|
John J. Xenakis 100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A Cambridge, MA 02142 |
Phone: 617-864-0010 E-mail: john@jxenakis.com |
File fratnew.txt
=file fratnew.txt
=// Copyright (C) 2001-2002 by Xenakis Consulting Services Inc.
=content frater.new
=data frater.new.summary
<center><#hreftext frater.a.main Class=clickhere
AnchorName=fraternews
"<h3>Recent Gender News and Analysis</h3>" #></center>
<ul>
<li>Having Sons Shortens Mothers' Lives
<#include frater.a.newicon#></li>
<li>Harvard University to Require Corroboration in Date Rape
Accusations
<#include frater.a.newicon#></li>
<li>Bush Administration to Support Single-Sex Education
<#include frater.a.newicon#></li>
<li>The Left's Marriage Problem</li>
<li>Women Incumbents in House Vulnerable This Year</li>
</ul>
=eod
=data frater.new.lead
=text
<dl>
<dt>Having Sons Shortens Mothers' Lives</dt>
<dd>I guess those darn feminists were right about the patriarchy
harming all women, but even the feminists didn't tell us that it
happened in the womb. That seems to be the conclusion of a study by
researchers at the University of Turku in Finland.
The study analyzed life, death and births among a group of Finnish
nomads during the period 1640 to 1870, and found that the life span
of mothers was reduced by about 34 weeks per son, but was extended by
a daughter who grew to adulthood. Having three daughters offset the
negative effects of having one son.
"Boys are usually born much heavier than girls," said Samuli Helle,
the study's co-author.
"It seems that boys are much more demanding to produce than girls."
(See <#redir
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-mothers--sons0510may10.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed"#>
5/10/02 AP story</a>).</dd>
<dt>Harvard University to Require Corroboration in Date Rape
Accusations</dt>
<dd>Harvard University's faculty has unanimously approved a new rule
that will require eyewitnesses, physical evidence, and other
"sufficient independent corroboration" before it will agree to
investigate a date rape accusation. Previously, a simple
uncorroborated accusation by a female student was enough to trigger
an investigation. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/128/nation/Harvard_to_require_more_proof_in_sex_cases+.shtml"#>
5/8/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> article</a>.)
This is a welcome change from the hysterical hyping of date rape that
feminists have pursued -- ignoring false charges of rape and
claiming, for example, that over 25% of all college girls are raped,
when the actual figures are well under 1%. (<#hreftext frater.a.rape
"Click here for more info"#>.)</dd>
<dt>Bush Administration to Support Single-Sex Education</dt>
<dd>Reversing three decades of a really crazy federal policy, the
Bush administration yesterday announced its intention to encourage
single-sex education in the nation's public schools. (See <#redir
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55893-2002May8.html"#>
5/9/02 <i>Washington Post</i> article</a>.)
Like most people, I believe that the best education is in
coeducational classes, for most children. However, that's not true
for all children, and that's where the craziness comes in. I recall
an experiment in Detroit where teen boy gang members with a history
of violence were put into single-sex classes, so that they could learn
without the distraction of having girls around, and the experiment had
to be discontinued because of this crazy federal policy which said
that single sex classes are illegal.
Whether a child goes to a single-sex or coeducational school should
be up to the child, the child's parents, and the local school board;
having the federal government stick its fist in that decision is
crazy.</dd>
<a name="leftmarriage"> </a>
<dt>The Left's Marriage Problem</dt>
<dd>The normally pro-feminist <i>Washington Post</i> has an editorial
today, "The Left's Marriage Problem," criticizing NOW and other
feminist organizations for opposing Bush's initiative to encourage
single mothers to get married. After encouraging liberals to have a
healthy debate on the subject, it says:
<ul> >> But much of the left, and particularly the feminist left,
doesn't seem interested in such a conversation. ... The possibilities
are broad, yet the liberal reaction has been narrow: "Shotgun welfare
betrothals" is how Robert Kuttner put it in the American Prospect.
The antipathy was perhaps quickest and most insistent from the
National Organization for Women. "I think back to when I was a
teenager, and I would hear my grandmother's friends say, 'Honey, when
are you going to get married?' " says NOW President Kim A. Gandy. "I
would no more say to someone else: 'You ought to get married,' as
though I knew what's best for them."
>> Excuse us, but helping poor people navigate marriage is not the
same thing as putting old-fashioned pressure on middle-class girls to
get hitched.</ul>
The editorial also points out that "For decades, welfare discouraged
marriage among the poor."
In my opinion, this could be stated more strongly: For several
decades, the welfare system has been paying women to dump their
husbands (children's fathers), thus actively <i>discouraging</i>
marriage. If it's OK to discourage marriage for three decades, then
encouraging marriage for a few years can't do much harm, and may do a
lot of good. (See <#redir
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63882-2002Apr4.html"#>
4/5/02 <i>Washington Post</i> editorial</a>.)</dd>
<a name="womenincumbents"> </a>
<dt>Women Incumbents in House Vulnerable This Year</dt>
<dd>1992 was the "Year of the Woman," allowing a record 19 female
newcomers to enter the US House of Representatives. However, women
incumbents of both parties are expected to have a very tough fight
this year, according to analysts. (See <#redir
"http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p03s01-uspo.html"#>
4/2/02 <i>Christian Science Monitor</i> story.</a>)</dd>
<a name="enronplaygirl"> </a>
<dt>Enron Men to get Equal Time</dt>
<dd>A week after <i>Playboy</i> invited Enron's female employees to
pose nude for a future issue, <i>Playgirl</i> is making the same
offer to the company's male employees. "We would prefer sexy
photographs, any form of undress or anything that's sexy," said
Playgirl editor-in-chief Michele Zipp. (See <#redir
"http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/44979.htm"#> 4/2/02 <i>New
York Post</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<a name="websurfers"> </a>
<dt>Web Surfers Searching for Sex Sites Less Often</dt>
<dd>People using Internet search engines are searching for
sex-related or pornographic web sites less often than in 1997;
instead, surfers are directing their searches more to commerce,
travel and employment web sites, according to a Penn State study of
internet surfer habits. (See <#redir
"http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/01/internet.surfing.habits.ap/index.html"#>
4/1/02 CNN.com article</a>.)</dd>
<a name="barbarajohnson"> </a>
<dt>Barbara Johnson Runs for Massachusetts Governor on Fathers'
Rights Platform</dt>
<dd>Barbara Johnson, a lawyer who has represented many divorced men,
is determined to try to change the system. She's thrown her hat in
the ring as an Independent candidate for Governor of Massachusetts.
Check out her web site and her platform at <#stdurl
www.falseallegations.com#>.</dd>
<a name="blackcollegewomen"> </a>
<dt>Black Women Bemoan Shortage of Black Men in College</dt>
<dd>There are more women than men going to college these days --
college students are typically 55-60% female.
But the difference is even more pronounced at black colleges, whose
students are 65-70% female.
It's a dream come true for black college males. "I'm going to be
moving," said one. "I'm going to have girls in and out of my room."
(See <#redir
"http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/033102/LOCBlackMenShortage.shtml"#>
3/31/02 AP article</a>.)</dd>
<a name="mcnamara"> </a>
<dt>Feminists Should Blame Feminists' Bad Policies for Murder of
Women</dt>
<dd>Eileen McNamara's column today blames men in general for the
murder of a woman last Tuesday. In a column entitled, "Preventable,
not inevitable," she says that if police arrested men who violated
restraining orders, so many women would not be murdered.
<ul>Violating a restraining order is a criminal act for which the
offender is supposed to be arrested. It's the law. It was enacted
a decade ago to put some teeth into the enforcement of such
orders, which are, after all, only pieces of paper. But Cotter
wasn't arrested, even though a warrant was issued....
We have been wringing our hands about the judicial response to
domestic violence in this Commonwealth for 16 years, ever since a
pregnant young wife turned up dead in the Lexington dump. ...
''If he's determined to kill her,'' we still say, ''there is
nothing anyone can do to stop him.'' It is just not true. If Tom
Ridge, the director of Homeland Security, can devise a system to
rate the daily level of threat from international terrorism, we
can find a system to keep women secure in their own homes. We
cannot do that, however, until we decide to take this brand of
domestic terrorism seriously. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/090/metro/Preventable_not_inevitable+.shtml"#>
3/31/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> column by Eileen McNamara</a>.)</ul>
I've sent the following e-mail message to the columnist:
<ul>Subject: It's your feminist friends' fault
Ms. McNamara:
Feminists oppose mandatory jailing of batterers because
experience has shown that it reduces funding for women's
shelters.
A second reason that feminists oppose mandatory jailing of
batterers is that it would mean that some women batterers would be
jailed as well, also reducing funding for women's shelters.
Both reasons have a common denominator: Money for feminists.
Feminists would rather have the batterers out on the street,
where they'll batter more women, and provide more funding for
feminist organizations.
I know it's easier to bash men, but it's your feminist friends who
are the problem.
If you don't believe me, check with feminist researchers Eve S.
Buzawa and Carl G. Buzawa, both Professors of Criminal Justice at
the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.
John J. Xenakis</ul>
I've been studying all sorts of feminist policies for over ten years,
and they all have something in common: Feminists are more interested
in money and political power than protecting women.
It's time we start placing the blame where it belongs: It's feminists
who don't want batterers arrested.</dd>
<a name="boybashing"> </a>
<dt>More Boy-Bashing in Public Schools</dt>
<dd>Public school officials, citing so-called zero-tolerance
policies, are punishing young boys with suspension and even criminal
charges, for playing traditional boys' games like cops and robbers or
even "tag." In one case, four kindergartners were suspended for
three days for pointing fingers, pretending to shoot one another.
(See <#redir
"http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020329-86368411.htm"#> 3/29/02
<i>Washington Times</i> article</a>.)
This reminds me of the 1995 case of Johnathan Prevette who was
suspended from school because he kissed a six-year-old girl classmate
on the cheek. I still remember the feminist talking head on TV
saying, "It's just a kiss now, but it could be rape when he gets a
little older. We have to send these boys a message as early as
possible."
These are all examples of the boy-bashing that's been going on the
last ten years or so, and since I have a son, it infuriates me. This
boy-bashing is being done by moronic school teachers, almost all of
them women, who haven't a clue about how boys think or act, and think
that if they bash boys enough, they'll get boys to spend their free
time playing hopscotch like the girls.
There are two good books available for those who want to learn more
about the problem of boy-bashing in public schools: <#redir
"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684849577"#> <i>The War
Against Boys : How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men</i> by
Christina Hoff Sommers</a> and <#redir
"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874778875"#> <i>The Wonder
of Boys : What Parents, Mentors and Educators Can Do to Shape Boys
into Exceptional Men</i>, by Michael Gurian</a>.) </dd>
<a name="enronplayboy"> </a>
<dt>Hundreds of Enron Women Contacting Playboy</dt>
<dd>A day after Playboy magazine announced it wants to publish a
"Women of Enron" issue, hundreds of current and former Enron
employees contacted the magazine to find out more about possibly
becoming a nude model. "If it pays the monthly bills, hey, you have to
do things to pay the bills," says one 33-year-old woman. "So, I have
no problems with it." (See <#redir
http://www.msnbc.com/local/kprc/A1133359.asp#> 3/26/02 MSNBC
article</a> and also see <#redir
"http://www.playboyenterprises.com/press/index2.cfm?content=viewpressdetail&press_id=000E1724-0E53-1CA2-9B578304E50A011A"#>
3/25/02 <i>Playboy</i> press release </a>.)</dd>
<dt>Judges Making More Personal Demands on Defendants</dt>
<dd>Judges in gender cases seem to be handing down more imaginative
and more personally invasive sentences.
A New York judge as ordered a non-custodial mother to stop smoking --
even when her son is with his dad -- if she ever wants to see her son
again. Johnita DeMatteo's 13-year-old son Nicholas, who lives with
his dad, had complained to the judge that he couldn't stand going to
visit his mom because her apartment smelled of cigarette smoke. The
judge ruled that she can't smoke in her own home or her own car "at
any time," because her secondhand smoke could pose a health risk to
her 13-year-old son.
A man who has fathered 12 children by 11 different women, and who
owes tens of thousands in child support, was forced to agree to a
plea agreement that prohibits from ever having sex again. Luther
Crawford, 49, would have gone to jail for multiple counts of flagrant
nonsupport, but now can't have sex, even with a condom or if he has a
vasectomy.
Both defendants are considering appeals. (See <#redir
"http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/44493.htm"#> 3/26/02 <i>New
York Post</i> article</a>, and the <#redir
"http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020326_778.html"#> 3/26/02
<i>Associated Press</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Female Law School Student Sues Professor over Sexual Harassment
Lesson</dt>
<dd>In the ultimate irony, a female University of Virginia law student
has filed a lawsuit accusing her male professor of committing assault
and battery against her.
His alleged crime? During his lecture last fall, Professor Kenneth
Abraham touched the shoulder of Marta Sanchez, in order to illustrate
a legal principle. That's what he thought it was. But to her, it
was a caress that caused her to experience disturbing memories of
rape, pregnancy and abortion she suffered in her native Panama. The
lawsuit seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive
damages. (See <#redir
"http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/more/MGBJM2759ZC.html"#> 2/26/02 AP
article</a>.)
I've previously written about how frivolous charges of sexual
harassment have hurt women. In the early 1990s, following the Anita
Hill accusations, the workplace hostility between men and women
became so great because of frivolous sexual harassment claims that
women were considered untrustworthy, and millions of jobs were closed
to women.
If women want men to take sexual harassment seriously, then women
have to take sexual harassment serious themselves, by criticizing
women who make these trivial charges.</dd>
<a name="janeswift"> </a>
<dt>Why Did Jane Swift Bow Out?</dt>
<dd>Last year, Jane Swift became acting Governor of Massachusetts,
and gave birth to twins several months thereafter.
Last week, Jane Swift announced she wouldn't run for Governor in
2002, and, as usual, the debate is not over whether she's a good
Governor (few people think she is), but whether she was forced to bow
out just because she's a woman.
The announcement by Swift, a Republican, coincided with another
announcement, this one by multi-millionaire Mitt Romney that he would
run for Governor. Romney made a name for himself in 1994 when he put
up a strong fight against Ted Kennedy for Senator, the only
Republican in many years who wasn't simply squashed like a bug.
Romney is just back from serving as Chairman of the Salt Lake
Olympics Organizing Committee, and the thought is that if Romney came
close to beating Kennedy, then adding the Olympics cachet might make
him a strong Republican candidate for Governor.
However, the analysis that Romney might be a better potential Governor
than Swift didn't enter the mind of <i>Boston Globe</i> woman
columnist Eileen McNamara, who says Swift never had a chance, because
men had it in for a woman:
<ul>It's hard to know which is more enraging, the presumption of
a rich, white man that he can buy the governor's office or the
misogyny of a political culture that makes it impossible for a
woman even to try to earn it.
Forget the polls and the tolls. Forget the long commute and the
young children. In the end, Swift was undone by the insidious but
impressive ability of those ''powerful men'' we've heard so much
about lately to set the political agenda in this state. Money men
backing the horse with good teeth and deep pockets. Campaign
consultants orchestrating a sense of suspense around the most
predictable political announcement in recent history. Media
mouths, male and female, devoting ink and air time to her weight
gain and his star power, mocking her record while ignoring his.
(The Olympic Golden Boy is ambivalent about abortion rights and
anti-union? Gee, who knew?)</ul>
Woman columnist Joan Vennochi, <#hreftext frater.a.archive
AnchorName=vennochi "who previously criticized Democrats for not
supporting women"#>, also thinks it's all about gender, but she says
that it's <i>women</i> who had it in for a woman:
<ul>Did Swift let women down by dropping out instead of facing off
against millionaire Olympic hero Mitt Romney? That suggestion
makes me mad to the bone.
Women did not support Jane Swift. Why should Swift sacrifice one
additional ounce of professional sanity, or one more minute of
precious family time, to support them?
Blind loyalty is not the issue. Women need not vote for a
candidate simply on the basis of gender. But let's not pretend the
attacks on Swift had anything to do with economic policy. What
male politician ever took heat for a no-tax pledge?
In the technologically advanced 21st century, the female MO
remains remarkably base and savage. Women beat up on the woman who
achieves a certain status and position; then, they beat up on her
all over again when, hurt and humiliated, she staggers off to
recover.</ul>
However, male <i>Globe</i> columnist Adrian Walker checked with a
Democratic contender for the same office, the current
Treasurer Shannon O'Brien:
<ul>"I think it's tough being in politics in any event," O'Brien
said, adding that she believes Swift's troubles are attributable
to something other than gender.
"I think ultimately that it was just some poor decisions that she
made. I think that led to a lot of the problems with the public's
perception of her leadership ability."
So she doesn't believe that Swift was undone by gender. She cited
Swift's response to the events of Sept. 11, in particular, as one
of many missed opportunities. While the governor's actions were
well-received for a while, O'Brien thinks she displayed a
dismaying inability to communicate, especially with her
subordinates at Massport.
"One of the things you have to be able to do is you have to be
able to pick up a phone and talk to people," she said. "I don't
think it's a male or female quality; it's just you.
"One of the criticisms I had of Jane Swift after Sept. 11, she
didn't pick up the phone and have a conversation with
[then-Massport executive director] Virginia Buckingham. This was
at the center of a national and international crisis. There were
questions about politics, there were questions about whether the
right management team was in place. If I was governor, I would
have been talking to her every day."
