Women; the eternal victims!


——————————————————-

23 November 2006

Action urged over abuse of women

The government is not doing enough to tackle the problems of violence against women in the UK, a coalition of charities has warned.

Men are far more likely so suffer violence in general, and just as likely as women to suffer from domestic violence at the hands of a partner. Whilst female children are more likely to suffer sexual abuse than male children, male children are more likely to suffer physical abuse than female children, and women are the greatest perpetrators. Women are responsible for the majority of cases of infanticide.

Yet all we ever hear about are poor women suffering. Oh noooo! One single woman suffering violence means the whole world must come to a stop and everything done to prevent this from happening again, but men and boys suffering – be it through violent crime, domestic violence at the hands of a wife or girlfriend, physical abuse at the hands of a mother, or the epidemic of male suicide – is apparantly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. Only women matter according to charities and governments.

The report comes at the same time as a separate one which criticises the government for failing to provide homeless women with the help they need. A survey of 160 single homeless women in England by the charity Crisis found more than 20% had become homeless in their attempts to escape domestic violence.

“80 to 90%” of homeless people in the UK are male (source; note how, after this statistic, they quickly point out the proportion of homeless women is rising, lest there be more than a few seconds where women are out of the sympathy spotlight.)

I rarely see homeless women, only men. Many young men end up homeless because of a broken family, or one that was never in tact in the first place, whereby single mummy’s new boyfriend doesn’t want the lad hanging around. With older men it is often the case that they have been turfed out of a home that the government took from them and handed to their smug ex-wife who decided hubby wasn’t good enough. But his house was.

Then there’s the obligatory demands by the Women’s Minister (why the fuck do they get their own minister?), Muzzzz Munn:

“These include creating a further 28 specialist domestic violence courts to bring more offenders to justice, opening the first UK Human Trafficking Centre in Europe and providing £2m for advisers to help women through the justice process,” she said.

Ah yes, £2,000,000 for “advisors” to “help women through the justice process.”

In other words she wants a load of braindead, mentally unhinged, no-good, men-hating Women’s Studies graduates who have no skills in the real world to be given nice fat salaries from the public purse just so they can sit around tearing up families by helping women exaggerate or invent domestic violence claims to ensure those evil men can be hauled out of their homes and rendered homeless.

The domestic violence and sexual abuse of women has turned into a racket, a big scheme for feminists to not only put forth their ideology and further rip up families, shit on men from a great height and blot out any possible view of women as anything other than eternal victims, but also to get themselves vast amounts of taxpayers money. That’s why feminists love it when – whether it’s from genuine or (more likely) skewed and invented statistics – violence and abuse of women seems to rise; it means they can start shrieking for more cash from the government.

Back to the subject of homelessness, look at this article from yesterday. A look at 160 homeless women suddenly means there are demands for Something To Be Done. They even rage at the “male dominated environment” of homeless shelters.

WTF?! That is the height of feminist fucking arrogance, that they condemn homeless shelters for being “male dominated”! They’re male dominated because men are more likely to be homeless because society doesn’t give a shit about them! For fucks sake.

Tell you what you feminist cunts, if you want homeless women (what few of them there are) to have a nice male-free environment out on the streets and in homeless shelters, lets stop giving single mother whores council homes and give them to homeless men, and start turfing women out of homes instead of men in divorces. That way there’ll be no evil homeless men to hassle their female counterparts. Huh, not fucking likely.

Women have spent the last few decades whining constantly, their cries of woe and self-pity constantly rising in volume despite how much men have bent over backwards to accommodate them and no matter how many expensive government schemes are put in place to satisfy their often mutually contradictory whims. Yet on and on they complain, desperately trying to blot out any possible chance of anyone noticing that Western Women are the most pampered and spoiled demographic in the world, and indeed in history. Now it’s time for it to come to an end. It’s about time us men started giving women the same amount of sympathy as they give us; none.

