility is MORE likely if we eliminate men from the equation all together. Does this contribute to the idea that women should be protected from men and that they are more likely to be victimized by a man? Yeah maybe. But only if the hotel chooses to market "Safety & Security " as a selling point. As an additional point here, if women are safe and secure on the women-only floor of a hotel, what exactly does it say about the rest of the place? I say just make the whole damn place feel safer with more cameras, locks and guards if safety is such a concern of hotel management.
Now if a hotel wants to re-model some of their rooms to cater to "a woman's needs" then I say go for it. If you can drum up more business for your hotel by providing bath salts, better mirror lighting for putting on make-up and copies of the Oprah magazine for reading then I am all in favor of that. But don't exclude men from the experience. I know that I for one would love better lighting for shaving purposes as well as flowers in the room. And while I haven't experienced any kinds of bath salts I'm sure they are quite pleasant. If we are to believe stereotypes, then there is a certain large group of men that would prefer to have just that kind of experience.
The sad truth is that I know some people who would feel much safer in a place that didn't allow blacks or hispanics because they are perceived to be more violent groups putting the rest of us at risk. I'm sure that if you asked them they would come back with the same two points we are making here: 1.) The majority of us are fine people but a few bad apples always seem to spoil the punch and 2.) Look out for your own group because there are plenty of bad apples there as well. We would very quickly call that discrimination and segregation but are resistant to do so in this case. We need to fix that.
THE SOLUTION: How about adding a MEN-ONLY floor as well. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do nearly as much business and might be a losing proposition but it would certainly shut up the men's rights activists such as myself. Failing that, just make your more effeminate floors but allow anyone access to them. You should probably give them a different twist as well so as not to aggrivate the feminists. I mean, if you think I'M pushy.... Better idea: Just give this up! Let everyone be responsible for their own actions and safety. Is that so hard?
(An interesting post-script to this story... The hotel in Grand Rapids, MI that was the subject of this whole debate decided to scrap the idea of making the floor in question a women-only floor. The decision was made to go ahead with the renovations but to allow access to the rooms to anyone who preferred that kind of treatment. Apparently they did so "under pressure" from certain gender equality groups. Could it be that we won one?...)
Pleas stay tuned as I PROMISE that we will get into the male abortion discussion very soon. It's gonna' be quite a hot one so make sure not to miss it. Thanks for reading as always.--STEVE
I was perusing some videos on YouTube.com the other day having to do with men's rights the other day. To my surprise there are actually several good videos on the site. There are montages, video blogs, news clips and even a few more mainstream things like stand-up comedy clips on the subject. Then I came across this...
Well just take a guess which side I'm on....
I have yet to talk to any woman who feels more at risk at hotels than at other places they may go to. The only person whose view seems to support this in my own life is Kelly who believes that hotel bars specifically carry a certain stigma about them and that women go to hotel bars specifically to be hit on. I'm not sure I agree with her there but I'll let you guys tell me whether or not that's true.
Women seem to still feel that men are the more likely sexual predators and that they are safer if they are on a hotel floor where men are not allowed. There are plenty of female sexual predators out there who would prey upon women who might be drinking in a hotel lounge area. I would argue that this possibility is MORE likely if we eliminate men from the equation all together. Does this contribute to the idea that women should be protected from men and that they are more likely to be victimized by a man? Yeah maybe. But only if the hotel chooses to market "Safety & Security " as a selling point. As an additional point here, if women are safe and secure on the women-only floor of a hotel, what exactly does it say about the rest of the place? I say just make the whole damn place feel safer with more cameras, locks and guards if safety is such a concern of hotel management.
Now if a hotel wants to re-model some of their rooms to cater to "a woman's needs" then I say go for it. If you can drum up more business for your hotel by providing bath salts, better mirror lighting for putting on make-up and copies of the Oprah magazine for reading then I am all in favor of that. But don't exclude men from the experience. I know that I for one would love better lighting for shaving purposes as well as flowers in the room. And while I haven't experienced any kinds of bath salts I'm sure they are quite pleasant. If we are to believe stereotypes, then there is a certain large group of men that would prefer to have just that kind of experience.