O'Brien says Swift has been guilty of excessive timidity, and
that there are lessons for women, and men, in Swift's rocky
tenure.</ul>
Only the third of these three columnists even addressed the question
of whether Jane Swift would make a good governor. But what's even
more bizarre is that all of them take the politically correct
position that there's no difference between men and women except a
few body parts. Any man who's ever been in a relationship with a
woman, and any woman who's ever read a book on relationships, know
that men's and women's minds are very different, that they think and
act differently, and have different motivations. In Jane Swift's
case, the governor's office is in eastern Massachusetts, in Boston,
and her home, including her househusband and young twins, is in
western Massachusetts. Does Jane Swift miss her kids more than a
male governor would? You bet. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/metro/She_never_had_a_chance+.shtml"#>
3/20/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> column by Eileen McNamara</a>, <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/080/oped/The_unfair_burden_put_on_Swift+.shtml"#>
3/21/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> column by Joan Vennochi</a>, and <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/087/metro/Gender_issue_still_lingers+.shtml"#>
3/28/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> column by Adrian Walker</a>.) </dd>
<a name="yates"> </a>
<dt>Was Andrea Yates Just Getting Revenge?</dt>
<dd> I watched the prosecutors' closing arguments on TV, and they
made some very powerful points which not one single newscast has ever
mentioned. The prosecutor was telling the jury why he believed they
should find Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder for killing her
five children.
The prosecutor pointed out that the Andrea had been planning this
mass murder for months, and had deceived everyone about her plans --
her husband, her husband's mother, her doctors, her kids, and anyone
else she knew. It was a long, well-conceived plan that she followed.
The prosecutor then said that we don't know her motive in killing her
children, but one possible motive is that she had wanted to get even
with her husband for being so poor. If she had simply killed
herself, then he would still have the kids, but without her; by
killing the kids, she deprives him of the kids. <#hreftext
frater.new.yates "... Click here to read more" #></dd>
<a name="dearabby"> </a>
<dt>Should Dear Abby Have Reported Child Porn Suspect?</dt>
<dd>The recent news story about Dear Abby tipping off the police
about a man suspected of possessing child pornography bothers me at
many levels. (See <#redir
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/073/nation/Dear_Abby_reports_child_porn_suspect+.shtml
#> 3/14/02 <i>Boston Globe</i> story</a>).
Before dealing with the Dear Abby situation specifically, it's
worthwhile reviewing some disturbing things about child sexual abuse.
I've been dealing with gender issues for 15 years, and many of the
stories I've heard, especially those involving child abuse, have been
truly sickening. I've heard stories of 30 year old men having sex
with 13 year old girls, and I've even heard a story of a 40 year old
men having sex with an 8 year old girl. These men are truly abusive,
and ought to pay for their crimes.
But I'm truly bothered that a 20 year old male having consensual sex
with a 15 year old girl is considered to be rape and child abuse.
Indeed, how can it be child abuse for a 20 year old male to have
consensual sex with a 15 year old girl, when it is <i>not</i> child
abuse or rape for a 15 year old male to have consensual sex with a 15
year old girl? It simply doesn't make sense.
(And of course I note in passing that the 1971 movie, <#redir
"http://us.imdb.com/Title?0067803"#> <i>Summer of '42</i></a>, is
considered a beautiful coming of age story of three boys and an older
woman in wartime, and actually earned an Oscar nomination. By
contrast, the 1997 movie <#redir http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119558#>
<i>Lolita</i></a>, discussed below, is considered controversial. Both
movies portray adults who would be considered rapists, pedophiles, and
child abusers, but in <i>Summer of '42</i> the pedophile perpetrator
is a woman, so the movie is not considered controversial.)
Even worse, two 15 year olds could be having consensual sex perfectly
legally, but a day later, on the boy's 16th birthday, he could
suddenly turn into a child abuser and rapist in some states. That
doesn't make sense either.
A related issue is the "<i>Lolita</i>" factor. Anyone who saw the
1997 <#redir http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119558#> <i>Lolita</i></a>,
starring Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert and Dominique Swain as
Lolita, is aware that an adult man must protect himself against
seductive, predatory teen girls, or have his life destroyed.
It's this issue of self-protection that I'm really addressing here.
In <i>Lolita</i>, Humbert suddenly becomes Lolita's guardian, and she
has to live with him. He becomes obsessed with her, and she becomes
obsessed with seducing him. In Humbert's case, the only possible
form of self-protection is to rid himself of the girl, and in real
life that may well be what any man in that situation must do to
protect himself.
Self-protection comes in many forms. Someone once told me, "There's
something wrong with everybody," and I've often been grateful that my
addiction has been to chocolate, rather than to drugs or alcohol or
little girls. But there's no doubt that some men are sexually
attracted to little girls.
Many -- and by that I mean almost all -- of these men are undoubtedly
honorable. A man in this category undoubtedly knows that acting on his
impulses would destroy not only his own life but the life of the girl
as well.
Still, how does such a man protect himself? This brings me to my
concern about Dear Abby's betrayal of one of her readers.
Based on information that has been published, this man was very
troubled by his sexual attraction to his girlfriend's young
daughters, and he wrote to Dear Abby for advice. Based on the
information that's available, he's never acted on his attraction, he
did the honorable thing in seeking advice, and she turned him in to
the cops anyway. He was trying to find a solution to a problem, she
decided to destroy his life.
The cops came and found and found pornographic pictures of children
on his computer, and arrested him on charges of possession of child
pornography.
Presumably, this man had been using child pornography as a means of
discharging his sexual tension, to protect himself, and reduce his
obsession with the girls.
What should he have done? If a man finds himself attracted to a
young girl, what's the "right" thing to do? Should he just turn
himself in to the police?
I would have advised him to dump his girlfriend, get rid of her and
her daughters, and date someone else who doesn't have daughters.
Indeed, I can't imagine what other path he could have followed.
But Dear Abby didn't advise him to do that. She betrayed an
honorable man, turned him in to the cops, and destroyed his life.
It's worth pointing out that the current Dear Abby is the daughter of
the original Dear Abby, who is the sister of Ann Landers. I've read
Ann Landers occasionally for decades, and she's become increasingly
hostile to men as time has gone on, especially since her own divorce.
It's pretty clear that a man should think hard before trusting any of
these women to give him advice.</dd>
<a name="syphilis"> </a>
<dt>Syphilis Rate More Than Doubles in New York City</dt>
<dd>Reported cases of syphilis more than doubled in the city from 117
cases in 2000 to 282 cases 2001. However, the increase was apparently
almost entirely among men having gay sex, raising prompting concern of
a possible resurgence of AIDS and HIV infections.
(See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020307"
"3/7/02 <i>Newsday</i> article"#>.)
<a name="soldiers"> </a>
<dt>Unmarried UK Soldiers Allowed To Keep Girlfriends Overnight</dt>
<dd>A new UK army policy will allow unmarried soldiers to spend nights
in the barracks with their girlfriends. Accommodation will also be
made for romantic weekends.
(See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020305"
"3/5/02 <i>Sky News</i> article"#>.)
<dt id="lewinsky">Monica: Affair With Clinton was 'Cool'</dt>
<dd>Starting an affair with the President was "incredibly exciting,"
according to Monica Lewinsky, whose affair with President Clinton
began in 1995 when she was 22.
Her attitude at the time was "OK, whatever, I'm young, that's the
president, he is cute, that's kind of cool, irresponsible but cool."
(See <#redir
"http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020304/afp/020304160811top.html"#> 3/5/02
news article</a>.)
<dt id="completecase">Get a Quickie Divorce -- Online!</dt>
<dd>A new online service <#stdurl CompleteCase.com#> provides for
quickie online divorces, for just $249.
Here's how it works: One party or the other answers all the necessary
questions online. Then both parties sign the papers and mail them in
to the court. And voilà! You're divorced, often without even
having to appear in court.
Restrictions: You have to live in California, Washington, or Florida.
The divorce has to be completely uncontested, and you both have to
agree to the terms.
The online service can be used even if you have children. It
automatically generates child support calculations, and completes
parenting plans and all other forms needed. (See <#redir
"http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26650"#> 3/1/02 <i>World
News Daily</i> article</a>).</dd>
<dt id="swimsuit">NOW disses SI Swimsuit Issue</dt>
<dd>It's always a pleasure to read the latest whining opinions from
the <#redir
"http://now.org"#>National Organization For Women</a>, and
we wondered what the ladies would think of the <i>Sports Illustrated
Swimsuit Issue</i>. Well, I'm disappointed to say that the review,
written by communications director Lisa Bennett, indicates that NOW
is not pleased.
The "advertisements appear to be conjured by some very insecure men,
the kind who worry that size does matter," she discovers, bemoans the
fact that women and sex are used as sales tools for "alcohol, and its
ever-present phallic bottles."
"The most offensive layout in the entire magazine must be the last
one, depicting models wearing bathing suits made of bizarre
materials," including cactus, money, cigar bands, coffee beans, chili
papers, silver and jade. The message is that "women's bodies are
nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold." (See <#redir
"http://www.now.org/issues/media/roundup/20020222.html"#> 2/22/02
NOW review</a>.)</dd>
<dt id="grumpyhormones">Men Become Grumpy Because of Hormones</dt>
<dd>It turns out that men become grumpy and irritable later in life
because their testosterone levels go down, according to a study by
the Medical Research Council's <#redir
"http://www.hrsu.mrc.ac.uk/"#>
Human Reproductive Sciences Unit</a> in Edinburgh. (See <#redir
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1844000/1844648.stm"#>
2/27/02 BBC News article</a>.)</dd>
<dt id="pantyhose">Men Taking to Wearing Pantyhose</dt>
<dd>No statistics are kept on who buys pantyhose from retail stores.
But online statistics are suddenly revealing a startling statistic:
That a large number of women's hosiery sales go to males, many of
whom place two orders -- large sizes for themselves and smaller ones
for their wives. One company, Comfilon, sells pantyhose made
exclusively for men. "There's a whole underground culture of normal,
mainstream guys who wear hose," says Chief Executive Steve Katz. He
says that he sells hundreds of thousands of dollars a year worth of
their pantyhose brand, which has male-specific features such as a fly
in front. The company's motto: "Comfilons are not your mothers
pantyhose."
(See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020219"
"2/19/2002 <i>Wall Street Journal</i> article"#>.)
<dt>Poll: Scottish Children Reject Spanking</dt>
<dd>A survey of over 1,300 youngsters across Scotland found found that
94% of them were convinced that other ways of disciplining children
besides spanking them and smacking them were available, and they
preferred adults to use alternatives to hitting. (See <#redir
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1832000/1832817.stm"#>
2/21/2002 BBC News story.</a>)</dd>
<dt>Suicide Rate Highest for Divorced Men</dt>
<dd>Men commit 80% of the suicides -- and most of them are by
divorced men. According to divorce lawyers Richard and Paula Stone,
it's harsh treatment by the divorce courts that drive divorced men to
suicide. "One case involved a child who wasn't even born and the
mother said the ex-husband couldn't have anything to do with the
child, but expected and got full child support from her ex after
their child was born. The anxiety and the alienation imposed on these
gentlemen is extreme. They become very depressive." They added, that
family law has changed drastically over the past two decades. "Women
can reopen a spousal support case any time. It's very rare, if the
wife doesn't want to give up custody, that men will be granted much
more than visitation rights. For fathers who were involved very
closely with the raising of their kids, it's really hard to get their
heads around the fact that they'll only be able to see their kids
every other weekend. They get really depressed and they have
absolutely no place to go for help. I often suggest they seek
counselling." (See <#redir
"http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1013685101472&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News"#>
2/15/2002 <i>Toronto Star</i> article.</a>)
These findings are reinforced by my own findings that a significant
number of divorced men express the desire to see their ex-wives
killed (e.g., by a traffic accident), and by other studies that show
men feel significant hatred for their ex-wives. For some men, this
results in violence, but for many more others, it results in
suicide.</dd>
<dt>Men Outperform Women on General Knowledge Tests</dt>
<dd>Two recent studies lead to a politically controversial result:
Men consistently outperform women in general knowledge tests, even in
categories typically thought to favor women, such as fashion. In one
test, 19 domains of general knowledge were tested. Women scored
significantly higher than men in Cookery and Medicine; For scores on
Popular music, Film and Fashion, there is no association with sex, In
the remaining 14 domains of general knowledge (History of Science,
Politics, Sport, History, Classical Music, Jazz and Blues, Art,
Literature, General Science, Geography, Games, Discovery and
Exploration, Biology, and Finance), men did significantly better.
(See <#redir
"http://www.nationalpost.com/tech/story.html?f=/stories/20020222/134476.html"#>
2/22/2002 <i>National Post</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>"You Stole the Land - May as Well Take the Women!"</dt>
<dd>In <#redir
"http://www.villagevoice.com/"#>The Village Voice</a>
this week, about one third of the "women seeking men" personal ads are
from Palestinian women wanting to meet Jewish men who will take them
back to Israel. No one quite knows what to make of it. "There seems
to be something orchestrated here, but orchestrated for what purpose?"
wonders one Jewish activist. (See
<#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020112b"
"2/12/02 <i>New York Post</i> article"#>.)
<dt>Is Your Girlfriend Corybantic?</dt>
<dd>The word of the day was "corybantic" a few days ago on the
Merriam-Webster dictionary web site. It means "wild," and it's
derived from the ancient goddess Corybant. It's a great word, and
should come in handy in many situations. (See <#redir
"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwwodarch.pl?Jan.25"#>
Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for Jan 25</a>.) </dd>
<dt>UK Plans Possible Changes in Parental Contact Laws</dt>
<dd><i>Making Contact Work</i>, a report by the United Kingdom's Lord
Chancellor's Department is recommending that mothers be fined or
otherwise sanctioned for flouting court-ordered visitation orders.
A proposal to recommend that joint physical custody be used more
often was rejected without further study, however.
Feminist groups rejected the report, claiming that "fear of abuse"
was the major reason that mothers violate court-ordered visitation
orders. However, the authors pointed out that that subject was fully
covered in a recent previous report devoted exclusively to contact
between children and violent parents. "The focus of the present
consultation is on cases where domestic violence is not an issue.
However, where domestic violence is relevant to the present
consultation, we deal with it," the report says.
The report stresses "the importance of maintaining contact" with the
non-custodial parent, and the damage caused by acrimony in this area.
The court process came under fire for being "slow, unpredictable and
adversarial, with the consequence that the disputants became, if
anything, more entrenched in their respective positions at the end of
the proceedings than they were at the outset."
With regard to enforcement, the report noted that "proceedings for
committal leading to fines and imprisonment is not only a crude way
of enforcing contact orders: it is also ineffective."
"The rule of law and the proper administration of justice both
required that lawful orders made by the court had to be obeyed by
those to whom they were addressed. It followed that the ultimate
power of the court to punish for disobedience of its orders had to be
retained, although imprisonment should only be used as a last resort
and in the most extreme circumstances, i.e. cases of flagrant,
blatant and inexcusable breaches of a court order. In practice, it
was recognised that the power to imprison was very rarely used," the
report said. However, it is to be made clear that imprisonment of
the mother is "an option, and not an empty threat."
The most important enforcement question, according to the report, is
the case "where the court finds that contact is in the best interests
of the child but is being irrationally frustrated" by the custodial
mother. The report suggests a number of remedies to be attempted
prior to imprisonment: referring the mother to a psychiatrist, force
the mother to attend parenting classes, sentencing to community
service work, assessing fines or even financial compensation to the
non-custodial parent.
Enforcement is only a small part of this report. Other subjects
include the nature of court procedures, the role of lawyers, and the
problem of fathers who don't choose to see their children. (See <#redir
"http://www.thetimes.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-203545,00.html"#>
2/9/02 London <i>Times</i> story</a>. Also, see <#redir
"http://www.lcd.gov.uk/family/abfla/mcwrep.htm"#> the complete
report to the Lord Chancellor</a>.)
---------
For someone like myself who's become attuned to gender politics, it
was clear, reading between the lines, that the authors of the report
were quite fed up with women's groups' excusing every behavior by
custodial mothers on some vague accusation of abuse.
"We were both surprised and disappointed that all the women's groups
took us to task for our apparent failure to mention domestic violence
in the body of the [report]," laments the authors.
The report referred only indirectly to the fact that a child is more
likely to be abused, beaten or raped in his mother's home (by either
the mother or her boyfriend) than in the father's home. In response
to a feminist reference to a case where the father was violent, the
report refers to another case where "the mother of the children had
inflicted a number of stab wounds on the father with a carving knife
in a violent altercation shortly before the father left."
This report is one of a number or recent trends which appear to hold
women more accountable for their actions. It's consistent with the
<#hreftext frater.a.archive AnchorName=thornton "recent court
ruling"#> which fines women who get restraining orders and then return
to live with the men who were supposedly battering them. In both
cases, part of the reasoning is that the integrity of the court is at
stake if women simply ignore court orders. </dd>
<dt>Gender Differences in Olympic Tastes</dt>
<dd>According to a new Gallup survey, men and women have different
tastes in their favorite Olympic sports.
Figure skating's status as the most favored event is mainly a result
of women's strong preference for that sport. Nearly half of women,
49%, say figure skating is their favorite event, easily outdistancing
the runner-up, downhill skiing, which is named by 18%. No other sport
receives even 5% mention from women.
Men's preferences are more varied. Among men, downhill skiing is the
favorite sport, mentioned by 29%. Figure skating (13%), bobsledding
(12%) and hockey (12%) are men's next most favorite events, although
all place well behind downhill skiing. Four percent of men say they
most enjoy ski jumping and luge. (See <#redir
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020208.asp"#> 1/22/02
<i>Gallup News Service</i> analysis</a> of Olympic preferences.)</dd>
<dt>New Census Bureau Report on Marriage Reports Grim Picture</dt>
<dd>Nine out of ten people get married at least once, but 50% of
first marriages end in divorce, according to a new Census Bureau
report, their most comprehensive study of marriage trends in two
decades,
Other highlights of the report:
<ul><li>8% of adult men and 10% of adult women are currently
divorced. 20% of men and 22% of women have been divorced at least
once.</li>
<li>13% of men and women have been married twice, and 3% of men and
women have been married three or more times.</li>
<li> While 90% of couples married in the late 1940s reached their
10th anniversary, only 73% of those married in the early '80s reached
that milestone.</li></ul>
Princeton University Prof. Joshua Goldstein said divorce rates
started flattening out in the early 1980s and might have even
declined a bit since. But he said it's too early to tell whether the
more stable trend will continue. See <#redir
"http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html"#>
Census Bureau report</a>, and
<#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020208"
"2/8/02 Minneapolis <i>Star Tribune</i> story"#></dd>
<dt>Plenty Of Sex Advised for Successful Pregnancy</dt>
<dd> Sex, and plenty of it, not only increases the odds of getting
pregnant, but also makes miscarriages and other problems less likely.
