Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Are All Male's Liars

Intimidation and threats are common throughout society, whether it's in the school playground, sporting arena or boardroom. Threatening behaviour is equally widespread among non-human animals. "Male crayfish lie and cheat their way to the top, whilst females appear to be honest displayers of their own strength", Robbie Wilson said. "This is important work showing that dishonesty is commonly used by animals during fights", said Wilson. "We already knew humans often use dishonesty during disputes, but our results suggest cheating may play a more important role in animal communication than previously imagined." For the full article: Click Here. Is anyone surprised? ;-)

I'm not surprised. It is fashionable to beat up on men now. I am one of the few women who calls themselves a masculinist. A great book to read on men's rights is The Myth of Male Power.

Dictionary definition:- Masculinist = An advocate of mens rights
opp. feminist; cf. hominist

I,m so glad to hear this, there is no doubt that more and more women are pleased, and welcome the fact that more men are saving the world, by staying at home and looking after its future. i,e The family children. Their education, is of paramount importance. With more and more children growing up accepting life through their father and his "new mans eyes" The working women, and the stay-at-home man is becoming the accepted norm.
No-where is this type of life happening more than in Europe.
Prehaps society will get better, run smoother?
Since more and more women are holding down high profile jobs, driving four wheel gas guzzlers seeing their psychiatrist, popping pills, drinking, and even commiting suicide,...a result of the mental strains of looking after their family,and keeping up with the neighbours.
Good on you scgp02, when you come home and your man tells you he put his feet and relaxed for a couple of hours in front of the TV, between a trip to the Laundromat and the fast food take away
...you know he is a liar.

--------------------
Relish Today Ketchup Tomorrow!

--------Mike Kremer-------
.

LOL! Reality is men should have that choice. Sadly they don't. I'm more concerned with men regaining their procreation rights. Women hold all the cards. He has little or no say in whether she has a child and will pay for it accordingly.

Are all males liars? Yup.

Are all females liars? Yup.

scpg02 wrote:
"I'm more concerned with men regaining their procreation rights."

When did you lose them?
Where did you lose them?
Have you contacted search and rescue?
Perhaps you should have kept your trousers zipped up.

I love it when men, whose skill set ceased development at the time of puberty, look everywhere except in the mirror for the source of the problem.

BTW: Try putting the toilet seat down.

Procreation rights?
Are you living in the middle ages, scpg02?

The fact that she wants you to be the Mother of your children,
should be enough.
As for the act of procreation, you might remember that couples have much more time on their hands than in the past.

And in addition you have the advantage of monthly birth control pills, or the single morning after pill. And other types of contraception. It takes two to agree to tangoe these days.

--------------------
Relish Today Ketchup Tomorrow
Optimism lives for the Living
--------Mike Kremer-------
.

Someone I know:

Went out with a woman who told him she was taking the pill - became pregnant and told him that she wasn't really on the pill and that she had what she wanted so he could get stuffed now - sad dope offered to marry her and do his bit to support both her and child - she refused and moved 300 miles away to Scotland - she gave his name to Child Support Agency - they take around 20% of his net income even though he does not get to see the child - court granted him access but will do nothing to enforce order despite her refusing to let him see child - she now has two more children by different Fathers and lives very happily on State Benefit while 3 men support three children they never get to see.

Procreation rights for men?

Blacknad.

First of all I'm female. Second, men lost their rights to procreation with the advent of the pill and government as substitute fathers.

You have no idea what I'm talking about do you?

You have illustrated the need for it admirably. She should have been put in jail for fraud.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I dated a girl who was a few years younger than me. We were always very careful, but little did I know that she was intentionally taking overdoses of her birth control pill in order to make her body think it was pregnant. She tells me she's pregnant, she comes up positive on a pregnancy test, and her belly begins to grow as is it was pregnant. She insists that we get married as quickly as possible.

She was rather surprised to learn that I, coming from a divorced-parent household, feel that "getting married for the sake of the child" makes about as much sense as putting syrup on on a doghouse to keep away the rocks.

I offered to support her and the child financially, and she freaked out. She told her father I'd gotten her pregnant and refused to "do the right thing" and the guy literally tried to kill me.

When the truth came out about the faked pregnancy, I moved to another state just to get away from her whole psychotic family.

Had she dated a bigger sucker, he'd have been stuck in a marriage. She would doubtlessly have pretended a miscarriage, but by then he'd already owe her alimony if he decided to pursue a divorce.