The sad truth is that I know some people who would feel much safer in a place that didn't allow blacks or hispanics because they are perceived to be more violent groups putting the rest of us at risk. I'm sure that if you asked them they would come back with the same two points we are making here: 1.) The majority of us are fine people but a few bad apples always seem to spoil the punch and 2.) Look out for your own group because there are plenty of bad apples there as well. We would very quickly call that discrimination and segregation but are resistant to do so in this case. We need to fix that.
THE SOLUTION: How about adding a MEN-ONLY floor as well. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do nearly as much business and might be a losing proposition but it would certainly shut up the men's rights activists such as myself. Failing that, just make your more effeminate floors but allow anyone access to them. You should probably give them a different twist as well so as not to aggrivate the feminists. I mean, if you think I'M pushy.... Better idea: Just give this up! Let everyone be responsible for their own actions and safety. Is that so hard?
(An interesting post-script to this story... The hotel in Grand Rapids, MI that was the subject of this whole debate decided to scrap the idea of making the floor in question a women-only floor. The decision was made to go ahead with the renovations but to allow access to the rooms to anyone who preferred that kind of treatment. Apparently they did so "under pressure" from certain gender equality groups. Could it be that we won one?...)
Pleas stay tuned as I PROMISE that we will get into the male abortion discussion very soon. It's gonna' be quite a hot one so make sure not to miss it. Thanks for reading as always.--STEVE
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
On MALE ABORTION (Pt 1: Questionnaire)
I made a decision a few days ago that 4 months is far too long to go without posting a new entry if this is indeed something I am serious about. I apologize to those of you who have liked reading my entries and who seem to enjoy debating the topics raised with me either online or in person. I assure you I have enjoyed it as much if not more. I have also made the decision that a post that is 2 months in the making better damn well be worth it. With that in mind, I have chosen what I have found to be the most controversial belief of many masculists and men's rights groups... MALE ABORTION!
Unfortunately, I have run into some serious issues with the whole debate. The main issue I found is that the whole topic is simply monstrous! When we are discussing reproductive rights there are certainly a lot of opinions and subtopics with their own debates. I'm certain we could debate these issues for hours on end but instead of just throwing out my own views I will ask for yours. Yup, I finally start blogging again after months of absence and I'm asking my readers to do the writing. I really do just need to get some idea of where to go with this. Please help me!
I am going to just list some quick questions and hope for some genuine responses just to get the ball rolling a bit. Answer as many or as few as you feel like. Thanks in advance....
1.) Should a man have any say in whether or not a pregnant woman chooses to have a baby? Should he be able to have her carry the pregnancy full term even if she wants an abortion?
2.) If a man decides he does not want to be a parent after impregnating a woman, should he be allowed to abdicate all rights and responsibilities to the child? (ie. no visitation, no child support. nothing!)
3.) Should a man be financially liable for part or all of the cost of a woman's abortion if she so decides? If he is morally opposed to abortion, does that change things?
4.) Do you believe men should always have to pay child support? How about if the woman becomes pregnant through manipulation or deceit?
5.) Is contraception a man's duty? Should a man be morally obligated to use latex condoms because they are cheaper and have less side effects than, say, the birth control pill?
6.) If men are allowed to abdicate all responsibilities to children and their pregnant mothers, what's to stop a man from simply spreading his seed as often as he chooses?
7.) AND THIS ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT!... Men and women ARE biologically different? Given that fact, is there an equitable solution? Is the current system fair?
It's a lot I know. I really just appreciate any help I can get here. I'm looking for ALL opinions and not just the ones you think I will agree with. Thanks.
Unfortunately, I have run into some serious issues with the whole debate. The main issue I found is that the whole topic is simply monstrous! When we are discussing reproductive rights there are certainly a lot of opinions and subtopics with their own debates. I'm certain we could debate these issues for hours on end but instead of just throwing out my own views I will ask for yours. Yup, I finally start blogging again after months of absence and I'm asking my readers to do the writing. I really do just need to get some idea of where to go with this. Please help me!
I am going to just list some quick questions and hope for some genuine responses just to get the ball rolling a bit. Answer as many or as few as you feel like. Thanks in advance....
1.) Should a man have any say in whether or not a pregnant woman chooses to have a baby? Should he be able to have her carry the pregnancy full term even if she wants an abortion?
2.) If a man decides he does not want to be a parent after impregnating a woman, should he be allowed to abdicate all rights and responsibilities to the child? (ie. no visitation, no child support. nothing!)
3.) Should a man be financially liable for part or all of the cost of a woman's abortion if she so decides? If he is morally opposed to abortion, does that change things?