The reason? The woman's immune system becomes accustomed to the same
man's sperm over time, and lets the pregnancy continue. See
<#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020206"
"2/6/02 Reuters article."#></dd>
<dt>Are you a lonely man? We've got the girl for you!</dt>
<dd>Looking for someone to love? Check out the romatic Mary's web
site <#stdurl www.maryromantic.com#>. This chick is pretty romantic,
and may be even a little more neurotic than some of the rest of us,
but hey -- if you can meet her numerous demands, you might have a
shot!</dd>
<dt>Another Bizarre Abortion Fuss</dt>
<dd>Q: How can you tell if a politician's lying? A: By watching to
see if his lips are moving.
Both pro-life and pro-choice nut case politicians and talking heads
are filling the air waves with hysterical nonsense over the Bush
administration's decision last week to provide prenatal care to
low-income women, expanding the coverage to embryos and fetuses from
the moment of conception, so that low-income pregnant women can gain
access to prenatal care.
The hysterical lip-flapping by people on both sides is based on the
following presumption: That by providing money in this way, fetuses
become "people," and therefore abortion will become illegal, since
it's killing "people."
Only a complete moron (or a politician) could possibly believe that.
The Supreme Court is as jealous of its prerogatives as anyone else,
and do you think the Supreme Court would stand by and let some
administration announcement mean the end of the Roe v Wade decision?
All nine of the justices would be so pissed off at that kind of
attempt, that they'd strike it down immediately by a vote of 9-0.
The Bush administration proposal to expand welfare coverage may be a
good idea or a bad idea on medical or fiscal grounds, but it will have
no affect whatsover on abortion law. But that won't stop the moron
politicians on both sides of the issue from using frenzied rhetoric
to pretend that it does. See <#redir
"http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/editorial/10130865323202478.xml"#>
2/7/02 Oregon Live article</a>, and <#redir
"http://www.now.org/eNews/feb2002/020402outrage.html"#> NOW's
expression of outrage</a>.</dd>
=// <a
=// href="http://www.fraternizing.org/cgi-bin/D.PL?redir=http://www.yahoo.com">
=// test</a>
</dl>
<#hreftext frater.a.archive Class=clickhere
"Click Here for Gender News Archive" #>
=eod
=data frater.new.archive.txt
=text
<h1>Gender News -- Archive</h1>
<dl>
<dt>Gallup Poll Confirms that Abortion is a Settled Issue</dt>
<dd>There are many obnoxious and screechy subjects of political
discourse, but abortion is the screechiest and most obnoxious. Today,
the 29'th anniversary of Roe v Wade, I saw Kim Gandy of NOW and Janet
Folger, Center for Reclaiming America arguing abortion with each
other on CNN. There were plenty of forced smiles as they snapped at
each other, though at one point I thought the two women might start
pulling each other's hair.
It's been pretty obvious since the 1980s that the substance of
abortion policy is a settled issue in America, despite the ability of
the issue to generate freakish explosions of emotion from pro-choice
and pro-life advocates. The main evidence of this is that public
opinion on the subject of abortion has been fairly steady for
decades, changing little. (See <#redir
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020122.asp"#> 1/22/02
<i>Gallup News Service</i> analysis</a> of abortion polls.)
Here are some findings from the poll:
<ul><li>Americans generally support abortions in the first few months
of pregnancy, but generally oppose third trimester ("partial birth")
abortions.</li>
<li>Abortion is really not a "women's issue." Men and women have
similar attitudes toward abortion.</li>
<li>However, deeply religious people are more likely to oppose
abortion rights than unreligious people.</li>
<li>Although Americans generally support abortion rights, they also
support some restrictions: a 24 hour waiting period, parental consent
for teen girls, and spousal notification for married women. However,
Americans are divided on the RU-486 "abortion pill."</li></ul>
The steadiness of American opinions on these issues is evidence that
abortion policy will not change, no matter who serves as president,
legislator or judge.
Still, pro-lifers talk about the need to overturn Roe v Wade to save
millions of lives (fetuses) each year, and pro-choicers talk darkly
about returning to coat hanger abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned.
What about that?
Actually, the evidence is that neither of these extreme positions is
true. In fact, abortion <i>is</i> illegal in many countries of the
world, and yet the figures on the <#redir
"http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html"#> web site of
the Alan Guttmacher Institute</a> show that abortion is, on the
average, as common and safe in countries where abortion is illegal as
in countries where it's legal.
One thing that neither the left nor the right likes to admit is that
even if abortion were somehow made illegal in the U.S. (which is
almost impossible), it would cause enormous political uproar but, on a
statistical basis, change neither the number of abortions nor the
safety of abortions (since girls and women would continue to get safe
illegal abortions in private doctors' offices, using health of the
mother as a pretext).</dd>
<dt>How Women Sniff Out Mr. Right</dt>
<dd>49 women were asked to smell t-shirts that had been worn by men
for two nights, to determine which ones smelled the best. The
result? Women prefer men who smell like their fathers, according to
the University of Chicago researchers who conducted the study. (See
<#redir
"http://www.nature.com/nsu/020114/020114-13.html"#> 1/21/02
<i>Nature News</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Egyptian Wives Worse Off than Afghan Women Were</dt>
<dd>According to a letter published in an Egyptian newspaper by an
unnamed 55 year old woman, married 25 years, Egyptian wives are are
subject to the same fundamentalist Islamic restrictions in Egypt as
they were in Taliban-governed Afghanistan. (See <#redir
"http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-3/women/egyptian_wives_face.htm"#>
1/20/02 <i>Middle East Times</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Lisa Kerkorian Demands $320,000 Monthly Child Support
Payments</dt>
<dd>Former tennis star Lisa Bonner and billionaire Kirk Kerkorian
were married just 28 days, but she now says that she and their
3-year-old daughter cannot live on that measly $50,000 month child
support that she's receiving. She demands $320,000 per month, to pay
for these essential expenses: $144,000 monthly for travel, $14,000
for parties and play dates, $7,000 for charity, $102,000 for food,
$1,400 for laundry and cleaning, $1,000 for toys, videos and books
and $436 for the care of Kira's pet bunny, the court filing said.
(See <#redir
"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20020115_13.html"#>
1/15/02 Reuters article</a>.)</dd>
=// <dt id="thornton">Houston Judge Punishes Women for Violating
<a name="thornton"> </a><dt>
Houston Judge Punishes Women for Violating
Restraining Orders</dt>
<dd>Feminists are furious at Judge Megan Lake Thornton for punishing
two women who had obtained restraining orders against their husbands,
and then went back to them. She ruled that the order was mutually
binding, and cited the men for contempt as well.
"You can't have it both ways," she said, adding, "It drives me nuts
when people just decide to do whatever they want" after a court has
ruled. Thornton made clear that she expected the original protection
orders against all contact to apply equally to the person suspected
of abuse and the abused. "They are orders of the court," she said.
(See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020112"
"1/12/02 <i>Houston Chronicle</i> article"#>.)
If this ruling survives appeal, it is very good news. Real abuse
victims will not be hurt by this ruling at all; the only ones who
will be hurt are women who make false claims of abuse in order to get
revenge or gain leverage in a divorce. Feminists who oppose the
ruling are in the morally weak position of having to explain why it
should be perfectly OK for battering victims to return and let
themselves be battered some more. As Judge Thornton said, "You can't
have it both ways."</dd>
<dt>Is Paula Zahn "A Little Bit Sexy?"</dt>
<dd>The increasingly bitter competitive cable news wars between CNN
and Fox News Channel heated up even more last week when CNN ran a
promo touting news anchorwoman as "provocative, super-smart and oh
yeah, a little bit sexy." Fox commentators have been ridiculing the
CNN ad, squeezing a little revenge out of the fact that CNN stole
Paula Zahn away from Fox just before 9/11. Several columnists have
joined the fray, saying that being good-looking is an unwritten
requirement for almost every female anchorwoman. (See <#redir
"http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/opinion/09DOWD.html"#> 1/9/02
<i>New York Times</i> column by Maureen Dowd</a>, and also see <#redir
"http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=95001714"#> 1/11/02
<i>Wall Street Journal</i> column by Tunku Varadarajan</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Rose Meltzer Challenges Men at Championship Bridge</dt>
<dd>Champions in games like bridge and chess are almost always men
because few women are willing to put in the years of spending 60-80
hours per week for study and practice required to become a champion.
However, one woman, Rose Meltzer, is being recognized as one of the
top bridge players in the country, even receiving the compliment,
"God, Rose, you bid that just like a man!" (See <#redir
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0201080001jan08.story"#>
1/8/02 <i>Chicago Tributes</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Cathy Young: Rape Shield Laws Being Used to Convict Innocent
Men</dt>
<dd>A <#redir
"http://reason.com/0202/co.cy.excluded.shtml"#> recent
column by Cathy Young in the 2/02 issue of <i>Reason Magazine</i></a>
highlights the way in which women use rape shield laws to hide
important defense evidence in order to convict innocent men of rape.
Recent studies of rape accusations, based on new DNA evidence and
discussed at length in my book (<#hreftext frater.a.rape "Click
here"#> for a summary), show that women lie in 4-7% of rape
accusations, and misidentify the rapist in 25-30% of stranger rape
cases. If you're a man reading this, you should be aware that any
woman can victimize you and possibly get you convicted by making a
false rape accusation, and she will be able to use rape shield laws to
prevent you from putting on an adequate defense.</dd>
<dt>Elizabeth Dole: Reagan's Image "Upset Women"</dt>
<dd>A 1982 memo written by Elizabeth Dole, then aide to President
Reagan, said that his reputation as a "man's man" was harming his
image with women. According to her notes: "While this
characterisation has been helpful with men, it may have worked to his
detriment with regard to women." (See <#redir
"http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/05/wron05.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/05/ixworld.html"#>
1/5/02 <i>London Telegraph</i> article</a>.)
How does the "man's man" image do today, after the heroism of the
firemen and policemen at the 9/11 terrorist attack? Very well,
complains Ellen Goodman in a whiny man-bashing column. I guess if
you're a guy, there's just no satisfying Ellen. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/003/editorials/A_new_model_of_masculinity+.shtml"#>
Goodman's 1/3/02 column</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Why William Kennedy Smith was Acquitted of Rape</dt>
<dd>Remember back to 1991, when William Kennedy Smith was accused of
rape by Patricia Bowman, a woman he had sex with several hours after
meeting her in a bar? I watched that trial on TV. When it started,
I expected Bowman to crucify Smith, but by the time it ended, I was
convinved Bowman was lying. Evidently, so were the jurors, since
they acquitted Smith.
This acquittal has always pissed feminists off, and now criminologist
Gregory Matoesian has written <i>Law and the Language of Identity:
Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial</i>, to tell his
view of what really happened.
According to Matoesian, Roy Black, the defense lawyer, got his client
acquitted by catching the alleged victim in "a patriarchal double
bind" in which she was "constrained to embrace the patriarchal logic
of sexual rationality, and thus be implicated in constructing the
same dominational structure that oppresses her and contributes to her
own subordination in the first place."
In my opinion, it's feminist garbage like this that destroys the
credibility of <i>real</i> rape victims. (<#hreftext frater.a.rape
"Click here"#> for more information.)
Feminists insist on festooning rape with all sorts of political
baggage which obscures the fact that real rape is a violent crime,
not a fund-raising vehicle. When feminists begin to take rape more
seriously, then others will take it more seriously. (See <#redir
"http://kevxml.infospace.com/info/kevxml?kcfg=upi-article&sin=2002010420032104137&otmpl=apnws/story.htm&qcat=washnews&ran=23782&passqi=10&passdate=01/04/2002+%26nbsp%3B+20%3A03%3A21+EST&feed=upi&more=1§ion="#>
1/4/02 UPI article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>NOW Graphic Shows Lots of Cute Chicks on NOW Staff</dt>
<dd>In the latest issue of the <i>National NOW Times
Online</i>, from the National Organization for Women
(<#stdurl www.now.org#>), there is a picture of the NOW
staff members hired in 2001.
Judging from the picture, it's plain to see that there are several
<i>very</i> good looking girls on the NOW staff. With their obviously
soft, supple bodies, any guy would be lucky to have one of these women
as a sexual object. Who would have expected NOW, of all places, to
house such a bevy of beauties? (See <#redir
"http://www.now.org/nnt/special-2001/september11.html"#> the
<i>National NOW Times</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Size Really Does Matter For Condoms</dt>
<dd>One size doesn't fit all, and that's why pharmacies should stock
a variety of sizes. Size was the biggest problem for condom users,
but other problems which cause condoms to fail include dryness and
breakage. (See <#redir
"http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1055557a4560,FF.html"#>
12/31/01 article from <i>The (New Zealand) Dominion</i></a>.)</dd>
<dt>Another Book Bashing Men and Marriage</dt>
<dd>It's called: <i> Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for
Woman</i>, by Susan Maushart, scheduled for publication in March.
A detailed summary of the book has just been published, as part of
the book's initial publicity campaign.
Maushart goes through her usual litany of complaints: Her fiance asked
her as a favor not to smoke at their wedding reception; she felt
compelled (and not because her husband asked her) to scrub the
bathroom and to cook dinner using a Betty Crocker cookbook. This
corresponds to the "malaise" that women feel as soon as they get
married that my own book documents at length. ( <#hreftext
frater.a.marriage "Click here"#> for a description.)
Maushart quotes sociologists who say things like, "the influence of
fathers is relatively minor" for adolescents, and "once you have one
good parent in place, having another parent doesn't have a huge
effect."
But what about the sperm and money that men provide?
Maushart has a twist: She wants women to be able to have children
completely free of any need for a man. So she proposes use of
in-vitro fertilization to get pregnant, and a network of "female
friends or kin" to provide money support.
This is an example of how silly these women's books tend to be. The
idea that large numbers of women would work 40 hours a week, and then
give part of their paychecks to other women who want to have children
through in-vitro fertilization without collecting child support from a
man is so ludricrous that you'd think the author would be embarrassed
even to suggest it, except that there seems to be no suggestion by a
woman that's too ridiculous to get published.
Like other books I've reviewed of this type, the bottom line is that
this book is telling women neither to get a job nor to commit to a
man, but instead to have children to get money, and to get the money
from whatever source they can -- i.e., the father. In the end, this
is one more book encouraging women to follow the career strategy of
targeting a man, and getting pregnant, just to collect child support.
If you think I'm being unfair to women by suggesting that they would
get married and get pregnant with no objective other than to get
divorced and collect child support, you don't have to believe just me
-- just believe Susan Maushart, the author of this book which, in the
end, suggests this as a bottom line strategy. (I'm inferring this
from the summary published in the article quoted above; the entire
book is not yet available.)
As is the case with other women's books of this type, the words
"child support" are never mentioned, mainly because these women
authors are too embarrassed to mention it, although it's obvious that
most of the case studies of women "seeking liberation" in this way
are indeed collecting child support, and in doing so destroying the
lives of the men they target.
There are other things besides child support that authors of these
books don't mention.
The major one is <#hreftext frater.a.childabuse "Child Abuse"#>. 70%
of child abuse perpetrators are mothers, and even when a man is a
child abuser, it's most likely to be the mother's boyfriend. This
means that Maushart is telling women to expose their children to an
increased likelyhood or abuse, rape, and violence. Unfortunately,
that's the way it always seems to be going these days. (See <#redir
"http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,625675,00.html"#>
12/30/01 article in <i>The Guardian</i></a>.)</dd>
<dt>Hillary Clinton Surprises Everyone in '01 by Hunkering Down</dt>
<dd> Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton were the political Evil Twins
of the 1990s. They both had extremely abrasive personalities which
thrilled their partisans and enraged their opponents. Generally
speaking, anyone who loved Hillary Clinton absolutely loathed Newt
Gingrich, and anyone who loved Newt Gingrich absolutely loathed
Hillary Clinton.
However, while Newt has mostly disappeared from the scene, Hillary has
surprised her political opponents by becoming a lot more sober and
thoughtful.
This is a pleasant change from the shrill, man-bashing feminist
Hillary of ten years ago. She's drawn new respect from her low-key
approach to her come-from-behind win of the New York state Senate
seat, followed by her low-key approach to serving her constituents.
"You find Hillary at a soup kitchen in Batavia more than you see her
at an international women's conference," says pollster John Zogby.
And there's no doubt that the 9/11 attacks had an enormously
sobering effect on her, especially because Chelsea was only a couple
of blocks from Ground Zero when the attacks occurred.
In fact, she was so overwhelmed by the attacks that, when she spoke
at a televised memorial service on September 15, four days after the
attack, I was startled to hear her compare the attack on the World
Trade Center to the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Anyone who's read my writings about politicians knows that I don't
have a very high opinion of any politicians since, after all, they're
always running for the next election, and always saying what the
latest poll tells them to say. And let's face it, NOW is joined at
the hip to the Democratic party, and especially to Hillary, so the
man-bashing is sure to return sooner or later.
Still, it's been nice to see a more demure Hillary, at least for a
while, and for as long as it lasts. (See <#redir
"http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/37574.htm"#>
12/27/01 <i>New York Post</i> editorial</a>.) </dd>
<dt> Taliban abducted orphans for sex</dt>
<dd>The Taliban seemed obsessed with protecting women's virtue, such
as by requiring them to wear head-to-toe burqas.
However, it now turns out that hundreds of girls were abducted,
forcibly married, raped or sold into sexual slavery by Taliban
fighters. Orphans were especially easy prey, since they had no
families to protect them. (See <#redir
"http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3487421%255E2703,00.html"#>
12/24/01 article in <i>The Australian</i></a>.)</dd>
=// Australian article no longer valid
<dt>More Irish Women go to Britain for Abortions</dt>
<dd>Abortions are illegal in Ireland, but increasingly, pregnant
Irish women are going to abortion clinics in Britain when they want
an abortion. In all, about 9 percent of Irish pregnancies end in
abortion. (See <#redir
"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/international/europe/24BRIT.html"#>
12/24/01 <i>New York Times</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Dad's Love Influences Child as Much as Mom's Love</dt>
<dd>Researchers reviewed almost 100 U.S. and European studies
investigating the effects of parenting on the psychology and behavior
of children as they grew older. The earliest study was conducted in
1949, and the most recent was completed in 2001.