Women have withdrawn and frittered away so much sympathy from us men collectively that they are now badly overdrawn in their sympathy accounts, and us men regret to inform ladies that no further credit will be extended. We no longer care. Even if you are a genuinely victimised in some measly way or other, we’re not interested. We’ve heard it all before and we’re past giving a damn. Sod off and blubber somewhere else.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:07 PM
——————————————————-

At 7:18 PM, Anonymous said…

Its the same old tune of “women are always victimized.”

Its BS. Ask any woman and they will argue that women can do things just as well, if not better, than men can. So how can they possibly be victims? Its makes zero sense. If they truly could do things better than men can, they would not be victims.

Women were never oppressed. Before feminism, virtually every single woman was married. Through marriage, a woman gained access to shelter, medical care, assets, property, etc. all through her husband. She had just as much as a right to his assets as he did. Truly oppressed groups do not have such rights. Blacks in the antebellum south never had access to their slave master’s wealth. Therefore, for someone to argue that women were oppressed is completely ludicrous

The whole ideology behind feminism, that women are oppressed victims, is a complete fabrication.

No matter how hard a man tries to please a woman, she will ALWAYS find something to whine about.

Enough. No more.

Feminism has done the one thing it never intended to do – FREE MEN.

Guys, don’t put up with the lies and BS anymore. We’ve done our part by accommodating all their needs. They wanted an education, and we opened the doors. They wanted to leave the “oppressed” dwelling of comfort and security to enter the workforce, and we let them in.

And what happened? – they STILL COMPLAIN.

Gentlemen, your ONLY avenue is to use women to satisfy your sexual needs. Other than that stay away from them lest you be infected by their poison, in the form of unreasonable demands, belief that they are better than you solely b/c they are female, and the knowledge that no matter how hard you try and what you do, you will still come up short in her eyes. But do not commit to them permanently. The days of chivalry are long gone. The women of today will bite the hand that tries to help them.

Its a big mistake to tie yourself down to someone who not only inherently believes she is better than you but can never be satisfied and will blame you for all of her and the world’s failures.

——————————————————-

At 7:59 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

This feminist bleating is very revealing about the way these groups operate. Notice the way they twist all the statistics to give the impression that women are more affected by homelessness than men. This despite the FACT that 90% of the homeless are men, and of those men the British Legion estimates that 40% are ex-servicemen many of whom are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But of course these men are of no interest to politicians or charities because there’s no money or votes hanging on the issue. The blokes themselves can rot in a gutter for all these people care. And yet when a small minority of females are affected the balloon goes up. This tells us where these people’s priorities lie and how little they care about men.

——————————————————-

At 8:06 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon
She had just as much as a right to his assets as he did.

That is not true. The husband controlled his wealth but also what she brought into the marriage.
She had to ask the husband if she allowed her to work and they could not study.
They were oppressed.
Today women can work, but most of the time they live of hubby’s money in an irresponsible way.

——————————————————-

At 8:10 PM, Anonymous said…

Well, it will not be long before they will get to become real victims. The US is pulling out of Iraq. The Muslims will only become more aggressive in the west because it will be seen as another Somalia type pull out. They will start blowing themselves up all over Europe and the US. All the while they will get their Sharia laws passed. These poor victims will no longer be able to drive and will have to start wearing Burkas. I for one am going to kick back and enjoy watching this all go down.

——————————————————-

At 8:23 PM, Anonymous said…

As far as the homeless issue goes, i think that’s fine. Women can be just as good at being homeless as men and it is obviously sexist of men to hog all the cardboard boxes underneath the railway bridges.
In fact, affirmative action to make more women homeless should be encouraged. Perhaps letting dads keep the house and children after divorce would help promote female homelessness.
As far as the violence against women, well if they are just going to keep prosecuting men for every minor altercation, then whats a man got to lose. If he knows he is going to lose his home, family, reputation, life etc. he may as well just give the woman a proper going over. Alternatively, giving men shelters and places of respite might reduce violence against women.

——————————————————-

At 8:27 PM, sickofthelies said…

I don’t think the feminists actually want to stop violence against women. It is their ticket to power and wealth, and they need to constantly fool the government into thinking there is an epidemic, no matter what is done to stop it and how exaggerated the claim might be.

——————————————————-

At 8:51 PM, Anonymous said…

Gentlemen, your ONLY avenue is to use women to satisfy your sexual needs.

