The Damned Olde Man

Posted By TDOM on September 3, 2010

Slice, don’t dice, and it grills real nice

Grilling vegetables is easy. Cut them into even slices, no more than about ½ to ¾ inch thick (thinner if you like). The key is to cut them to a uniform thickness and make certain the slices are long and wide enough to keep them from falling through the grill. Brining or marinating will add flavor and help keep them from drying out. Brush them with a little oil and season before placing them on the grill. My favorites are eggplant, zucchini, summer squash, asparagus (just cut off the ends), carrots (sliced lengthwise), and onions (remove the skin and slice).

Mushrooms can simply be brushed with the stems on or off and place on the grill whole or sliced in half. Portabella mushrooms are best grilled whole with the stem removed.

Peppers can be brushed with oil and grilled whole. Char them slightly all the way around, then place them into a sealed container for about 10-15 minutes. Core them, peel away the outer skin, remove the seeds and slice, dice, or chop.

Corn on the cob is another excellent vegetable for grilling. I like to pull back the husk without removing it. Pull off the silk, brush with butter, season, and then pull up the husk. Put them on the grill or just toss them into the coals, turning occasionally. However, they can also be brushed with butter, seasoned, and grilled without the husk, but don’t put them directly on the coals without the husk.

Potatoes can be cut into slices or wedges. Just brush with oil and season. For baked potatoes, wrap with foil and place directly on the coals. Poke a few holes in the foil will allow a bit of smoke to flavor them without exposing them to the ash.

Garlic should be sliced across the root side of the head, brushed with butter or oil, seasoned, then wrapped in foil and placed directly on the coals. It can also be placed unwrapped on the grill, cut side down.

Acorn squash (or other winter squash) can be cut in half, brushed with oil or butter, seasoned, and placed on the grill cut side down.

Tomatoes can be sliced in half, seasoned and grilled. I recommend smaller ones, though not cherry or smaller tomatoes.

Pineapple can be peeled, cored, and quartered or sliced. Brush with butter, sprinkle with a little brown sugar, and place on the grill. Apricots and peaches are great when sliced in half and pitted. Apples can be peeled and cored, sliced in half or quartered.

I’ve also grilled Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, rutabagas, parsnips and cabbage. With a little imagination, nearly any fruit or vegetable can be grilled.

TDOM

Related articles by Zemanta

• Grilled vegetables can be barbecue stars (sfgate.com)
• 7 Delicious Labor Day Recipes (lifescript.com)
• Taking the Harvest to the Grill (blogcritics.org)

Category: Food & Drink | No Comments »
Tags: Barbecue, Brussels sprout, Cook, Fruit and Vegetable, Grill, Grilling, Home, Onion, Tomato, Vegetable

Posted By TDOM on September 1, 2010

How Hate Relates to Feminism

In Part 1 – What is Hate? I used a definition containing seven criteria to define a hate movement. In Part 2 and Part 3 I will demonstrate how feminism fits into each of the criteria and is therefore a hate movement. Part 2 covered points 1-4. In Part 3, I will cover points 5-7.

5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views (Myth)

The gender wage gap is frequently used as the basis to claim that women are still victims of discrimination in the workplace. While the statistic varies slightly, feminist claim that women earn only about 80% of what men earn for equal work. This is half truth and half lie. It is true that women earn an overall wage that is about 80% of what men earn. However, it is not due to discrimination, nor does it refer to equal work.

Several studies have shown that the difference in pay is due to different choices made by women and men who have different priorities. Women tend to choose work that is less physical in nature, less risky, and less dangerous. They also tend to choose occupations with more flexible work schedules and fewer hours. These types of jobs tend to be found in government and service industries and tend to be lower paying than jobs in the private sector. A recent study released by the Obama administration found that the wage gap is due mainly to the difference in choices and priorities of men and women. A small gap remains, but the reports states that it is likely not due to discrimination, but instead to factors not examined because they are too complex to measure. Very little, if any of the wage gap is attributable to discrimination against women.

The medieval witch trials that took place in Europe are a perfect example of revisionist history. By some accounts over 9 million women were executed as witches. Not so according to leading experts.

“On the wilder shores of the feminist and witch-cult movements,” writes Robin Briggs, “a potent myth has become established, to the effect that 9 million women were burned as witches in Europe; gendercide rather than genocide. [See, e.g., the witch-hunt documentary "The Burning Times".] This is an overestimate by a factor of up to 200, for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 per cent were men.” (cited in Gendercide Watch, http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html).