Men's procreation rights? Whatta joke.

w

Sad story.
No answer to that one. Apart from the fact that the Child Support Agency is in a bad state these days, and don't always bother to trace the errant father, if he moves around.
Your friend could pack in his job, and go on the 'dole', or since he is unmarried, go abroad. I can also see UK State Benefits being substantialy cut before long. Something about the UK Government having to support more and more legal, and illegal Immigrants children costing too much.

Yes they are currently a joke. That's why I advocate for them. Your story was not on the opposite end of the spectrum as you claimed but on the same end as me.

Everyone seems to have misinterpreted my position on men?s rights especially when it comes to procreation. One even claiming to be on the opposite end of the spectrum when clearly they are on the same end. I advocate reading a book called the Myth of Male Power.

If men are the all powerful sex?

• Why are they the suicide sex? (Why are we unaware that our grandfathers are 1350% more likely to commit suicide than our grandmothers?)
• Why did men live one year less than women in 1920 but live seven years less than women in 1990?
• Why are our dads about as likely to die of prostate cancer as our mothers are of breast cancer while breast cancer receives 660% more funding?
• Why do men make more money but have lower net worth?

scpg02 wrote:
"Yes they are currently a joke. That's why I advocate for them."

See a psychologist.

scpg02 asks:
"Why are we unaware that our grandfathers are 1350% more likely to commit suicide than our grandmothers?"

Also more likely to commit murder, rape, and armed robbery. Is there a point here beyond the purely rhetorical? How about why are men less willing to take antidepressants than women?

scpg02 asks:
"Why did men live one year less than women in 1920 but live seven years less than women in 1990?"

See above.

scpg02 asks:
"Why are our dads about as likely to die of prostate cancer as our mothers are of breast cancer while breast cancer receives 660% more funding?"

Because life is unfair. Got a great idea. Instead of whining why don't you answer the following question? How much money have you contributed in the last 60 days to the fight against prostate cancer?

Perhaps it is because women are willing to rally around fighting their disease ... Walk for the Cure, Susan Komen Foundation, etc. When have you ever seen men marching in the street demanding more attention paid to testicular or prostate cancer? Don't blame other for your personal unwillingness and inability to do more than an anonymous whine at SAGG.

scpg02 asks:
"Why do men make more money but have lower net worth?"

I don't know. Why don't you go ask Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffet, ....

What a pathetic crock.

I don't think so.
No woman who looks after three children is ever going to be put in jail, not here in the UK.
That would make 4 people being a burden to the State, plus any child psychological problems, that might result.
No one in the UK is ever forced to live with another, whatever the previous circumstances of marriage, common law, or other commitments.
We have some of the most liberal laws in Europe, and certainly some of the most liberal prisons..Television, Library, External Study Courses, no chains or manacles, visiting rights and able to get married are all allowed for long term interns.
Long term for murder in the UK normally means 20-30 years. With release (parole) after serving 2/3 of sentence.
Compared to prisons in America, ours are a 'holiday camp'

No wonder the EU countrys are queueing up for entry here.
At the moment we are flooded out in London with Polish, Turkish, French, Russian, and Albanian immigrants, in that order. Having previously absorbed Chinese, Latvian, Indian, African, Negro and other ethnic groups from the left overs of the 'British Empire'

We try to cater for multi ethnic school children. All of our State schools, provide up to 16 different language translations of School notices. We have done away with 'morning assembly' which required morning prayers, dependant upon whether the school was Catholic or Protestant.

Yep, London is a very vibrant place to live in, indeed.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror."

.....Mike Kremer.
.

Dan,

For someone who is more likely to stand up for women than the suffragettes themselves, you are certainly giving this woman a hard time.

You seem to have taken a dislike to scpg02 for no good reason.

She has already made a contribution to SAGG with some great threads.

If you scare her away, you should hang your head.

As Amaranth says, 'there is room for all in the sandbox' - or something like that.

Stop beating up on people before you really know them.

Blacknad.

I don't believe much of anything scpg02 has posted to date including, but not limited to, location and gender.

And I couldn't care whether s/he is the family cat my statements are made, unequivocally, without prejudice due to race, creed, religion, national origin, culture, language, gender, etc.

What I would say to a man I will say to a woman.

It is not my intention to scare her/him away. But I don't believe for one minute there is a woman on the planet decrying the money spent to cure the disease the killed my wife.

I'll be in Sacramento in May. How about it scpg02? If you are really in the Sacramento area ... pick the Starbucks of your choice.