Actually, that is still playing into women’s hands. Virtually every woman the world over wants one thing. Children. They are biologically compelled to produce children just like men are biologically compelled to mate with females to produce said children. It is the firmware you come bundled with. It’s involuntary like respiration, eating, and sleeping. It cannot be changed.

Want to make women melt down? Make women start hallucinating? Make women start going crazy?

Deny women children.

They’ll try substitutes. Pets. Endless shopping sprees. Career. Going to Malawi and adopting. But it’s not the same.

Men have other choices. Develop interesting careers, invention, exploration, etc… to make us feel good (accomplish = feel good). Even porn will do the job (and the virtual is only becoming more real as processor speed and graphics cards improve).

But women have one biological imperative on this planet. Reproduce. If they fail they start become apoplectic. Witness how women start to become berserk if they hit 40 yrs old and have no kids.

Deny women sex. Deny women children.

If a marriage strike is a full house, a mating strike is a royal flush.

——————————————————-

At 9:17 PM, nevo said…

This is not going to change until men get together and fight back this abuse.
Most prisoners in British jails are from broken homes. Broken up by the stupidity of its law makers, and paid for the taxpayer, who blindingly accepts all the bullshit they spew out of their mouth.
The tax you pay will perpetuate this state of affairs.
No marriage followed by no work or, do as little as possible and then spend it in an overseas cheap third world country beach.
If this is done then women will end up doing the hard work, probably childless or, being young mothers at fifty years old.
Then, and only then, feminism will be destroyed.

NEVO

——————————————————-

At 10:00 PM, Pete Patriarch said…

That is not true. The husband controlled his wealth but also what she brought into the marriage.
She had to ask the husband if she allowed her to work and they could not study.
They were oppressed.

What complete, utter bullshit. Have you ever worked? Have you ever studied in an environment where your scores actually matter and there’s stiff competition? Its not easy, you fucking coddled ho. Going to work and bringing home a paycheck is not a piece of cake, and even when women did work, it was always in low-stress, easy hours positions so that they could still go home and catch up on the latest celebrity gossip.

——————————————————-

At 10:39 PM, ColdHammer said…

“Men are totally oppressors. You men need to suck it up and come to your senses you are wife/girlfriend beaters.” – women claim.

What a load of BS. I can’t tell you the numerous times I’ve been pushed off to the side by a woman just ’cause I’m a man.

I can’t wait to see spaceships be invented and sold off to the public whereas the highest % of sales would probably be made to good men, in pursuit of the stars and beyond, as well as away from complaining women.

Now that would be a dream… to smoke cigars and drink beer in the midst of space and listening to some tunes… and a damn pussy light years away.

——————————————————-

At 12:12 AM, Anonymous said…

Max Sydney

Hmmm… Now lets see If I can apply a little primary school maths to the problem of violence against women.

1: lets assume on average 1 in 20 men are pre-disposed to be violent against women. (i.e 5%)

2: lets assume that a large proportion of women have 20 or more intimate partners

then is it any surprise that a large proportion of women have encountered a violent partner they have chosen share intimacy with?

The pill, abortion on demand and relaxed social mores have acted as a kind of insurance system. and a problem with all insurance systems is adverse selection.

Max Sydney

——————————————————-

At 12:15 AM, Anonymous said…

That is not true. The husband controlled his wealth but also what she brought into the marriage.
She had to ask the husband if she allowed her to work and they could not study.
They were oppressed.

Uh, maybe in the 1700s, if at all, back when most men didn’t even have wealth themselves. By the 1800s, men couldn’t even give children their own property after death while de-owning a wife, she automatically had rights to 50% of the total, even if there were multiple children. By the early 1900s property laws were slanted heavily in the favor of women, because of alleged discrimination that just didn’t exist. You couldn’t even with-hold property from bastard children, the government forced you to take care of an unfaithful wife and her bastard children.

The could not study? Look up when co-ed and all-female universities were established. Mid-1850s at the latest I believe, I once wrote something up on this. Most men weren’t attending universities back then either, but apparently all women have to have a right to universities, and even though they existed feminists pretend they didn’t.

