Our pals in Parliament are at it again, wasting taxpayers dollars, time and patience while throwing mindless barbs at one another. Nothing seems to change in the land of politics. It doesn't seem to matter who is running the country and who is in opposition. It's the same old "Question Period" antics of who can throw out the goofiest rebuttal comment, or who can toss the missile banana to the monkey on the other side of the floor. Then, all of a sudden the accusational fur starts flying and anything worth debating or making a decision on gets tossed aside like yesterdays lunch and the voting public has to endure the media circus lapping it up.........
The latest brouhaha comes from the mouth of the one and only Mr. Peter McKay who, as anyone in this country would know if you have had the radio on, or watched the national news, or picked up a paper or scanned the internet news blew it again. Our Minister of External Affairs, known for his previous throwaway dig to the Leader of the NDP party, Alexa McDonaugh when he told her to return to her knitting (and then had the gall to apologize with the appendum that it was not meant to be a slight, and that it was a Martime expression.............. ah............ not......... never heard it before Mr. Peter Pumpkin eater) faux pas'd again. This time however, he slighted the Ultimate Puck Bunny, the Princess of Auto Parts and his old flame who dumped him for another political party and a dumbass hockey player...............
Peter......... you fed the monkeys. Can you hear the cacophonous screeching you've created?
Didn't you know that monkeys are really sharks in monkey Halloween costumes? The monkey sharks now smell blood because of your throw away comment inferring that Belinda was a dog. She's a Puck Bunny, Peter. Get it right.
The most predominant political monkey talent is connecting the dots..............the banana tossed to them this week allowed the chimps to have the fodder to generate nasty discourse on the budget cuts on the Status of Women office.....an extinct dinosaur if there ever was one.
Now, I consider myself a strong feminist from a family of feminists. But the Office of the Status of Women have never represented my views. In fact, I can't think of one concrete action they have performed in years! Millions of dollars have been poured into basically a lobby group that is perched up in some ivory tower far away from the feminist masses who are out there working their asses off, while they complain to the clouds. My opinion aside, however, the Status of Women is a ticking little icon bomb..........that the opposition will use in guerilla question period warfare. As will the media. It sells papers. How easy is it to drum up a headline that screams:
Peter, you have fed the monkeys. Not only that, you have exposed your personal open wound. They now know where to stick the preverbial knitting needle......right in your eye, "boys oh boys."
Here's connect the dot#2
Women voters, according to the most recent polls are stating that the Conservative government is not looking out for their best interests. Now, whether or not this is true is a moot point when we all know that 99% of the political game is perception. 1% is reality. The hungry orangutans, with the Puck Bunny in the lead as the Women's issues representative for the Liberal party (insert gag reflex here) expressing her disgust, demanding an apology for being compared to a dog. Though she wasn't present during Question Period when the inference occured, word got to her royal highness and she made the best of it....................the Conservatives don't represent women. They don't get women.
Peter...................bon chance in the dating scene...................... what woman would want to face the potential headlines...........
Here's connect the dot #3
This time last year, this Conservative government was in the opposition stables looking for banana missiles. And they found them.........and they used them in the last election. All of a sudden, they are running the country, with a minority win. From the moment the Harper became PM, he has been running things like he has a majority of seats. Initially this was a good tactic because there wasn't a soul in this country who wanted another election. He could get away with it, and used the opportunity to make some necessary changes to legislation, and to the priorities of the government, the most predominant was accountability. He was doing what he said he was going to do. However, one of the biggest challenges Harper faced was to keep a lid on the right wing yahoos out there who managed to win seats. Unfortunately, he has tried to control information sharing and communications with the media and the public. How ironic that the one he probably doesn't worry, Mr. Red Tory McKay, is the biggest gaffer. The perception? The Tories have secrets.........they can't be relied upon..........and when they speak they blurt out bananas......
Here's a thought for our fine furry friends in Ottawa to contemplate............
Bernard Lord's government in New Brunswick won the popular vote, but lost the power. It was a small shift in voter opinion that led to this.........2 seats. Harper needs to pay attention to what happened in New Brunswick. It will easily occur in the next federal election if this party doesn't smarten the hell up.
Harper needs to rethink his communication plans. Harper needs to alter the perception that the voting public has for his government. And, Harper needs to put a muzzle on McKay and make him sit in the naughty chair............without a portfolio........and without a photo op in some farmer's field licking his wounds.
10 Little Monkeys jumping on the bed. One fell off and bumped his head. Momma called the doctor and the doctor said.................No more monkeys jumping on the bed.