“Brian Levack’s book The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe arrives at roughly similar conclusions. Levack “surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately 110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions, because in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of its outcomes. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, [and] therefore he estimated 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the fact that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its witches.” (Gibbons, Recent Developments.)” (cited in Gendercide Watch, http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html).

Witch trials have been held out by feminists as examples of male oppression. But clearly, the figures quoted by feminist sources are greatly exaggerated and not all the victims were women. In fact, about 20-25% were men. Another fact omitted in feminist accounts is that the trials were not a war by men against women. In fact, many of the charges of witchcraft were brought by women against other women as a means of settling personal disputes. Men only became involved in the later stages as the cases came to trial.

It is therefore clear that feminist accounts of witch trials have misrepresented facts in an attempt to revise history to demonstrate that men are a threat to women and possibly morally inferior. The misrepresentation of statistics concerning the gender wage gap has also been used in this regard.

6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

It is the pervasive attitude in the industry that deals with domestic violence that only men can perpetrate violence and only women can be its victims. The attitude is that women only commit acts of violence in self defense and rarely initiate said violence. There are very few male victims and therefore this population is insignificant.

This attitude flies in the face of scientific research. Many studies have been conducted over several decades that show that women initiate at least as much (some studies show more) violence as men in domestic situations. Most of these studies also show that in cases where medical treatment is necessary, men are the victims about 20-40% of the time.

Feminist groups have also been quick to come to the aid or defend women charged with violent crimes against men. Valerie Solanas and Lorena Bobbitt are two examples. The first attempted to murder two men just for being male, the other sliced off her husband’s penis while he slept claiming self-defense. Feminists and feminist organizations rallied around these women. Each has been held out by mainstream feminists as heroines or icons of the movement.

Both of these examples demonstrate the tolerance within the feminist movement for violence against men (the target group).

7. These attitudes and actions must be pervasive and generally represent the leaders the organizations and the ordinary members of the movement

Of course the argument can be made that “not all feminists are like that.” Not all feminists condone all of the above. But that is not a requirement for feminism to fit the definition of a hate movement. The attitude and actions need only be pervasive and representative. I think it is fair to say that the issues of patriarchal oppression, reproductive rights, domestic violence, and rape amongst the key issues surrounding feminism in all (or nearly all) of its forms. Each brand of feminism has offered support to one degree or another for one or more (or all) of the attitudes and actions described above. Therefore, the attitudes and actions can be said to be pervasive and representative of the movement as a whole and of its leadership and membership. Thus feminism fits into the definition of a hate movement.

Category: Men's Issues | 1 Comment »
Tags: Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Early Modern Europe, Feminism, Men, Men's rights, Misandry, Patriarchy, People, Sexism, United States, Women, Women's rights

Posted By TDOM on August 30, 2010

How Hate Relates to Feminism

In Part 1 – What is Hate? I used a definition containing seven criteria to define a hate movement. In Part 2 and Part 3 I will demonstrate how feminism fits into each of the criteria and is therefore a hate movement.

1. Advocating lesser rights in law for the targeted group (men)

While there are other examples, domestic violence laws and rape laws are the prime examples of this. Despite research that shows that women initiate at least as much domestic violence as women and that men make up anywhere from 20-33% of its victims, feminist organizations have advocated laws pertaining to violence against women that have eliminated or prevented male victims of violence from receiving services equal to those offered to women. Feminists often deny that male victims or female perpetrators exist and openly advocate laws (mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws) that promote the arrest of men at a disproportionate rate compared to women. Frequently the enforcement of these laws requires men to be arrested although they have committed no violence and/or were the actual victims of violence.

Rape shield laws frequently prevent men from preparing an adequate defense against rape allegations and prosecutions can result in convictions even if there is no physical evidence that a rape occurred and the allegations are based solely on the word of the woman who is accusing the man. Women who claim to be victims do not have their identities published in the press; however, men who have been accused may have their names published and reputations ruined prior to conviction, even when there is no physical evidence.  Further, rape laws provide that the man can be arrested for having consensual sex with a woman who may have been intoxicated at the time she gave consent, but the woman cannot be charged with raping a man who may have been intoxicated. Women who commit sex crimes are frequently given lighter sentences than men who commit the same crimes.