The result was a finding that a father's love -- or the lack of it --
contributes as much to the development of a child's personality and
behavior as the love of a mother, according to researchers. In some
respects, a father's love is even more influential, according to the
results, which were published
in the current issue of the Review of General Psychology.
The withholding of love by either the mother or the father is equally
connected to a child's lack of self-esteem, emotional instability,
withdrawal, depression and anxiety. And the risk of developing
problems with aggression, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency was
equally related to a child's rejection or acceptance by either
parent. (See <#redir
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011220/hl/love.html"#>
12/20/01 Reuters article.</a>)
This study provides clinical support for the widely publicized
statistical findings that children of single mothers are more likely
to be victims of violence, abuse and rape than children in intact
families.</dd>
<dt>Dying Boy Receives His Last Wish : Sex</dt>
<dd>"Jack," a 15 year old Australian boy, died of cancer last week
but not before his last wish was granted: He wanted to lose his
virginity before dying.
When he confided his last wish to his nurse, a child psychologist was
consulted, and he OKed it. Jack's friends contributed the money, and
a prostitute was hired. "He was very, very happy -- and only slightly
disappointed that it was over so quickly," said the psychologist.
Meanwhile, ethicists debated the issue. "About half said, 'What's
your problem?' And the other half said [it] demeans women and reduces
the sexual act to being just a physical one." (See <#redir
"http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001590732,00.html"#> the
12/22/01 article in <i>The Sun</i></a>, and also <#redir
"http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20011222/944024.html"#>
the 12/22/01 article in the Canadian <i>National Post</i></a>.)</dd>
<dt>Women Say that Saudi Treatment of Women is Taliban-Like</dt>
<dd>Americans in Saudi Arabia are amused by the descriptions of the
treatment of women by the Taliban in Afghanistan -- because women in
Saudi Arabia are not treated any differently. What's even worse,
according to the Americans, is that American women, including women
in the armed forces as well as wives of men working in Saudi Arabia,
are forced to recognize the same restrictions. "As a husband and as a
father of a teenage daughter, I can assure you that life even for
Western women in Saudi Arabia is every bit as bad as you describe.
Saudi official assurances that non-Muslims need not follow Muslim
codes of dress and behavior are utter nonsense, and the very real
threat of punishment or abuse for not wearing abbayas [head-to-toe
black cloaks] or for going out unaccompanied leaves most Western women
in Riyadh to live lives of silent depression." (See <#redir
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15193-2001Dec21.html"#>
12/22/01 <i>Washington Post</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Osama's Mommy Says He's a Good Little Boy</dt>
<dd>Alia Ghanem, Osama bin Laden's mother, says that the tape is a
phony. "Osama is too good a Muslim and too good a person to say or do what
the script of the video suggests he said and did," she said.
"But I don't agree with everything he says and he knows that. I pray
to Allah that he will live until the truth is revealed."
(See <#redir
"http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=25BOA5XMQHT0MCRBAEOCFFAKEEARMIWD?type=worldnews&StoryID=474593"#>
12/22/01 Reuters article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>Woman Conceives Triplets While Already Pregnant</dt>
<dd>How can a woman be pregnant continuously for 12 months?
It's called "superfoetation," and it refers to a situation where a
woman conceives a new baby while already pregnant with another baby.
In the case of 20 year old Flavia D'Angelo of Rome, Italy, she had
already been pregnant with one child for three months when she
conceived triplets. The first baby has just been born, and the
triplets are due in three months. Yes, it's a record. (See <#redir
"http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/19/world/world8.html"#> 12/19/01
<i>London Telegraph</i> article</a>.)</dd>
<dt>How Women With Burqas Helped Win The War</dt>
<dd>Kandahar resident Abdul Ali used a satellite phone to call the
anti-Taliban forces and give them the coordinates of buildings to be
bombed. How did he hide the satellite phone from the Taliban? He
counted on women who risked their lives to carry his satellite phone
under their all-encompassing burqas, moving it from house to house to
avoid detection. (See <#redir
"http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/15/world/world9.html"#> 12/15/01
<i>Sydney Morning Herald</i> article.</a>)</dd>
<dt>More Women Than Men Develop The "Seven Year Itch"</dt>
<dd>Women at all ages are about a third more likely than men to say
that they wished not to be married, but this feeling peaks at six to
nine years after the wedding, when a a third of married people at that
stage answering wanting to be single again.
Twice as many wives as husbands, at around one in seven, also said
that they wanted to "live on my own for a while." Again, the biggest
danger period for this feeling was around seven years, along with the
first year of marriage. See <#redir
"http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001582236,00.html"#>
12/18/01 article in <i>London Times</i>.</a>)
This is quite consistent with the statistic that two out of three
divorces are initiated by women. <#hreftext frater.a.marriage "Click
here"#> for further discussion of why women initiate divorces far more
often than men.</dd>
<dt>Holiday Season Presents Special Problems for Children of
Divorce</dt>
<dd>Even though children look forward all year to the holiday season,
it can be a time of great sadness for children of divorce, so much so
that they often can hardly wait until the holiday season is over,
according to <i>Boston Globe</i> columnist Barbara F. Meltz. Children
put themselves under a great deal of pressure to keep the peace and
deal with conflicting loyalties during the holiday season, and the
pressure is only increased by the fantasy that most children harbor
that the parents may get back together. The experts' advice for
divorced parents: Work out a plan for holiday visits, present it as a
<i>fait accompli</i> to the children, and stick to it. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/347/at_home/Divorce_adds_to_holiday_baggage+.shtml"#>
12/13/01 article in the <i>Boston Globe</i>.</a>)
<dt>Women's Groups Outraged by Spanish Rape Ruling</dt>
<dd>Women's groups expressed outrage when the Supreme Court of Spain
reduced the sentences of three convicted rapists since they were
drunk. "Having ingested alcoholic beverages throughout the night ...
may be considered to have keenly affected their volitional
faculties," said the high court, calling these "very valid"
mitigating circumstances.
Feminists expressed outrage, with one saying that "[the] courts are
taking as mitigating factors conditions which should be aggravating
factors." (See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story011212"
"12/12/01 AP article."#>)
The outrage is, in my opinion, phony. As explained at length in
<i>Fraternizing With The Enemy</i>, women's groups use rape as a
fund-raising and political device, and support the rapist when it's
to their political advantage, or the victim when that's to their
political advantage.
Indeed, one of <#hreftext frater.a.rape "my biggest criticisms of
feminist groups"#> is that they consistently destory the credibility
of real rape victims by trivializing rape and using it as a political
tool, especially by wildly inflating the incidence of rape, and even
pressuring researchers to publish inflated figures.
The Spanish Supreme Court ruling is entirely consistent with
"feminist theory." In order to inflate rape figures, feminists have
insisted that if a woman has been drinking, then she is incapable of
giving consent to sex, and therefore consensual sex with a woman is
rape if she's had even a single drink. Well, if a drinking woman is
so incapacitated that she can't give consent to sex, then a drinking
man is too incapacitated, by analogy to the feminist reasoning, to
understand whether consent has or has not been given, and so sex
cannot be rape.
This is only one of the many ways that feminists have damaged women
for political reasons. Feminists have only themselves to blame for
this rape ruling. Feminists need to start focusing more on the needs
of their constituents -- women -- instead of just looking out for
their own short-term funding and political power.</dd>
<dt>How NOW Placed Money and Politics Above Women</dt>
<dd>Ever wonder how the National Organization for Women (NOW) could
actively support and carry water for President Clinton after he had
been found to have abused numerous women, and even was credibly
charged with rape? Tammy Bruce, the former chairman of the Los
Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women, said in a
radio interview that it's because of $750,000 that NOW received from
the Clinton administration. Bruce said that NOW received the money
at the time of the Monica Lewinsky investigation, and was the only
time that NOW had received federal money, creating, at least, "the
appearance of impropriety." (See <#redir
"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25631"#>
12/11/01 article in <i>WorldNetDaily</i></a>.)</dd>
<dt>HHS to Christina Hoff Sommers: "Shut the f**k up, bitch"</dt>
<dd>Officials from the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention
(CSAP) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) treated
Christina Hoff Sommers abusively and offensively during an invited
speech at a CSAP sponsored conference.
The abusive behavior was led by Professor Jay Wade, of Fordham
University's Department of Psychology, a supposed "expert on
listening skills," ordered Sommers to "shut the f*ck up, bitch."
There follow additional abusive behavior by other attendees at the
CSAP conference. No one from CSAP apologized to Sommers, nor were
the abusive guests admonished. (See <#redir
"http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120501.shtml"#>
12/5/01 <i>National Review</i> article</a>.)
Sommers is author of the 1994 book, <i>Who Stole Feminism?: How Women
have Betrayed Women</i>, a book which showed how shoddy feminist
"research" is; and is author of the 2000 book <i>The War Against
Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men</i>, a book
which focuses in on shoddy research by Carol Gilligan and feminists
who have been blaming boys for not being more like girls.
As I have personally seen, abusive, offensive behavior is
unfortunately the norm for hardcore feminists who simply have no
response other than abusiveness to numerous research studies that show
that feminist assumptions about boys, girls, family violence, sexual
harassment, and so forth, are simply wrong, and often fraudulent. My
book, <i>Fraternizing with the Enemy</i> tells numerous anecdotes of
how researchers, even pro-feminist researchers, were pressured to lie
about research about subjects like rape and family violence.
<#hreftext frater.a.hoax "Click here"#> to read about two major
feminist 1990s hoaxes.
<dt>Romania Resumes Allowing Adoptions</dt>
<dd>After banning foreign adoptions in October, because of criticisms
of rampant corruption in the treatment of orphans, Romania is
beginning to allow adoptions again, so far on a very limited basis.
There are thousands of Americans trying to adopt Romanian children,
and at 3,500 cases were in the system at the time that the ban was
imposed. (See <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/341/nation/Romania_resumes_allowing_adoptions+.shtml"#>
12/7/01 AP article</a>.)</dd>
=// 12/7/01 ap article no longer valid
<dt>The Woman Shortage Is Growing Worse</dt>
<dd>For men in their 30s and 40s, it's becoming increasingly
difficult to find a mate. While the numbers of boys and girls born
every year are roughly the same, the overall birthrate dropped 40%
form 1995 to 1973, according to a 12/7/2001 <i>Wall Street
Journal</i> article. Since men tend to marry younger women, there
are fewer women available for them to marry. Pop culture has
perpetuated the belief that men have the advantage but it's men who
are at a big disadvantage.</dd>
<dt>Fashion: Butt Cleavage Is In</dt>
<dd>The shapeliest girls are exhibiting a new fashion trend: low
rising jeans that expose part of the butt. The trend is growing in
popularity thanks to Jennifer Lopez. I enjoy seeing shapely, skimpily
clad girls as much as any guy, but this trend doesn't turn me on.
Judge for yourself: for pictures, see <#redir
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40105,00.html"#> the 12/5/01
<i>Fox News</i> story on the subject</a>.</dd>
<dt>Boys are More Stressed in the Womb than Girls are</dt>
<dd>Everyone knows that men suffer more stress than women, but now it
turns out that it begins before birth! New research shows that male
foetuses find the womb more stressful than female foetuses. (See <#redir
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1689000/1689445.stm"#>
12/4/2001 <i>BBC News Online</i> article.</a>)</dd>
<dt>Bush's Hairdresser is an Afghan Woman</dt>
<dd>Afghan Zahira Zahir frequently comes at President Bush carrying
sharp scissors -- and cuts his hair. She says that she's lost
customers since the Afghan war started, but many, including Bush,
have remained loyal. She cuts both Republicans' and Democrats' hair,
but says they have different demands, with Republicans usually
preferring a short back and sides. "They want very conservative
haircuts," she says. "Democrats have longer hair most of the time and
don't pay as much attention to their grooming." <#redir
"http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001540010-2001553811,00.html"#>
See 11/30/01 London <i>Times</i> story.</a></dd>
<dt>Moderate Drinking Can Help Women Get Pregnant</dt>
<dd>A new study shows that women trying to get pregnant will be
helped by drinking alcohol moderately. The research does not explain
why alcohol increases the pregnancy rate, but one theory is that a
moderately drinking woman is more likely to have sex, and therefore
more likely to get pregnant. <#redir
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1678000/1678755.stm"#>
See 11/28/01 BBC News story.</a></dd>
<dt>The U.S. is The World's Sexual Superpower</dt>
<dd>Americans make love more often than people of any other
nationality, according to a survey conducted by condom manufacturer
Durex. The survey showed that people average having sex 97 times per
year, but the figure is 124 times per year for Americans. And since
I'm Greek, I'm happy to report that the Greeks made love the second
most frequently -- 117 times a year on average. However, France's
reputation as a nation of lovers took something of a hit with
frequency of 110 times a year. <#redir
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20011127/hl/sexual_1.html"#>
See 11/28/01 Reuters story.</a></dd>
=// Reuters story no longer valid
<dt>Finally - An Explanation for the Missing Gender Gap on
Defense</dt>
<dd>For decades, there's been a gender gap in polling on U.S. defense
spending, with men generally favoring more defense spending then
women. Since 9/11, that gender gap has closed. What's changed?
It turns out that there is a <i>new</i> gender gap, and it's the new
gender gap that's ending the old gender gap. It arises in relation to
perceptions of threat. Sixty-three percent of men think another
terrorist attack is imminent, whereas eight in ten women do. About 34
percent of women say life has returned to normal, compared to 48
percent of men. And one in five women think life will never return to
normal. In short, women feel more threatened than they did before and
than men do now. <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story011127" "See
11/27/01 column by Tod Lindberg."#></dd>
<dt>Bad News : Lipstick Sales Are Up!</dt>
<dd>Lipstick sales are up 12% since last year at this time. Deep,
bright lipstick shades, with names like "berry," "red glorioso" and
"vino divino," are now most popular, while pale, neutral shades
aren't selling as well. Cosmetics companies are pushing sales with
slogans like, "love, peace and lipstick" and "On a bad day, there's
always lipstick." Why is this bad news? Because women traditionally
turn to lipstick as a reasonable indulgence and pick-me-up when they
feel they can't afford a whole new outfit, indicating further that
retail sales in general may be suffering. <#hreftext
"frater.new.story&arg2=story011126" "See 11/26/01 <i>WSJ</i>
article."#></dd>
<dt>Human Cloning Science Overtakes Politicians</dt>
<dd>Remember the fierce debate about stem cells prior to 9/11? About
80% of that debate has been made moot by the announcement this
weekend that <#redir
"http://www.advancedcell.com/"#> a Worcester,
Mass., company, Advanced Cell Technology Inc.</a> has cloned a human
embryo. Listening to the company spokesman on the Sunday news shows,
you can almost hear the guy's tongue tripping over itself as he tries
to choose the words that won't get too many politicians mad at him, by
saying that this new technology won't be used to clone actual humans,
but will only be used to cure everything from paraplegia to
Alzheimer's disease. Indeed, politicians have been universal in
expressing disdain for cloning humans, and there's talk of passing
laws to effectively shut Advanced Cell Technology down.
My prediction is that the politicians will be talking about this for
weeks, but nothing they say will be of any consequence, because what
they say will be overtaken by the next technology breakthrough, which
will probably occur in the next six months.
See <#redir
"http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/112401ezzell/"#>
the 11/25/01 <i>Scientific American</i> article</a> describing the
science, <#redir
"http://www.msnbc.com/news/662735.asp?0dm=C11NH"#> an
11/25/01 article from MSNBC</a> and then <#redir
"http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/11/25/human.embryo.clone/index.html"#>
an 11/25/01 article from CNN.com</a> giving the politicians'
responses. The CNN.com page also has video where you can see
politicians calling on scientists to not clone humans. See also <#redir
"http://www.advancedcell.com/pr_11-23-2001.html"#> the 11/23/01
press release</a> from Advanced Cell Technology, and also <#redir
"http://www.advancedcell.com/pr_11-25-2001.html"#> the 11/25/01
press release.</a></dd>
<dt>College Bans Affairs Between Professors and Undergraduates</dt>
<dd>The previous policy at <#redir
"http://www.wm.edu"#> College of
William and Mary </a> permitted affairs between professors and
undergraduates, provided that the professors informed their bosses
what was going on. However, any such affair is now grounds for
dismissal, although exemptions may be granted "in exceptional
circumstances." <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story011121" "See
11/21/01 AP article."#></dd>
<dt>Evolutionary Psychology Shows That Men Are Ignorant And
Gullible</dt>
<dd>Your wife just gave birth. Is it your baby? Are you sure?
According to experts in evolutionary psychology, mom will have little
difficulty convincing you that the baby is yours, even if it isn't.
She just says, "Doesn't he look exactly like you?" It doesn't take
much more than that to convince dad, even if the baby isn't really
his, and doesn't look very much like him at all. <#redir
"http://www.nature.com/nsu/011122/011122-9.html"#> See 11/21/01
<i>Nature Magazine</i> article.</a></dd>
<dt>"CheckMate! I Caught You Screwing Around!"
