This story’s late addition to the main stream media is another example of how western media constantly works to downplay the bad behavior of men trying to protect their ever-worsening reputations. Meanwhile every time we turn around there’s more evidence of some new atrocity thought up by the most aggressive being to inhabit our planet: the human male. Anyway this latest vicious act took place last month. It’s been being discussed in the blogosphere for weeks now. Yet CNN JUST saw fit to post the story yesterday.
Not to mention how they attempted to downplay the fact that these crimes are really hate crimes against women by including a line within the article implying that men can be victimized as well. Thus making it appear to the average reader that this is just another nutty muslim tradition that included men within it, but, in fact, men are not victims of honor killings at all. When men are killed by their family and neighbors in this context it’s generally for collaborating with the enemy, not just for walking down the street or talking with a man who’s not a relative, the way a woman can be targeted for an innocent everyday act.
This is very similar to the way the media ignored the horrible rape and torture of an upper west side woman last month. She was the victim of a push-in robbery, where a man kept her prisoner for almost 24 hours raping and torturing her the entire time, even going to the extent of slitting her eyelids. He left her for dead but somehow she managed to survive, I think she’s still in the hospital however. Now what did we hear about this event which happened in the media capital of the world I might add, New York City? I think ONE ARTICLE, maybe two mentioned it. This story got almost no coverage except when they finally caught the rapist, the reporter made sure to include a comment sympathetic to him within it claiming ‘he never got a break”.
Who cares???
Well other men do obviously.
Just as they came to the rescue of their brothers Alex Baldwin and David Hasselhoff, desperately making excuses for their bad behavior towards their children.
Just as they continuously lie about the growing number of mothers who are losing custody of their children, trying to paint men as victims of discrimination in family court.
This honor killing spin is just another example of the free pass given to man by our media, as he continues plundering the resources, children and lives of woman.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/
Authorities in northern Iraq have arrested four people in connection with the "honor killing" last month of a Kurdish teen -- a startling, morbid pummeling caught on a mobile phone video camera and broadcast around the world.
The case portrays the tragedy and brutality of honor killings in the Muslim world. Honor killings take place when family members kill relatives, almost always female, because they feel the relatives' actions have shamed the family.
In this case, Dua Khalil, a 17-year-old Kurdish girl whose religion is Yazidi, was dragged into a crowd in a headlock with police looking on and kicked, beaten and stoned to death last month.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
SAD, SICK, SILLY AND INSANE, ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY MEN TO NEGATE THE IMPACT OF MOTHERS
Another example of the obsessive craving men have to be in charge of everything…
Is there a single thing good, bad or indifferent that women can do which men can’t find a way to take either the credit or blame for????
Dare I say the unthinkable: the person who purchases and prepares the food is the one most responsible for whether or not children gain weight and that is still the mother. Fathers are bit players in this regard as they are in many other areas involving children not ‘on the frontline’ as they wish to paint themselves, but backup and support to mothers.
Too bad if they don’t like it…
Let me be the first to put another ‘spin’ on this finding. We’ve already had studies demonstrating custodial fathers spending less money on their children for food, medical care and education. So perhaps the stingy cheapskates who participated in this study are just showing the well-documented pattern of men keeping most of their money for themselves spending it on beer and cigarettes instead of food for their kids. No wonder the kids are so much skinnier then everyone else, it’s certainly nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686557-29277,00.html
Dad, not mums, to blame for fat kids
By Tamara McLean
May 07, 2007 05:27pm
FAT children are more likely to have their father to blame for their weight problem than their mother, a study shows.
Research by Australian child health experts has revealed that fathers who are disengaged or do not set clear limits for their kids are more likely to have heavier children.
Dads who did lay down boundaries generally had children with a lower body mass index (BMI), the study of almost 5000 youngsters found.
Surprisingly, a mother's parenting behaviour or style apparently had no impact on whether a child was overweight or obese, according to research by Murdoch Children's Research Institute and The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.