2. Propagates discrimination against the target group

Feminist organizations actively promote affirmative action programs aimed at giving preference to women in employment, admission to college, etc. These organizations also fight against changes to family law that might allow fathers greater access to their children. Reproductive rights have become the central cause of the feminist movement. However, feminist organizations have restricted their advocacy only to women and have actively resisted men’s rights in this regard, even when extending such rights would not interfere with a woman’s right to choose. Many feminist organizations also advocate that men not be permitted to hold leadership positions within those organizations while at the same time advocating the inclusion of women into organizations once solely open to men, including positions of leadership.

3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral

This can be summed up in two words: patriarchal oppression. This is the concept that men have dominated society by oppressing and victimizing women. It was extended even further by second wave feminists like Susan Brownmiller who suggested that rape or the threat of rape was historically used by men to enforce their dominance. According to this doctrine, all men (past, present, and future) are guilty by virtue of the fact that they are men. The history of oppression also excuses women from responsibility for crimes committed against men (and sometimes children and other women) by enabling the blame to be placed on men via the patriarchy. This is further advanced by promoting the natural nurturing qualities of women in comparison to the violent and destructive qualities of men. This can be born out in the idea that if women were in charge, there would be no war or the more modern concept that the latest economic crisis might have been avoided if women ran Wall Street. Thus the idea that women are morally superior to men is taught as part of the feminist doctrine.

4. Teaches that the target group is a threat

All men are potential rapists, wife beaters, and child molesters. This is another theme central to feminist dogma and is outlined above. But this also plays out in other areas of society. The earthquake in Haiti in early 2010 created the necessity for a vast relief effort to supply the basic essentials of life to the surviving population. In the very early weeks, the effort was grossly inadequate. This created competition for scarce supplies and men were accused of using force to take whatever they needed to the detriment of women and children. Certainly, there was some truth to this. Lawlessness abounded and there was little that could be done to stop it. The solution was to call in the military, which was done. This would likely have sufficed. But feminist organizations went even further. Rather than blame a criminal element, they blamed men in general and instituted policies that required that supplies be given only to women, who were said to be more community minded and would therefore be more honest and equitable in the distribution of supplies. Because of the actions of a few Haitian men, all Haitian men were deemed to be a threat and were then treated as such.

To be continued in Part 3 – How Hate Relates to Feminism (This link will become active on 9/01 when the article is scheduled to post)

Category: Men's Issues | 1 Comment »
Tags: Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Education, Feminism, History, Men, Men's rights, Misandry, Patriarchy, People, Pro-choice, Rape, Sexism, Susan Brownmiller, Violence and Abuse, Women, Women's rights

Posted By TDOM on August 27, 2010

What is Hate?

I have frequently discussed my opinion that feminism is a hate movement. But what exactly does that mean? What constitutes hatred? The Encarta Dictionary defines hate as:  

1. to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feelings of anger, hostility, or animosity.
2. to have strong distaste or aversion for something, somebody, or something that has to be done, or
3. a feeling of intense hostility toward somebody or something (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+hate&FORM=DTPDIA&qpvt=hate+definition).

HateWatch gives this definition for a hate group:

“an organization or individual that advocates violence against or unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. Also including organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations for the purpose of vilification.” (as cited by Sex War).

One Man’s Mind (link now apparently defunct) states:

“You can promote and struggled for the rights of your race, group or religion to help sustain your way of life and provide a better future. The key is to honor every human beings right to the same thing.    A hate group wants the same thing but they are willing to deny or suppress the rights of others to obtain that goal. This usually comes in the form of deceitful discrediting, vandalism or violence against the target group.” (as cited by Sex War).

A website called Sex War offers the following criteria:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group.
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group.
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral.
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat.
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views.
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group.
7. These attitudes and actions must be pervasive and generally represent the leaders the organizations and the ordinary members of the movement.

In Part 2 and Part 3, I will use this latter definition to state my case that feminism is a hate movement. (Links to Part 2 will become active on 8/30 and links to Part 3 will activate on 9/01 when these articles are scheduled to post)

Category: Men's Issues | 1 Comment »
Tags: Advice, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Feminism, Gay Lesbian and Bisexual, Gender, Law, Men, Misandry, Patriarchy, People, Politics, President Obama, Religion, Sexism, Sexuality, Violence and Abuse, Women, Women's rights

Posted By TDOM on August 25, 2010

Male Feminists – Unwanted, unappreciated, not desired

Toysoldiers has written an excellent piece on male feminists, illustrating their undesireable position in the movement. It illustrates why no man should ever consider himself a feminist. Follow the link to With Friends Like This…. Then read my reply which is re-published below:

Feminism is a hate movement which, at its very core, is misandrous. As one of those you quoted puts it, “… the feminist movement is about women and women’s rights. It assumes that women are disadvantaged in relation to men, and works from there.” This statement is absolutely correct, which is why male feminists are not appreciated or even desired except for their utility in convincing other men to role over and play dead.