When has a woman every listened to a man anyway? The only difference back then was that the government didn’t pander to the victim status nonsense, and forced women to actually prove things before locking men up.

——————————————————-

At 12:21 AM, Anonymous said…

Duncan, you’re going to love this quote.

I am currently reading “The Predatory Female” and found this excerpt.

Q. “Is it possible to sample real marriage without the hideous commitment?”

A. “Fortunately, yes. Simply purchase a five hundred pound Bengal Tiger and keep it in the backyard. Support it, feed it, mount it. See for yourself if you are cut out for married life.”

LMAO!!!!

——————————————————-

At 4:01 AM, Anonymous said…

anonymous 8:10 pm wrote:

‘The muslims will only become more aggressive in the west..’

‘All the while they will get their Sharia laws passed.’

Please don’t drag Muslims into this debate. There is enough hate propaganda (pro-Zionist/anti-Mulsim) on its’ own with out being brought into the anti-misandry struggle.

Even in supposedly gender-traditional India the laws are changing (a country with 13.4% Muslims) to favour women.

Not to mention Iran, were women dominate the academic field. The BBC reported on the Iranian governments failing to provide jobs for them! No mention of the fact that men are still expected to go out and provide for the family as soon as he can.

So don’t make the mistake of bringing Islam into this debate, or make the mistake of thinking Islam will counter feminism. Check up on Huntingtons’ ‘Clash of Civilizations’ article, then see what kettle of fish you are bringing in.

——————————————————-

At 10:09 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…

Hello Max Snidely.

Instead of pulling numbers out of thin air and coming to a conclusion you think sounds righteous and clever, why not find out what the real statistics are and use them instead.

“Australian safety survey kills feminist distortions”

The survey reveals a picture of what any rational person should have assumed about life simply by observation of the world around them and their day to day existence in it. The survey reveals what most people should have known or should have suspected about the facts of social violence – it is men rather than women who have the most to fear regarding their personal safety. It further reveals that the perpetrators of violence, in all their ugly forms and diversity, are not just men, and that the domain of perpetrators includes a significant percentage of women.”

Here’s another interesting survey from the lefty biased BBC no less.

“Survey finds male abuse approval”.
Of the 200 women, 60% said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.

You see, men are getting wise to the feminist shaming tactics that attempt to shut down a debate using made-up factoids and outright lies that sound horrifying but are largely untrue.

Heres another story

“Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s Birthright”

“The article claims, “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape.” Somehow that number seems a little hard to believe. So RADAR did an extensive search of the UN Population Fund’s website. Nothing there. Then a Google search. No luck. So RADAR finally contacted the UNDP Information Office. The UNDP employee was unable to find a statement in any UNDP publication that even resembled that statistic. Conclusion: The phony 70% figure was concocted by someone whose agenda was something other than reporting the truth.”

PS. On a side note, I see that the The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey has now disappeared from their website. I wonder why?

——————————————————-

At 6:10 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon
Uh, maybe in the 1700s, if at all, back when most men didn’t even have wealth themselves. By the 1800s, men couldn’t even give children their own property after death while de-owning a wife, she automatically had rights to 50% of the total, even if there were multiple children. By the early 1900s property laws were slanted heavily in the favor of women, because of alleged discrimination that just didn’t exist. You couldn’t even with-hold property from bastard children, the government forced you to take care of an unfaithful wife and her bastard children.

Not in the 1900s.
Women did not possess anything during marriage, it is normal that they inherit something.
This changed much later.

The could not study? Look up when co-ed and all-female universities were established. Mid-1850s at the latest I believe, I once wrote something up on this. Most men weren’t attending universities back then either, but apparently all women have to have a right to universities, and even though they existed feminists pretend they didn’t.

That is totally untru. In Germany Emmy Noether could not study and teach till the 1920s. Women in general could not study until the 1920s.
In France women were admitted to the Ecole Polytechnique just 1970.

Women had to ask men for the right to work outside home till 1950 in Germany.

Obviously women were oppressed in many respects because they lacked freedom.
It cannot be doubted as it cannot be doubted that they had many privileges, too.