<dd> The web site <#redir
"http://www.getcheckmate.co.uk"#>
www.getcheckmate.co.uk</a> is selling a chemical "Infidelity Kit"
that you can use to see if your spouse is cheating. You use the
chemicals on your spouse's underwear, and a purple result indicates
that semen is present. circumstances." <#hreftext
"frater.new.story&arg2=story011119" "See 11/19/01 Reuters
story."#></dd>
<dt>"Annas" On The March -- Spreading Anorexia Gospel</dt>
<dd>Anorexic girls, calling themselves "Annas," are defending their
lifestyles. Says Sahara, "Twenty years ago homosexuality was still
classified as a disease. Ten years ago who would have thought that
fat people would organise so successfully that Californian fire
services have to employ people so overweight they cannot climb a
ladder or else risk being sued? At least we are not risking any lives
here, at least only our own. If we want to die this way, then that
should be our choice." <#redir
"http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9004-2001531093,00.html"#>
See 11/18/01 London <i>Sunday Times</i> article.</a></dd>
=// URL for sunday times article seems to require registration
<dt> NOW: "Single Moms Need Money, Not Men" </dt>
<dd>The summary on the front page of the NOW (National Organization
For Women) web site (<#redir
"http://www.now.org"#>www.now.org</a>) says,
"What single moms really need for kids is money, not men." Typical
NOW man-bashing stuff.
When you click on the item and read through <#redir
"http://63.111.42.146/news/article.asp?ArticleID=9711"#> the
actual article</a>, you find an article by Cindy Richards, a former
<i>Chicago Sun-Times</i> workplace issues reporter, which begins as
follows: "The data piling up show children raised by single parents
fare worse, on average, than children raised by intact two-parent
families."
=// URL for "actual article" no longer valid
The article goes on to say:
<font size="+0"><ul>Studies show children raised by a single mom are
more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier, to display violent
behavior, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit suicide, have emotional and
gender identification problems, perform poorly in school, drop out of
school, commit a crime and go to jail.
Specifically, Congress found in 1996 that children from single-parent
homes are four times more likely to be expelled or suspended from
school. In addition, according to the welfare overhaul legislation,
children of single-parent homes are three times more likely to fail
and repeat a year in grade school.</ul></font>
These findings, which began coming out in 1995, have been
embarrassing to feminist and social service organizations who are
proponents of spending government money to encourage single-mother
families, by paying money to single mothers through welfare, and
paying money to social workers for support services for single
mothers.
Richards tries to indicate that the problems of single mothers are
due primarily to poverty, when she quotes another feminist as saying,
"I don't think you will find that a very poor two-parent family is
better than a well-off single-parent family," and "Indeed, many of
the negative outcomes attributed to children in single-parent
households mirror those of children living in poverty." She quotes a
feminist law professor, a single mother, as saying, "The presence of
a man available for parenting is of dubious benefit." Ha, ha.
In fact, these are carefully worded statements which make
implications which are simply wrong. True, children of poor parents
may not be able to afford two TV sets (or maybe even one TV set), but
that doesn't mean they're more likely to take drugs or become teenage
parents.
That data that Richards is referring to shows that these problems are
caused by lack of fathers, not by lack of money. A child with two
involved poor parents is indeed much better off than one with a
well-off single parent, in the sense that he's less likely to grow up
to be a batterer, and she's less likely to grow up to be a rape
victim.
However, beyond the usual feminist disinformation and prevarication,
this article signals a change in NOW's position from a few months
ago. In the past, NOW refused to admit that fathers are good for
anything, except for providing sperm and money. But at least this
article quotes a male psychology professor as saying,
<font size="+0"><ul>Clearly a male and a female in a committed
relationship is by far the best and it seems to be more than just the
two of them. There is an interactional process that goes beyond the
two people. The two together offer something different than either can
do by themselves. </ul></font>
In the past, all you could find on the NOW web site were statements
like, "Promoting marriage, for many poor women, is a dangerous
policy." As more and more women each year express unwillingness to
call themselves feminists, NOW seems to actually be changing
direction. Who knows -- maybe if we wait 30 or 40 years, NOW will
actually start to <i>like</i> fathers.</dd>
<dt>Beautiful Women Are Like Drugs To Men</dt>
<dd>A new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and
Massachusetts General Hospital shows that the face of a beautiful
woman has the same effect on the average man as food for a hungry man
or drugs for an addict. The research also shows that this reaction
is not something that's learned or "socially constructed," but is
part of the basic circuitry of the brain. Duh! <#hreftext
"frater.new.story&arg2=story011109" "See 11/9/01 AP article."#></dd>
=// <a
=// href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/313/region/Study_says_beauty_impacts_male:.shtml">
=// See 11/9/01 AP article.</a>
<dt>Afghan Women Free At Last</dt>
<dd>Afghan women have been tearing off their veils, and they can go
back to work. Meanwhile, girls' schools are reopening for the first
time in three years.<#redir
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1654000/1654459.stm"#>
See 11/13/01 BBC World News Article.</a></dd>
<dt>Sexism Is Back in Advertising</dt>
<dd>Do you remember the 70s airline ad "I'm Carol. Fly me!"?
Feminists got those ads banned, but they're back in force. <#redir
"http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/12/opinion/opinion5.html"#> See
11/13/01 Sydney Morning Herald article.</a></dd>
<dt>Women May Be Drafted</dt>
<dd>If the war against terrorism goes on for a long time, then the
military draft may be reinstated, and if that happens, then women
health care professionals will probably be drafted, according to Lew
Brodsky, public affairs director of the Selective Service System.
"Looking at the numbers of medical personnel required, the time
frames and the kinds of skills required - it would have to include
women," he said. <#redir
"http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=/Pentagon/archive/200111/PEN20011112a.html"#>
See 11/12/01 CNS News Article</a></dd>
<dt>Suddenly, Women Are Loving Manly Men</dt>
<dd>As a result of the 9-11 terrorist attack, something's been
happening to women, and suddenly women are more turned on by strong,
manly men who can fight off terrorists, and are less concerned about
whether he can change diapers. <#redir
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38109,00.html"#> See 11/6/01
Fox News article.</a></dd>
<dt>No Gender Gap in War Effort</dt>
<dd>Recent polling shows that women support the war effort as much as
men do. According to the Pew Research Center, there was a gender gap
over defense spending prior to 9-11, but that gap has now closed, and
both men and women support the war effort by 86%. <#redir
"http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1106/p1s3-ussc.html"#> See 11/6/01
<i>Christian Science Monitor</i> article.</a></dd>
<dt>Divorced Catholics Getting Easier Annulments</dt>
<dd>The Archdiocese of Boston is making things easier for Catholics
to get married a second time -- in the Catholic Church. The Catholic
Church doesn't recognize divorces, even when granted by civil courts,
forcing remarrying divorced men and women to essentially abandon the
Church. However, the Church has always allowed a political out, an
"annulment," which is a ruling that the marriage was a fraud, and
never even existed. And since the marriage never existed, the
divorce is moot. Now, the Church is entering the 21st century by
making annulments easier. <#redir
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/308/metro/A_vow_to_move_on+.shtml"#>
See 11/4/01 <i>Boston Globe</i> article.</a></dd>
=// 1/4/01 article URL no longer valid
<dt>William F. Buckley's <i>National Review</i> Goes Nuts Over
Porn</dt>
<dd>The 11/19 issue of the conservative <i>National Review</i>
magazine will be focused on pornography and its pervasiveness. The
never-ending war on pornography has been going on for centuries, most
recently through an unholy alliance between the feminist left and the
Christian right. And what does Mr. Buckley consider to be examples of
the pervasiveness of pornography? He points to last year's
<i>Esquire</i> magazine cover photo of Clinton with his knees widely
separated; and a print ad for a Valentine's Day Sex Tour at the San
Francisco Zoo, where you learn that male lions can copulate up to 50
times a day. That's the problem with these crusades -- with child
pornography banned, and violent pornography effectively banned,
anti-porn crusaders are stuck with criticizing anything that refers
to sexuality in any way. Maybe they should ban Geoffrey Chaucer's
bawdy <i>The Canterbury Tales</i>, written in the 1300s. <#redir
"http://www.nationalreview.com/19nov01/buckley111901.shtml"#> See
11/2/01 <i>National Review Online</i> for Buckley's column.</a></dd>
<dt>Social Service Organizations Target Men To Gain Funding</dt>
<dd>The book <i>Fraternizing With The Enemy</i> explains how social
service organizations generate tens of thousands of phony and
manufactured <#hreftext frater.a.violence "domestic violence."#>
charges against men in order to bolster their budgets. Even though
the evidence indicates that these activities may be illegal, the
social service agencies are protected because feminists are the
richest and most powerful political lobbyists in the country, and
feminist politicians gain in budgets and political power through false
charges. Each false charge is worth tens of thousands of dollars in
lucrative fees and grants to these organizations.
But even so, the case against Ken Newell, which <#redir
"http://www.massnews.com"#><i>The Massachusetts News</i></a> has
been following years may set something of a record. His ex-wife, a
drug addict named Cathy Newell, has had him arrested 27 times on phony
and manufactured charges. Social service organizations automatically
support these charges, irrespective of the facts, because of the
money. These organizations have probably received hundreds of
thousands in fees and grants because of Newell. <#redir
"http://www.massnews.com/10161ken.htm"#>See 11/1/01
<i>MassNews</i> article.</a></dd>
<dt>Home Paternity Test Kit Test Marketed in Europe</dt>
<dd>Humatrix AG is test marketing a home paternity test kit in
Cologne, Germany. Most of the buyers are men trying to disprove
paternity. Men can take the test in secret -- taking swabs from their
and their children's mouth, and sending them off to the lab. Results
come back by mail a few days later. <#redir
"http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_436975.html"#> See 10/31/01
Ananova article.</a></dd>
<a name="vennochi"> </a>
<dt>Joan Vennochi: Mass Democrats To Women: Drop Dead!</dt>
<dd>A criticism that I've been making for almost ten years to any
feminist who would listen is that feminism is way too political. The
National Rifle Association, for example, will support
anti-gun-control Democrats, but NOW, Emily's List and other feminist
organizations never support even the most pro-woman Republicans. And,
as their wild support of credibly accused rapist Clinton showed, when
party politics conflicts with support for women, feminist groups
never hesitate to sell out women for party politics.
Feminist <i>Boston Globe</i> columnist Joan Vennochi is just
discovering this for herself, as she views Massachusetts Democratic
Party politics. With Republican Jane Swift in the Governor's chair,
and Republican support for other women, "Republican women in
Massachusetts are flexing real political muscle. [while] Democratic
men are treating Massachusetts Democratic women the way they always
do: with disdain."
For example, "Boston's elite female professionals support Mayor Menino,
overlooking the guy-driven impetus in his administration to gun for
women who are viewed as threats or just nags. That political instinct
worked to marginalize Peggy Davis-Mullen as a city councilor and
mayoral candidate. Robert Consalvo, a Menino-backed candidate is also
trying to unseat longtime City Councilor Maura Hennigan, following the
same Menino-backed playbook that led to the unseating of another
district city councilor, Diane Modica."
Vennochi concludes, "As long as Democratic men talk the feminist talk,
it doesn't seem to matter what they do to or for Democratic women.
That is also funny, as in strange - isn't it?"
I've been saying this for almost ten years, and for some odd reason
saying it has never made me very popular with feminists. That's also
funny and strange, isn't it?
<#hreftext
"frater.new.story&arg2=story011030"
"See Vennochi's 10/31/01 <i>Boston Globe</i> column."#>
<dt>UAE Girls Warned Against Western Values</dt>
<dd>Queen Sheikha Jawaher bint Mohammed Al Qasimi of the United Arab
Emirates is advising girls to adhere to their Islamic values and
social traditions and to enhance their skills in literature, arts and
sciences. She says, "Our girls today are being targeted by a
destructive media, which aims to lead them astray from their social
traditions and lure them into a type of liberal acts, which would
make them vulnerable to exploitation. Such media has also been trying
to instill in girls new consumption habits, which may not comply with
their families' economic conditions." A recently enacted "decency
code" counteracts the media, by aiming to protect girls and society
as a whole from the dangers of some imported values. <#redir
"http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=30810"#> See
10/29/01 Gulf News article.</a></dd>
<dt>Women Pilots Flying Combat Missions, But Staying Off The Ground</dt>
<dd>During the 1991 Gulf War, women sailors flew combat support
missions, earning a lot of press coverage and sparking debate about
women in combat, especially after a woman helicopter pilot was
captured by Iraqi forces. Women also served as pilots in Kosovo, and
women fly the most advanced fighter aircraft, bombing Taliban and
al-Qaida targets while under anti-aircraft fire. On the other hand,
the administration is planning to kill Clinton era proposals to put
women on the ground in battle zones. <#hreftext
"frater.new.story&arg2=story011023" "See 10/23/01 AP article."#> , and
<#redir
"http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011029/whispers/29whisplead.htm"#>
the 10/20/01 US News article.</a></dd>
=//<a
=//href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011023/wl/attacks_ships_16.html">
=//See 10/23/01 AP article</a>
<dt>Researchers Discover Artificial Sperm</dt>
<dd>Men often complain that women have no interest in them except for
sperm and money, but soon that may change: Women will need them just
for money.
US researchers Dr.Jerry Hall and Dr Yan-Ling Feng have have discovered
a cocktail of chemicals which could be used as artificial sperm.
Although the experiments have only been carried out on mice,
researchers believe it could also work in humans. The only drawback:
Any babies born from the process would be female. <#redir
"http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_430602.html?menu=news.latestheadlines"#>
See 10/22/01 Ananova article.</a></dd>
<dt>Fewer Moms Returning to Work a Year After Giving Birth</dt>
<dd>According to the Census Bureau, more than 55 percent of the 3.9
million women age 15 to 44 who gave birth between July 1999 and June
2000 returned to work, or were actively seeking a job within a year of
having their baby. This figure was down from a record high of 59
percent the last time the survey was conducted, in 1998. The declines
came mainly among white women, mothers older than 30, married women
and those with higher levels of education -- characteristics of women
who tend to live in families that make more money. <#redir
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36762,00.html"#> See 10/18/01
Fox News article.</a></dd>
<dt>Terrorised Americans Turn to Terror Sex</dt>
<dd>They are calling it end-of-the-world sex, post-disaster sex,
post-terror sex, and even Bin Laden sex, the inelegant post coital
expression for which is "bin laid." Sociologists and psychologists are
reporting that Americans are taking recourse to intercourse -
frequent, random, and even reckless sex to cope with fear, sadness and
vulnerability stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks. Dating
services are seeing a significant increase in clients and singles bars
in New York and Washington are humming again. From the no-no nineties,
America has leapt into a mating millennium after the worst-ever
terrorist carnage last month has left them feeling bewildered and
bereft.<#redir
"http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1417200798"#>
See 10/11/01 Times of India article.</a>
</dl>
<#hreftext frater.main Class=clickhere
"Click Here for Home Page and Latest Gender News" #>
=eod
=data frater.new.yates
=inc frater.a.stdpage frater.new.yates.txt "Andrea Yates"
=eod
=data frater.new.yates.txt
=text
<h1>Was Andrea Yates Just Getting Revenge?</h1>
I watched the prosecutors' closing arguments on TV, and they
made some very powerful points which not one single newscast has ever
mentioned. The prosecutor was telling the jury why he believed they
should find Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder for killing her
five children.
The prosecutor pointed out that the Andrea had been planning this
mass murder for months, and had deceived everyone about her plans --
her husband, her husband's mother, her doctors, her kids, and anyone
else she knew. It was a long, well-conceived plan that she followed.
The prosecutor then said that we don't know her motive in killing her
children, but one possible motive is that she had wanted to get even
with her husband for being so poor. If she had simply killed
herself, then he would still have the kids, but without her; by
killing the kids, she deprives him of the kids.
Did Andrea Yates kill her children to get revenge against her
husband, deceiving her husband, her husband's mother, the doctors, and
the children as part of an overall strategy, and then later blame it
on religion, knowing that feminists the world over would side with
her, and find a way to blame her husband? It's as good an explanation
as any I've heard, and better than most of them.
This was a very powerful argument, and if I had been on the jury, I
would have considered this a possibility. Indeed, it may have been
this particular argument that convinced the jury to reach its guilty
verdict so quickly -- within three hours. However, I've seen
probably dozens of news stories and analyses on TV about this case in
the last 48 hours, and not a single one has mentioned this closing
argument.
<h2>Shock at the verdict</h2>
Women's activists have been shocked not only with the verdict, but
also the rapidity with which it was delivered.
A major part of the reaction has been to argue that her husband,
Russell Yates, should also be found guilty of murder, because he
didn't prevent his wife from killing the children.
This whole affair has been very interesting to me, because it's
confirmed the worst in feminists that I'd always talked about.
Feminists have been apoplectic about the verdict, and they're using
any argument, however flimsy, to blame the murder on Russell.
If Russell had killed five children, these same feminists would never
say, "Let's indict Andrea too, since she shouldn't have had another
child."
This exposes a double standard -- a hypocritical double standard --
used by women's activists. For these women/feminists, the rule is: if
the man is violent, it's the man's fault; if the woman is violent,
it's the man's fault. In this case the violence is the murder of
five beautiful children, and feminists are still trying to find a way
to blame it on a man.
<h2>Condoning and Excusing Violence</h2>
Even worse, these attempts by women's activists are condoning and
excusing violence by women.
This explains a mistake that feminist "theory" makes about men.
Feminists have always claimed that men stand together to condone and
excuse violence by men against women, even though I've never heard men
excuse violence against women in my 58 years.
The reason that feminists make that mistake about men is that they
assume that men are like women -- that since women sometimes condone
violence, and even mass murder in the case of Andrea Yates, it must
be true that men do the same. However, in my experience, the
opposite is true: there may be some men somewhere that condone some
violence against women, but it's very rare; men just don't condone
violence and murder the way feminists do when it's convenient to do
so.
One of the reason that so many mothers kill their children is because
they get away with it. There are many stories of mothers who kill
their children and are let off the hook by just this kind feminist
nonsense.
To those of you who are looking to blame Russell for the murder of
five children, I say this to you: If some other mother reads your
opinion and is inspired to kill her own children and be a little more
clever than Andrea was at blaming it on her husband, knowing the
women like you will support her, then you would be indirectly
responsible for the murder of those children.
It may well be that Andrea thought she could kill her five children
as revenge against her husband and get away with it, knowing that
feminists the world over would support her, based on the kinds of
statements that feminists have made now in support of Andrea.