(Oh BALONEY)!!!!!
Hospital specialist Professor Melissa Wake said the large study was the first to suggest that men could be at the frontline in preventing early childhood obesity.
"Mothers are often blamed for their children's obesity, but this study suggests that for more effective prevention perhaps we should focus on the whole family," Prof Wake said.
The results also showed that 40 per cent of these young mothers and more than 60 per cent of the young fathers were themselves overweight or obese.
The research, to be presented at a paediatrics conference in Toronto this week, compared the BMIs of four- and five-year-olds with their parents' parenting styles.
The specialists said it was vital to study early parenting because home life often established patterns for life-long obesity.
Earlier research had shown that childhood obesity was highly stable during the primary school years, right from school entry, Prof Wake said.
"For instance, the BMI of a prepgrade child has an 85 per cent correlation with their BMI three years later," she said.
"Obese school children are very likely to become obese adults."
Childhood obesity is growing at an alarming rate in Australia, with more than 20 per cent of preschool children either overweight or obese.
Extra weight is a precursor to serious childhood and adult diseases like asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Is there a single thing good, bad or indifferent that women can do which men can’t find a way to take either the credit or blame for????
Dare I say the unthinkable: the person who purchases and prepares the food is the one most responsible for whether or not children gain weight and that is still the mother. Fathers are bit players in this regard as they are in many other areas involving children not ‘on the frontline’ as they wish to paint themselves, but backup and support to mothers.
Too bad if they don’t like it…
Let me be the first to put another ‘spin’ on this finding. We’ve already had studies demonstrating custodial fathers spending less money on their children for food, medical care and education. So perhaps the stingy cheapskates who participated in this study are just showing the well-documented pattern of men keeping most of their money for themselves spending it on beer and cigarettes instead of food for their kids. No wonder the kids are so much skinnier then everyone else, it’s certainly nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686557-29277,00.html
Dad, not mums, to blame for fat kids
By Tamara McLean
May 07, 2007 05:27pm
FAT children are more likely to have their father to blame for their weight problem than their mother, a study shows.
Research by Australian child health experts has revealed that fathers who are disengaged or do not set clear limits for their kids are more likely to have heavier children.
Dads who did lay down boundaries generally had children with a lower body mass index (BMI), the study of almost 5000 youngsters found.
Surprisingly, a mother's parenting behaviour or style apparently had no impact on whether a child was overweight or obese, according to research by Murdoch Children's Research Institute and The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.
(Oh BALONEY)!!!!!
Hospital specialist Professor Melissa Wake said the large study was the first to suggest that men could be at the frontline in preventing early childhood obesity.
"Mothers are often blamed for their children's obesity, but this study suggests that for more effective prevention perhaps we should focus on the whole family," Prof Wake said.
The results also showed that 40 per cent of these young mothers and more than 60 per cent of the young fathers were themselves overweight or obese.
The research, to be presented at a paediatrics conference in Toronto this week, compared the BMIs of four- and five-year-olds with their parents' parenting styles.
The specialists said it was vital to study early parenting because home life often established patterns for life-long obesity.
Earlier research had shown that childhood obesity was highly stable during the primary school years, right from school entry, Prof Wake said.
"For instance, the BMI of a prepgrade child has an 85 per cent correlation with their BMI three years later," she said.
"Obese school children are very likely to become obese adults."
Childhood obesity is growing at an alarming rate in Australia, with more than 20 per cent of preschool children either overweight or obese.
Extra weight is a precursor to serious childhood and adult diseases like asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Maternal Grandmothers Should have Rights on Par with Recreational Sperm Donors
I was really glad to hear that Anna Nicole Smith’s baby was finally returned to the United States. I wasn’t particularly glad to hear that the irresponsible 35 year old idiot who acted as a recreational sperm donor to help create this poor kid actually had custody of her. But it appeared to be the best that could be done with a bad situation since none of the cast of characters involved in this DNA ‘train wreck’ were of much better character then Larry Birkhead anyway.