4.) Do you believe men should always have to pay child support? How about if the woman becomes pregnant through manipulation or deceit?
5.) Is contraception a man's duty? Should a man be morally obligated to use latex condoms because they are cheaper and have less side effects than, say, the birth control pill?
6.) If men are allowed to abdicate all responsibilities to children and their pregnant mothers, what's to stop a man from simply spreading his seed as often as he chooses?
7.) AND THIS ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT!... Men and women ARE biologically different? Given that fact, is there an equitable solution? Is the current system fair?
It's a lot I know. I really just appreciate any help I can get here. I'm looking for ALL opinions and not just the ones you think I will agree with. Thanks.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Into the mailbag...
I want to start out with a minor gripe. The word "masculism" is not a recognized word on the BlogSpot spell-checker and the word "feminism" is. Time to talk to the people at Webster's...
I have gotten a lot of good feedback on the items I have posted either on the comments section here, via Facebook or in person. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has been reading. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one paying attention. I want to express again, however, that I'm not setting out to change everyone's mind out there. I will settle for just starting the conversation and helping people recognize that a conversation needs to take place. I figured I would use today's entry to address some things that have been raised by others who have read the blog and maybe start new discussions.
FROM P.J.: Actually MLB does a prostate cancer thing on Father's Day similar to their breast cancer promotion on Mother's Day (blue instead of pink). Plus they do more for prostate cnacer by donating money for each home run hit during the week of Father's Day and partnering with One-A-Day to donate $10 for each strikeout during the season and playoffs.
Thanks a lot to my "Other Little Brother" for filling me in on this. I applaud MLB for having a matching day to correspond with the Mother's Day festivities. The only issue I would raise is that I knew about the pink bat thing and I consider myself an avid baseball fan. I have never heard of this program and I think that alone kinda makes the point. I still like my idea better about the flesh-collored bats with purple rings...
FROM NICOLE: I think women go through pretty invasive exams at least once year from the time they're 18... as I'm sure you've been made aware. They are certainly not comfortable, but maybe more socially acceptable. Guys are taught by a homophobic society to be horrified about anything going in their rearend, when honestly, if you're not gay, something being shoved up your rear isn't going to make you gay.
In no way did I mean to marginalize the medical procedures that women go through. Having been present for MANY internal vaginal exams over the last year, I understand just how uncomfortable they can be. I was also informed by my friend Christa exactly what a mamogram entails. I learned just how uncomfortable that can be. I believe that we are taught that nothing should enter a straight man's rectum. I think that adds to the discomfort. I maintain that a prostate exam is still more uncomfortable that a B.S.E. but I understand the point totally.
FROM MPJCWBOSS: I think the fault lies with society in general. Society has always dictated that men be strong, never scared, never crying, never sentimental etc...this makes it impossible for men to even think about expressing their feelings openly and, therefore, they do not get the attention in many aspects of life that they want and deserve.
This is just a small part of the killer comments that my godmother leaves on my blogs. If you have time, try to read them. She raises some excellent points. She basically just boiled the whole problem with gender roles down to its bear bones. Men are expected to act a certain way as described and that contributes (at least at the basic levels) to EVERY problem that men face in regards to gender discrimination. Just as women spent most of human history trying to escape their roles as the less intellegent, weaker mothers and homemakers, men need to escape the same types of classifications made on them through these roles.
FROM M.G.: I was reading on a newsboard recently about a guy who felt unsure how to handle the following situation: He said "I was at a restaurant the other day and I saw a little kid slip and bust her face right in front of me. But I don't feel safe looking at kids anymore let alone, touching them so I just stepped over her and kept on going."
We're in a society now where if a guy just looks at a young girl for more than a second, he might be labeled a pedophile and because of it, guys feel unsure and really hesitate in situations that might clearly call for them to do the right thing and help someone out.
He also mentioned that he's not entirely sure if this is a masculist issue. I would say that it is in the way that men are seen more as potential sexual predators than women are. It made me remember an issue that was raised a few years ago when I was heading on vacation. I was going to visit a friend who works at Disney World. I LOVE going to Disney and I was planning on seeing her for a few days and hanging out in the parks for the other days. It was my father who raised the issue. He didn't like the idea of me going out in those parks alone because he said he "knew what he would think if he saw a guy walking around a place like that alone..." Not only is this a masculist issue, it may be a whole entry unto itself sometime soon.