I'm glad that Andrea Yates was convicted of capital murder. If she
stays locked up in jail for the rest of her life, then that's OK with
me, but I wouldn't shed a tear for her if she's executed. That woman
planned and executed the murder of five beautiful children, and
there's no punishment she could get that she wouldn't deserve.
Is Andrea Yates another <i>Medea</i>?
<#hreftext frater.new.medea Class=clickhere
"Click Here to find out" #>
=eod
=data frater.new.medea
=inc frater.a.stdpage frater.new.medea.txt "Medea and Andrea Yates"
=eod
=data frater.new.medea.txt
=text
<h1>Is Andrea Yates Another <i>Medea</i>?</h1>
As I've frequently written, the concept of tragedy was invented by
Greeks, and an understanding of the inevitability of tragedy is deep
in our bones.
The prosecutors in the <#hreftext frater.new.yates "Andrea Yates
case"#> argued that a possible motive for her murder of her five
children was to get revenge against her husband for being poor.
To understand Andrea Yates, it might be worthwhile to take another
look at the tragic play <i>Medea</i>, written by the ancient Greek
playwright Euripides.
As the play opens, Medea's husband, Jason, has told her he's leaving
her for another woman. Medea is very depressed, but addresses the
chorus of Corinthian women with a feminist speech as follows:
<ul>MEDEA
This unexpected blow which has befallen me has broken my heart.
It's all over, my friends; I would gladly die. Life has lost its
savor. The man who was everything to me, well he knows it, has
turned out to be the basest of men. Of all creatures that feel
and think, we women are the unhappiest species. In the first
place, we must pay a great dowry to a husband who will be the
tyrant of our bodies (that's a further aggravation of the evil);
and there is another fearful hazard: whether we shall get a good
man or bad. For separations bring disgrace on the woman and it is
not possible to renounce one's husband. Then, landed among
strange habits and regulations unheard of in her own home, a woman
needs second sight to know how best to handle her bedmate. And if
we manage this well and have a husband who does not find the yoke
of intercourse too galling, ours is a life to be envied.
Otherwise, one is better dead. When a man wearies of the company
of his wife, he goes out doors and relieves the disgust of his
heart, having recourse to some friend or companies of his own age,
but we women have only one person to turn to.
They say that we have a safe life at home, whereas men must go to
war. Nonsense! I had rather fight three battles than bear one
child. But be that as it may .... Woman in most respects is a
timid creature, with no heart for strife and aghast at the sight
of steel; but wronged in love, there is no heart more murderous
than hers.</ul>
Jason plans to marry the daughter of Creon, the king of Corinth.
Creon is aware of Medea's outrage and fears for his daughter's
safety. Therefore, King Creon declares a ``restraining order''
against her:
<ul>CREON:
You there, Medea, looking black with rage against your husband; I
have proclaimed that you are to be driven forth in exile from this
land, you and your two sons. Immediately. ... I am afraid of you,
afraid you will do my child some irreparable injury. There's
plenty of logic in that fear. You are a wizard possessed of evil
knowledge. You are stung by the loss of your husband's love. And
I have heard of your threats to injure bridegroom and bride and
father of the bride. Therefore before anything happens to me, I
shall take precautions. Better for me now to be hateful in your
eyes than to relent and rue it greatly later.</ul>
Medea begs Creon to let her stay just one more day, so that she may
complete her preparations to leave. Reluctantly, he agrees, saying
ominously, ``Mercy has often been my undoing.'' He leaves, and Medea
tells the chorus of her plans.
<ul>MEDEA
Do you think I would ever have wheedled the king just now except
to further my own plans? ... He is such a fool that though he
might have thwarted my plans by expelling me from the country, he
has allowed me to stay over for this one day, in which I shall
make corpses of three of my enemies, father and daughter, and my
own husband. ... Medea, use all your wiles; plot and devise.
Onward to the dreadful moment. ... Moreover by our mere nature we
women are helpless for good, but adept at contriving all manner of
wickedness.</ul>
Jason and Medea then have a conversation.
<ul>JASON
Despite everything, I come here now with unwearied goodwill, to
contrive on your behalf, Madam, that you and the children will not
leave this country lacking money or anything else. Exile brings
many hardships in its wake. And even if you do hate me, I could
never think cruelly of you.
MEDEA
Rotten, that is the word for you. ... I saved your life, as we all
know. ... Then, forsaking my father and my own dear ones, I came
with you, more than fond and less than wise. I have removed every
danger from your path. And after all those benefits at my hands,
you basest of men, you have betrayed me and made a new marriage,
though I have borne you children.</ul>
Jason says she's exaggerating, and also says that he's only doing
``what's best for the children.''
<ul>JASON
You are making a mountain out of the favors you have done me. ...
In the matter of my rescue, you got more than you gave. ... There
remains my wedding with the Princess. In this connection, I shall
demonstrate my great service to you and my children. What greater
windfall could I have hit upon, I an exile, than a marriage with
the king's daughter? Not that I was weary of your charms or that
I was smitten with longing for a fresh bride; still less that I
wanted to outdo my neighbors in begetting numerous children. No!
I wanted to bring up the children in a style worthy of my house,
and, begetting other children to be brothers to the children born
of you, to bring them all together and unite the families. Then
my happiness would be completed. ... Surely that is no bad plan?
You yourself would admit it, if jealously were not pricking you.
... There ought to have been some other way for men to beget
their children, dispensing with the assistance of women. Then
there would be no trouble in the world.</ul>
Alone again, Medea explains her plan to the chorus. She will fill a
beautiful robe with poison, will have her sons take it to the
princess and ask her to put it on. As soon as she does, she will
die.
<ul>MEDEA
My mistake was in leaving my father's house, won over by the words
of a Greek. But, as god is my ally, he shall pay for his crime.
Never, if I can help it, shall he behold his sons again in this
life. Never shall he beget children by his new bride. She must
die by my poisons, die the death she deserves. Nobody shall
despise ME or think me weak or passive. Quite the contrary. I am
a good friend, but a dangerous enemy. For that is the type the
world delights to honor.</ul>
So, Medea tells Jason she's sorry, and asks his forgiveness. To
prove her change of heart, he offers to have her sons deliver the
robe to the princess. He rejoices in her new attitude, and agrees.
The boys take the gift to the princess and return to Medea. As she
awaits the news of what happens when the princess puts it on, she
plans her next step: killing her children.
<ul>MEDEA
O the pain of it! Why do your eyes look at me, my children? Why
smile at me that last smile? Ah! What can I do? My heart is
water, women, at the sight of my children's bright faces. I could
never do it. Goodbye to my former plans. I shall take my
children away with me. Why should I hurt their father by their
misfortunes, only to reap a double harvest of sorrow myself? No!
I cannot do it. Goodbye to my plans.
And yet, what is the matter with me. Do I want to make myself a
laughing-stock by letting my enemies off scot-free? I must go
through with it. What a coward heart is mine, to admit those
soft pleas. Come, my children, into the palace. I shall not
let my hand be unnerved.
Ah! Ah! Stop, my heart. Do not you commit this crime. Leave
them alone, unhappy one, spare the children. Even if they live
far from us, they will bring you joy. No! by the unforgetting
dead in hell, it cannot be! I shall not leave my children for my
enemies to insult. And if die they must, I shall slay them.
O dear, dear hand. O dear, dear mouth, dear shapes, dear noble
faces, happiness be yours, but not here. Your father has stolen
this world from you. How sweet to touch! The softness of their
skin, the sweetness of their breath, my babies! Away, away, I
cannot bear to see you any longer. [They leave] My misery
overwhelms me. O I do realize how terrible is the crime I am
about, but passion overrules my resolutions, passion that causes
most of the misery in the world.</ul>
Medea learns that the robe has killed the Princess, as well as Creon,
who embraced his daughter as she lay on the floor.
<ul>MEDEA
I am resolved to act, and act quickly. I can delay no longer, or
my children will fall into the murderous hands of those that love
them less than I do. In any case they must die. And if they must,
I shall slay them, who gave them birth.</ul>
The children cry to each other.
<ul>ONE CHILD
Ah me! What am I to do? Where can I escape my mother's murderous
hands?
THE OTHER
I know not, my dear, dear brother. She is killing us.</ul>
And indeed she does. Jason arrives, and learns that his sons are
dead. Medea replies to Jason's insults.
<ul>MEDEA
You could not hope, nor your princess either, to scorn my love,
make a fool of me, and live happily ever after. Now was Creon,
the matchmaker, to drive me out of the country with
impunity.</ul>
Jason begs to bury his dead sons, but Medea refuses even to let him
embrace them one final time. He says:
<ul>JASON
O Zeus, do you hear how I am repelled, how I am wronged by this
foul tigress, that slew her own children? I call upon the gods, I
invoke the powers above to bear me witness that you slew my
children and now prevent me from embracing their bodies and giving
them burial. Would that I never begotten them, to live to see
them slain at your hands.</ul>
The play ends with Medea using her magical powers to make her planned
escape to a foreign land.
<i>[The text of the play was taken from </i>Ten Plays by
Euripides<i>, translated by Moses Hadas and John McLean, Bantam Books,
1981. Original copyright in 1936. Euripides lived from 485-406
B.C.]</i>
There is one big difference between Andrea Yates and Medea: Medea got
away with her crime, but Andrea Yates did not.
=eod
=data frater.new.sexcrimes
=inc frater.a.stdpage frater.new.sexcrimes.txt "Sex Crimes"
=eod
=data frater.new.sexcrimes.txt
=text
<h1>Sex Crimes, Pedophiles, and Pornography</h1>
Whenever you write about gender issues, as I do, you get people
angry. Some things get men angry, some get women angry. Some things
get Republicans angry, some Democrats.
This time I'm writing something that will get everyone angry. And
yet the facts seem so clear and dramatic, that someone has to say
them, and it might as well be me.
What got me thinking, talking and writing about this subject was the
sudden rash of stories in the media about pedophiles (child
molesters). There was the story about the alleged pedophile whom
Dear Abby turned in to the cops. There's the Catholic Church
scandal.
And there's the "Candyman" sting, which revealed that 7,000 people
are swapping child pornography on three internet sites. Estimates
are that there are thousands of child pornography sites, leaving no
doubt that the child pornography has been spreading around the
internet rapidly during the last ten years, and that are huge amounts
of child pornography available today that weren't available in 1990.
Some people say that when men read pornography, it turns them into
sex criminals, and if they read child pornography, they turn into
pedophiles and child molesters.
So we've gotta stamp all that child pornography out, you're thinking.
Well I'm not so sure. Note the following:
<ul><li>The rate of child sexual abuse has declined dramatically
during the 1990s.</li>
<li>The rate of forcible rape crimes has declined dramatically during
the 1990s.</li></ul>
So let's see: The internet in the 1990s made massive amounts of pornography
available, and the number of sex crimes dropped dramatically during
the 1990s.
That means that all that pornography is a <i>good</i> thing. That's
what makes people mad. (... read more ...)
<h3>Why Child Pornography is Illegal -- But May Become Legal
Soon</h3>
Now, dear reader, I can see you moving your fingers over the
keyboard, rushing to write me a flame e-mail message to tell my why
child pornography is <i>bad</i>.
And you're right --
... to be completed ...
=eod
=data frater.new.story
=html
=parameters $(Story)
<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-us">
<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {font-family: Garamond}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<#include frater.new.$(Story)#>
</body></html>
=eod
=data frater.new.cache
=parameters $(Url)
<i>(This is a cached version of an article originally located at <#redir
"$(Url)"#> $(Url) </a>)</i>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011109
=text
<h1>Study says beauty impacts male brain like food, drugs</h1>
By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, 11/9/2001 05:10
BOSTON (AP) A new study on a man's reaction to seeing beautiful women
indicates the pleasure experienced in the brain is similar to a hungry
man's when he eats, or an addict's when he get his fix.
It's proof that feminine beauty affects the brain past the parts that
compose poetry, right to its basic functions, researchers said.
"Beauty is working similar to a drug," said Dan Ariely of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, a
co-author of the study, published Wednesday in the journal Neuron.
The study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts
General Hospital measured the brain responses of a group of
heterosexual males to pictures of men and women of varying
attractiveness.
The pictures of beautiful women activated the same "reward circuits"
in the brain as food, pleasant tastes and cocaine.
The fact men enjoy looking at beautiful women is hardly shocking, but
study author Hans Breiter said evidence that beauty stimulates these
primal brain circuits has never been shown.
It counters arguments that beauty is nothing more than a socially
constructed value, Breiter said.
"This is hard-core circuitry," Breiter said, comparing its basic job
to the same function found in lizards. "This is not a conditioned
response."
John Mazziotta, Director of UCLA's Brain Mapping Center, said the
results may lead to new ways of studying aesthetic values, such as
beauty.
"We think of these things as a products of a very high level of
thought, and it may be very basic and fundamental," he said.
The study, conducted over three years, included eight heterosexual men
in their 20s who judged the attractiveness of men and women shown in
pictures.
Another group of 15 men were shown the pictures randomly for several
seconds, but could extend or cut the viewing time by pressing certain
keys on a keypad.
Attractive women were viewed an average of 8.7 seconds, while average
women were viewed for 5.2 seconds. The men worked frantically to keep
the beautiful women on the screen, each pressing the keyboard an
average of more than 6,700 times in the 40 minute session.
"These guys look like rodents bar-pressing for cocaine," Breiter
said.
Neuroimaging of the brain during the activity showed the activation in
the "reward circuitry" of the brain.
Not surprisingly, the men didn't expend effort to view the men they
deemed attractive, which Breiter cited as proof of a disassociation
within the brain between liking something and wanting it.
In fact, Breiter said, brain signal changes indicated the men had an
adverse reaction to good-looking males, suggesting they were
threatened by them.
Ariely said it's significant that beauty, which is known to have some
social components, can take a place in brain function beside basic
physical needs like nutrition. In could have major implications in the
study of what motivates people, he said.
"There's a social stimulus that's able to acquire the same status as
a food or drug," Ariely said. "That's incredible."
Steven Hyman, director of The National Institute of Mental Health,
said he was struck that a man's private judgment about beauty could be
seen in brain activity.
"To a layperson, it should be a bit disquieting that brain science is
being used to investigate how the brain processes our ordinary
thinking and response to life," he said.
"Clearly, somebody can't sneak up on you and stuff you in an MRI,"
he added. "But the issue of the privacy of your thoughts is one to
ponder."
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.boston.com/dailynews/313/region/Study_says_beauty_impacts_male:.shtml"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011023
=text
<h1>Women Pilots Flying Combat Missions</h1>
By CHRIS TOMLINSON, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday October 23 10:15 AM ET
ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (AP) - After flying an attack
mission on Afghanistan, Lt. j.g. Sara said Tuesday she didn't think
she and other women pilots should be singled out for attention - or
that what she was doing was historic.
Indeed, little attention has been focused on women fighter pilots and
weapons' officers during the war on terrorism, even though it is only
the second major U.S. military campaign since the Navy decided to
allow women to fly combat aircraft in 1993. Kosovo was the first.
"I've never thought that it was a big deal that I was an aviator, I
just go out there and do my job," said Sara, 25, from Billings, Mont.
"I don't like to see women singled out, basically."
For security reasons she can only be identified by her first name -
and her call-sign, "Goalie."
Sara, who was surprised by media requests to interview her, said she
is proud of the example the United States has set by allowing her to
fly combat missions.
During the 1991 Gulf War, women sailors flew combat support missions,
earning a lot of press coverage and sparking debate about women in
combat, especially after a woman helicopter pilot was captured by
Iraqi forces. Now women fly the most advanced fighter aircraft,
bombing Taliban and al-Qaida targets while under anti-aircraft fire.
Women sailors were first allowed to train as pilots in 1976, and were
selected to fly cargo and surveillance planes.
Cdr. Diana Cangelosi of Wilmette, Ill. was one of the first women to
join the Navy specifically to be a pilot in 1981 and chose to fly a
spy plane.
Under the military's security rules, commanding officers can be fully
identified if they choose.
Cangelosi started out flying the EA-3 and eventually flew EP-3 spy
planes.
"I flew the most (combat oriented) thing women were allowed in fly in
my time," Cangelosi, now the officer in charge of the Combat
Direction Center on the USS Roosevelt. "What they are flying now is a
bit more exciting."
Cangelosi, 46, has reached a rank where she no longer flies, but she
enjoys her present assignment in charge of directing the ship's
defenses. "Frankly, this is a cooler job because it involves weapons'
systems," she said, with a glimmer in her eye.
The Roosevelt has been flying night attacks for almost a week,
launching U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat fighters, EA-6B Prowler surveillance
planes and Marine Corps FA-18C Hornet attack jets to bomb Taliban and
al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan.
The planes, airborne for 5 to 8 hours at a time, are refueled by both
Navy and U.S. Air Force tanker planes and directed by air controller
and surveillance aircraft, many of them also flown by women.
Sara, a trained F-14 pilot, works as the fighter jet's navigator and
weapons' officer, directing laser-guided bombs and missiles on to
their targets.
Cangelosi said she was "very proud" of and envied the new women
fighter pilots.
"Things have changed a lot in 20 years," she said.
Sara praised women like Cangelosi, who she said paved the way and set
an excellent example for women to follow.
"I've always felt very comfortable being a female in the aviation
community ever since I walked into flight school," Sara said. "There
aren't many of us, that's true, but I think (all of) our personalities
mesh, otherwise we wouldn't be in this job."
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011023/wl/attacks_ships_16.html"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011030
=text
<h1>Some state Democrats undercut women</h1>
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Staff, 10/30/2001
FUNNY, AS IN strange, isn't it? With backing from Republican men - and
some Democratic men - Republican women in Massachusetts are flexing
real political muscle. Democratic men, meanwhile, are treating
Massachusetts Democratic women the way they always do: with disdain.
Women cannot fail to notice this subplot in the Jane Swift-Virginia
Buckingham showdown: Two bright, ambitious, thirty-something women did
the unthinkable in this state. They achieved power positions in
Massachusetts politics.
