And dare I ask: what of men? I understand that only women can get pregnant, and this is a very important aspect of their health care that does not apply to men. But don’t things like HIV, contraception, domestic violence, and STIs apply to men? Do they not deserve some freebies too?
And what of the myriad other health problems we all face? If the socialist camel has gotten his nose in the tent regarding women’s reproductive care, why shouldn’t his whole body and then a whole herd of camels follow? The answer is, of course, that universal “free” coverage has always been the intention of the left. And getting the birth control mandate in there slyly and secretly was the way to go, because Obamacare probably would never have been passed if its designers and proponents had been upfront and put it in the statute itself.
Apparently, some people would rather hurt themselves than spend time alone, according to this study:
Washington (AFP) – Many people would rather inflict pain on themselves than spend 15 minutes in a room with nothing to do but think, according to a US study out Thursday.
Researchers at the University of Virginia and Harvard University conducted 11 different experiments to see how people reacted to being asked to spend some time alone.
Just over 200 people participated in the experiments. Some were college students, others were volunteers who ranged in age from 18-77 and were recruited from a church and farmers’ market.
Some of the subjects would rather shock themselves than sit alone with their own thoughts:
They offered students in one of the studies a chance to rate various stimuli, from seeing attractive photographs to the feeling of being given an electric shock about as strong as one that might come from dragging one’s feet on a carpet.
After the participants felt the shock, which Westgate described as mild, some even said they would prefer to pay $5 rather than feel it again.
Then each subject went into a room for 15 minutes of thinking time alone. They were told they had the opportunity to shock themselves, if desired.
Two-thirds of the male subjects — 12 out of 18 — gave themselves at least one shock while they were alone.
Most of the men shocked themselves between one and four times. However, one “outlier” shocked himself 190 times.
A quarter of the women, six out of 24, decided to shock themselves, each between one and nine times.
There was speculation from the study results that people in today’s over-stimulated world need that stimulation and have a hard time sitting alone. A few thoughts: I wonder if the men simply shocked themselves for “shock value” — that is, rather than being afraid to be alone, they did it to entertain themselves by doing the rebellious thing to shock the researchers. Perhaps. Or perhaps they really are that afraid of being alone. The elderly were also willing to shock themselves. Perhaps we treat our elderly like such pariahs that they would rather feel something than nothing.
Perhaps it has as much to do with politics and our socialized view in a “progressive” society that it is better to be an extroverted sort who is a collectivist. Those who are independent-minded and don’t need others are seen as suspect. Probably because they are not dependent on the government and might be harder to control. I could go on, but I will stop here with my speculation. Maybe the people in the experiment just need to read Susan Cain’s book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking to get some perspective.
Why do you think people in the study can’t sit alone?
Mark Perry at AEI: “If a 13.3% pay gap at the Obama White House results from factors having nothing to do with gender discrimination, isn’t is possible that the national gender pay gaps also have nothing to do with discrimination? That is, if a 13.3% White House gender pay gap can be explained by factors other than discrimination, can’t a similar gender pay gap, if it exists at Target, Ford or ExxonMobil, also be explained by factors other than discrimination?”
A Voice for Men has put up the press conference from the men’s conference in Detroit. I participated (my segment is at 1:02) along with 10 other panel members:
I have been at the men’s conference sponsored by A Voice for Men in Detroit for the past couple of days. It has been quite a delight to meet up with so many like-minded people on men’s issues. I met in person many of my personal heroes including paternity fraud activist Carnell Smith, columnist Barb Kay, author Warren Farrell, and more.
The crowd of what looked to be about two or three hundred people were diverse and ranged from all ages to all ethnic backgrounds. There were more men there but almost as many women it seemed! There were young men attending the conference who quietly came up and asked me to sign books and middle-aged and older who just stopped by and told me they had read my book and felt that it helped them in some way.
I met the young women who call themselves the Honey Badgers who fund-raised enough money to pay their expenses to go to the conference. Many people at the conference had sacrificed a lot to be there whether it was paying their own way, taking time off from work or struggling with physical problems that limited their ability to travel. I was in awe and amazed at the great group of intellectual speakers and the audience who asked questions that were critically thought out and challenging.
My only concern with the conference was the media that was present. It seemed that reporters from Time, MSNBC, GQ, and Vice.com were there. I got an uneasy feeling about a few of them though I suppose their stories could go either way, though I think I know which way to bet. There were a couple of women from Vice.com that we sat with at an appreciation dinner for speakers who seemed very nice but frankly, a bit clueless. The woman writing the story, Alexandra Lynn, said that she could not connect with the issues at the conference stating that she was writing her article in the first person and could not relate as she was from NYC and no one she knew acted this way. The women and men were apparently equal and didn’t have issues. I told her to look outside NYC and realize that there is a bigger world out there. And who knows, if men were interviewed in NYC, they may have a different story. I told her to look at the stats at who pays for things but first person accounts may not take any facts into consideration.