The latest brouhaha comes from the mouth of the one and only Mr. Peter McKay who, as anyone in this country would know if you have had the radio on, or watched the national news, or picked up a paper or scanned the internet news blew it again. Our Minister of External Affairs, known for his previous throwaway dig to the Leader of the NDP party, Alexa McDonaugh when he told her to return to her knitting (and then had the gall to apologize with the appendum that it was not meant to be a slight, and that it was a Martime expression.............. ah............ not......... never heard it before Mr. Peter Pumpkin eater) faux pas'd again. This time however, he slighted the Ultimate Puck Bunny, the Princess of Auto Parts and his old flame who dumped him for another political party and a dumbass hockey player...............
Peter......... you fed the monkeys. Can you hear the cacophonous screeching you've created?
Didn't you know that monkeys are really sharks in monkey Halloween costumes? The monkey sharks now smell blood because of your throw away comment inferring that Belinda was a dog. She's a Puck Bunny, Peter. Get it right.
The most predominant political monkey talent is connecting the dots..............the banana tossed to them this week allowed the chimps to have the fodder to generate nasty discourse on the budget cuts on the Status of Women office.....an extinct dinosaur if there ever was one.
Now, I consider myself a strong feminist from a family of feminists. But the Office of the Status of Women have never represented my views. In fact, I can't think of one concrete action they have performed in years! Millions of dollars have been poured into basically a lobby group that is perched up in some ivory tower far away from the feminist masses who are out there working their asses off, while they complain to the clouds. My opinion aside, however, the Status of Women is a ticking little icon bomb..........that the opposition will use in guerilla question period warfare. As will the media. It sells papers. How easy is it to drum up a headline that screams:
"Conservatives Hate Women.........Here's Proof?"
Peter, you have fed the monkeys. Not only that, you have exposed your personal open wound. They now know where to stick the preverbial knitting needle......right in your eye, "boys oh boys."
Here's connect the dot#2
Women voters, according to the most recent polls are stating that the Conservative government is not looking out for their best interests. Now, whether or not this is true is a moot point when we all know that 99% of the political game is perception. 1% is reality. The hungry orangutans, with the Puck Bunny in the lead as the Women's issues representative for the Liberal party (insert gag reflex here) expressing her disgust, demanding an apology for being compared to a dog. Though she wasn't present during Question Period when the inference occured, word got to her royal highness and she made the best of it....................the Conservatives don't represent women. They don't get women.
Peter...................bon chance in the dating scene...................... what woman would want to face the potential headlines...........
"A New Dog for McKay.........Is she a Bitch Too?"
Here's connect the dot #3
This time last year, this Conservative government was in the opposition stables looking for banana missiles. And they found them.........and they used them in the last election. All of a sudden, they are running the country, with a minority win. From the moment the Harper became PM, he has been running things like he has a majority of seats. Initially this was a good tactic because there wasn't a soul in this country who wanted another election. He could get away with it, and used the opportunity to make some necessary changes to legislation, and to the priorities of the government, the most predominant was accountability. He was doing what he said he was going to do. However, one of the biggest challenges Harper faced was to keep a lid on the right wing yahoos out there who managed to win seats. Unfortunately, he has tried to control information sharing and communications with the media and the public. How ironic that the one he probably doesn't worry, Mr. Red Tory McKay, is the biggest gaffer. The perception? The Tories have secrets.........they can't be relied upon..........and when they speak they blurt out bananas......
Here's a thought for our fine furry friends in Ottawa to contemplate............
Bernard Lord's government in New Brunswick won the popular vote, but lost the power. It was a small shift in voter opinion that led to this.........2 seats. Harper needs to pay attention to what happened in New Brunswick. It will easily occur in the next federal election if this party doesn't smarten the hell up.
Harper needs to rethink his communication plans. Harper needs to alter the perception that the voting public has for his government. And, Harper needs to put a muzzle on McKay and make him sit in the naughty chair............without a portfolio........and without a photo op in some farmer's field licking his wounds.
10 Little Monkeys jumping on the bed. One fell off and bumped his head. Momma called the doctor and the doctor said.................No more monkeys jumping on the bed.
31 comments:
the monkey shark
thats a good blog title :)
Yes.......I think you work for a few of them.
LOL...
It puts it all in perspective!!
Thank you for brightening my morning here.
I have an idea which even the super-leftist feminazis cannot shoot down:
Call all people "pigs", both men or women. Make it a criminal offence to call anyone a "dog", be the person a man or woman.
Y'all see... if the left, including the supposed-to-be-tolerant-and-about-equality feminazis, won't consider calling men "pigs" to be wrong or offensive and refuse to push the state apparatus to deem it "politically incorrect", then I totally reject their unhingedness over an alleged calling of a person a "dog".
By the way, Belinda, IMHO, deserves to be called worse than a dog, a word that pertains to both men and women as everyone has one... Belinda deserves to be called an "asshole". Does anyone disagree that she's one? How about "cad"?
And, Awareness, I appreciate your warning that the Tories are bringing the leftist unhingedness on themselves. But think of this: they're human and will occassionally say stupid things in the House... exactly as will the very people who are attacking them.