To underscore the point, this didn't happen in the party known for
its passionate rhetoric about choice and women's rights. It happened
in the state GOP. At the same time, top Democrats like House Speaker
Finneran and Mayor Menino are working to undercut women in their own
party.
The Massachusetts model mirrors a trend evident in the Bush
administration, where at least a few high-ranking women appear to have
the ear and respect of at least one high-ranking man - the president
of the United States.
Locally, the Republican men who promoted Swift and Buckingham viewed
their gender as an advantage, not a burden. That political calculation
led to political opportunity for both - in Buckingham's case, to run
important campaigns and hold high profile positions in state
government; in Swift's case, to be part of a statewide ticket, leading
to a stint as acting governor and a shot at reelection in her own
right.
During the recent face-off between Swift and Buckingham, another
extraordinary thing happened. Two former governors - Bill Weld and
Paul Cellucci - stuck by Buckingham, displaying the kind of political
loyalty and professional courtesy Democratic men extend only to one
another. Under pressure from Swift after the Sept. 11 Logan
hijackings, Buckingham resigned last week as executive director of the
Massachusetts Port Authority. But thanks to Weld, Cellucci, and
Democrats like state Senator Robert A. Havern, she retains some
professional and political credibility.
When it comes to state Democratic politics, men dominate and always
have, as far back as memory takes me, which is to the Dukakis years.
Of course, some women's voices were heard in those days. Patricia
McGovern held sway as chair of Senate Ways and Means; as governor,
Dukakis drafted women for some Cabinet-level policy positions. But
everyone knew who really ran the State House circus - Senate President
William M. Bulger, House Speaker George Keverian, and the
whip-cracking, poker-playing, cigar-chomping men behind the Duke. The
idea of sharing power with Lieutenant Governor Evelyn Murphy never
crossed anyone's mind; indeed, for the Dukakis men, a good night's
sleep included detailed dreams of how to keep Murphy as far away from
the governor's office as possible.
On Beacon Hill today, Finneran continues to stoke the boys' club
tradition. He lashes out at dissenters, male and female, but his
political philosophy cuts especially hard against women. For example,
more than one prochoice lawmaker believes Finneran makes leadership
picks on the basis of his own prolife beliefs.
State Representatives Kay Khan and Ruth Balser of Newton recently
prevailed in their fight to retain their districts, after Finneran
unveiled a redistricting plan designed to pit the two women against
each other. Who saved them? Not the men of their party, but the media
and Swift, who let Finneran know she would veto any plan forcing Khan
and Balser to face off.
Meanwhile, Boston's elite female professionals support Mayor Menino,
overlooking the guy-driven impetus in his administration to gun for
women who are viewed as threats or just nags. That political instinct
worked to marginalize Peggy Davis-Mullen as a city councilor and
mayoral candidate. Robert Consalvo, a Menino-backed candidate is also
trying to unseat longtime City Councilor Maura Hennigan, following the
same Menino-backed playbook that led to the unseating of another
district city councilor, Diane Modica.
This local picture mirrors another national trend: Historically,
women identify more with Democratic Party positions and stick with the
men who supposedly represent them. Women remained loyal to Bill
Clinton despite the serial womanizing that exploded into a humiliating
White House scandal and supported Al Gore over George W. Bush.
As long as Democratic men talk the feminist talk, it doesn't seem to
matter what they do to or for Democratic women. That is also funny, as
in strange - isn't it?
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 10/30/2001.
Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/303/oped/Some_state_Democrats_undercut_women+.shtml"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011119
=text
<h1>Infidelity Kit Finds Cheats with Their Pants Down</h1>
Monday November 19 9:55 AM ET
By Sinead O'Hanlon
LONDON (Reuters) - Sick of rifling through his pockets in search of
mysterious hotel bills? Fed up with stumbling upon her hushed phone
calls?
Worry not, an end is in sight for all those suspicious minds wondering
what their other half was up to last night.
A new chemical ``infidelity kit'' being sold on the Internet promises
to help catch the unfaithful by way of bodily emissions.
The doubting spouse can test a potentially offending garment in just
five minutes. A purple result means semen is present -- but whose it
is and how it got there remains open to question.
``Undergarments are the best place to test,'' said Jonathan Friedman
of the European distributors Commercial and General. ''However, tests
on the inside of shirts, blouses, bedding and car upholstery are also
valuable.''
Unsavory though it may be, Commercial and General say thousands of
doubters have paid 59 pounds ($86) for the CheckMate kit hoping to
``end the nightmare of suspicion.''
``I ordered your kit and found semen. I feel justified with this to
take our four kids and divorce (my husband). This is great...now I can
make his life hell,'' one gleeful Californian woman wrote on the
company's Web site, www.getcheckmate.co.uk.
A bewildered young soldier wrote that his suspicious mother performed
the test on his wife's underwear while he was away on a tour of duty.
The result: one lurid purple patch and one equally lurid confession of
an affair with his best friend.
Friedman said the British-based company, had received a storm of
emails from the shocked, outraged, relieved and curious.
``Does it stick to car covers?'' one inquirer wanted to know.
Many voiced concern about privacy issues.
Friedman acknowledged the kit raised ``one heck of a lot'' of
questions about trust, but he said there were plenty of people
prepared to take a devious approach to win peace of mind.
A survey of those buying the kit showed about 40 percent were aged
over 40, about 55 percent were women and almost half had been married
for more than 15 years.
The survey also elicited the curious fact that almost 10 percent of
British customers come from the seaside resort of Brighton -- long a
favorite spot for those who fancy a dirty weekend.
Relationship counselors say the kit is a bad way to sort out
relationship problems and could make the situation worse.
Counselors said proving the guilt you have long suspected did not make
for a happy ending.
``Underhand tactics are not the best way forward,'' said Julia Coles
of Relate, which tries to put the pieces of broken relationships back
together. ``Very often people don't come out and voice their
suspicions, and they should.''
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011119/od/infidelity_dc_1.html" #>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011126
=text
<h1>Rising Lipstick Sales May Mean Pouting Economy</h1>
By Emily Nelson
<font size="-1"><i>Staff Reporters of </i>The Wall Street
Journal</font>
Lipstick sales are red hot. So why is no one smiling?
The reason is that women traditionally turn to lipstick when they cut
back on life's other luxuries. They see lipstick, which sells for as
little as $1.99 at a supermarket to $20-plus at a department store,
as a reasonable indulgence and pick-me-up when they feel they can't
afford a whole new outfit. "When lipstick sales go up, people don't
want to buy dresses," says Leonard Lauder, chairman of
<b>Estèe Lauder</b> Cos.
Lauder's Leading Lipstick Index tracks lipstick sales across
Estèe Lauder's many brands, which account for sales of about
half of all prestige cosmetics in the U.S. and include Stila, Origins,
Bobbi Brown, MAC and Prescriptives. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks, the index is up braodly, says Mr. Lauder. The index also
climbed during past recessions, such as in 1990.
MAC factories started running extra shifts to produce more lipstick
after Sept. 11. In the past three weeks, sales of MAC lipstick, and
lip gloss have grown 12% at stores open at least a year, compared
with the year earlier.
"It's like getting a haircut. It makes you immediately feel better,"
says Meredith Foulke, a 21-year-old senior at Auburn University who
recently sprung for a sparkly "Sweet Cherry" Clinique Liquid
Lipstick, while shopping at Dillard's in Auburn, Ala. This year, she
doesn't plan on splurging for a new suede handbag, she says, "but
there's always lipstick."
Lipstick sales at mass retailers tracked by Information Resources
Inc., the market-research firm, rose 11% from August through October
compared with a year ago.
Sales of lipstick at <b>Borghese Cosmetics</b> Inc. are also up 12%
since mid-September vs. last year, spurred on by saleswomen wearing
T-shirts emblazoned with the American flag and the words, "love,
peace and lipstick." Company executives in New York designed the
T-shirts after noticing shoppers buying lipsticks and expressing "a
sense of defiance that 'they' aren't going to disrupt our lives and
take away our simple pleasures," says Georgette Mosbacher, the New
York-based company's chief executive.
Deep, bright lipstick shades, with names like "berry," "red glorioso"
and "vino divino," are now most popular, while pale, neutral shades
aren't selling as well, Ms. Mosbacher says. "This is the case of
wanting to brighten up ... [Lipstick] has always made women feel
good."
Lipstick, which dates to ancient Egypt along with makeup in general,
often reflects women's attitudes. During the 1920s, for example,
mass marketing of makeup in the U.S. took off, women got the right to
vote, and bright red lipstick was popular.
Other cosmetic items don't tent to benefit from the lipstick effect.
The high-margin prestige cosmetics that drive overall sales are
rarely discounted; more typically, stores offer free gifts with a
purchase. When upscale department store Bergdorf Goodman, part of
<b>Neiman Marcus Group</b> Inc., held a sale for selected shoppers
last month, it offered 30% off everything except cosmetics.
Indeed, Borgheses's Ms. Mosbacher is lowering her overall sales
expectations for the year to a 9% to 12% increase, down from 15%
before Sept. 11. Estèe Lauder also reduced its overall sales
expectations, saying its other business, particular duty-free
airport shops, is hurting.
Lipstick sales might be even higher, if not for brands that promise
to stay on longer, reducing the need to buy another stick.
Top-selling lipsticks include Cover Girl Outlast lipstick and Max
Factor Lipfinity, which claim to stay on for eight hours. Both
brands are owned by decidedly practical consumer-products maker
<b>Proctor & Gamble</b> Co.
An ad for Revlon's Absolutely Fabulous lipstick, shot last spring,
seems particularly appropriate with its hint of stock market woes and
lipstick-as-comfort-food tone. The ad shows a woman in front of what
looks like the New York Stock Exchange trading floor, and it reads,
"On a bad day, there's always lipstick."
<i>Wall Street Journal</i>, Monday, November 26, 2001, pages B1, B4
=data frater.new.story011127
=text
<h1>Missile defense's feminine mystique</h1>
By Tod Lindberg
Published 11/27/01
Like most people who write about Washington politics, I operate from
a bifurcated point of view whose components are A) a set of positions
I favor on a variety of issues and B) a curiosity about how the
Washington animal works. One must be vigilant against allowing the
former to interfere with one's investigations into the latter. But, of
course, this is not an easy thing.
In the aftermath of September 11, it struck me that the devastating
attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon would buttress the case for
a missile defense system. Here, after all, was an example of a
determined enemy out to inflict as much damage on the territory of the
United States as possible. If such an enemy had a missile capable of
reaching us, there is no reason to think he wouldn't fire it.
But on further reflection, did I mean that the attack would buttress
the case for missile defense or that it should buttress the case? Long
ago, after all, I had reached the conclusion that it made sense for
the United States to build and deploy such a system.
Meanwhile, it quickly became apparent in the Washington salons of
national security and foreign policy that people who had never been in
favor of missile defense took the meaning of the September 11 attack
to be just the opposite with regard to the issue. For them, here was
proof of the folly of spending money on an expensive and (to their
minds) unworkable defense system. If your enemies are determined to
reach you, their weapons will be utility knives capable of
transforming airliners into fuel bombs. Missile defense is no defense
against the more plausible avenues of attack. Thus for them, September
11 would (make that "should"?) tend to undermine the case for missile
defense.
Thanks to a survey conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations and
the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, we now have some
data to help us untangle the "would" from the competing "shoulds."
Support for missile defense has, in fact, increased significantly over
levels found in an early September pre-attack survey. Sixty-four
percent of Americans now say they favor a missile defense system, up
from 56 percent.
But this is not so much where the question gets settled as where it
gets interesting. Support among men for missile defense hasn't changed
from early September levels. All the movement in the survey is
attributable to women, who have long lagged men in support for such a
system but have now eliminated the gender gap in its entirety,
increasing their level of support from 52 percent in early September
to 64 percent now.
But it's not just missile defense on which women's opinion has moved.
Support for increased spending for the military is also up for both
men and women, but most sharply among women. In early September, 24
percent favored more spending on defense; by now, that figure is 47
percent (support among men moved up from 39 percent to 53 percent over
the same period). And there is a greater sense of urgency among women
now than previously. Half say they want a system now, up from 29
percent, again closing the gender gap with men.
But if you scratch a little further in the survey, you do find a
gender gap. It arises in relation to perceptions of threat.
Sixty-three percent of men think another terrorist attack is imminent,
whereas eight in ten women do. About 34 percent of women say life has
returned to normal, compared to 48 percent of men. And one in five
women think life will never return to normal.
In short, women feel more threatened than they did before and than
men do now. This is the point at which supporters of missile defense
should take note. I think it's probably reasonable to interpret
women's increased support for missile defense not as a sudden increase
in enthusiasm for missile defense as such but as part of a sharp
secular swing in favor of increased security measures in general.
This also makes sense in the context of the long-running debate over
the issue. There have always been, in effect, two arguments going on.
One, of course, was over the particular likelihood of a missile attack
on the United States and thus the necessity of trying to develop a
capability to stop it. But that particular debate also served as a
proxy for an underlying argument, which was over the broader question
of how threatened the United States really was.
It's the second question on which people's opinions have shifted
decisively since September 11, especially women's opinion (and
especially among mothers, the survey shows). Smart policy-makers --
and dare one say, smart politicians? -- will respond to the entirety
of this shift, not just the particular elements they have long
favored.
Copyright © 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights
reserved.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20011127-58449656.htm"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011212
=text
<h1>Women's Groups Outraged on Rape Ruling</h1>
Wednesday December 12 1:13 PM ET
By JEROME SOCOLOVSKY, Associated Press Writer
MADRID, Spain (AP) - Women's groups condemned Spain's justice system
Wednesday after the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a rapist
because he was drunk, the latest in a string of rulings in which the
aggressor's drinking and the victim's past were seen as mitigating
factors.
``What is happening in our country is a monstrosity,'' said Tina
Alarcon of the Federation of Aid Associations for Sexually Abused
Women. ``Some of these judges exhibit a male chauvinism that is right
out of the Middle Ages.''
On Monday, the high court quashed the sentence in the conviction of
18-year-old Marcos Gonzalez Rodriguez for raping a mentally retarded
girl while two friends pinned her down.
The five male justices cut Rodriguez's sentence from 131/2 to eight
years and those of co-defendants Manuel Rodriguez Bidault and Rafael
Rodriguez Racca from 12 and six years to two years each because the
lower court failed to take account what the court called ``very
valid'' mitigating circumstances.
``Having ingested alcoholic beverages throughout the night, the three
accused manifested an intellectual capacity that was slightly below
average,'' the Supreme Court ruling said. ``Taken together, these may
be considered to have keenly affected their volitional faculties.''
The assault took place three years ago as the defendants left a pub at
4 a.m. and offered to give the girl a lift home in the northwestern
town of Ourense. After she saw she was not being driven toward home,
she tried to escape by jumping from the car three times, the ruling
said.
The age of the victim was not immediately available.
Last spring, a Barcelona court sparked an outcry when it handed down
a minimum six-year sentence to a policeman who forced a 13-year-old
girl to perform oral sex at gunpoint. The court said it considered the
victim's previous sexual experience as a mitigating factor.
According to Micaela Navarro of the opposition Socialist party, a
study over a six-month period last year found 56 court cases in which
sentences were reduced against men who sexually assaulted or violently
abused women.
``There is a collection of many cases in which courts are taking as
mitigating factors conditions which should be aggravating factors,''
said Marisa Soleto of the Women's Foundation.
Women's rights and rape victims' organizations have helped the
Socialist party draft a proposed ``Law against Gender Violence,''
which would expand legal protections for victimized women and provide
stricter standards for mitigating factors.
A debate on the legislation is expected this month.
-
On the Net:
Fundacion Mujeres (Spanish), <#stdurl
http://www.fundacionmujeres.es#>
Spain's parliament (Spanish), <#stdurl http://www.congreso.es#>
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011212/wl/spain_rape_leniency_1.html"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story011121
=text
<h1>College Bans Professor - Student Affairs</h1>
Wednesday November 21 9:39 AM ET
College Bans Prof-Student Affairs
WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (AP) - Affairs between professors and undergraduates
have been banned at the College of William and Mary, where a former
instructor caused a furor by writing a magazine article about his
romance with a student.
The ban imposed by the school's Board of Visitors is "an important
statement of professional ethics," said Provost Gillian T. Cell.
"Students are more hurt by these kind of relationships than faculty
members are, and I think we have the responsibility to try to protect
our students."
Previous policy only required professors to tell their bosses if they
were involved with a student they were teaching or supervising.
College spokesman William T. Walker Jr. said six violations had been
reported since that was adopted in 1991.
The article in GQ magazine last year, by former writing instructor
Sam Kashner, detailed his affair with a married student and said the
woman's husband later committed suicide.
It wasn't unusual for female students at the college to make sexual
advances toward male professors, he suggested in the article.
Administrators and students vigorously disputed his portrayal, but the
article inspired a review of the rules.
The policy adopted Friday bans "consensual amorous relations"
between professors and undergraduates and the professors' graduate
students.
Faculty members who violate the rule could face dismissal, but
exemptions may be granted "in exceptional circumstances."
William and Mary has about 5,500 undergraduates and 2,000 graduate
students.
-
On the Net:
William & Mary: http://www.wm.edu
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011121/us/professor_student_romances_1.html"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020206
=text
<h1>Plenty of Sex Advised for Successful Pregnancy</h1>
Wednesday February 6 2:18 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Sex, and plenty of it, not only increases the odds
of getting pregnant, it can also help avoid problems that sometimes
lead to miscarriages and stillbirths, New Scientist magazine said on
Wednesday.
Having sex early and often, even oral sex, with the intended father
can reduce the chances of the mother's immune system rejecting the
fetus.
``According to reproductive biologists at the University of Adelaide
in South Australia, far from being an exercise in futility, plenty of
sex -- even a full year before conception -- helps guard against a
litany of ailments,'' the magazine said.
The more accustomed the woman's immune system is to the man's sperm,
the less likely her body will be to reject the fetus, which contains
foreign proteins from the father, according to the scientists.
Immediate rejection of the fertilized egg can cause infertility or, if
the mother's immune system works more slowly, miscarriages can occur.