The last issue I want to discuss today was apparently raised by my uncle this past weekend. He heard about my blog for the first time and mentioned that he had been seeing gender discrimination a lot on TV in commercials. He said that the male is always made to look like an idiot and is corrected or outdone by his girlfriend or wife. He used the example of the old Country Crock commercials with just the hands and the voices. For next week I would like to know some of YOUR ideas on gender discrimination in television commercials. Do you see it in the Country Crock ads? Do you have any examples of your own? How about some where the same happens in reverse?
I look forward to some fun ideas and hopefully an active discussion about this in the next post. Thanks again for reading! It really means a lot to me. :-)
I have gotten a lot of good feedback on the items I have posted either on the comments section here, via Facebook or in person. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has been reading. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one paying attention. I want to express again, however, that I'm not setting out to change everyone's mind out there. I will settle for just starting the conversation and helping people recognize that a conversation needs to take place. I figured I would use today's entry to address some things that have been raised by others who have read the blog and maybe start new discussions.
FROM P.J.: Actually MLB does a prostate cancer thing on Father's Day similar to their breast cancer promotion on Mother's Day (blue instead of pink). Plus they do more for prostate cnacer by donating money for each home run hit during the week of Father's Day and partnering with One-A-Day to donate $10 for each strikeout during the season and playoffs.
Thanks a lot to my "Other Little Brother" for filling me in on this. I applaud MLB for having a matching day to correspond with the Mother's Day festivities. The only issue I would raise is that I knew about the pink bat thing and I consider myself an avid baseball fan. I have never heard of this program and I think that alone kinda makes the point. I still like my idea better about the flesh-collored bats with purple rings...
FROM NICOLE: I think women go through pretty invasive exams at least once year from the time they're 18... as I'm sure you've been made aware. They are certainly not comfortable, but maybe more socially acceptable. Guys are taught by a homophobic society to be horrified about anything going in their rearend, when honestly, if you're not gay, something being shoved up your rear isn't going to make you gay.
In no way did I mean to marginalize the medical procedures that women go through. Having been present for MANY internal vaginal exams over the last year, I understand just how uncomfortable they can be. I was also informed by my friend Christa exactly what a mamogram entails. I learned just how uncomfortable that can be. I believe that we are taught that nothing should enter a straight man's rectum. I think that adds to the discomfort. I maintain that a prostate exam is still more uncomfortable that a B.S.E. but I understand the point totally.
FROM MPJCWBOSS: I think the fault lies with society in general. Society has always dictated that men be strong, never scared, never crying, never sentimental etc...this makes it impossible for men to even think about expressing their feelings openly and, therefore, they do not get the attention in many aspects of life that they want and deserve.
This is just a small part of the killer comments that my godmother leaves on my blogs. If you have time, try to read them. She raises some excellent points. She basically just boiled the whole problem with gender roles down to its bear bones. Men are expected to act a certain way as described and that contributes (at least at the basic levels) to EVERY problem that men face in regards to gender discrimination. Just as women spent most of human history trying to escape their roles as the less intellegent, weaker mothers and homemakers, men need to escape the same types of classifications made on them through these roles.
FROM M.G.: I was reading on a newsboard recently about a guy who felt unsure how to handle the following situation: He said "I was at a restaurant the other day and I saw a little kid slip and bust her face right in front of me. But I don't feel safe looking at kids anymore let alone, touching them so I just stepped over her and kept on going."
We're in a society now where if a guy just looks at a young girl for more than a second, he might be labeled a pedophile and because of it, guys feel unsure and really hesitate in situations that might clearly call for them to do the right thing and help someone out.
He also mentioned that he's not entirely sure if this is a masculist issue. I would say that it is in the way that men are seen more as potential sexual predators than women are. It made me remember an issue that was raised a few years ago when I was heading on vacation. I was going to visit a friend who works at Disney World. I LOVE going to Disney and I was planning on seeing her for a few days and hanging out in the parks for the other days. It was my father who raised the issue. He didn't like the idea of me going out in those parks alone because he said he "knew what he would think if he saw a guy walking around a place like that alone..." Not only is this a masculist issue, it may be a whole entry unto itself sometime soon.