Remember Doug Young's calling Deb Grey a "Side of Bacon"? The left and the MSM never, never, never treated the whole Liberal Party as "sexist", "intolerant", "vindictive", "bullying", etc. etc. See the double standard here?
If MacKay's flippant response to and asshat Liberal can be held up as proof that "Conservatives hate women", then we must remind leftists of what Doug Young said and say, "According to your logic, then the Liberals hate women far, far more...".
This is the job of spin doctors and bloggers. It cannot be left up to the Conservative-hating MSM and big-mouthed, unhinged leftists.
BTW, Awareness, when you say you're a "feminist", what, precisely does that mean? The word terrifies me and conjures images of being downtrodden, tyrannized and discriminated against just 'cause I have a willy and nuts. The word "feminist" is scary, with all due respect.
I hope that you'll think about that and, instead, simply declare that men and women are equal and must be treated equally, period. This isn't the case if men can be called "pigs" but women cannot be called "dogs".
BTW, Belinda wants politicians to behave better so more women will want to enter politics? I guess she has a low opinion of her fellow distaffers, excepting herself, of course, for her own behavior is corrupt, criminal, unethical and immoral. And she's a hypocrite, to boot.
Please reconsider using the word "feminist" to describe yourself. It's dangerous and will lead to a backfire. Men, when they realize they're being treated as second-class citizens, legally-abusable, etc. will fight back with a movement of their own.
Do leftists and feminists really think that we're so different that being a woman makes you "weaker" or "less capable", almost as if it's a handicap requiring state intervention to ameliorate such infirmity? I certainly don't! I know that men and women, despite a very few, very irrelevant, slight differences (other than the obvious urinatory and procreative ones), are equally capable. Notice that I have Ann Coulter's, Michelle Malkin's and Kate McMillan's pictures in my sidebar. Especially Kate's, for she's living proof that women can take care of themselves very well and don't need no stinkin' state intervention nor political correctness. In fact, Kate makes me feel like an inadequate wimp in comparison... surely she doesn't need no stinkin' state preferential treatment and can handle whatever folks call her, as can Ann and Michelle.
Guess Belinda has such an aristocratic, entitlist, imposing attitude, but she can't take a little angry invective from people whom she's hurt ever so cavalierly. I imagine Mrs. Domi has said worse about both Tie and Bel than "dog".
Ahhh... but on the other hand, I can't believe we're having this discussion... in the House, on the streets, in the cities... in Canada.
My Canada is about equality and the rule of law, not about insanity and division.
I can't believe, moreover, that the left thinks Belinda's any kind of victim, when it's clear that she's the victimizer. Being called a bad name pales in comparison to screwing another woman's husband, wrecking their marriage and ruining their kids' future... yes, Tie's guilty, too, and I'm sure the left wouldn't hesitate to call him a dog or worse (he looks like a dog anyway!)...
Oh, by the way, I'll say it here: both Tie Domi and Belinda Stronach are "dogs"! Now, let the left deal with that... they'll have to admit that we can't call men dogs, either, but they'll also have to admit that we can't call men, as well as women, "pigs", either!!!
Ahhhh! I'm just so sick of this stupid controversy... ain't everyone else? (Oh, wait, the left loves it and will keep it going... the dang-blasted poopheaded moonbat fools!)
Pardonnez mon francais, s'il vous plait, Madame...
And keep in mind that I'm deaf, but I'm getting no preferential treatment from the state. Why should you? You're better off than I, apparently. I'm not getting any preference in hiring. Oh, no... shocking, isn't it? We were told that there was "affirmative action", but I see none of it... guess it only applies to minorities and women... there's a post on my blog from awhile back with proof that the Liberals officially, in policy, specifically, directly discriminated against white men in hiring! Yes! And the left didn't go batshit over that! Therefore, it's no surprise I don't give a crap for the left!
The left is sexist and racist, no doubt in my mind. I will never submit to leftism.
And, for the record, I love women dearly... worship y'all, in fact. What I can't stand is female supremacism, however. It's on the same coin as male chauvinism or male supremacism or whatever we call it.
No one should be a supremacist. Supremacism is the most serious, destructive flaw in humanity and must be fought relentlessly, no matter what kind of supremacism it is, no matter how politically correct it is deemed by the left.
OMG CS! I think the word feminist must've been glowing hot pink or something when you read my post!
Yes, I'm a feminist. I'm not a radical feminist,nor am I an academic feminist. I'm not a lesbian feminist nor an "Atwoodian" (I made up that word) castrating feminist. I'm not a left leaning feminist.
I am a feminist in the original sense of the definition.
I wholeheartedly believe in equality as a universal value.
However, in the society that we live in, my belief of equality does not include choosing a woman for a "professorship" at a university over a man to fill a quota....though I think there was a time when this was needed because it was a strongly male dominated ivory tower.....having stated that, I work in a milieu that promotes and strokes the "old boys network" that's for sure and I see it time and again how it manifests itself in promotions and recognition. This is unfair, but the only way one can make change is to BE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.......NOT NAVEL GAZING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE SCENE DISCUSSING IT! So, I work........I do.........I make an attempt to gain respect and recognition. I try my best to be a role model for other people....both sexes.
I believe in striving for equality based on merit, based on quality of work, based on my brain and my abilities and my personal motivation.
I co-chair a network of community based organizations and gov't depts. that deal specifically with family violence and abuse. I chose to get involved because I wanted TO DO something about this heinous reality in our society........which manifests itself mostly with MEN ABUSING their wives, girlfriends and children.......that's a reality too. As a feminist, it is my responsibility to recognize when another woman needs the strength of a group of kindreds to get out of an abusive, subservient situation.
I believe in action, not in spending my time evaluating theoretical concepts on the historical or sociological construct of feminism... However, I have read a great deal and I have seen a great deal and I am well versed in the this field enough to know that I would rather live a life of equality than talk about it.
NOW..........as far as the rest of the world...... I believe even the US of A is behind us with respect to equality. But, more importantly countries like Afghanistan are glaringly unequal and dangerous for women and children. There are religions that demean and push women down to a place of disrespect, as are there other cultures. My feelings about this country supporting the war in Afghanistan stems from my belief in universal equality. Females have the right to work and attend school, to vote and to look after themselves financially and emotionally if that is what they choose.
More importantly, I am a human being who believes in equality for all. I am a strong advocate for individuals with disabilities and have worked within the system that is set up in such a convoluted bureaucratic way that it hinders and sideswipes most people with special needs. It was ME who demanded TTY for example with our government department throughout the province.......and brought in someone to teach people how to use it so as to communicate with the deaf population......and to facilitate discussions with frontline staff on issues specific to the deaf culture......
As a feminist, as a Human being, it is my responsibility to work towards my own AWARENESS as well as others so that daily I promote equality.
Gee........I should've used this as my blog post for today!!! :)
OK.........CS.......my take on your other comments.....
Doug Young? I have no respect for him.
Cad? Yes! Good word.
The whole scene in Ottawa? Did you read Christie Blatchford's column yesterday? It was bang on and funny. She implicates them as all a bunch of juvenile delinquents...very funny take on it. I of course believe that Peter McKay hasn't even reached adolescence, which is why I suggested a Time out disciplining method......
Belinda is a blotch on the swatch of Ottawa...........she absolutely embarrasses ALL women.........and I find it appalling that the Liberals (especially the women in their party) ALLOW her to be their spokesperson. As far as I can decipher, I think it's only because she's perceived as a rich Princess and they think they can use this as a trump card? Frig, I don't know.
Ann C, Kate and Michelle........of course they are feminists.....they have just decided to use the word as a missile and as a word that represents left leaning thought. 100 years ago, they would never have been able to express their opinions etc if there hadn't been others ahead of them to pave the way.......
No one is better than anyone else. Pointing fingers at other women, like they do....especially Ms. Coulter........sells books. However, I have no respect for her tactics and will never unless she alters her approach. She's rude and ridiculous........she should spend a week with me in the trenches and maybe she'd change her friggin tune.
Gee Sentinel Guy......glad you dropped by.......I was ready for a good chat!!!
There are too many elements to the McKay/Belinda discussion to disentangle in this limited medium, I think. But some of the threads in the quilt deserve to be picked apart.
a) If McKay made the remark attributed to him, he is a vulgar man with a regrettable lack of respect for women and for Parliament.
b) A regrettable lack of respect for women and Parliament is not the exclusive purview of any party or end of the political spectrum. There have been vulgar and sexist idiots on the "right" and on the "left" before; regrettably, no-one owns that franchise.
c)I myself do not look to Members of Parliament for role models in personal deportment. It's nice when it happens, but I'm getting too old to expect it. I expect them to be good politicians, good constituency representatives, honest, and to have a certain degree of integrity. Although some members may manifest personal traits that I personally don't like, frankly I cut them some slack if they meet those criteria. I don't expect to like or approve of everybody I meet or work with: I expect them to be honest and do their best, and I allow them some space. It would be better if McKay weren't a sexist jerk (if, in fact, he is one...I don't know): but he is still capable of being a good constituency man. If his riding is seriously offended by his putative remark, they will let him know through the miracle of democracy.
d) By the same token, I don't judge Belinda Stronach by her choice of partners. I wouldn't date her myself (even if I wasn't happily married, too old and too fat) - but that's irrelevant to my assessment of her effectiveness as a representative of her riding. I honestly don't have much sense of her effectiveness at this point - everything I read is partisan praise or dismissal without real substance - but the people where she lives seem to like her well enough, and there's nothing about being rich that means you CAN'T be good in politics.
Sigh...first snow falling outside...time to hang up the dive gear for the season. Damn.
Hi Bab...........
Excellent points and I agree. Those two are such an easy target for writing blogitorials.......always a healthy exercise in writing absurdist prose....here are my additions....
1. McKay has blown it time and again.This heightens the likeability that he probably inferred what they are saying.......Blatchford writes about the possibility that he threw off the comment as a goofy juvenile comment to a buddy..... which is most likely what it was....why he would think he could kibbitz with a member of another party like they were showering off in some gym changeroom makes me wonder just how swift the guy is. So......I think he's vulgar and stupid. But..you're right, he may be a good constituency guy and if not, he will find out in the next election. Problem is? HE'S THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS!!
2. Sexism prevails.........you're right.....both sides of the spectrum have shown little substance when it comes to a full understanding or acceptance of elected women. Belinda, (and Sheila Copps) don't help the girl side, however .......their behaviour and choices are appalling and I don't want them representing me.
There is a reason why more women don't jump on the political bandwagon, and it ain't just because they aren't interested....... I look at those monkeys and how things are run in Ottawa and I think to myself.....self........why would you want to join that insincere ship of fools?
3. I don't consider MP's or MLA's role models either and isn't that a shame? My goodness that's sad. Honest, authentic genuine people get eaten up in politics. I have seen it personally at the provincial level and it turned me off for a long time.....
4. Of course rich people can be good politicians. It was a cheap shot on my part.........but such an easy target.
Not snowing here!!! Where do you live?
Thanks for addressing my comments, Awareness. I appreciate it, thought I think it's high time to think about a new word to use other than "feminism", as it has too much negative baggage and makes one suspect should one use it as a label for oneself. Just a thought. Yep, what's wrong with a new word, as it's just a word and what matters is the reality of the person?
I congratulate you on your activism. There needs to be more folks like yourself, particularly who use their brains and cannot be influenced by others unless a real case is made to change their perspective. People who see the world as it really is and are immune to political correctness and fascistic social indoctrination.
Dunno whether Ann or Michelle consider themselves "feminists", but I really doubt that Kate considers herself as such. She comes across as an equalist and values self-sufficiency in a way that inspires me. Yes, I admire Kate.
As for Ann, I believe she knows what she's doing. Other than selling books, she has effects far beyond that. Her style gets attention very effectively, drawing attention to things that wouldn't otherwise become known. I've just gotten halfway thru "How to Talk to a Liberal" and have learned some quite eye-opening stuff. Yes, she's rude, but her opponents are far worse, and I can be quite rude as well, but I, too, have method to my seeming "madness". Besides, we're funny, too, and even leftists say they like to read our stuff.
Indeed, there's a lot of violent nutcase male assholes who beat up on their wives and girlfriends and kids. But there's also plenty of violent asshole women who physically attack their submissive men and children, too, and this, too, has to be dealt with as well as when it's men who victimize those to whom they're related. Each case is unique, but we must remember that family violence isn't monopolized by men; they don't have an exclusive franchise.
Such violence should be exposed to the public via the MSM whether it's caused by men or women. We cannot cover it up for anyone, men or women. The victimizer must be taken to task, brought to justice, given the chance to reform, etc. regardless of who it is.
The left, in my view, is a barrier to this kind of equality. Many don't want to admit that women are no better as people than men are and can therefore be equally mean and violent. It's time for the left to accept that all people are flawed, not just some kinds.
Re point 1: touché, Awareness. Ouch. You're right. He IS Minister of External Affairs. If this is true, it lends a slightly sour taste to his pontificating about the liberation of women in Afghanistan.
Re point 1: When you say "their behaviour and choices are appalling and I don't want them representing me"...well, they don't, as "women", any more than McKay represents me, as a man. In my opinion (for what little it's worth on this subject), think we'll have achieved real equality when you don't have to feel ashamed of the Belindas as "women", and can simply feel ashamed of them as Parliamentarians, if you catch my drift ;)
3) I don't personally think it's a shame that we don't consider politicians as role models. I don't consider corporate executives, rock and roll stars or pro athletes as role models either, UNLESS I'm looking for a model of business acumen, rapid guitar picking or runs batted in. Role models are where we find them, I think...it's the individual, not the profession.
4) If I told you, you'd never talk to me again. Let's say... Nepean. That's what I tell people whenever I'm travelling outside Ottawa. Whoops, gave it away.
Hey CS......
Instead of feminist......I'll just call myself diva........deeeeevaaaaa.
Yes, there are men who are abused, both physically and emotionally. However, the vast majority of the recipients of family violence are women and children.......the perps are male. That's a fact.
Bal....Ottawa eh? Land of beavertails and Roughriders? Birthplace of Paul Anka and Chandler Bing? Home to a hockey team that chokes every year in the playoffs? I love Ottawa......!!
Women politicians rep. other women? It shouldn't be.......I agree....however it is set up that way...through the MSM and the political parties themselves. Their is this "sisterhood" suffragette thing that is still perpetuated and paraded for all girls to see.
Role models are a nuisance. But, we are suffering from a credibility issue (like most countries) with respect to respecting public service and politics as a profession....I want to be able to point out a potential role model in Ottawa or locally to my children as one way to interest them in possibly getting involved when they grow up. Politicians (like sports jocks) need to be more aware of the effect their behaviour has on the universal turn off of their profession.
BTW.......I'm an Upper Canuck too.
I didn't know...for some reason I had you figured as someone from the East Coast. Interesting how impressions get created in this medium, isn't it?
I do live in Fredericton.........I'm a happily displaced upper canuck. :)
Aha! I knew it. The Great Balbulican sees all, knows all, reveals nothing. Except for a fee, of course. Lottery ticket numbers and Stanley Cup predictions discounted this week only.
My heart will always belong to the Leafs. My money however, will be placed on the Sabres this year :) unless of course the Senators lose their gag reflex.
yes........I do have Upper Canuck tendancies which on occasion rear their ways.......but I have learned Maritime sensibilities which have allowed me to acquire a taste for fiddle music, Keiths and a love of beachcombing.
You may have noted a reversal of the Senators strategy this year: they are doing their losing at the beginning of the season rather than the end. I think that's the theory, anyway. In any case, you have been very articulate on your site about the importance in a life of faith, hope, and the fierce power of belief, and there could be no stronger confirmation of those values than your ongoing loyalty to the Leafs.
You don't mean to say that they actually have fiddle music in the maritimes? Well, well. When did this happen?
(grin and pause for indignant sputtering, while listening to Jerry Holland and JP Cormier duetting on headphones...)
"...the vast majority of the recipients of family violence are women and children.......the perps are male. That's a fact."
--Just out of curiousity, precisely how do we know this to be a fact?
I once watched an eye-opening documentary about violence against men by women.
Most of it goes unreported. The battered men would rather be beaten than seek help. They fear being considered "wimps", etc., therefore they put up with it. It's more prevalent than we perceive. How common it is... we don't know... in fact, we cannot know.
Also, many battered women don't come forward, either, for whatever reasons.
And then there's children. They rarely come forward, as they often don't know they can and believe it's normal to be beaten.
And that means that female violence against children is largely unreported. Hence my questioning your statement, "it's a fact".
So, how, precisely, do we know that the vast majority are male? Is it a perception or has it been conclusively proven? I just gotta ask, for it's my nature to doubt everything unless I can see that it's definitely as claimed.
I would submit that we can suspect, out of prejudice against men, that the vast majority of violence is by men against women and children. But what of women against men, women against children?
How do you know, how can you make a positive statement, that "it's a fact"?
Gotta ask. It's what I do.
If the circumstances were reversed, I'm certain you'd ask, too.
Well, here's one approach, Sentinel.
The evidence would seem to suggest that Awareness is correct, in terms of complaints laid, arrests, charges laid, and convictions.
Common sense would also seem to suggest that Awareness is correct: men are, on the average, larger and stronger than women.
Social reality and conditioning would also seem to suggest that Awareness is correct: aggression in our society is seen as a predominantly (although not, of course, exclusively) male trait.
However, you may be correct, and all those indicators may be wrong.
So what evidence would YOU deem to be conclusive, one way or the other?
Bal......much to my husband's chagrin, my 9 year old son described hearing a celtic fiddle song the other day as music that touches his heart! He must've inherited the fiddle gene from me.
Yes........as I write this, the Leafs and Sens are playing......on my speakers.........Sens are winning 1-0. They should get their losing out of the way early. However, I think that's the strategy the Leafs have used since 1967 and look where it has gotten them?? Eek.
CS.......I'm glad you asked.....unfortunately I don't have my research stats here at home. It is heavily documented........ And you're right I would ask.
I agree that men don't come forward...often the abuse they experience is more emotional which is always more difficult to see...it's like a festering sore in the soul.
Children often don't come forward you're right. That's why all children are our children. We are all responsible for their well being and must intervene whenever we become aware of a child who is abused.......physically, sexually, emotionally or through neglect.
I wrote a poem a year ago (late Sept,2005 if you want to check my archives) where I tried to capture the resiliency of a 3 year old who was in my office with her mom....they had escaped to a Transition House......I think I entitled it "Rosie's Smile"......
Glad you two are reunitied on my blog! Shall I invite my fine friend Mr. Finnan to join the conversation too?? :) Anselm..........you like fiddle music don't you??
Balbulican,
So would you agree that neither of us has conclusive evidence?
Yes, the evidence we have available does suggest that "it's a fact". Certainly. But that's the "available evidence". Recall what I said about non-reportage by battered men out of embarrassment. We have no idea of the extent of that. Therefore, there's doubt.
"Common sense would also seem to suggest that Awareness is correct: men are, on the average, larger and stronger than women."
Indeed. But that in no way proves that "it's a fact" that men are more apt towards violence than are women. As for "common sense", I'm afraid that phrase is so misused as to be effectively meaningless, for example, folks take a politically correct position and call it "common sense", but I've discovered time and again the hard way that they were wrong. Yes, I listened, and went around carrying the dogma they gave me and found that they were wrong... from real-world happenings. All too often. Over time, I realized that the only way to survive and be self-sufficient is to be sure of things and trust my instinct when my instinct is more rational and realistic than something I'm being told by well-meaning but not-so-bright folks.
"...aggression in our society is seen as a predominantly (although not, of course, exclusively) male trait."
--Seen as, yes, indeed. But we could be mistaken.
As for conclusive evidence, I'm afraid it's never going to happen. The proper scientific method cannot be followed- too many people, people not being honest with researchers, etc., etc.
My point is that it's believed that the "vast majority" of those who beat up on their families/spouse/partner are men.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
We don't know for certain. We can only have opinions based on what we see and hear. But what of the realities that we don't see and hear about? What if there's far, far more peaceful, non-aggressive men being battered by their women? Can anyone demonstrate that this isn't happening? No. Because of the reluctance to come forward, compounded by the reluctance of the police and other authorities to take the men seriously (that was one of the revelations of the documentary I watched a few years ago- forget what it was called and who broadcast it, but it was MSM, actually).
Indeed, if we keep on saying that women rarely ever beat men, then we'll tend to disbelieve men who summon the courage to come forward. There's actually men in danger of being murdered by psychotic women and have nowhere to turn... no battered mens' shelters, etc. And even if the police care, the men might not trust them, believing that they'd just tell them to screw off or something.
Violence against men is as real and serious as is violence against women, children and all kinds of people. It, too, needs to be addressed. Why would we, a compassionate society, not care about men being victimized by cruel women?
Am I wrong to point out the reality of female-on-submissive-male violence? Am I crazy to think it's even possible that women beat up men, too? Wouldn't surprise me if folks dismiss me for saying this stuff.
Throwing plates isn't ok, nor funny. Hitting with rolling pins or frying pans isn't ok, nor funny. The only excuse possible could be self-defence, but it could also be possible that men "fight back" in self-defence sometimes in response to serious, offensive violence by women. They may try going to the police, etc., but might be ignored, left alone to suffer the situation.
Am I crazy to say this stuff? Are women genetically programmed to not be violent? Are they genetically predetermined to be submissive physically and very, very rarely physically aggressive in an unjustified offensive way? We, via common sense, know that women are more emotional than men and don't hold it back, therefore the emotion can manifest itself physically. Doesn't matter how strong one is- violence is violence, by whomever against whomever.
We need to address ALL violence by ALL kinds of persons against ALL kinds of persons, not just narrow the focus onto one, two or three groups in society.
It's complicated, yes, but it's dangerous to simplify it/wear perceptual blinders. We must remain open-minded towards every kind of folk.
Do y'all understand what I'm saying here? Everyone deserves consideration equally. We cannot be generalizing to justify focussing on the needs/problems of only some and ignoring those of others.
Why can't we be gender-neutral? Why can't we focus on "family violence" rather than just on "violence against so-and-so but not against the other one"? To only focus on one-half would be sexist, actually.
Oh, Awareness, I see you posted as I was composing.
I expected that you'd have stats/documentation, else you wouldn't assert what you did. I'd have been surprised if you didn't have something to offer as backup. I'd be interested in viewing what you have. But I'd also assert the stuff I just wrote: ALL KINDS of people need help, not just one or some kinds. It doesn't matter who we are; if we're hurting/being hurt by others, it'd be wrong if society only cares about some others and doesn't care about us just because they might have some, ah, beliefs wrt our, say, "group" and its members.
I just feel hurt when I see politicians and others go on TV and talk incessantly about "violence against women" but never, never about just plain violence or abuse. They narrow the focus in a sexist, exclusionary way, and that hurts the people who are excluded. Another reason why I don't trust the hysterical, biased, nonthinking-for-themselves leftists. How can I trust people who don't care about me just because I'm a man? Or just because my skin isn't dark enough for them?
This is Canada, 2006. It's time to broaden our views of society and break through the perhaps outdated ideas that may well have been very valuable in the past but that are today just exclusionary for politically correct reasons.
And, everyone keep in mind that our observations, the patterns that build up from the observations, the contrasts between observations, the statistical significances, as well as other critical factual information... matters, not only in this context, but in all contexts. And I assure y'all that that's exactly what shapes my positions, not any prejudices, as some folks, whom I won't name here, apparently believe.