The Australian scientists also suggested that immune rejection could
lead to pre-eclampsia, a potentially fatal condition that can cause
high blood pressure and convulsions in women. But they said the theory
was still controversial.
``We see patients that have two miscarriages, then they finally manage
to get through their miscarriage period and they have pre-eclampsia,
or the placenta detaches and they have a stillbirth at 24 weeks,''
Gustaaf Dekker, a member of the research team, told the magazine.
The placenta is the lifeline of the fetus, supplying oxygen and
nutrients.
Sperm is full of foreign proteins, so the woman's immune system goes
into high alert at the first sign of it, but the scientists said it
also contains components that promote acceptance by the woman's body.
``If there's repeated exposure to that signal, then eventually when
the woman conceives, her (immune) cells will say: 'We know that guy,
he's been around a long time, we'll allow the pregnancy to
continue','' Dekker added.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020206/sc/health_sex_dc_1.html"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020208
=text
<h1>Census study paints grim picture of marriage in U.S.</h1>
David Westphal
Star Tribune
Feb 8 2002 12:00AM
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Census Bureau will issue a marriage outlook
today that it hopes will prove altogether too pessimistic.
In their most comprehensive study of marriage trends in two decades,
census demographers project that as many as 50 percent of first
marriages will end in divorce.
The report's author, Rose Kreider, said the forecast might prove to be
too high, especially if recent evidence of a small decline in divorce
continues. "If anything, this could be wrong on the side of assuming
too much divorce," she said.
At the same time, the study documents the rapid increase in the
incidence of divorce in the last half of the 20th century, which has
made the United States one of the world's leaders in failed
marriages.
In 1975, the Census Bureau projected that one-third of married couples
25 to 35 would end their first marriage in divorce. But two decades
later, at least 40 percent of those marriages already had ended, and
indications are the number could rise to 50 percent.
The new report comes amid heightened efforts by political leaders to
shore up the institution of marriage. Bush administration officials
announced that strengthening marriage would be one of Bush's top
priorities when the welfare law is rewritten later this year.
The Census Bureau study is based on 37,000 interviews conducted in
1996 and represents a rich trove of information about recent divorce
trends. Census officials said their projections are not forecasts of
the future but simply extensions of trends they spotted at that time.
Princeton University Prof. Joshua Goldstein said divorce rates
started flattening out in the early 1980s and might have even declined
a bit since. But he said it's too early to tell whether the more
stable trend will continue.
While the report documents how Americans are spending more of their
lives alone, both because of delayed marriage and then divorce, it
also suggests that the institution of marriage is alive and well.
Nine of 10 people are likely to be married at some point in their
lives, the study said. And of those who divorce, about three in four
will remarry.
But sometimes it isn't for long. The median duration for a first
marriage ending in divorce was about 8 years, the study found. While
90 percent of couples married in the late 1940s reached their 10th
anniversary, only 73 percent of those married in the early '80s
reached that milestone.
Those who ended first marriages stayed single an average of three
years, according to the report. Second marriages ending in divorce
lasted about seven years.
Other findings:
<ul><li>The average age of first marriage rose almost four years
between the early '40s and the late '80s to 24.9 years for women and
27.1 for men.</li>
<li>Divorce is least likely to occur among Asians, and most likely to
occur among blacks.</li>
<li>Contrary to some earlier theories, college-educated people are
much more likely to marry than those who haven't attended
college.</li></ul>
Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/1607874.html"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020112
=text
<h1>Contempt ruling stirs domestic abuse debate</h1>
Jan. 12, 2002, 9:33PM
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
New York Times
LEXINGTON, Ky. -- The violent arena of domestic abuse litigation has
grown more volatile after a judge has decided to hold two women in
contempt of court for returning to men who had been ordered to stay
away from them.
"You can't have it both ways," ruled Judge Megan Lake Thornton of
Fayette District Court in levying fines of $100 and $200 in recent
weeks against the two women, who had obtained emergency protection
orders forbidding future contact with their partners but later
relented and contacted the men. Thornton, ruling that the order was
mutually binding, cited the men for contempt as well.
"It drives me nuts when people just decide to do whatever they want,"
said Thornton, who is experienced in the state's thick domestic abuse
docket, which produces close to 30,000 emergency orders of protection
a year. State officials describe what they say is a virtual epidemic
of abusive relationships in the state.
Thornton's ruling alarmed advocates for battered women, who plan to
appeal it.
The advocates say the finding goes beyond existing law and is
unrealistic because some renewed contacts often prove unavoidable in
domestic abuse cases, which involve economic and family dependencies
and other complications of daily living.
The state office on domestic violence has pointedly agreed, warning
that the ruling could cause abused women to hesitate in bringing their
plight before the courts for fear of being chastised for their
trouble.
"The reality is it's easy to say they should never have contact,"
said Sherry Currens, executive director of the Kentucky Domestic
Violence Association, an advocacy and legal protection group.
"But we're talking about people in long-term relationships. They may
have children in common. It's pretty hard to say, `Never speak again.'
People have financial difficulties. They may love the partner. It's
not an easy thing."
But Thornton declared in court, "When these orders are entered, you
don't just do whatever you damn well please and ignore them."
The ruling stunned Cindra Walker, lawyer for the two women, who is
with Central Kentucky Legal Services, which represents many of the
thousands of indigent women in the state caught in abusive
relationships.
"For over five years, I've been in court practically every day on
these abuse cases, and I've never before had a victim threatened with
contempt," Walker said.
"The domestic violence law is a tool for victims to use to be safe,"
not a device to punish them, she said.
One of the women said she eventually moved back with her partner while
the other had occasional contacts, Walker said.
Thornton's two rulings made clear that she expected the original
protection orders against all contact to apply equally to the person
suspected of abuse and the abused.
"They are orders of the court," the judge declared, according to
court transcripts obtained by The Lexington Herald-Leader.
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1207022
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1207022"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020112b
=text
<h1>West Banky Panky in Personal Ad Blitz</h1>
By ANDY SOLTIS
February 12, 2002 -- "Dark-Eyed Palestinian Temptress" says she's
ready to settle down "and go home" with a Jewish man who will "get me
there." Her plea is one of 16 similar personal ads - from "Hot
Palestinian Semite" and "Exotic Palestinian Semite Sensuous Love
Goddess" - looking for Jewish and Israeli boyfriends in this week's
Village Voice.
One ad joked: "You Stole The Land, May As Well Take the Women!"
The sudden appearance of the ads - about one-fifth of all the Voice's
"women seeking men" this week - has prompted the newspaper to
investigate.
Several of the advertisers make clear they want to live in Israel -
and that is raising some concern in Jewish groups.
"There seems to be something orchestrated here, but orchestrated for
what purpose?" said Ken Jacobson, associate director of the
Anti-Defamation League.
"One common theme, if this is to be taken seriously, is that it is an
effort to get Palestinians into Israel."
Palestinians who marry Israelis can obtain Israeli citizenship -
thereby sidestepping the controversial Palestinian demand for the
"right to return" to Israel that has been one of the most difficult in
years of peace talks.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
said the ads reminded him of several instances in which Palestinian
men married Israeli women in the northern Galilee area, divorced after
a year or two, and remained legally in Israel.
"They used the system to beat the system," he said.
The Voice also had two Palestinian-men-seeking-Jewish-women ads in
this week's issue.
Last July, there was a Voice issue that had several similar
women-seeking-men ads but they stopped as mysteriously as they began.
A Voice spokeswoman said it was unclear if the ads were part of a
campaign.
Spokeswoman Jessica Bellucci said the newspaper's ad department began
looking into the ads a few days ago and was trying to contact all the
suspect advertisers.
But so far, the newspaper's inquiry didn't "raise any red flags."
Calls placed by The Post to half a dozen of the women-seeking-men in
the current issue received no response yesterday.
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of
NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2001 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights
reserved.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/41195.htm"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020219
=text
<h1>Kingsize, not queen: Some men have taken to wearing pantyhose</h1>
By Kevin Helliker
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Feb. 19 -- Robert Rodgers used to carry into stores a list of items
such as milk, eggs and pantyhose, hoping others would think he was
shopping for a wife or girlfriend. But he is no longer hiding the
truth. "The pantyhose are for me," says Mr. Rodgers, a 34-year-old
San Francisco financial manager for an entertainment union.
IT'S NOT NEWS that some men like to wear women's clothing. But a
different sort of man is discovering the virtues of ladies' hosiery.
No cross-dresser, he wears hose for warmth, comfort or the
compression they provide as a possible antidote to circulatory
problems or varicose veins. How his pantyhose look -- or what other
people think of them -- becomes moot once he puts on his slacks. "I
don't broadcast what I wear under my pants," says Steve Newman, an
Ohio engineering-firm manager who wears L'eggs Sheer Energy Active
Support under them, among other brands.
Determining the amount of hosiery hiding beneath male trousers is
impossible because store cashiers don't usually record the buyer's
sex. But statistics online, where a man can buy hose without raising
eyebrows, point to an authentic niche. At Shapings.com, a lingerie
Web site offering European brands, about 85% of women's-hosiery sales
go to males, many of whom place two orders -- large sizes for
themselves and smaller ones for their wives. A "small" percentage of
sales of the No Nonsense brand go to men. Based on communications with
these customers, parent Kayser-Roth Corp. estimates that 40% are
cross-dressers, and most of the rest are men who simply like or need
to wear pantyhose.
A generations-old wholesaler of women's hosiery called G. Lieberman &
Sons has restructured itself into a manufacturer and online purveyor
of pantyhose made exclusively for men, called Comfilon. "There's a
whole underground culture of normal, mainstream guys who wear hose,"
says Chief Executive Steve Katz. Most buy women's brands. Mr. Katz
says he sells hundreds of thousands of dollars a year worth of
three-year-old Comfilon, which has male-specific features such as a
fly in front. The company's motto: "Comfilons are not your mother's
pantyhose."
Men working outdoors sometimes find that nylon, unlike thermal
underwear, provides warmth without bulk and without absorbing
perspiration. For that reason, professional football players
occasionally wear pantyhose during cold games. Men whose jobs require
long hours of standing say that pantyhose can reduce leg pain,
swelling and fatigue. Increasingly, doctors recommend that
long-distance fliers wear tight-fitting hosiery or socks, to prevent
getting blood clots in their legs.
Men's sense of freedom to wear pantyhose is growing at the same time
that women feel freer not to wear them. It is much less common these
days for companies to prohibit bare legs. A big problem for the
hosiery industry is that many young women now eschew pantyhose even
when wearing skirts.
The industry sells $1.4 billion a year in pantyhose in the U.S.
alone. But unit volume has been declining. At Sara Lee Corp., the
largest player through its L'eggs and Hanes brands, unit volume of
sheer hosiery fell 8% in 2001, "reflecting the continuing decline in
the global sheer hosiery market," the company said.
The prospect of a whole new customer base would be enticing -- if not
for the decades-long promotion of pantyhose to women, based on sex
appeal. That old slogan, "Gentlemen Prefer Hanes," didn't mean they
liked it on their own legs. The idea of pantyhose on men was so
unthinkable that quarterback Joe Namath got a big laugh by donning
them for a television commercial in 1973 for Hanes's Beauty Mist
brand.
If the industry suddenly tried marketing to both sexes, would it
alienate women in greater numbers than it attracted men? Sara Lee has
no plans to market to men. At Kayser-Roth's No nonsense, Vice
President of Development Diane Warren notes that the potential
problems extend beyond marketing. "It would be difficult to get a
retailer like Wal-Mart to devote shelf space to a pantyhose for men,"
she says.
Still, it isn't a big jump to pantyhose from nylon running tights, or
cycling pants of the sort that are increasingly popular among men
eager to look like Lance Armstrong. Also bridging the gap are support
hose prescribed to men with phlebitis or a history of blood clots.
Although over-the-counter pantyhose don't provide sufficient
compression to combat serious vein or circulatory problems, support
hose can help minor cases, doctors say.
But whether the incentive for pulling on that first pair is athletic
performance or improved circulation, many men keep wearing women's
hosiery because it feels good. Mr. Rodgers, a former college athlete,
substituted his girlfriend's pantyhose for his running tights one day
as an experiment. A decade later, "I wear them every day under my
clothes to work," he says, praising not just their comfort but
efficiency. "It combines underwear, socks and thermals all in one."
For the industry, a key to marketing to such men might be the naming
of the product. So many men were buying women's brands at Wolford AG,
the luxury hosiery company based in Austria, that four years ago it
started offering male products. Its tights for men -- a $90 cotton
velvet offering -- aren't called tights. They're called the
Waistsock. Amid last year's recession, Wolford America posted
double-digit sales growth in that category. "There's nothing feminine
about our men's products," says Karen Schneider, Wolford's chief
executive officer.
But Waistsock doesn't seem sufficiently macho to Rob Safko. A
construction contractor in Ontario, Mr. Safko has such severe
varicose veins that a doctor ordered medical support hose. He wears
them as prescribed during long-pants season -- but not under shorts in
the summer. "I can't see the guys being too understanding about that,"
he says.
Mr. Safko has given considerable thought to how the pantyhose
industry might market a product for guys, and not only because he
uses them himself. His wife, Nicole, founded Shapings.com, and he
moonlights as her assistant. In selling women's brands online to
other men, he has learned that many wear hosiery during athletic
endeavors, such as cold-weather cycling. Thus, Mr. Safko asserts, the
industry should devise a name that suggests strength and endurance. He
would choose "Men's Power Skin," he says.
Legwear purveyors contend that men wearing pantyhose belong to a
tradition dating back to European aristocracy. "There are portraits
200 years ago of royalty who wore exactly this garment," Mr. Katz
says of his Comfilon male pantyhose.
But since most people don't regard male pantyhose wearers as
conventional, let alone traditional, many men hush it up. Larry
Sobczak, a Michigan journalist and avid cyclist, secretly has worn
pantyhose for a decade, without mentioning it even to his brothers.
The stigma bothers him. "I once had a girlfriend steal a pair of my
boxers," he says. "Why is that OK -- women wearing men's boxers --
but it's a big problem if I steal a pair of her pantyhose?"
Many guys say their wives or girlfriends have no problem with it. "I
had a girlfriend who liked to help me pick them out," says Mr.
Rodgers.
A few men wear pantyhose publicly. "I'm 57 and don't care what
anybody thinks," says Ron Torgeson, a buyer for an Indiana mechanical
contractor.
A pantyhose user for medical reasons, Mr. Torgeson wore them under
his shorts last summer on a fishing trip with a buddy. "When he came
down to the boat, my friend noticed my hose and asked, Do those
help?' And I said, They do.' Then he started asking me about
hosiery. He seemed quite interested in it."
Copyright ) 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://msnbc.com/news/710941.asp?0dm=C27AB&cp1=1"
#>
=eod
=data frater.new.story020305
=text
<h1>Nookie On Base For Soldiers</h1>
Tuesday March 5, 10:47 AM
Unmarried soldiers are being allowed to spend nights in barracks with
their girlfriends in a break with Army tradition.A number of
commanding officers around the country have already introduced the
policy at weekends and others are set to follow.The move will affect
around half of the Army's 100,000 soldiers.
It is hoped it will help persuade recruits to stay on in the service.
The Army is also setting up a number of "welfare houses" - bed and
breakfast accommodation which soldiers will be able to book for a
weekend with their girlfriends.
Alcohol will also be allowed on the premises.
<h3>Relaxing</h3>
An Army spokesman said: "We have been looking quite hard at the regime
and how soldiers are treated within peacetime barracks.
"Many of the Army's rules and regulations have been around since the
days of conscription and are no longer so applicable in 21st century
Britain."
The spokesman added: "This is an example of how we are relaxing
certain rules. Soldiers are individuals and what they do in their
private lives is their own affair."
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020305/140/ctdcr.html"
#>
=eod
=// (See <#hreftext "frater.new.story&arg2=story020307"
=data frater.new.story020307
=text
<h1>Syphilis More Than Doubles</h1>
By Margaret Ramirez
STAFF WRITER
March 7, 2002
Reported cases of syphilis more than doubled in the city from 2000 to
2001, mostly among men - prompting concern of a possible resurgence of
the HIV epidemic, health officials said.
Preliminary data from the city Department of Health for last year
found that there were 282 reported cases of primary and secondary
syphilis in New York City, a significant jump from the 117 cases
reported in 2000. The reported cases marked an increasing trend that
began in 1999, health officials said.
Of the 282 syphilis cases reported, 93 percent occurred among men;
and approximately 43 percent of those cases were men who had sex with
men, health officials said.
Officials from the city Department of Health presented the
preliminary syphilis findings yesterday at the National STD Prevention
Conference in San Diego. The conference was co-sponsored by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Social
Health Association.
Nationwide, syphilis cases have dropped, reaching an all-time low of
5,979 infections in 2000. But, at the same time, several cities have
reported syphilis outbreaks among gay males including New York,
Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami.
Syphilis can be transmitted through direct contact with a syphilis
sore during sex. A single sore usually marks the disease's primary
stage; the disease can progress to secondary stage when one or more
areas of the skin break into a rash. A person can easily pass the
disease to sex partners in primary or secondary stage. Syphilis
usually can be cured with penicillin.
Susan Blank, assistant commissioner of the Health Department's STD
Control Program, said the syphilis outbreak in New York involves men
having sex with men, many of whom also are infected with the HIV
virus.
The high proportion of men with both infections is of concern because
syphilis increases the risk of transmitting HIV.
"In response to this trend, the Health Department has initiated a
number of activities to interrupt syphilis transmission," Blank said.
One study is already underway at the Callen-Lorde Community Health
Center in Chelsea. Dr. Dawn Harbatkin, medical director, said the
health department is developing a control group of about 100 gay men
to gain insight on how to prevent the disease.
"Negotiating a sexual encounter is a complicated process. And the
numbers show that the prevention messages aren't working," Harbatkin
said. "We have to go back to the drawing board and start over."
Copyright ) 2002, Newsday, Inc.
<#include frater.new.cache
"http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-nysyph072614434mar07.story"
#>
=eod