@pete patriarch

What complete, utter bullshit. Have you ever worked? Have you ever studied in an environment where your scores actually matter and there’s stiff competition? Its not easy, you fucking coddled ho. Going to work and bringing home a paycheck is not a piece of cake, and even when women did work, it was always in low-stress, easy hours positions so that they could still go home and catch up on the latest celebrity gossip.

You are not Nymom, are you?
Your blubber does sound like hers.

Read again what I wrote. I wrote that women were not allowed to study. I never said that they liked working.
I see myself that most women want to stop to work when they are thirty.

But this does not relate to the fact that they were oppressed.

——————————————————-

At 6:30 PM, Anonymous said…

When the west becomes an Islamic Republic, females will become the victims that they have always dreamed about. The will be murdered by male family members through honor killings. They will be lashed for allowing themselves to be raped. They will be forced into marriage without any say in the matter. Islam is the cure for feminism.

——————————————————-

At 7:39 PM, Mamonaku187 said…

Gentlemen,

The periodic release of stories such as these, even though there is an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly shows that women abuse at the same rate as/ more so than Men leads me to ask a question.

Are these stories genuine news articles? Or are they simply press releases submitted by the Domestic Violence Industry lobby??

Google “newspapers press releases” for more info on this topic.

These articles smack of advertising and lobbying fluff, not serious researched journalism.

Something to consider.

——————————————————-

At 7:43 PM, Anonymous said…

anon@6:10 is obviously a woman, as instead of proving anything she just says things and claims they are fact. Well, since I’m not about to waste my time doing legal research to prove a woman wrong that will just ignore it anyway, I’ll just list the female colleges:

(from Timeline of women’s colleges in the United States)

It’s pretty obvious that women had colleges by the early 1800s, and other schooling was available even before that. I wonder how many minorities had access to college back then? Or how many of the working class males? Not many.

As usual, women had a pretty easy time of things compared to their male counterparts, but women now decide to ignore the past. If men insist on taking women’s words as truth, we deserve the position we are in now. What is the point of having greater intelligence and logical abilities if you refuse to use them? Women may be illogical and generally lazy, but they do know how to at least take care of themselves.

——————————————————-

At 1:23 AM, Anonymous said…

Obviously women were oppressed in many respects because they lacked freedom.

discipline != oppression

If controls on their inherently destructive and short-sighted behavior (extra credit: witness women’s behavior since being let “free” and tell me they are not crazy) is oppression than so is any business firm structure, military structure, or sports team. All use clearly defined roles, specialization, and discipline to ensure that things get done and keep running smoothing.

Women had clearly defined roles.

Men had clearly defined roles (you’re overlooking that half of the story).

Men were hardly rolling in cash and benefits when they had to trudge off to the coal mines, steel mill, or war (I’m sure women were just chomping at the bit to go to those places).

Women were locked out of commercial businesses (other than farms or shops), by and large, because their job was home. Keeping the family together. Just like a sports team needs staff in the equipment room to keep the team on the field and in good shape. Just like a navy needs people in port to refit the fleet so they can go back out to sea. Just like an army needs a base it can return to to rest and refit. Women’s job (that role specialization thing again) was at home.

About prevented from learning, that is a lie. When the husband is out working (for 16 hrs a day!) there is nothing to prevent her from reading, studying, developing artistic skills, etc… after her work is done.

So give me a break.

——————————————————-

At 10:23 AM, Anonymous said…

@anon 7:43

Women were allowed to go to university only in 1904.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

One point that I forgot: women could not vote in Germany till 1918.
France 1946.
GB 1928.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

They were oppressed and you cannot counter that by saying they had privileges in other fields.

The facts are on my side.

——————————————————-

At 11:08 AM, Paul Parmenter said…

Just a rider to the “were women allowed to study” debate.

I have never understood how it could be possible for men to stop women – all women, apparently – from studying. Have women throughout the ages been forcibly denied access to every book, to every form of communication, and to every means of experimentation? And even if it were so, why the hell did women not just go their own way and write their own books etc?