But the basic assumption is a fallacy. Women are not, nor have they ever been, as a class, disadvantaged relative to men. There have been certain areas where they have been disadvantaged, but there have also been other areas where they have held the advantage. Feminism refuses to recognize this and as a result has created a world view where men are evil and women are their victims. As a result, the feminist agenda addresses women and women’s rights, by attempting to change men and destroy men’s rights with at least the same veracity as it attempts to improve women and women’s rights. men are to blame, no matter what. This is what I mean when I say that it is misandrous at its core and therefore a hate movement.

TDOM

Related articles by Zemanta

• so can men be feminists? (ihatethismess.tumblr.com)

Category: Men's Issues, Pet Peeves | No Comments »
Tags: Discrimination, Feminism, Men, Men's rights, Misandry, People, Sexism, Women, Women's rights

Posted By TDOM on August 23, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

• Maroon 5′s ‘Misery’ Video: Ultra Violence, Sly Humor (mtv.com)
• Maroon 5′s ‘Misery’ Video: Watch Behind-The-Scenes Footage Now! (mtv.com)
• Maroon 5 Get Violent In ‘Misery’ Video (mtv.com)
• Maroon 5 debuts new music video for “Misery” (hollywoodnews.com)

Category: Men's Issues, Reviews | 1 Comment »
Tags: Adam Levine, Arts, Business, Domestic Violence, Joseph Kahn, Maroon 5, Men, Men's rights, Misandry, Music video, Musical ensemble, Sexism, Video, Violence and Abuse, Women

Posted By TDOM on August 20, 2010

Prats and pitfalls of quoting scientific research

Recently I was involved in a discussion on another site concerning conflicting research findings. I cited several pieces of research that supported a position and discussed findings that conflicted with this research with the owner of that site. I don’t know whether the owner had actually read any of the research he cited to support his arguments, the website he referenced contained only the abstracts and a broken link to a full report of one of the studies that it cited. Reading abstracts is not the best way to determine whether a study is well done, reliable, or valid. An abstract typically contains a summary of the research, including its purpose, methodology, and conclusion. It is not detailed and usually doesn’t contain enough information to determine its quality. But abstracts were all I was able to obtain for the references he cited, so it was what I used.

I was attempting to suggest possible reasons for the differing results based on sample description and methodology contained in the abstracts. I was very careful to characterize my statements as “speculation” since I had not read the actual studies themselves. I do not wish to rehash that discussion here. I only use it now to point out that frequently, those who report on the findings of a particular study will rely solely upon the abstract and/or the conclusion for their information. This can have disastrous results. It is the body of the report that will contain information vital to the evaluation of the report itself. It is the body, not the abstract or conclusion, that will contain information as to whether the research can be trusted, or whether it may be pseudo-science or bad science.

Several months ago, I reviewed The Global Gender Gap Report, 2009 released by the World Economic Forum in an article titled When does “Inequality = Equality”? The authors of this report claimed that women had not yet achieved equality with men in any country in the world. This was what was widely reported in the media. However, just by reading the first few pages, I was able to determine that the article was heavily biased towards demonstrating this inequality. The authors even admitted to their bias. In fact, the way the study was structured, it would have been impossible to find a country where women have achieved equality with men since any subject area where women were considered to have an advantage compared to men was “equality;” meaning that if only one area existed where women were at a disadvantage, they would be considered to be at an overall disadvantage in that country, even if they held the advantage in all other areas. Further, the subject areas that were studied tended to be those where it is well known that women hold a disadvantage and other areas where men are disadvantaged were left out entirely. This is an example of very bad science that was used by the World Economic Forum for the stated purpose of influencing public policy. If the WEF were actually “committed to improving the state of the world” as its logo indicates, would it actually perpetrate such fraud in order to advance its political agenda?

Another  illustration of the misuse of science can be found in the first paragraph of this press release and news reporting on the report.

Press release:

“Twenty-seven percent of public school students ages 12 to 17 say that their school is both gang- and drug-infected (drugs are used, kept or sold on school grounds), according to the National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XV: Teens and Parents, the 15th annual back-to-school survey conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA*) at Columbia University. This means that 5.7 million public school students attend schools which are both gang- and drug-infected.”

