Friday, October 31, 2014

Violence Against Women, And Men Too

Is it me or is the media campaign against men particularly strong these days. For starters there is the rape culture on campus talk, which is ongoing. And then there is the scandal involving explicit pictures of naked women in some pilot's cockpits at Air Canada. Then there is the Cat Calling video of a woman from New York. And lastly there is the Jian Ghomeshi scandal, which actually does seem to suggest that his bedroom activities walk a fine line between abuse and BDSM. This last one is really being covered a lot. The main issue I have with it is the relentless media campaign, in the proportionality sense, where it congests the airways instead of other more important, or equally important, news. Okay, we get it, violence against women is bad, but as usual it becomes overly emotional and politicized and the facts get muddied over as a result. And it becomes a case where the punishments (even where punishment is deserved) far exceeds the crime.

Yes, violence is a problem. Violence against women is a problem. And violence against men is also a problem. But violence against men is never talked about, even though there is actually a lot more of it. The feminists as usual cherry pick the issue and leave out half the story. Violence against men is prevalent and quite often viewed as comical too. How many times do men get beaten up in movies and television shows as compared to women? How many times have you seen a man kicked in the crotch?

I think one of the main fuels for all this bullshit is the gender wage gap myth. It seems to be used as a sort of balancing device, where the wrongs against men are OKAY because, well, men get paid more (among other perks), which by the way is due to the patriarchy, which by the way is proof that women have it worse and men have it better. In reality though, it's a nebulous theory at best. But as it turns out it's a very useful lever to pull to help achieve the feminist goal of advancing women's interests by exaggerating the ground that needs to be closed in order for women to catch up to men. In truth though, the ground is already closed. Further advances by women will only mean supremacy, which is what feminists want. Rest assured, they will play the victim card all the way to the top, if they are allowed.

The gender wage gap myth needs to be destroyed, and the only way to do that is by presenting real data collected by reputable data collection agencies. A subject such as this cannot be accurately and credibly dissected otherwise. Here's a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

And here is an excerpt from the foreword:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value "family friendly" workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.



The results of this report aligns itself very well with what Warren Farrell frequently talks about. But a report like this really solidifies things. It's like the global warming debate. You have to get reputable scientifically minded people to speak out on this stuff, not ideologues.

All this gender wage gap discussion in the media also points to another problem. It suggests that "gaps" are only a problem when it's the women who are lagging behind the men in those areas that would stand to benefit them. It's conveniently one-sided and completely ignores certain other gaps in society which don't get nearly as much attention. These other gaps include:

• The degree gap. There are roughly twice as many women getting degrees as men.

• The workplace injury and death gap. There are many, many more men who suffer injury and death in the workplace than women.

• The front-line soldier gap. Virtually all front-line soldiers are men.

• The suicide gap. Men kill themselves at a rate 3-4 times higher than women.

• The life-expectancy gap. Women live 5-6 years longer, on average, than men.

• The homicide gap. Men are more likely to be murdered than women.


These are just to name a few. There are others as well.

Now the media will scarcely mention these things. The underlying reason for this is the overarching feminist influence. It is the main reason or perhaps the only reason for this. It is the powerful forces of feminism at work which steers the type of information you get to hear with regards to gender issues. It's powerful arm pushes the focus on only those things which are perceived to be at a disadvantage for women. But it's an elitist cause. It only bothers feminists that there aren't more female CEOs, or more female politicians. But it doesn't bother them that there aren't, say, more female garbage collectors, or more female front-line soldiers. They only care about closing the ivory tower gaps but not the gaps at the bottom, which are also dominated by men (but in much greater numbers than the gaps at the top). So one must conclude that the current feminist movement only wants selective equality, or more accurately, female supremacy. And they will pursue this objective by playing the victim card all the way through. They will cherry-pick statistics, tell half-truths, and they will insist that there's achievement gaps even where there aren't any. And by creating policies to "close the gap" they will move towards supremacy.

I get angry thinking about this. But my anger is non-violent, as it should be. It is best and much more useful to channel the anger in peaceful and productive ways. We must take the high road at all costs even when the feminists and their sympathizers take the low road to try to shut us up.

I'm not saying everyone should start picketing and protesting in public, although that's good too in some cases. But rather, adopt a mindset where you will not stay silent the next time someone says something to bash men, or goes on about how only women are victims, or how women make less than men in the workplace. Speak out, but be prepared. You may be called a woman-hater for it, but that will be irrelevant to you. You are only interested in the facts. And you can share the facts with them. And the best way to do this is with links to credible sources which refute, say, the gender pay gap. There's also links to Statistics Canada, such as the following:

1. Spousal violence in Canada.

Self-reported spousal violence, as given by the General Social Survey, is about the same for men and women. Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/t002-eng.htm

2. Homicide rates in Canada.

The total homicide count from 2000 to 2009 for males was 4254, and for females it was 1684. 70% of all homicide victims are male, and 30% are female. For homicide victims outside the home, 80% are male and 20% are female. For homicide victims inside the home, 40% are male and 60% are female. Source: Table 4.1 on page 38 in: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

These numbers can be worked out from the table.

3. Suicide rate in Canada.

The total female suicide rate is about 5.4 per 100,000 (Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66f-eng.htm), and the total male suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 (Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66e-eng.htm)

4. Gender wage gap report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

5. In a recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice, for the period 1995–2013, females aged 18 to 24 had the highest rate of rape and sexual assault victimizations compared to females in all other age groups. In this time period the incidence of rape and sexual assault for female college students (age 18 to 24) was 6.1 per 1000, and for female non students (age 18 to 24) it was 7.6 per 1000. The findings are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older. Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

Important Note: Contrast these numbers to the often mentioned "1 in 5" rate of sexual assault for college women (as opposed to the much lower 6.1 per 1000 which translates into 1 in 160 — as indicated in this government report).


Share these links freely. Don't be afraid to speak out on behalf of men, whether it's to your girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, relative, or whoever. Of course I'm not saying you should speak up in every single instance. But certainly do speak up at least sometimes.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Campus Rape Hysteria: A Modern Day Witch Hunt

This is an emotionally charged subject, and like all emotionally charged subjects the truth tends to get muddled behind the strong feelings of individuals.

There was a recent CBC documentary talking about the pressures that universities face when dealing with allegations of rape on campus. To its credit it did give some balanced contrary points of view, such as from the lawyer who said that young men should not be "reprogrammed" just because they're men. But the slant of the documentary was to cast a negative light on males. The documentary painted a grim picture of the "rape scene" on campus. It was automatically assumed that women are victims and are telling the truth when they come forward with a rape charge. Unfortunately the documentary never raised any skepticism about rape accusations in order to steer clear of being called pro-rape or a rape apologist. This documentary, in keeping with the standard narrative, approached this issue with a certain hypersensitivity, both to the women in question and to those who would dare to detract from the narrative that women are always victims -- such people would quickly be accused of being part of the rape culture problem, and as active agents in perpetuating rape tolerance in the culture.

It has become par for the course that being skeptical to any of the rape claims is bad and it is preferable to blindly accept the notion that rape culture is real rather than seek out critical inquiry. It always comes down to the false dichotomy that you either agree with the claims or you are pro-rape. Associating criticism of the views with being pro-rape is an ideological weapon the same way criticism of some of Israel's actions against the Palestinian people is met with accusations of being anti-semitic. This is a horrible label and as such it is a very effective strategy, but it should be pretty clear that playing along doesn't mean you agree, it just means that you want to avoid the bad stigma with disagreeing.

In the CBC documentary, one of the interviewees referred to "the victim" rather than "the alleged victim", and in one case it was stated that if a woman comes forward with a rape accusation they will believe her. My response: No they should not automatically believe her, although she should still be able to receive help just like other people who come forward to report crimes against themselves. The documentary seems to be more of an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason. It's a way to drum up hysteria the same way an evangelist will drum up religious fervor and get that serotonin flowing. In the face of such drama and hyperbole it can be difficult to maintain your sense of critical thinking.

The Duke Lacrosse case was never mentioned of course. It would break the emotional build up the documentary set out to create. And it would do this because the rape charge made by the woman turned out to be completely fabricated. If this was not the case you can bet that the Duke Lacrosse case would have been eagerly mentioned in the documentary.

The documentary got me thinking about some of the circumstances which can surround sexually active young women. A young woman, after having hook up sex, can be faced with a choice: Either admit to willingly having sex with a guy the first night, and risk being labelled a slut, or save face by saying you were raped. I'm sure there are women that would rather admit to the latter than risk their reputation. This would certainly constitute a false rape accusation, and given the fact that it does happen why is it not talked about in the media? And furthermore, why are the names of the accusers not made public? The answer to both is because it would discourage real rape victims from coming forward. A fair statement, but it is terribly one-sided. However it is also true that releasing the names of the accused should not be done either (but it is) given that the rape charge could be false and such a charge is a horrible stigma to carry which exists even after the charges are cleared. So why the double standard?

It is because it helps women and making the face of the accused public could get more victims to come forward, and it doesn't matter if innocent men get hurt in the process. Looking at this more closely, the potential added benefit that women (the accusers) would get, however slim, outweighs the definite harm that would come to some innocent men as a result. In other words it is okay to do something that will hurt innocent men as long as a few women can potentially benefit from it. This is not justice. This is the radical feminist hijacking of due process.

Contrary to feminist claims there is no rape culture. I talk about rape statistics in my post on victim statistics in Canada.

The CBC documentary made a big deal about locker room talk as being a potential precursor to rape behaviour. Now I will admit, locker room talk is very real, and I have at times participated in it in the past. It can certainly get pretty derogatory towards women but it is hardly an indication that men engaging in it will rape. It's more of a way to look cool among the guys than it is a way to degrade women. And why not talk about women's locker room talk as well. I doubt women are angels in the locker room. They likely talk about the size of guys dicks more often than you'd think. I have anecdotal stories of these types of discussions and I have overheard some of them too. Locker room talk is not a precursor to rape. There's just far too much locker room talk and far too little rape (proportionally speaking) for there to be a causation effect.

To anyone caught up in rape hysteria, don't let your outrage about rape blind your willingness to accept that false rape charges also happen. You have to treat the two as separate and as resolvable only under due process. Justice can only be served by doing this. Let the rapists be brought to justice but also let the false rape accusers be brought to justice.

Rape is a horrible crime but like other horrible crimes the standard of getting to the truth MUST be upheld, which is due process by law enforcement and legal experts, not the campus kangaroo courts who will willingly throw male students under the bus to save face in the public eye.

Not acknowledging the possibility of false rape accusations goes against the fact that sociopaths exists in society, men and women, which admittedly represent a very small percentage of the population, but exist nonetheless. Given this indisputable fact it must also be accepted that a female sociopath concerned with preserving her reputation will unflinchingly choose to falsely convict a man of rape if the alternative is being labelled a slut by her peers. Some might argue that this represents a very small percentage of women anyway and therefore labeling any women at all as potential liars hurts the women who do get raped and want to come forward, and furthermore, making a false rape accusation a crime is bad for the same reason. This is a phony argument since all laws exist to prevent a small number of people who would commit crimes from committing them. But we don't say that these laws shouldn't exist because it unfairly labels people as potential thiefs or murderers or whatever. Anti-crime laws exist to help prevent those, who are in the minority, from committing a crime, and due process exists to protect the innocent, who are in the majority, from being unfairly punished. Why are these tried and true principles being tampered with on the alter of rape hysteria aka political correctness? Is it because rape is such a horrible crime? Can a crime be so serious that due process should be thrown out the window? Can a crime be so horrible so as to justifiably reduce us to a 16th century witch burning mindset? I can think of things like soldier PTSD which is at least as traumatic on the psyche as being raped, but there is no hysteria surrounding that.

Unfortunately this hysteria shows no sign of slowing down. A new "yes means yes" law was recently passed in the state of California. It changes how colleges and universities define sexual assault. Instead of requiring that one person say no if they’re not interested, the law will require that both people say yes, or give "affirmative consent," before a sexual encounter is considered consensual.

This law seems reasonable on the surface except that sex is usually non-verbal, and women, especially young ones, don't initiate sex at all. It's usually all up to the guy. Any guy who has slept with more than a few women will note that women don't directly say yes to sex. Women are typically like frogs in the grass when it comes to sex, especially the first time. But the law states that you got to get that verbal yes, otherwise you risk being charged with rape. How the feminists must be rejoicing over this! The only good thing that can come out of this is that women might be forced to initiate sex more, assuming guys are going to do less initiating given the risks. Some guys will unavoidably realize that women being passive is just too risky for them.

The assault on men's rights in the form of new draconian legislation doesn't end there though. The Canadian federal government wants to make the buying of sex illegal while still allowing the selling of sex to be legal. This is clearly an unfair legal double standard, and in addition it will lead to other laws being broken inadvertently, such as entrapment laws in which one party has the state-sponsored legal leeway to sell a service but another party is prohibited, by the same state, from buying that service.

There is actually a national prostitution study (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/first-national-prostitution-study-sheds-new-light-on-sex-work-in-canada) that just came out. It discusses johns and prostitutes in a way that is much more illuminating and balanced than the way we usually hear it talked about, where johns (the men) are exploitive perverts and prostitutes (the women) are victims. This study paints a very different picture. Apparently, the johns and prostitutes are a lot like the rest of us, no better or worse.

The proposed new prostitution law is just another form of political correctness and white knight sympathizing. It pedestalizes female sexuality while demonizing male sexuality. All par for the course. It assumes that all women who sell sex are victims and all men who buy sex are exploitive perverts. How very simple! Fortunately the supreme court will eventually strike this new law down as being the unconstitutional piece of crap that it is, just like it did the previous prostitution laws. Even conservatives are opposed to this proposed law. Just read the comments on National Post or Globe and Mail, or any other conservative news channel. Fortunately not all police departments will enforce this new law as they know that there are plenty of willing buyers and sellers in the world of adults and will instead focus on real crimes, not petty moral crusades at the taxpayer's expense.

It has been frequently said that criminalizing the johns hurts women as well by putting them in risky situations where the johns are more likely to buy sex in dark corners, hidden from the authorities, where it just so happens that genuinely dangerous men will also lurk, waiting to ambush women. It's like putting the food source for an animal in a place where there are more predators. In light of this it would seem that the hatred towards men, exhibited in the proposed law, outweighs the feelings of favor towards the women, because it willfully punishes the men even if it means that more women can get hurt in the process. It shows that the hatred for men outweighs the love for women. Now that's hate.

During the hearings for this new law you hear from all sorts of advocacy groups who have at best indirect information about how women are victims in prostitution, but then you hear from prostitutes themselves who say that they are not victims and just want equal protection just like any other worker under the labor laws. But of course the government prefers to believe the advocacy groups rather than the prostitutes themselves. Yes, don't believe what the prostitutes say on their behalf, believe what someone else says on their behalf, especially when their talking points are a better fit with the government's ideology.

Laws that treat women as helpless children are only good for those underachieving women who want the "daddy state" and don't like being held accountable for their actions. The freeloaders in other words. But it will hurt those women who want to be treated as adults and earn what they get out of life.

If this law passes, and it likely will, then it's just one more reason to get out of Toronto. In fact it might just be the final straw for some of you who have found that the way to cope with Toronto's hostile female factions is by visiting your friendly neighbourhood escort. But with such a law in place that option may no longer be viable. Therefore I recommend, at the very least, frequent trips to more female friendly places that are far removed from Toronto and the anglosphere. And since distance is a limiting factor then I recommend Quebec, with the closest city there being Montreal. There's plenty of ways to get there. You can fly there with Porter Airlines, which takes a little over an hour from Toronto, but it's kind of expensive (about $300 round trip), although not as expensive as the typical flight. You can also do this much more cheaply by driving, or taking the train (Via Rail), or taking the bus (Greyhound or Megabus). These can range in travel time from 5 hours to 8 hours one way. This is the down side obviously. But even given the long travel time this is still doable for the occasional weekend getaway.