Men have consistently been creating and building great schools of learning throughout recorded history. Indeed that is how history has come to be recorded. Why did women not do exactly the same, and ensure their schools were open to females? If they were not allowed to enter men’s colleges, why did they not simply create their own?

It is not as if they did not have the resources. Many institutions of learning were founded by wealthy men inspired to do philanthropic works. But there have always been wealthy women alongside those wealthy men, with minds of their own and the freedom to do what they wanted. So why did they not emulate their menfolk and spend their wealth on founding women’s schools and colleges?

I think it is much nearer the truth to say that women in past history simply had no interest in what they saw as “men’s work in men’s world”. Study and research in centuries gone by were very hard, requiring endless hours of gruelling, patient and dedicated endeavor with no guarantee of any reward and none of the modern comforts and aids.

And the subjects were often in their infancy – primitive medicine for example must have been a gruesome subject. There is no evidence of hordes of frustrated women clamoring to stand alongside their male counterparts and share the enlightening experience of sawing the legs off wounded soldiers, or pulling teeth with a pair of pliers without anesthetic.

All the evidence is that women simply turned their backs and let men get on with it. Instead women devoted themselves to what interested them, which was overwhelmingly getting a husband, having children and running a household.

And of course that is why men would have denied places in their institutions to women. Why invest so much time and effort to teach a woman a skill that she is likely to abandon as soon as she meets a suitable man to marry, and reverts to being a housewife?

It is noticeable that women only began taking an interest in the fields of study of men, when all the hard work was done and it became a lot easier; when they had the time on their hands to escape household drudgery (thanks to the labour and time saving devices in their homes that were ALL invented by MEN) and when they saw something in it for themselves.

——————————————————-

At 11:31 AM, Mark said…

@ unpleasant bitter git
“PS. On a side note, I see that the The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey has now disappeared from their website. I wonder why?”

MRAs are quick to call feminists for seeing oppression and malice where it does not exist. Let’s try to not let ourselves be overrun by such imaginary demons. In this case, UBG, it’s just moved. If it moves again for any reason, you can search by publication number (4906) or title (Personal Safety Survey), but for now, working links are below:
Explanation page

Regards,
Mark

——————————————————-

At 11:51 AM, Anonymous said…

“They were oppressed and you cannot counter that by saying they had privileges in other fields.”

Well, they had privileges and you cannot counter that by saying they had been oppressed in other fields.

Especially if those privileges allows them to murder and walk away with it due to “post-natale depressiony”, screw over the guys in the divorce courts, lying about rape and getting away with it, asking for pay which they do not earn etc. etc.

As for enrollments, The Erlangen university did allow enrollment of women only in 1904, BUT it is only one university out of the hundreds, As there are examples like Erlangen, there will also be examples of all female schools like Salem College which was built in 1772 and established as a college in 1890.

And yes you are correct,the facts are with you indeed, as it is with us.

PS

Eh, how does one use the italics? It keeps saying my tag is not closed

——————————————————-

At 1:14 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon
The Erlangen University was not an exception. It was this way in all of Germany.
Maybe it was different in USA.
Italics are closed this way: */i*
Instead of the star use .

——————————————————-

At 8:49 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon 10:13

>Women were allowed to go to university only in 1904.

Depends on the country, the subject and the financing model. In 1871 Aletta Jacobs was the first Dutch woman who who went to a public university to study medicine (and finished it and became an important figure by the way).

>One point that I forgot: women could not vote in Germany till 1918.

http://www.bundestag.de/blickpunkt/104_Dossier/0506e/0506e030.html

Ordinary German men could not vote until 1871. Since Germany was a militaristic monarchy their vote didn’t count for much anyway.

http://users.pandora.be/Bart.Verhelle/html/democratie.html

Another example: in Belgium ordinary men could not vote until 1919, women not until 1948.

>They were oppressed and you cannot counter that by saying they had privileges in other fields.

Men were oppressed too, and they as well had privileges in other fields.

>The facts are on my side.

Selectively chosen to distort the overall picture.
10:23 AM

——————————————————-

At 8:20 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon 10:23

Selectively chosen to distort the overall picture.

