Tag Archives: Misandry

Marriage under attack by the left in Australia and India

From The Australian, separation between biological parents and child custody. (H/T Thoughts Out Loud)

Excerpt:

A homosexual couple has been granted leave to appear before the Family Court in a bid to gain access to a girl who isn’t biologically related to either of them.

The men, who cannot be named, have successfully argued that they are important people in the life of the three-year-old.

The girl, who likewise cannot be named, was not conceived with sperm from either of the men. But her mother was, until last year, in a same-sex relationship with another woman who does have a child conceived with one of the men’s sperm.

Do children have a right to be raised by their biological parents? Shouldn’t we be enacting child-friendly policies? In Australia, it seems as though the needs of adults are trumping the needs of the children.

And from The Hindu, men are suffering discrimination by the feminist state.

Excerpt:

Mr. Zaveri claimed that 98 per cent of all domestic violence cases were found to be baseless and false. He said: “We stand by the women who file genuine cases. But these laws, made for Sitas, have been cashed in on by Surpanakhas. Many women misuse these laws to exact alimony from their husbands. We are instead in favour of sponsoring professional courses for wives so that they become self-sufficient after parting from their husbands.”

Jaspreet Singh, a member of the IFF, said that he had to give 50 per cent of his salary to his wife as alimony, while she herself earned 50 per cent of his salary. The amount was huge considering that their marriage had lasted only a year and they had not had any children.

Dr. Sandeep Padwale, another member of the organisation, said that his wife was employed but had claimed to be otherwise in her affidavit. The emotional turmoil had cost him his job.

In order to address the problem of false cases, the men demanded a provision for punishment for all those misusing the law. They said that there should be a separate section in the IPC to safeguard the rights of men who were victims of the misuse of domestic violence laws. They also demanded the formation of a Ministry of Men’s Welfare “as it would take care of the very originator and contributor of the tax to the government.”

Mr. Zaveri said that the most basic problem encountered by men was that the police did not register cases against their wives. As a result there were no statistics regarding the number of men suffering because of false cases of domestic violence.

Indian men should consider avoiding marriage. Once discriminatory divorce laws are passed, it just becomes too risky for men to make any kind of legal commitment to women. Why can’t women understand how victimizing men with high taxes and punitive laws discourages men from marrying at all? The best way to avoid a bad man is to choose to marry a good man.

Why are sentences for domestic violence committed by women so lenient?

ECM sent me this article by Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

I feel terrible about how unfairly men are treated when they are victims of domestic violence. I think that a lot of men are going to be put off of marriage  when stories like the ones in the article become widely known.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Mothers who kill their children often serve little jail time. Gender stereotypes lead people to believe that any woman who kills her kid must have done so as a result of duress or insanity. Andrea Yates ultimately escaped punishment after methodically drowning her five children one by one in a bathtub. A Prince William County woman guilty of stabbing her five daughters received less than three years in jail (after her lawyer ridiculously claimed the children should not be deprived of their mother!).

A woman who used poison to paralyze her daughter, enabling her husband to then kick her conscious-but-immobilized daughter to death, escaped penalty by pleading “battered woman syndrome.”

[…]Battered woman syndrome has become an excuse to kill not only children, but also innocent non-relatives. A California woman got her lover to kill an innocent man by falsely telling him that the man was her paramour. She then had her murder conviction overturned by the California Court of Appeal. How? She claimed that “battered women’s syndrome” made her do it.

[…]According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study of large urban counties, wives who kill their husbands without provocation get only seven years in prison, on average, compared to a more reasonable 17 years in prison for husbands who kill their wives without provocation.

[…]For a glaring example of gender bias in the courts (and the media), you need look no further than The Washington Post story by Tamara Jones, in which she commiserates with convicted felon Teressa Turner-Schaefer, who spent a mere 11 months in jail for killing her husband after an argument.

Now Turner-Schaefer gets to collect $400,000 in life insurance for killing her husband. In a plea bargain, she pleaded guilty to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, which, amazingly enough, doesn’t bar you from collecting life insurance taken out on the person you killed.

There are many more horrible stories in the article about children and men being assaulted and murdered by women. The crimes are not being punished fairly. It discourages me greatly that most women don’t seem to be up in arms defending men when injustices like this happen. Actually, the man is usually blamed for the violence committed against him by the woman.

I think it is particularly shocking how Christians have nothing to say about this.

In Oregon’s government-run health care system, lobbyists prioritize treatments

See, this is one of the major problems with government-run health care. Whenver government runs anything, private businesses are going have to spend lots of money trying to influence government to favor their interests. That money would normally be spent pleasing customers, in the free market. But as soon as government gets involved in regulating anything, then lobbyists are hired.

Consider this video posted at Stop the ACLU about Oregon’s health care system. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

As it happens, each year politicians get together to decide what illnesses will get priority funding. Naturally, once the politicians (not doctors, but politicians) decide what “deserves” to be funded by Oregon’s government run healthcare system, the lobbyists flood in and begin to agitate for their own priorities.

The result is that often times serious illnesses end up pushed down this list as the political needs of lobbyists get pushed up to be funded first.

Ever wonder why socialized systems cover breast implants, sex changes, elective abortions, and in vitro fertilization?

Lobbying for illegal immigrants to be covered

Here’s some more lobbying going on right now about Obama’s plan.

ECM also send me this story from the Chicago Tribune, via Secondhand Smoke.

Immigration activists say it is “immoral” for hospitals and doctors, as well as a nation, to deny health care to the seriously ill, no matter their legal status. “Those of us with good health insurance just don’t have to live with because we can go get the medication,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a policy analyst at the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation.

[…]”Concerns over the financial burden have led other hospitals to make…decisions denying treatment”, said Julie Contreras, an organizer in Chicago for the League of United Latin American Citizens.”These people, some of them are going to die,” Contreras said. “When a hospital denies treatment to any human being … this is flat-out immoral.”

Who is going to pay for this compassion? It isn’t free.

Anti-male discrimination

And don’t forget about anti-male discrimination in socialized systems, which I documented in a previous post.

Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

Why males vote Democrat is beyond me.