I did have some sympathy for Virgie Arthur I have to admit. She had raised a number of children, all appeared to have turned out well with the exception of Anna Nicole. She was a retired police officer, never convicted of any crime other then the guilt by association of being the mother of Anna Nicole Smith. Virgie Arthur worked at a respectable job, paid her bills, raised her kids, never got in any trouble, even raised Anna Nicole’s first child Daniel for the first five years of his life, yet none of her past spotless record was good enough to allow her any rights to her own grandchild. Nor did it entitle her to even have her daughter and grandson buried here in the US even though they lived here their entire lives. Of course now that the entire family will be back here in the US, it appears pretty stupid to have Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel remain buried in the Bahamas. Can they get that idiot Judge in Florida to pay for the cost of moving them both back here now I wonder? Probably not.
Anyway the recreational sperm donor, who appeared to have a history of unstable behavior, very similar to Anna Nicole herself actually, was automatically entitled to custody just because the DNA matched. It could just as well have been the guy who delivered the milk every morning whose genetic number matched up and he would have won the jackpot instead. What a farce.
We really need to look at changing some laws and giving a maternal grandmother automatic rights on par with never married sperm donors here, as their genetic contribution is exactly the same. So if DNA is going to rule, it needs to be consistent.
One good thing (from my point of view) which came out of this whole media mess, is that the myth of how the Bahamas was somehow so ‘different’ from the United States in matters of custody has finally been laid to rest. According to the media, the Bahamas was so fixated on mothers that fathers had few rights there compared to here in the US, for instance. I kind of, sort of, had a feeling this was total crap and that just like every other place in the world if men want custody they can get it; but then I thought maybe not, maybe the media knows something I don’t…
But sure enough they didn’t.
I really have to learn to trust my own instinct in these matters, it usually proves itself to be correct. I have a feeling that Anna Nicole Smith, if she had survived, would have been sadly disappointed to find out that just like in the US, recreational sperm donors have the exact same rights as mothers. No difference whatsoever.
I did have some sympathy for Virgie Arthur I have to admit. She had raised a number of children, all appeared to have turned out well with the exception of Anna Nicole. She was a retired police officer, never convicted of any crime other then the guilt by association of being the mother of Anna Nicole Smith. Virgie Arthur worked at a respectable job, paid her bills, raised her kids, never got in any trouble, even raised Anna Nicole’s first child Daniel for the first five years of his life, yet none of her past spotless record was good enough to allow her any rights to her own grandchild. Nor did it entitle her to even have her daughter and grandson buried here in the US even though they lived here their entire lives. Of course now that the entire family will be back here in the US, it appears pretty stupid to have Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel remain buried in the Bahamas. Can they get that idiot Judge in Florida to pay for the cost of moving them both back here now I wonder? Probably not.
Anyway the recreational sperm donor, who appeared to have a history of unstable behavior, very similar to Anna Nicole herself actually, was automatically entitled to custody just because the DNA matched. It could just as well have been the guy who delivered the milk every morning whose genetic number matched up and he would have won the jackpot instead. What a farce.
We really need to look at changing some laws and giving a maternal grandmother automatic rights on par with never married sperm donors here, as their genetic contribution is exactly the same. So if DNA is going to rule, it needs to be consistent.
One good thing (from my point of view) which came out of this whole media mess, is that the myth of how the Bahamas was somehow so ‘different’ from the United States in matters of custody has finally been laid to rest. According to the media, the Bahamas was so fixated on mothers that fathers had few rights there compared to here in the US, for instance. I kind of, sort of, had a feeling this was total crap and that just like every other place in the world if men want custody they can get it; but then I thought maybe not, maybe the media knows something I don’t…
But sure enough they didn’t.
I really have to learn to trust my own instinct in these matters, it usually proves itself to be correct. I have a feeling that Anna Nicole Smith, if she had survived, would have been sadly disappointed to find out that just like in the US, recreational sperm donors have the exact same rights as mothers. No difference whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)