Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Re Divorce and custody: from the original article:"...in family courts, the presumption of male behavioral malefaction has yielded heartbreakingly numerous cases in which men are charged with domestic violence to which courts overwhelmingly--often in brief hearings in which the male is not even present--issue temporary "restraining orders." These frequently segue into permanence, and award women the dwelling they've shared, financial support and the all-important privilege of custody--mothers gain custody in 66% of uncontested cases and 75% of contested ones. Less than a quarter of parents are awarded joint custody.

"Judges issue such orders based only on the word of the alleged victim. It is small wonder the overwhelming majority of such actions are sought and achieved by women. It has been legitimately argued that there is a merciless postmarital racket of therapists, lawyers, judges and governmental advocates who prosper because it is so easy to define males as guilty."

Can I just clarify, if the custody statistics in this article refer to circumstances in which there is an alleged instance of domestic violence from the male, then it is good and sensible action to establish a temporary restraining order to ensure the safety of all while the legitimacy of the claims are investigated. However, this should be done if there are allegations of violence against the female as well. Surely the safety of the children is to be valued. I can understand that judges do not want to take risks with these kind of allegations as to ignore them MAY result in the injury or death of a child or spouse in the home in question. It is very tricky. And abuse can occur in many forms so that there may only be the 'word of the alleged victim' as evidence. Obviously a man should not be presumed guilty. The legal system is there to ensure both parties have a say.

I think we need to establish if these custody statistics are referring to instances where there is alleged domestic violence as the presence of such significantly complicates issues.

I am with you on suicide, heath, and education. I even agree that when a family splits, which is a very tragic event, both parents should have equal access and influence in the children's lives, providing both are responsible and can be trusted to keep the children safe.

Dear Miss,

You and I are in real danger of agreeing in more instances or not if I don't find something more controversial to blog about. ;)

I'll see what I can dig up about those stats. . .

About the breast/prostate cancer thing:

could some of it have more to do with the fact (and I'm not sure if this is a fact, but I think it is) that prostate cancer is, to a greater degree, what kills men when they get old, but breast cancer, to a somewhat greater degree, is something that kills women well below average life expectancy?

Now assuming I'm right about this (and I could be way wrong, so correct me if I am) it only seems sensible to say, "Look, 80 year old guys are going to die of something. We're not going to ignore prostate cancer, but OTOH we can't eliminate all causes of death. OTOH, breast cancer is something that (a comparatively higher percentage of the time) leaves children motherless and middle aged men widowed. This is something that it is reasonable for us to spend disproporionately on, without entirely neglecting the other."

I think it has a lot more to do with ubiquitous pink ribbons and glittery celebrity activists and the fact that it ovewhelmingly strikes a 'minority' group. There are other cancers which strike just as young a demographic which are also woefully underfunded. . .

Pentamom-

There's also the massive disparity in funding that AIDS has always enjoyed -- it pays to be a virus with its own civil rights.

Lest I be thought an ogre, I'm not against spending on medical research. I just don't like seeing the process politicized to an extent that it seems to distort research priorities . . . :)

EDUCATION: A "publicly financed educational system is at least 20% better at producing successful female students than male, yet hardly anyone sees this as remarkable gender discrimination.

Hi John, quick comment on this. I've read several articles recently on this topic. The assumption here is that children are raw material inserted into one end of the a closed system then spat out the other end as finished products. More black students struggle educationally than white students, more poor students than wealthy ones-- is that merely a function of the education system itself? No, the problems are present when children enter the system, and educational performance is greatly impacted by outside factors throughout the schooling years. For instance, Boys are pitted against a culture that bombards them with the idea that learning and books are "girly." Boys statistically spend more time that girls watching television and playing video games, behaviors that can adversely affect school performance, particularly in homes where education is not a high priority. Most teachers are women, although school systems bend over backwards to hire men. Teachers are aware of ths very complicated problem, and most of us are working very hard to ameliorate it.

I find the idea that teachers or schools are actively discriminating against boys or that they are the primary cause of the achievement gap in language arts between boys and girls to be unsupported.

Lisa-

"I find the idea that teachers or schools are actively discriminating against boys or that they are the primary cause of the achievement gap in language arts between boys and girls to be unsupported."

But you're missing the point -- if it was any group other than boys, such a huge disparity would be evidence in and of itself of discrimination.

This is one area where the grotesque double standard at work in our race and gender relations can be clearly seen. Underlying causes such as you're citing are discounted when the 'victim' is female or a minority. Instead, the very existence of a difference is sufficient evidence to 'prove' persistent discrimination. So why should men be different?

Secondly, could we not make entirely similar arguments for why girls 'naturally' underperform versus boys in math and sciences? Instead we have the hysteria of 'Reviving Ophelia' and tons of money and expert help going to rectify the imbalance.

The author is making the point that there is a much larger disparity on the male side which is largely ignored, and barely acknowledged as a problem. It may be in your school, but it is hardly so on a national level.

Just FWIW, I do think the current educational system is badly suited for the education of boys. If a system is badly designed, there doesn't have to be 'active' discrimination in order for bad results to occur. I'm not judging the motives of teachers at all in this.

IN Australia we have the same problem with girls out performing boys in all areas: maths, science, and language based subjects. Positive discrimination - in favour of girls - is said to blame for this. So now we have to positively discriminate for boys to balance the scales, so to speak. No one has yet found an effective way to do this. Most English teachers, for example, include more novels with themes of war and action to get the boys attention. Sadly, a lot of these are badly written. Disparity between the education of boys and girls is a problem here. If you guys figure out a solution, let us know.

Miss-

I think part of the solution is simply not to try to find an all-in-one solution. Instead, we should go back to single-sex education. This would allow us to tailor schools and curricula to the needs of boys and girls BOTH, without the need to discriminate against either.

It also removes the single biggest cause of distraction and fights in schools -- the opposite sex.

It's only because of the ideology of absolute equality that we believe that it's a necessity for schools to be co-ed. To me, any supposed benefits of co-education are more than outweighed by the negatives.

It's instructive that when people want to build a school for 'at-risk' youth, so often they incline toward single-sex schools.

Speaking of which, did you happen to read this one:

http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4246316&nav=8fap

But you're missing the point -- if it was any group other than boys, such a huge disparity would be evidence in and of itself of discrimination.

I'd like to see the source for your "schools are 20% more likely to turn out sucessful female students" number. Are they referring to test scores, likelihood to have a steady job, likelihood to attend college?

The gap between boys and girls in language arts scores is relatively recent, but teachers have been made aware of it for probably six or seven years-- definitely while I was still in college. Inside the field, it is a huge concern, particularly with African American boys, who fare the worst. I've seen several articles on it in Time, Newsweek, and the like over the past couple of years, and the secretary of education has talked about it several times that I know of. I think the sense of urgency isn't there yet because there's not exactly a crisis in the number of recognized male writers, critics, CEOs, etc.

I'm not sure if your point is that discrimination should not be claimed in other instances of achivement gaps, or if it SHOULD be claimed here. I don't believe that a gap in and of itself, no matter what group one is talking about, by itself proves educational discrimination. If that's what you're saying, I totally agree. Of course, schools are required to address these gaps whether discrimination is an issue or not, and they should be addressing them, and they are addressing them.

Girls were actively discouraged from taking higher math and science classes for years, by the educational establishment. It was intentional and institutional within the school systems, and it needed to be corrected by the school systems. On the other hand, studies show that teachers are still calling on boys in class more than girls and that boys get a higher percentage of teachers' attention. (Because they need it more? Possibly.)

I disagree that "underlying causes" are/were ignored for girls. There was a huge shift in popular culture during my childhood and adolescence to emphasize that girls could succeed in math and science, and it worked. Cultural factors are not necessarily "natural" ones. They can be changed, but it takes time and lots of people have to be on board. The fact that girls closed the gap as quickly as they did after hundreds of years of restricted access to knowledge shows that it can be done again with boys provided the same type of cultural shift occurs. However, as we are much more tolerant of girls pursuing traditionally male activities rather than the reverse, I don't think it will be as easy. "Hey boys, it's COOL to read poetry!" is not something I see taking off. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.

I am an advocate of providing lots of different options for schooling, including same sex education. I would have been absolutely miserable at an all-girls school, though. My friends were boys, I liked "boy" TV shows, books, etc. all the way through high school. Not all girls or boys are the same, and there is no one system or philosophy that works for every child. That said, I am all for providing that option-- it has had some tremendous successes in urban areas.

Man, that ended up longer than I intended. Gotta go do lesson plans.

That last post was me.

Lisa-

I'm not blogging tonight, but I did want to take a moment and thank you for the time and thought you put into your response. :)

Well, I agree that in reality, the ribbons and the politicized nature of the relations between the sexes is the actual cause of breast cancer being disproportionately being favored.

But what I meant was that it's not, after all, an irrational policy. Take out the politics and the sentimentalism and there's still a good case to be made for disproportionately favoring funds to fight a disease that more greatly affects longevity. I agree that the logic isn't consistently applied, but I wasn't claiming that the logic was really being applied at all, just that the policy itself isn't wholly irrational. In a more perfectly logical, less politicized world, you might still have a legitimate disproportion.

size genetics

proenhance patch

proextender system

vimax extender

acne acuzine

breast gain plus review

proenhance patch

sizegenetics review

discount vigrx

semenax vigrx

buy semenax