The last issue I want to discuss today was apparently raised by my uncle this past weekend. He heard about my blog for the first time and mentioned that he had been seeing gender discrimination a lot on TV in commercials. He said that the male is always made to look like an idiot and is corrected or outdone by his girlfriend or wife. He used the example of the old Country Crock commercials with just the hands and the voices. For next week I would like to know some of YOUR ideas on gender discrimination in television commercials. Do you see it in the Country Crock ads? Do you have any examples of your own? How about some where the same happens in reverse?
I look forward to some fun ideas and hopefully an active discussion about this in the next post. Thanks again for reading! It really means a lot to me. :-)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On "THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER" (Part 2)
(Before I begin, I have been asked to add the following disclaimer: At no time did Kelly say that I was a bad father. She did not suggest that I would end up being a worse parent than her simply because I am a man. She was making a generalization about cultural norms... Thank You.)
When I pressed Kelly for further information she said, "Well, don't you think I'm the better organizer and multitasker?" A quick look around our living room at her breakfast dishes and massive amounts of coupons and fliers, followed by a doubting glance led her to elaborate. She said that studies have shown that women are better at multitasking and organizing than men are. I invited her (as I invite any of my readers) to find such a study online anywhere in our vast internet. She said she probably could but was too tired to try at that exact moment. The subject has come up a few times since including a day when she ended up reading the last post entry. She doesn't deny making any of the statements that I attributed to her, but resents me using her in my blog without permission. The truth is that if I tried to relate the story using a false name I would run into 2 problems: lack of BELIEVEABILITY and RELATION TO THE WRITER. Simply put, it kinda means more that the mother of my only child holds this opinion and I never realized it.
Back to the matter at hand, I personally have never seen a study claiming that women are better at these life functions than men are. I even did a Google search for the subject. The closest I could find is that women BELIEVE they are better multitaskers and problem solvers than men. I had a sneaky suspicion that if I scanned a little further ahead I would find an expected related statistic... Sure enough, most men agree. A Wall Street Journal article suggested that women may gain more skills in these areas through activities such as child-rearing. This seems to suggest that the cause and effect are reversed. The "primary caregiver" develops more skills in these areas and in the majority of households, that person is a woman.
The argument here seems to be whether or not women are better parents through biology. In the animal kingdom as a whole, the female of most species is the primary caregiver for the young. Biology does seem to play a large part there. Mammals feed their young milk from the female and thus it is more important that she be around during the early part of life.
Just for fun, let's pretend Kelly, Jacob and I were ELEPHANTS: (Any "fat jokes" made in the comment section will be quickly deleted!)... In the elephant world, the male mates with the female then leaves to roam the savannah on his own. The calf is then cared for by the mother as well and her herd of other adult female elephants in the family. I'm pretty sure that Jake would be fine if he was the elephant calf in this scenario. He would feed from his mothers teats until he was old enough to eat grasses and leaves and such. I also have no doubt that Kelly's mother and sisters would support Jacob and protect him from lions. If the roles were reversed, I'm also sure that I could fend off lions fairly well BUT, sadly, no milk. (I really don't envy this part of the female's biological role.) I dare say, Jake would not survive for long without food. In the elphant world as with all mammals, the female is vitally important to the survival of the young.
Well gee, Steve, doesn't that kinda make the argumet that women ARE better parents? It might if it weren't for one annoying little detail... we're NOT elephants. Humans have used science and technology to develop a milk susbstitute that works nearly as well as breast milk. The Leche League people can take issue with me on this, but the truth is that many babies grow up to live long and healthy lives having never tasted breast milk. I am in no way saying that children are just as well adjusted if they have no relationship with their mothers. I am only saying that a child can survive without ever having known his father OR his mother after birth. WE have escaped out biology in this case.
I have searched for quite a while and have yet to see any study that suggests that men are better parents than women. The fact that most people believe this is true does not validate it. I do believe that the average woman in her 40's may indeed be better at organizing and mulitasking. But let's use the following logical steps if we choose to make that statement:
1.) Being the primary caregiver for a child is the hardest job that anyone can undertake. It involves using all of your problem solving skills to hold things together particularly during the early years.
2.) Most primary caregivers ARE women and therefore much more women than men have cared for a child for a significant period of time. THEREFORE>>>
3.) On average, women are better at organizing and multitasking than men.