Not only am I in Sacramento but I am willing to meet with you. I do, however, expect you to act more civilized than you have here. But hey if you would rather beat up on me than get to know me, your choice and your loss.

I don't decry the money spent on the disease that killed your wife. You assume too much. I have to go for a mammogram myself to have a lump checked. My problem is with women who cry me me me all the time at the expense of men. Men are treated abysmally by women. As the mother of two fine young men, I have a problem with that. I?ve had to deal with Vice Principals that are feminazis. They believe that girls can do no wrong and boys are evil. They school system is set up to cater to girls at the expense of the boys.

Me about 15 years ago

Me at the 2002 World Ag Expo

Me last month

I'll let you know when I make my plans and will be there sometime in May. You can discuss my rough exterior with Blacknad who I met, with his lovely wife, in Birmingham England last year. My bark is substantially worse than my bite. But I must confess that nothing you have posted, to date, would have led me to conclude you were anything other than a male between age 25 and 32.

However when you write: "Men are treated abysmally by women." I must strongly disagree. I've yet to figure out why it is that women tolerate male behavior. When women take the lead committing murder, armed robbery, rape, torture, starting wars, and getting in street fights I will start to consider the playing field even.

Yes there are some over-the-top females around. But there are far more under-the-gutter males. Far far more. And a quick review of history will clearly demonstrate that the vast majority of human misery and suffering has been at the hands of men.

The facts do not support you.

How about this?

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: January 2007

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations: 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here are more facts from another site:

Violence against children by women is another issue where the public
attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.

* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When
the man is removed from the family the children are at greater
risk.
* Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-
only households.
* Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only
Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more
likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other
than the biological father.
* Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely
to become killers than children raised with their biological
father.

Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:
* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than
they hit their female children.
* Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male
children.
* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first
experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

While you portray men as violent, containing all that is evil in the world, you ignore the fact that men are the resuers. Which gender routinely puts their own lives at risk for others? Which gender comprises the bulk of firefighters, cops, etc? Which gender is used when the risk of death is high?

Men are treated as the disposable gender.

BTW, the book I linked in an earlier post was written by a man who was the President of the NY chapter of NOW.

Men are very aggressive towards other men, and this may partially be due to the social stigma associated with venting their emotions in other ways. Men are forced by societal norms to bottle up their emotions, or to express them in an aggressive manner towards other men. Bottling up leads to eventual high-pressure release, usually (again) in the form of aggression. That men are the participants in gang fights and in violent crimes is no surprise to me - there's no other socially accepted way to get those feelings out.

Women are allowed to cry and emote in any way they want. They have less need for violent outbursts.

But that's just part of it. The other part is that violent crimes by women go largely unreported. Few men are willing to admit to being raped by a woman, few men are willing to admit to being beaten up by their wives, and police are more likely to let women go with a warning than to arrest them when the situation is in a gray area.

Men are far less likely to report spousal abuse against them than are women. If a man hits his wife, he's likely to go to jail. When a woman hits her husband, she's likely to receive a bouquet of flowers from him apologizing for whatever he did that instigated the violence.

The fact that most women can't hit as hard as most men enters into it a little bit: A punch from a wife is less likely to do real damage than a punch from a husband. But that doesn't make it any less aggressive, nor should it make it any more acceptable. In fact, it may be because of this discrepancy that women are more likely to use weapons in domestic disputes than men. When's the last time you heard about a man throwing a pot at a woman?

Remember when Tanya Harding threw a hubcap at her boyfriend? Most news outlets reported it as just another whacky behavior from a celebrity. If he'd thrown it at her, they would have reported it as the truly maniacal behavior that it was.

Men are jerks. I have no illusions about that. I used to think that a few men were jerks and made the rest of us look bad. But I eventually came to realize that the vast majority of men on this planet are total a-holes and that just a few of us are nice guys. But to confuse that with the idea that men are truly the dominant gender is a mistake made by too many people.

w

DA Morgan; after reading many of your responses to posts on this website, I have come to the understanding that you are nothing more than a troll. A troll who has set themselves up as moderator.Your harsh replies to scpg02 were in poor form and quite uncalled for. If you had taken the time to read her posts at least twice,you may have had a better understanding of who she is and what she was trying to say. I was just listening to a podcast of Aristotle's philosophies, were he was commenting that, "to the vulgar man, the world is absolute and there is no swaying his opinion."........