That said, the conference was a huge success, the organizers did the best they could given the circumstances and everyone seemed to be digesting and learning a lot from the detailed and fascinating material being presented on gender politics, domestic violence, misandry in the media and so much more. It was great being in a setting where the Politically Correct did not rule and real information was being discussed.
My husband Glenn and I did interviews for PJTV and hopefully, those will be up at some point!
I had to laugh as I read this article from the Daily Mail on why men don’t want women who want to stay home with kids: “Why are today’s young men so scared of girls who want to have children? Olivia Fane always yearned for a family. Her grown-up sons see life VERY differently”:
So last night I bated my breath and asked my three eldest sons, all over 21, the following outright: if a girl in her 20s wanted to get married, have kids and give up work, would it put you off dating her?
Tom, as the eldest, probably the one who should be most immediately considering family life, baulked at the very question. He’s been with his Spanish girlfriend, Estephania, for four years, and children aren’t even on their radar.
‘I hate that word “marriage”,’ he told me. ‘Marriage belongs to another era. I prefer the word “partnership” because that’s what it should be, a partnership of equals right from the start. Both man and woman should contribute financially to the home, and both should do domestic work. Then they should prove it and not expect a whole year’s maternity leave. It’s scandalous!’
The feminists have been telling men for decades that they want to work just like men. Now the men are asking them to put their money where their mouth is and quit being hypocrites. This son Tom is even doing it in a way that makes himself look like a feminist while standing up for his gender. I love it!
A college-age reader wrote me the following email that I thought readers might find of interest:
Dear Dr. Smith,
My sister will likely divorce. She teetered for some time. They seem firm on the decision now. I support her and the husband – as a brother and brother-in-law, but keep objectivity in my stance, especially in front of my neices and nephew. At one moment, in re-reading your book on my Kindle App, I recalled my sister saying, “Well, if things go wrong, I can still take the kids.” I lost some respect for this woman, my sister, talking in such bias and tacit projected vengeful tones of her current husband (likely ex) through ‘taking’ the kids.
From this inference, probable to assert not an isolated case, how much do heterosexual women – in full knowledge – abuse the legal system prior to litigation proceedings?
I know university-aged – my age -women that openly talk to male and female friends of threatening boyfriends with sexual assault if they get out of line. One guy friend had this happen two years ago. I’m appalled both ethically and emotionally at the gall of even serious verbalizations of such behaviour. I have more stories, but fear a harangue.
I wrote him back a short response:
Thank you for writing and for reading the Kindle version of my book. I think that you are correct, women do know that they can get back up from the legal system if “things go wrong.” It does not happen every time but for the most part, women get the kids in 82 percent of the cases of divorce. I read recently that the party in a marriage who files for divorce is generally the person who believes they will get the kids and that is generally the wife. Women file for around 70% of the divorces so this makes sense.
It seems, at least in my experience that most women like your sister or the university -aged women you mention have no idea that what they are saying is cruel, sexist and is essentially blackmail in that they use the state and the legal system to keep men in line. They see themselves as “nonviolent” and/or victims while using the government etc. to do their dirty work for them….
I, too, am appalled at this behavior and believe it is why we must all work together to change the way that the legal system and the culture treat men. Thanks again for writing.
I also think that women get away with this type of behavior because no one will call them on it. The legal system doesn’t care and the culture almost encourages it.
What other ways can women use the legal system in this way? Have you or someone you know ever experienced this? How did you cope or deal with it?
Christina Hoff Sommers discusses Title IX and the scorched earth campaign against men’s sports:
Peter Lloyd at The Telegraph: “Why anonymity for men accused of rape is imperative:”
Oxford University students are considered some of the most privileged people in the country.
But the sexist, irrational witch-hunt suffered by Ben Sullivan, the college’s Union President, shows that even those destined for greatness aren’t above a legal system that currently hates men.
After five weeks of public humiliation, finger-pointing and gender bias – both on campus and in the media – police confirmed that he won’t face a single charge over two unfounded rape allegations.
Not one. Nothing. Nadda.
But, like countless men all over the world – including Paul Weller, Amy Winehouse’s ex-boyfriend Reg Traviss, Nigel Evans MP, William Roache and Craig Charles – Sullivan’s life has already been affected by a system that considers men’s innocence a bonus, not a baseline.