You can feel free to agree or disagree and of course your comments are welcomed. The point of the post, though, was that Jake was already 3 months old before I knew that his mother felt like this. I still kinda' laugh thinking about people who knew us in high school seeing us now, like this: Steve fighting for gender equality despite Kelly's sexism... Mr. Pisanelli would probably have a heart attack!
Anyway, stay tuned for my next post when I head "into the mailbag" for the first tiume to address some comments and e-mails that I have gotten since I started this blog. Who knows? You might just see your own comment mentioned!
When I pressed Kelly for further information she said, "Well, don't you think I'm the better organizer and multitasker?" A quick look around our living room at her breakfast dishes and massive amounts of coupons and fliers, followed by a doubting glance led her to elaborate. She said that studies have shown that women are better at multitasking and organizing than men are. I invited her (as I invite any of my readers) to find such a study online anywhere in our vast internet. She said she probably could but was too tired to try at that exact moment. The subject has come up a few times since including a day when she ended up reading the last post entry. She doesn't deny making any of the statements that I attributed to her, but resents me using her in my blog without permission. The truth is that if I tried to relate the story using a false name I would run into 2 problems: lack of BELIEVEABILITY and RELATION TO THE WRITER. Simply put, it kinda means more that the mother of my only child holds this opinion and I never realized it.
Back to the matter at hand, I personally have never seen a study claiming that women are better at these life functions than men are. I even did a Google search for the subject. The closest I could find is that women BELIEVE they are better multitaskers and problem solvers than men. I had a sneaky suspicion that if I scanned a little further ahead I would find an expected related statistic... Sure enough, most men agree. A Wall Street Journal article suggested that women may gain more skills in these areas through activities such as child-rearing. This seems to suggest that the cause and effect are reversed. The "primary caregiver" develops more skills in these areas and in the majority of households, that person is a woman.
The argument here seems to be whether or not women are better parents through biology. In the animal kingdom as a whole, the female of most species is the primary caregiver for the young. Biology does seem to play a large part there. Mammals feed their young milk from the female and thus it is more important that she be around during the early part of life.
Just for fun, let's pretend Kelly, Jacob and I were ELEPHANTS: (Any "fat jokes" made in the comment section will be quickly deleted!)... In the elephant world, the male mates with the female then leaves to roam the savannah on his own. The calf is then cared for by the mother as well and her herd of other adult female elephants in the family. I'm pretty sure that Jake would be fine if he was the elephant calf in this scenario. He would feed from his mothers teats until he was old enough to eat grasses and leaves and such. I also have no doubt that Kelly's mother and sisters would support Jacob and protect him from lions. If the roles were reversed, I'm also sure that I could fend off lions fairly well BUT, sadly, no milk. (I really don't envy this part of the female's biological role.) I dare say, Jake would not survive for long without food. In the elphant world as with all mammals, the female is vitally important to the survival of the young.
Well gee, Steve, doesn't that kinda make the argumet that women ARE better parents? It might if it weren't for one annoying little detail... we're NOT elephants. Humans have used science and technology to develop a milk susbstitute that works nearly as well as breast milk. The Leche League people can take issue with me on this, but the truth is that many babies grow up to live long and healthy lives having never tasted breast milk. I am in no way saying that children are just as well adjusted if they have no relationship with their mothers. I am only saying that a child can survive without ever having known his father OR his mother after birth. WE have escaped out biology in this case.
I have searched for quite a while and have yet to see any study that suggests that men are better parents than women. The fact that most people believe this is true does not validate it. I do believe that the average woman in her 40's may indeed be better at organizing and mulitasking. But let's use the following logical steps if we choose to make that statement:
1.) Being the primary caregiver for a child is the hardest job that anyone can undertake. It involves using all of your problem solving skills to hold things together particularly during the early years.
2.) Most primary caregivers ARE women and therefore much more women than men have cared for a child for a significant period of time. THEREFORE>>>
3.) On average, women are better at organizing and multitasking than men.
You can feel free to agree or disagree and of course your comments are welcomed. The point of the post, though, was that Jake was already 3 months old before I knew that his mother felt like this. I still kinda' laugh thinking about people who knew us in high school seeing us now, like this: Steve fighting for gender equality despite Kelly's sexism... Mr. Pisanelli would probably have a heart attack!
Anyway, stay tuned for my next post when I head "into the mailbag" for the first tiume to address some comments and e-mails that I have gotten since I started this blog. Who knows? You might just see your own comment mentioned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