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_33.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_35.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_37.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_39.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_40.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_42.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_45.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_48.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_51.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_54.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_57.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_60.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_63.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_66.html

Knock yourself out looking for excuses ... the numbers don't lie here any more than they do in climatology.

It is exactly, and precisely, what it appears to be.

And why women tolerate it is beyond my wildest imagination.

Yes they do when you get to pick and choose. You think your 15 odd charts compare to the 196 scholarly investigations: 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews I cited above? You didn't even look at the list did you?

Dan,

Part of what Wayne says is relevant here.

People are less likely to report a crime, especially things like assault, if it is a woman doing the hitting.

Your figures may be a long way off the reality.

Interesting that male crime goes down by 7% over ten years and women's goes up 7%. Wonder what's behind that. Any ideas?

Blacknad.

Wayne wrote:

"Men are very aggressive towards other men, and this may partially be due to the social stigma associated with venting their emotions in other ways."

Now, Wayne, have you not seen any other species in its natural habitat? It's totally natural. Where humans differ is that culture can offset this natural inclination to some extent.

scpg02 asks:
"You think your 15 odd charts compare to the 196 scholarly investigations"

When my "15 odd charts" are the official reports of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and are the actual basis of essentially all scholarly work ... yep ... sure do!

Blacknad wrote:
"People are less likely to report a crime, especially things like assault, if it is a woman doing the hitting."

I agree. But then I suspect you will agree that women subject to rape and abuse grossly under-report that crime so touche'.

Be honest here ... when you were in college ... did you ever meet a male forced to have sex or beaten up by his girlfriend?

Now ... and equally honest ... did you ever date a girl who hadn't had to fight some guy off who was trying to get into her knickers?

And for those among you who are base ... yes even the ugly ones.

I do have a suspicion as to why the crime rates are equalizing. But lets put that in a different thread. Care to start it?

No, but oh how often I wished it would happen

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"No, but oh how often I wished it would happen"

Exactly my point.

There is a huge amount of whining about how males are too embarrassed to report being sexually assaulted. Yeah. Sure. We are biologically wired to say THANK YOU to any woman who so much as shows up.

Of course there are exceptions. We are talking about human behaviour after all. But those exceptions are few and far between and being pointed too in an attempt to promote a point with near zero-value.

Let's not be so ignorant about a terrible crime:


* There were approximately 4,890 rapes of males age 12 and over in the United States in 1994. The rate for rapes of males was .8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
* In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in The Crime of Rape that there were 123,000 male rapes over a ten-year period. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985).

And that's just the REPORTED incidents. Non-reporting of male rape is so common that burglars have been known to rape the victims of their home invasion robberies just to keep them from going to the police.

Trust me, these people did NOT say "thank you".

Rape is not a sexual act. It is a power play. Being raped is not a pleasurable sexual experience. It is a denigrating, soul crushing loss of control to a monster.

To talk about it being something that you'd say "Thank You" about is to completely yank the rug out from under the victims of these crimes and shows a complete and total disregard for the well-being of others. It's abominable that so many people think like you do. You should, quite honestly, be ashamed.

w

Given that the population is roughly 50% female and 50% male how about putting those numbers into perspective?

From the FBI's statistics on rape:

Total Male Female
7,065 6,966 99
100% 98.6% 1.4%

The males would need to under report at a ratio of 3500% to roughly equal the population and that would still require assuming that females don't similarly under-report.

But lets have this discussion on the basis of something where there is zero under-reporting and essentially zero possibility of mistaken gender identification. How about bank robbery?

You are absolutely correct Wayne when you say it is a crime of violence not sex. And so far women, for reasons both biological and cultural have not been the ones to pick up swords.

Speaking of the FBI statistics, and putting numbers in perspective, how about we take the number of violent crimes commited by men (say in 2005) and consider what percentage that is, of all males in the study ( I think the stats had the total population of the study around 130 mill, and DA wants us to divide male and female up 50/50). That leaves a percentage of men in the US who commit violent crimes at under one percent. To some this seems to be enough evidence to generalize that the whole gender is violent. They never ask the question of why these men might be more prone to violence, they simply draw the conclusion that all men are more prone to violence. Real enlightened.

To put it another way, if we had the gender breakdown regarding charitible contributions and found that men donated more, would we be right in saying that men were a more compassionate gender, or would there be other reasons why their statistics could be higher?

You're right, Dan: Since it doesn't happen as often, it's perfectly okay to act like it's no problem and that the victims should be thanking their attackers. After all, what kind of wuss could let a woman get away with that if they didn't really want it? They obviously don't count and should be laughed at and told that they should be thanking their aggressors.

Dan, you're a smart guy. But in this you have disgusted me. I think it's time for me to pick up my toys and go home. That a moderator of the board would be so callous and not even think to apologize when his rude attitude is called to the floor is very disappointing in what I had originally thought seemed to be a great discussion forum.

Bye.

Wayne

pathfinder wrote:
"To some this seems to be enough evidence to generalize that the whole gender is violent."

Not to me. In fact I think you will find the percentage far smaller than that when you consider that most crime is by repeat offenders.

My only point was that it is disingenuous to point to women as the issue when men are 90+% of it.

Pathfinder asks:
"To put it another way, if we had the gender breakdown regarding charitible contributions and found that men donated more, would we be right in saying that men were a more compassionate gender, or would there be other reasons why their statistics could be higher?"

An excellent question so let me give you my initial response with the understanding that I may come back and alter it upon reflection.

First I think we can safely assume that murder and rape are crimes of aggression and that we know the perpetrator's motivation. When it comes to charitable donations it is more confusing. I, for example, have contributed at times because of my social conscience, at times for my political views, and at times just to avoid the tax man. I would be a liar (consistent with the subject of this thread) if I claimed all of my donations were the result of compassion. Tax avoidance is hardly compassionate unless viewed through very selfish eyes.

Then, in the case of married couples, I would need to know further to what extent the donation was the man's idea or the woman's idea, or something they mutually worked on together.

But to end the waffling ... I might.

Wayne wrote:
"But in this you have disgusted me."

You've misread my intent because I wasn't clear.

I in no way consider the burden different by gender for attacks. I would as soon put a woman in prison for life for rape as a man.
My point, to go back to when this thread diverged, was related specifically to the claim that women are worse than men and/or that men are in some manner victims. Let me quote to refresh your memory:

The statement was:
"First of all I'm female. Second, men lost their rights to procreation with the advent of the pill and government as substitute fathers."

I'm not sure how we got to where we are currently. But I'm neither a misogynist nor a reverse misogynist and the day hasn't come when I've been drunk enough to believe I've lost my procreation rights or that the pill has been anything but a boon to my enjoyment of sex.

But I do have a good fallback position ... after all the subject of the thread is ... "Are All Male's Liars." A subject that I think makes a lot of people uncomfortable because we all understand the implications.

If this is what you got out of my post then you need to go back to school. I never made such a claim and the quote of me you used doesn't support the above. Try reading what I post instead of making assumptions. Your knee jerk reactions make you look bad.

I'm trying to be nice here but I don't like it when people twist what I say and then try and slap me down for it. Everyone else seemed to get it.

Ah. So, according to you, this isn't clear:


I think that makes it extremely clear, Dan. "Yeah. Sure." is a sarcastic phrase, in this case referring to the idea that man could be embarrassed by a sexual assualt. You go on to say that "We are biologically wired to say THANK YOU to any woman who so much as shows up." In other words, we should just be grateful we got lucky.

How much more clear could you have been?

I figured I'd check back to see if you at least had the decency to apologize the second time your attitude was called to the floor. I was surprised to find that not only did you not do that, but you even defended your remarks and pretended that you hadn't said what you did. It's pathetic, Dan.

Outta here.

Wayne

Wayne,

Relax and hang around. No ones going to be raped or feel afraid to report a rape due to Dan's words.

Blacknad.

You got me Wayne ... very poorly written. An attempt to be lighten up gone awry.

Not what I intended and not what I believe.

Ok sgcp02 ... lets deal with what you actually wrote point-by-point.

But let me first remind you that before taking this on a tangent the subject of the thread was crayfish.

So here are your exact quotes interspersed with my comments:

If men are the all powerful sex?

* Why are they the suicide sex? (Why are we unaware that our grandfathers are 1350% more likely to commit suicide than our grandmothers?)

Answer: Because they are more likely to suffer from untreated depression. Because they are less connected with family and community. Because they are less likely to ask for help. Because they are less likely to confide in friends. And because they are biologically expendable.

* Why did men live one year less than women in 1920 but live seven years less than women in 1990?

Answer: Don't know but I doubt it is some medical/pharmacological conspiracy. Lets take a look at possible reasons and do so by looking at the cause of their mortality which you haven't stated and the risk factors associated. Do you have that handy?

* Why are our dads about as likely to die of prostate cancer as our mothers are of breast cancer while breast cancer receives 660% more funding?

Answer: Because women are far more politically active and because women are more comfortable about their bodies, sexually speaking, than men and are willing to stand up in public and say "breast" and "cervix" while men will not even talk to each other about "testicles" and "prostates." We men have no one to blame other than ourselves.

* Why do men make more money but have lower net worth?

Answer: Because they are damned fools? Truthfully I don't know and I don't even know that what you wrote is correct. It may be in the US but it most certainly is not for a majority of households on this planet where a woman's net worth is the jewelry she can wear. Consider this excerpt from the New Zealand Treasury:

"70. Neither gender nor marital status appear to affect net wealth"

Source: zeus.econ.umd.edu/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=esam2003&paper_id=81 -

It would be helpful if, when making statements such as those above, you would provide links. For example my attempt to validate the life expectancy numbers you posted failed as the most credible source I can find, MIT, states:

"We have looked at the implications of using only male life expectancy. ... 738) also reports life expectancy for 1920-22 as 59.15 (male) and 63.31 (female)"

When I subtract 59 from 63 I don't get 1.

BTW: The source is:
econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1355

I can respect everything you just presented in your last post DA. If there's anything we all can learn about the issue, it's that statistics and generalizations don't seem to make a good mix.

Little lies, big lies and statistics?

All those questions are from the forward of the book cited above them. You took someone else's words and attributed them to me. Try going to the link and seeing what the book is about. Open your ears and your mind for once.


I have provided links to everything and near as I can tell you have investigated none of them.

You need to take a step back. Your initial judgment of me was in error and you have done nothing but compound it with rudeness. You continue to misquote and misinterpret what I have said.

I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to do.

Are you claiming the bullets you posted were invalid or are you standing behind them?

As I said, above, I have gone to the library here at the University of Washington and can find no support for the statements that involve metrics. They are contradicted in essentially every document I can find.

If the numbers are wrong then, it would seem to me, the arguments must be re-examined as they too may well be wrong.

I will apologize if I am incorrect. But you wrote on the previous page: "I never made such a claim" so I went back to the claim, copied it exactly, and dealt with each and every issue one at a time.

What is it that offends you? Being quoted? Having someone verify the numbers? Finding the numbers can not be substantiated? I am truly at a loss as to your angst.

You didn't quote me. You re-quoted the forward of a book. The questions are meant to entice you to read said book. Read the book and find out what the author has to say about it. I gave you a great link to information on the book. If you can't verify the numbers, that's not my problem. I didn't write the book. I do agree with the author's conclusions. If the numbers in a study you cite are wrong is that your fault? Should I blame you for taking the author's word when he cites where he got his information? Do you double check all those climate studies you so hotly believe in?

My angst comes from your twisting what I say. You've done it from the first post on this board. Stop it. It?s childish and I?m guessing beneath your education level.

You want women to not put up with bad male behavior? I have constantly called you on yours as have other members here. I have tried to be nice and tried to engage you in conversation. Tell me why I should continue to tolerate an arrogant self-righteous ass.

For those who might be interested, The Myth of Male Power was written by Dr. Warren Farrell in 1993. Here is more from the forward:

As the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women in New York City, Dr. Farrell has been listening to both sexes for a quarter of a century and is uniquely able to write in a way that both articulates men?s feelings and helps women feel more love for the men in their lives. As a man who has taought in numerous disciplines, he takes us throughout history, across cultures, and into our psyches today. He helps us understand:

• Why feminism helped us see that God could be a she but not that the devil could also be a she
• Why the political parties are keeping women dependent in exchange for votes
• Why conservatives, liberals, and feminists are all unconsciously undermining genuine equality
• Why the government is becoming a substitute husband

If the book contains seemingly incorrect information ... such as the difference in life expectancy demonstrates ... then were is the value in the book?

If you recommended a book based on it having good solid information I'd be asking for the ISBN. If it was a good novel or such I'd not be looking facts. But if the book is being presented as a basis for gaining information it seems to me there should be some burden put on the author beyond making stuff up or doing poor research.

What is it I am missing?

If the book contains seemingly incorrect information ... such as the difference in life expectancy demonstrates ... then were is the value in the book?

If you recommended a book based on it having good solid information I'd be asking for the ISBN. If it was a good novel or such I'd not be looking facts. But if the book is being presented as a basis for gaining information it seems to me there should be some burden put on the author beyond making stuff up or doing poor research.

What is it you think I am missing?