My positions are always, always, always in flux due to my openness to real-world events and observations and to discovering new real facts. That is why I left the left long ago. Reality and reason made it necessary. One cannot stay somewhere which one knows to be the wrong place to be due to a disconnect between beliefs and reality, fact-based reason and dogma.
As for music, actually I really only care to watch the female singers... can't hear 'em, so I'll enjoy their cuteness... like Shania Twain... oh, my! :b...
CS, my question was: what evidence would you consider to be conclusive? Please let me know, and I'll try to find it. Thanks.
Awareness, I don't think I know Anselm. Do I?
CS.
I wish I had the time to give a full response to your comments because they are so thoughtful and heartfelt. Please keep in mind that you have offered me food for thought that will keep me going all day.
quickly.......(sorry)
All violence is unacceptable. I agree.....and there should be more of a universal approach to fight violence.
I don't think women are wired any differently, but I do believe that it is more of an environmental (nature/nurture) issues.......if they have experienced ongoing abuse during their childhood, any individual will have poor and inappropriate coping mechanisms and built up rage. Abuse and violence for both genders is cyclical.......much can be accomplished if we nuture our little ones.
There is a lot of intervention and discussion around the whole issue on bullying....... which I have seen happening with both boys and girls........ we address the underlying reasons why a bully becomes a bully and why a victim becomes a victim.......
There are men's groups in most communities (not rurally unfortunately which is a WHOLE kettle of fish on its own) that support other men who have experienced abuse. I would bet that most men in prisons have experienced family violence......
yes you have good points CS.
You have made me think more broadly. (no pun intended!! :)
Balbulican.......Anselm's view is the fierce protector of Burton Front........located down river from me! :)
Thanks to Mr. Google I found Anselm, but the experience was a bit frustrating. He presented a lengthy excerpt from Ann Coulter, attacking Darwinism, and ended his post with a triumphant flourish, saying "liberals, please explain!"
I was looking forward to that, since Ms. Coulter's arguments are, in fact, pretty old, and have been rebutted dozens of time by folks more articulate and patient than me.
But Anselm's blog doesn't seem to allow responses. So I'm not quite clear on how, exactly, we godless heathens are supposed to "explain".
Sigh.
Well, I have a sligtly different take on this entire matter (Hmmm...imagine that!)
I think that a Royal Commission is in order. It's mandate - to determine if, in fact, Belinda is a dog! Methinks that that outcome of this may vindicate our favourite son of the Maritimes, after all.
You see, much of this debate is contingent on the actual spelling of the word dog (dawg) that Mr. McKay was actually employing in his answer to the Liberal jibe.
To put this into perspective (not that I would pretend to pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of something as fundamental to the Canadian body politic as a duly constituted Royal Commission) but having watched literally hours of Oprah, I can attest that the use of the version - Dawg - is a completely acceptable and oft-employed form of the word describing persons of questionable moral character (oops - not moving in a favourable direction for po lil Belinda) or persons who cannot seem to avoid sharing an intimate relationship with more than one individual or political party at the same time (it may be an uphill battle for the Magna Mamma).
In the end, no pun intented, if a duly constituted commission of the Crown - maybe Judge Gommery could handle this one too - he seems to be hankerin' for the spotlight again and who better to figure our who's getting screwed by whom (experience is invaluable in such things), but I digress (who'd of thunk it!)
but....if a duly constituted Royal Commission (that means Her Majesty is being represented here and we all know that if anyone knows the meaning of the word DAWG, it's a Windsor) finds that Belinda is indeed one, then perhaps Mr. McKay will be cleared of any wrong doing.
I mean - he was just calling a Dawg a Dog!
And finally, if he is not cleared, perhaps he should simply claim Dyslexia. I mean, it's a little over the top but Domi left his wife for her and Bill Clinton seems to have one of his puppy-like infatuations....oh no, here comes that dog thing again!
Hello House!
Wonderful insights! And to think I have been a faithful American Idol watcher......Randy often uses the term "the bomb" but he also uses the "dawg" reference too and it never occured to me that Peter Pinnochio could be using the term in that way.
Now tell me........your house on big island.............do you grow shasta daisies in your garden??
Thank you for the insightful comment. I look forward to reading your posts.......and to reading any comments you leave here.
I just learned about Shasta Daisies, this year!
So, we will plant them in the Spring and watch with great hope and anticipation.
Nice to be here too!
Insightful? Well....likely more inciteful. (tee-hee!)
Long live "IBAWAK"
This is really a great read for me. Thank you for publishing articles having a great insight stimulates me to check more often for new write ups. Keep posting!
Clover
www.n8fan.net
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often..
Wency
www.imarksweb.org
Can I just say what a aid to search out someone who truly knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know learn how to convey an issue to mild and make it important. More folks have to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant consider youre no more widespread since you positively have the gift. usa online casino
Post a Comment