Note that in the first sentence it is students who say their school is both gang and drug infested. Note that the last sentence states that this is fact. Simply because students say it, does not make it true. That is a problem inherent in survey research. People lie, exaggerate, answer with what they think the researcher wants to hear, etc.  

The press release also does not state the criteria for determining whether a school is gang or drug infested. It simply tells states that it is both gang-and drug-infected if drugs are used, kept, or sold on school grounds. How many students had to report such conditions before a school is declared to meet this criterion? One student? Twenty? The press release reports that two samples of about a thousand teens each were conducted for this study. What it doesn’t say is whether several students from each of a few schools were surveyed or whether only one student from two thousand schools was surveyed. It is quite likely that there is at least one student in every public school across the country that uses drugs and takes them to school. But would this mean that every school is drug infected? What people need to know is that there may be huge differences between what students say about a school and what is actually happening. For instance, what does the principal or local law enforcement say? Have there been any arrests? Any fights or incidents of violence? Without reading the entire study, these things cannot be known.

So why is this a problem? Because the contents of the press release are being reported as fact. No questions asked. I have found three news articles based on the press release. Not one of them contains any information that is not found in the press release. Not one of them adds anything that isn’t there. Not one of them quotes one of the researchers from an interview. Not one of them presents a different viewpoint. In other words, not one of the reporters has actually done the job of being a reporter, instead they have each been parrots, repeating only what they have been told and this could be misleading the public.

Of course, none of this means that there is anything wrong with the study. It could be that the researchers built in several controls to protect the integrity of the data they were collecting. But this is not indicated in a press release. Journalists who simply parrot press releases are lazy and irresponsible. Questions should have been asked and other research consulted. This is a misleading and potentially damaging misuse of science.

Let’s return momentarily to the discussion I had on that other blog. One of the studies referenced as support for the other guy’s position was conducted by Chandy, Blum, & Resnick (1996). I was not able to obtain a copy of that study, but I did find a similar study conducted by the same authors in 1997. The first study compared the effects of sexual abuse of boys with that of girls. The second only examined the boys. It appears that in both studies the authors used the exact same data. The sample size for the boys was exactly the same (n=370). The data came from the Adolescent Health Survey conducted in Minnesota in 1986-7, a study that appears to have been conducted by Resnick, Blum and others. The reason sample of 370 is significant and links both studies to the same data is that 370 is the exact number of boys indicating sexual abuse in the survey. Therefore, while I do not have the data source from the referenced article, I am confident it is the same. This link allows me to comment on the referenced study although I have not read it.

The central theme of the discussion on that other site was that one of the studies I referenced in my article indicated that sexually abused boys view their experiences as more positive than sexually abused girls. I drew the conclusion that this would mean they suffered less trauma. The studies referenced on the other site indicate that boys may suffer more trauma than girls as a result of sexual abuse. My position was that sampling and methodological differences between the studies may account for the different results. This appears to have been correct, though not necessarily in the way I initially thought.

The Chandy study defined sexual abuse in an odd manner. According to Chandy et al, “sexual abuse is when someone in your family, or someone else, touches you in a place you did not want to be touched, or does something to you sexually which they shouldn’t have done” (p. 5). This definition is vague and could be somewhat misleading. For instance, touching someplace you did not want to be touched could include a tap on the shoulder if the respondent did not wish to be touched there, but it would not necessarily be sexual abuse. Second, it would rule out being touched on the genitals by a significantly older person if the respondent wanted to be touched there. Thus the results may include instances where no abuse took place or exclude instances that might be considered statutory rape. The latter is probably more likely. This would certainly account for a difference in results.

Boys who viewed their experiences positively and may not be as traumatized by those experiences would likely not respond to the survey by indicating they were abused (they might have believed they “wanted” it to happen or not believe that it was something they “shouldn’t have done.” Thus they would not be part of the sample used by Chandy et al. But since the other study inquired about specific actions independent of desire or interpretation, they would show up in that sample. This could certainly influence the results and create a difference large enough for the researchers to reach opposing conclusions.

Thus, as I stated on the other site, my hypothesis that “…it could be the case that boys who do suffer trauma, may suffer more than girls who suffer trauma, but that a lower percentage of boys actually suffer trauma as a result of being abused” is supported by the examination of the differences between the two studies. Chandy found that boys suffer more trauma, but likely excluded a large number of cases that were less traumatic. Again, the use of abstracts, without evaluating the entire article, to support a position can lead to misleading conclusions or assumptions.

The reference to reports and studies and statistics is something that I see quite often in the mainstream media, and also on blogs. It is much more forgivable on a blog, especially if written by a nonprofessional. I am guilty of it myself. I have occasionally used statistics without going to the source. This is one reason why bad statistics never die. One person quotes the stat, then another person quotes the person who quoted the stat, and someone else quotes that person until no one knows where it originated, by everyone assumes it is true, so they keep using it. This is bad science and misuse of scientific data. It turns myth into fact and in the wrong hands can be used to influence public policy.

Nonprofessionals and bloggers should be obligated to get their facts straight, but are not obligated to cite every source. Know where your information comes from and don’t misuse science.

References

Chandy, J. M., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. D. (1997). Sexually abuse male adolescents: How vulnerable are they? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 6 (2), 1-16.

TDOM

Related articles by Zemanta

• 2010 National Teen Survey Finds: More Than One Quarter of Public School Students Attend Gang- and Drug-Infected Schools (prnewswire.com)
• “Teen Survey Finds Gangs, Drugs Common in US Schools” and related posts (news.health.com)

Category: Psychology, Social concerns | No Comments »
Tags: Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, National Survey of American Attitudes, Research, Sexual abuse, Substance abuse, United States, World Economic Forum

Posted By TDOM on August 16, 2010

Just what is equality?

Not long ago I wrote an article discussing how feminism is not really concerned with equality. I’ve also recently read two other articles on the subject of equality, one at Trigger Alert based on Kurt Vonnegut‘s Harrison Bergeron, and the other at A Voice for Men by B.R. Merrick. Both give excellent illustrations of equality.

Since feminism is not really concerned with equality, should we be concerned with equality? My answer is “sometimes” All men are not created equal. All women are not created equal. Men and women are not created equal. We are each unique. We are each different. We each have different strengths, different weaknesses, different interests, etc. Our similarities tend to be our bonds. Our differences make us interesting.

One of the great buzzwords of this century is “diversity.” It is the idea that we should celebrate our differences and that this celebration makes us better. I whole-heartedly agree. diversity is one of the primary benefits of living in Los Angeles. But one of the odd things is that it is frequently the same people who tell us that diversity is good, who also demand equality. I mention this is odd because equality is the mortal enemy of diversity. It is the difference between saying we live in a “melting pot” vs. saying we live in a “tossed salad.” In a melting pot all individuality (diversity) is lost. In a tossed salad, individuality (diversity) is maintained, but disbursed.

We can never achieve equality, because we are not equal. It shouldn’t even be a goal. This is not to say that we shouldn’t all be treated as though we are the same. We should all have equal rights. We should all have equal opportunity. We should all have equal protection under the law. But we should rarely have equal outcomes because we are not equal, nor should we be.

This is not to say that equal rights, opportunity, or equal protection cannot sometimes be measured by equal outcomes. In some cases it can be. For instance, in Family Law, shared parenting should be the norm. child custody cases should result in nearly equal outcomes for both mothers and fathers. In schools, boys and girls should be offered the same classes, obtain nearly the same grades, graduate at nearly the same rates, and go to college at nearly the same rates. Why? Because mothers and fathers have nearly identical parenting skills and abilities and because children need both a mother and a father. Intelligence testing demonstrates that differences between boys’ and girls’ overall intelligence is negligible, although intelligence tests do show significant differences in certain subjects. What this indicates is that overall, educational outcomes should be the same for boys and girls, though individual subjects and choices regarding areas of study may be quite different. These differences will produce unequal outcomes in areas where they exist.

Therefore in areas where we know differences exist, equality (equal outcome) is inappropriate, but in areas where we know that differences are insignificant, equality is desireable. Unfortunately, there are too many who demand total equality, pushing us to become a society of Harrison Bergerons, where individuality is discouraged and genius is handicapped, and where mediocrity is the norm.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Harrison Bergeron, a short story by Kurt Vonnegut (tnellen.com)
• “Kurt Vonnegut at the Blackboard” (gointothestory.com)
• Factoring in gender equality can prevent costly errors (guardian.co.uk)
• If That’s What They Call Equality (teabreak.pk)

Category: Men's Issues, Pet Peeves | 2 Comments »
Tags: Child custody, Discrimination, Education, Equal opportunity, Family Law, Feminism, Harrison Bergeron, Kurt Vonnegut, Los Angeles, Men, Men's rights, Misandry, People, Sexism, Women

Posted By TDOM on August 13, 2010

A Catholic priest, an altar boy, a vindictive nun – You just know what this movie’s about

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Father Brendan Flynn, a priest accused of, what else, molesting an altar boy. Meryl Streep, as Sister Aloysius Beauvier, is his accuser. She has no evidence, there are no witnesses, no one bothers to ask the boy. But the good sister is convinced that the relationship between Father Flynn and the school’s first Black student, Donald Miller (Joseph Foster), is inappropriate. Sister Beauvier enlists the help of the school’s other sisters to keep an eye open, hoping to discover information to confirm her suspicions. Sister James (Amy Adams) sees the Father place a shirt into the boy’s locker. She also notes that the boy was called to the rectory by the father and acted strangely upon his return with the smell of alcohol on his breath.

 A meeting between Sister Beauvier and Donald’s mother (Viola Davis) reveals that his father is a harsh disciplinarian and that Donald was disciplined due to the alcohol, although later it was said to be for another reason (homosexual behavior is implied). Donald’s mother implores Sister Beauvier not to pursue her suspicions as the accusations would upset Donald’s father who may abuse the boy. To further complicate the matter, the boy was transferred into the school after being beaten by other boys in the neighborhood. To protect the boy from the physical beatings, his mother was more than willing to overlook any impropriety in his relationship with Father Flynn, the one man who was good to him.

The evidence is, of course, entirely circumstantial. It is easily refuted. Flynn met with the boy to discuss his stealing the altar wine after he’d been caught by another teacher. He wanted to deal with the boy privately, so the boy could remain an altar boy. He would have to be removed if anyone found out that he’d stolen wine. The Father knew the boy had no friends and needed someone to talk to. He only had the boy’s best interest in mind. The shirt had simply been left in the office, Flynn had not wanted t cause embarrassment by calling the boy back, so he placed it into the boy’s locker.

Flynn convinces Sister James of his innocence, but a confrontation with Sister Beauvier results in more innuendo, but no evidence. However, faced with having his reputation and career ruined, he accedes to her demand that he request a transfer away from the school. In a final scene between the two sisters, Sister Beauvier reveals that she had lied to the Father about having contacted a nun at his former parish regarding the reasons for his departure. She notes, however, that the lie would not have worked if Flynn had done nothing wrong. Up to this point, she had remained steadfast in her conviction that the relationship between Flynn and the boy was inappropriate.

Her conviction, however, was based on the flimsiest of evidence. When pressed by Father Flynn, the reason she was so certain that he had committed wrong, was her observation of the reaction of another boy who pulled his hand away when the Father had touched him. Of course the good Sister had plenty of motivation for wanting rid of the father from her school. He was a reformer. He thought the school (and the Church) needed to become more friendly and responsive to its congregation. He wanted a secular song to b included in the Christmas pageant. He viewed her as a problem. She knew it.

Although set in 1964, the film is relevant to today’s issues. Not only the issues of child abuse in the Church, but issues of false allegations and the power they give women to destroy men. For a man to be convicted, it takes no evidence. It only takes the word of the accuser. Flynn knew this so the Sister’s lie didn’t matter. There needn’t have been any incident at a previous parish, no allegation, no suspicion. Whatever the reason he left wouldn’t have mattered. If the sister had made her allegations public, his career would be over, never mind the complete lack of evidence.

False allegations give women power over men, especially those of domestic violence, rape, or child molestation. This movie is a perfect illustration of how that kind of power works. The acting was superb; the writing excellent. It was very well done and gets my highest recommendation.

TDOM

Related articles by Zemanta

• 5 reviews of Doubt (rateitall.com)

Category: Men's Issues, Reviews | No Comments »
Tags: Amy Adams, Catholic Church, Child abuse, Child sexual abuse, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Doubt (2008 film), Father Flynn, Feminism, Men, Men's rights, Meryl Streep, Misandry, People, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sexism, Viola Davis, Violence and Abuse, Women

Posted By TDOM on August 12, 2010

I love old westerns, and this is a great one. Newman, Boone, March, and Balsam are terrific. Even the female leads, Cilento, Rush, and Bly are excellent. The film pits the pillars of society against the dregs, but does away with the roles of good and evil. It is ultimately about racism, discrimination, and sexism. White men are bad. Men are evil, women are their victims. Despite this, it really doesn’t do feminism any favors. These are the underlying themes. But if one can disengage from the themes, the movie was well-written, well-acted, directed, and produced.

 An interesting aspect of this movie is that there isn’t a single likeable character. Richard Boone plays his typical hard man (Cicero Grimes), both brutal and cruel, but with an intriguing sense of humor and intelligence. Fredric March (Dr. Favor) is the treacherous White man who embezzled money from the Apache, causing starvation among the tribe. Martin Balsam (Henry Mendez) plays a tough, but noble Mexican stage driver, courageous, but not heroic. Paul Newman (John Russell) plays the most intriguing character; a White man raised by Apaches, then rescued, and who finally returns to the Apache way of life. He is befriended by Mendez, but despised by the other Whites sharing the stage. After being insulted by the others, they must then plead with him to rescue them and lead them to safety, a position he’d rather not be in, but reluctantly accepts. Diane Cilento (Jessie) plays a woman in search of a husband to support her and is the obvious anti-feminist, though not entirely. Barbara Rush (Audra Favor) plays the wife of Dr. Favor. She abandons her older husband in favor of the sadistic Grimes, who has taken her husband’s fortune. Finally, Margaret Blye (Doris Blake) plays the wife of Billy Lee Blake (played by Peter Lazer), another woman who detests her husband for no other reason than he can’t support the comfortable, pampered lifestyle she desires.

 With the exception of Russell and Grimes, the White men in the movie are nondescript, gutless wonders of relatively poor character. It isn’t that Russell and Grimes have any redeeming value, but at least they have balls. Russell is cold and cruel, but takes pity on the other passengers and agrees to lead them to safety. He wants the money, not for selfish reasons, but because he intends to return it to the Apaches from whom it was stolen, although this isn’t clear until later. His virtue is obviously a result of his being raised by the Apache and not his own people. Grimes is the stereotypic villain, cruel and selfish, with no empathy for anyone. In one scene, he attempts to rape Mrs. Blake. To him it’s a joke. She had been flirting with him and indicated that she liked it when a man could be a man and take what he wants. It becomes obvious that he never really intended to rape her, but he did intend to expose her hypocrisy and he succeeded. While the scene reinforced the “women are men’s victims” feminist theme, it actually did feminists no great favors. The scene plays on the “all men are rapists” while at the same time exposing Mrs. Blake for the hypocrite she actually is.

One of the downfalls of the movie is that it falls a bit short of exposing the hypocrisy of feminism. One of the early scenes is one of Mrs. Blake criticizing her husband and calling his manhood into question simply because he can’t support the lifestyle she wanted. She is an obvious spoiled brat with a sense of entitlement. After her incident with Grimes, she intends to goad her husband, a young inexperienced kid, into defending her honor, an act that would likely get him killed, which, it seems, would suit her just fine. But before she can do this, she is stopped by Jessie. After this incident, the relationship is almost entirely ignored. I would like to have seen the conflict play itself out. Another conflict that seemed to have been abandoned is the one between Dr. Favor and his wife, who insulted his manhood and denigrated him to the other women before finally leaving him for Grimes, who, at the time, had the money. The next we saw of this conflict was near the end of the movie when the doctor refused to risk his life to save hers. What I didn’t get, however, was why Russell finally decided she was worth dying for. Until this point, he had done nothing that wasn’t in his own interest. Then, suddenly, in what seemed totally out of character, he risks his life for her. It made for an odd ending and was rather disappointing. The movie had an opportunity to make an anti-feminist statement, but in these respects, it failed, though it did expose feminism’s dark underbelly.

The racial aspect was what I found most difficult to swallow. Not one White man in the movie had any redeeming value whatsoever. Russell, who was white, was only held out to be virtuous because of his Apache upbringing. Grimes and his gang were evil, and Dr. Favor was greedy and exploitative. Only the kid, Billie Lee Blake, was not portrayed as having a dark side, but he was rather weak and pathetic. Aside from the one early scene with his wife, his only impact on the movie was to agree to take the money to the Apache once Russell had decided to risk death. If even one White man had been shown to have some redeeming quality, the movie would have been easier to stomach. But it didn’t and therefore it had an entirely anti-White, racist tone to it.

Hombre is a movie that is well-worth watching. It is intense and entertaining. It has a definite message, even if I don’t necessarily agree with that message. It is well done. I highly recommend it. It would be an excellent remake today if it downplayed the racist theme and made more of an anti-feminist statement.

TDOM

Related articles by Zemanta

• 1 reviews of Hombre (rateitall.com)

Category: Reviews | No Comments »
Tags: Apache, Barbara Rush, Discrimination, Feminism, John Russell, Men, Misandry, Paul Newman, Racism, Richard Boone, Sexism, Violence and Abuse, Women