It is interesting that you compare the right to vote of men and women.
In Monarchies men really did not vote, but look at the USA. Men voted from the beginning, women only in the 20th century.
Sure, you can say that it were men who fought the war of independence.

What I stated was not selectively chosen on purpose in order to distort the facts.

——————————————————-

At 10:57 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

A word about the concept of “homelessness”. Are we sure we know how this is defined?

My immediate impression of someone being homeless is that they literally don’t have a roof over their heads, i.e. they have to spend the night out in the open, or at least under railway arches or wherever they can get some shelter from the elements. I know there are many men who do this: I have seen them. But I can’t recall ever seeing any women in this predicament.

I read an item in my paper today about a young single mother (and yes, she was a single mother by choice) who was described as “homeless”. But she did actually have a roof over her head; the problem was that it wasn’t a place she owned, it was temporary accommodation, it wasn’t very nice, and it wasn’t where she would have chosen to stay. So maybe not a “home”, but at least a flat with amenities – a bed, kitchen, hot water, toilet, heat, light etc. A very big contrast with the poor devils who literally were in cardboard boxes under the arches, and who on a bitterly cold night might not live to see the morning.

Looking at the report from the Beeb on 23 November that Duncan quotes about “homeless” women, I see that 60% are stated to have “slept rough”. So 40% had never “slept rough”? I take this to mean that they had never actually slept out in the open. So just how homeless were they? I am also unclear on whether “sleeping rough” really means being out in the open either. The report is unclear, maybe deliberately. It seems that sleeping rough can mean what you want it to mean, whether sleeping in a friend’s flat, squatting or actually outdoors.

I also note some of the other descriptions surrounding these supposedly homeless women – including that “many homeless women had entered into unwanted sexual relationships in an effort to secure accommodation and basic necessities”. If the sexual relationship was unwanted, then it must have been rape, right? In which case, why did these women not report their rape to the police? Or could it be that they were willing to pay their rent through sex, not an unknown event and not rape? In which case are we not just looking at yet another route for women to get a roof over their heads that is not available to men?

So do take care over what is really being described here. Are you being conned by misleading terminology? It would not be the first time, would it?

——————————————————-

At 5:45 AM, Anonymous said…

@anon 6.10 pm

“In France women were admitted to the Ecole Polytechnique just 1970.”

Too bad for you, I am French. And I know the problem. The problem is : Ecole Polytechnique is a military school. So, it was quite normal that women were not admitted to it. They didn’t serve in the French army (or, only in certain jobs like medical ones). Only men did that.

Maybe the fact that it is the greatest school in France (not because students are the best, but because they have preferential access to very good jobs in the French administration and in state companies like EDF, SNCF, etc…, and also because they have a very powerful network) has something to do with the fact that women wanted to be admitted to it. Maybe they wanted a part of this beautiful cake.

But, at it is a very technical school (physic, mathematic, etc…), and as there is no affirmative action in the French universities, there is a very little part of women, 15 % on year 2000.

——————————————————-

At 8:30 PM, Anonymous said…

@anon 8:20 PM who was probably also
@anon 10:23

>It is interesting that you compare the right to vote of men and women.

Of course, how else could you dispel the feminist claim of one-sided oppression? In almost every (pseudo-) Western country they had to fight for male suffrage as well, often very violently.

>In Monarchies men really did not vote

Yes, they did, but almost never on a nation-wide level. They voted for city councils, for example.

>but look at the USA. Men voted from the beginning, women only in the 20th century.

Nope. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm
and/or
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/researchstarters/women/index.htm

From the latter:
“The U.S. Constitution made no statement concerning the right to vote, leaving that determination to the states. And at the time the Constitution was written, not only was suffrage restricted to white males, but it was further limited by religious, property, and taxpaying qualifications.”

>What I stated was not selectively chosen on purpose in order to distort the facts.

Then I strongly suggest to reexamine your history texts, and preferably not just pulled from the Web. I normally pull them from my University Library.

——————————————————-

At 4:05 AM, MarkyMark said…

Man, these little, Feminazi bitches are LIVING PROOF that giving women the vote was a huge, huge mistake-end of story…

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: