Bubblyian's Weblog

TV shows link to teen pregnancies

bubblyian — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:31:49 +0000

TV shows link to teen pregnancies
Watching sexually charged TV shows connected with teenage pregnancy. Surely not? But that is not the cause, merely a connected symptom. It is likely that the need to watch that type of show is greater in children where there is no love at home. The opportunity to watch that type of show is greater in households where the parents do not care about the children and allow them a TV in the bedroom and to allow them to watch whatever they like.
Thus again it is more likely connected with households where there is no father present and the single mother is lacking in capacity as a parent. Improve the quality of parenting, improve the quality and amount of interaction between the parents and children and they will watch these programmes less and be affected less by them. It still comes down to the fact that children who get appropriate love and affection from their parents are less likely to go looking for this outside the family and less likely to believe that they need a baby in order to find someone that loves them unconditionally.
It does however show that television has a disproportionate impact on the people who watch it. It is not before time that the impact of too much television and inappropriate television out of context is studied. I am of the opinion that when people turn on the television they turn off their brains. The television washes over them and they are subconsciously brainwashed by what they see. The programme makers have tremendous power and are not normally using this power constructively or wisely.
I believe that people should strictly limit the television and only watch programmes that make you think. Otherwise it is like a drug – takes away the pain of your daily grind for the time you watch it. When you switch off you are less able to think for yourself.
People should be encouraged to replace television use with Internet use as the Internet is largely interactive and you can watch and read what you want to read without being dictated to by the prejudices and whims of the broadcasters. There are strong signs that particularly younger people are doing exactly this.
Switch off the TV and set yourself free!
For more click: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7707664.stm

CSA Mark 3 – La Plus Ca Change …

bubblyian — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:48:35 +0000

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

La plus ca change, la plus c’est le meme-chose… (The more things change, the more they stay the same) CSA mark 3 starts November 1st. People are going to be encouraged to make their own voluntary arrangements. Yeah right. Income support applicants will not automatically trigger a CSA assessment, yeah right.

What planet do they think they are on? If a single mother thinks she is going to get more money from the CSA than from her ex through a voluntary agreement which way is she going to go? If they REALLY wanted to reduce their workload (other than shutting up shop and saving the country £240m per year and helping families stay together and reducing the numbers of fathers committing suicide and helping children stay in touch with their fathers…etc), they should only target the people they were set up to target in the first place – fathers who are truly absent. If a father on separation is having contact with his children then he is spending money on his children when they are with him. He should NOT pay anything to his ex. Why should he pay twice? If however he knowingly and wilfully runs out on his responsibilities- to his children – that is emotional not financial – and many mothers do not tell the father that he is the father and many do not allow him to have contact – but the few who choose to run away are the only genuinely absent parents and them and only them should be pursued by the CSA.

Sorry that is far too logical and pro–father The CSA was set up to persecute fathers and to drive them from their children and to support the notion that mother has complete control over the children and the father is only there for his financial input. It has failed largely due to the battle put up by fathers wanting to see their children and to spend money on their children not on their ex. We shall never know how many simply gave up work as a result – maybe the feminists behind the CSA were happy with that result as well in creating more jobs for the girls. The assessments were hypothetical; the amounts touted were wishful thinking. In my case for example, they added up my three consecutive previous jobs and assessed me on the total of my last three years income as if it was in one year! No wonder the figures they talk about unpaid maintenance are pie in the sky. The reality on the ground is that they have far too much power in attachment of earnings, removal of driving licences and other means to persecute fathers for what is effectively an arbitrary top up on the huge amounts paid to single mothers by this government. It is a tax on fathers not related to the needs of the child. I hope CSA mark 3 fails like the other two. I hope they sink down the plug-hole of history buried under the weight of their absurd mis-calculations, with the blood of hundreds of fathers who have been driven to suicide on their hands. I hope they can sleep at night, because as a result of their driving the fathers away from the children, the very people they were set up to help are the ones who have suffered the most – the children brought up without a father who are extremely likely now to end up in crime, drugs, alcohol abuse and all the other negatives in society. In the middle of a financial meltdown is clearly a good time to bury bad news. Chalk up another disaster to the government.

For more click: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/moneybox/7703907.stm

Suicide Sisterhood?

bubblyian — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:34:23 +0000

RE: SUICIDE SISTERHOOD

The media as usual have got it all wrong. They have assumed that all men are or will be criminals and that women are sweet and innocent and need protecting. There have been many examples of this sexual apartheid prejudice throughout the media. Women are treated in a different and superior category by the media. For example, you will have seen a headline like “six people killed including 3 women and children’. What were the rest? Monkeys?

Following on from this has been the prejudiced treatment by the Police using so-called ‘profiling’. In other words, when the Police are patrolling, they have a basic assumption that it is men that are causing crimes and hence 95% of those stopped and searched by the Police are male. You are twenty times more likely than a woman to be stopped and searched. Theoretically, the Police need a reason to stop and search, but are you realistically going to challenge their decision to stop you? Yeah right!

The criminal justice system is also prejudiced against men. There are 80,000 men in prison and only 4000 women. For every comparable crime, men get a custodial sentence where women get a community sentence, or if both receive a custodial sentence then men get a longer sentence. My other articles have highlighted differential treatment of men and women in various cases.

Of course, with terrorism, you do not know someone is a terrorist until they pull out the trigger for their bomb or otherwise after the event. Hence the Police are petrified of every man they are dealing with and likely to shoot on sight just in case (remember Jean Charles de Menezes shot at Stockwell tube station in July 2005). It would not happen to a woman.

Not surprisingly, the terrorists have realised this western weakness of preferential treatment for women and are now beginning to train women as suicide bombers.

So what will the patronised and prejudiced police do now? Surely they cannot treat everyone equally at last? Perhaps that should be equally badly? I doubt it. As a result more policemen will be killed because they were prejudiced into believing that the woman could not be a terrorist. A dangerous presumption.

For more click: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7667031.stm

Vigilante’s charter? Sexual apartheid in the UK.

bubblyian — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:00:32 +0000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7612315.stm

The witch hunt starts today. The government allows anyone to ask
for details on the convictions of anyone else under the pretext of
sexual offenders. Yeah right. Of course they do not expect this to be
used sensibly – it is doubtful if the government cares about the
likely persecution of people on the register or what use this
information will be put to – except maybe in the extreme.

This is a vigilante’s charter and we will no doubt hear of stories of
men being persecuted and attacked – yet another success for the
anti-male feminists in this (single) mother land.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/7662105.stm

Sex offender’s death is murder by strangulation.

The government has now made it possible for ‘anyone’ to obtain the details of people (normally men) on the Sex Offender’s Register (SOR). Is this the first of many deaths by the vigilantes?
Nobody in the media has any sympathy for this group. Few people in society have any sympathy. Therefore it seems an ideal target to turn a blind eye and allow the ordinary vigilante group to get on and rid the world of this person.

However, what happened to human rights? They have been punished, received a long custodial sentence and banned from working with children. That should be the end of it, but no the government is happy to allow their details to be easily available and no doubt anyone with a grudge against society can vent their anger on these people and nobody will care.

Yet another sign of our retreat to the gutter of civilisation and away from the broader themes of a compassionate society. And of course it is yet again men who mostly suffer. Not surprisingly few men want to be a primary school teacher or indicated any interest in working with children.

http://www.northantset.co.uk/news/Shortage-of-male-teachers-in.4545147.jp
only 11% of primary school teachers are men, less than 3% of pre-school/nursery/childminders are male. Why? Because of the risk of being caught up in this over-reactive anti-paedophile culture.

Further evidence of the division of society into the female and male sections. The females want to keep the children on their side of the wall and drive men into a corner on the far side of reality surrounded by a high wall. Sexual apartheid is alive and kicking and nobody (except me) is even able to identify it is happening.

How far will a woman go to have a baby?

bubblyian — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:47:40 +0000

Hi Timocrat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7659430.stm

In UK today there is a court case of a woman who has had her dead husband’s sperm removed and she wants to have a baby. Normally the court requires the consent of the father before this procedure can be carried out No doubt she will succeed in changing the law, but how far would you go to have a baby?
Like Madonna would you go to another country where the rules are less strict and ‘buy’ one?
Or would you have a one night stand and not tell the father you were not on the pill?
Or would you try and adopt or foster?

Do you think the father should be aware of what is happening?
There is a big difference adopting a baby that is already here and for whatever reason its parents cannot/not allowed to be the parents and deliberately creating one as a single parent in these circumstances.
The child is a separate human being with its own rights. It sounds like this woman is being selfish and having a child for herself and not thinking of the child’s best interests – namely – to have a chance of having a father. It is bad enough when relationships breakdown or father’s die that children end up with only one parent, but to deliberately create a child without a father seems utterly unacceptable to me. as a father I believe children need both parents.

I think this woman has gone too far though. But is this worse than using a sperm bank or egg donor? They are all legal even for single women.
There are two basic types of IVF – so called assisted fertilisation – where the mother’s egg and father’s sperm are mixed in a lab and then reimplanted. And donor fertilisation – where someone else’s egg and/or someone else’s sperm are fertilised and then implanted in the woman.

The first type I have no problem with, but the second type raises important questions about who exactly is the mummy and daddy? I do not think we should go that far in making babies. That is where I would draw the line – at least at the state’s expense. if people want to create babies and have the money to do so they will always find a way – but tax-payer’s should not help these artificial families. It will be far too confusing for the child in determining its ancestry.

Once again the courts are being asked to determine the limits of feminism – how far can women go to have babies without men. I doubt if this woman will lose sicne the courts continue to do everything asked of them, by women, but not by men.

Latest update from the (single) mother-land as at 9th October 2008

bubblyian — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:06:02 +0000

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

1) Hooray, someone is examining men’s health for a change – and
surprise surprise men age as well! And so does their sperm! Wow
revolutionary!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7492323.stm

2) Hooray! Whilst it is only a small step, it is highly significant.
The opposition conservatives, at last, have realised that positive
reinforcement is better than punishment to get people to do things.
Well at least to reward people for recycling rather than punishing
them if they don’t!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7496709.stm

3)Employment news – someone else has realised that by discriminating

in favour of pregnant women to absurd extent with 12 months maternity

leave and significant amounts of uncertainty for employers, surprise

surprise less people want to employ women who may have babies! Easy

solution – extend the rights of fathers to be the same and allow

parents to choose which parent takes the time off or if separated

allow them both half each and then there is no need for

discrimination! Too easy for this feminist government. No doubt there

will be more pernicious measures imposed on firms believing them all
guilty of disfavouring women of baby-making age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7504637.stm

Amazingly the newspapers have agreed!
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4333843.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/equality.gender

4) someone with a realistic view of sex, sexuality and bdsm – why is
it that connecting sex and violence makes the feminists go white with
anger? Some people choose this lifestyle. Master and slave can be
either way round gender-wise – of course the feminists are
anti-heterosexual sex of any kind and view sex as man master woman
slave – firstly some choose that as a preference and secondly some
choose the reverse as a preference. So what – why should anti-sex
feminists cast their opinion about something they know nothing about?
The letters make interesting reading as well. Well done BBC for an
interesting in-depth discussion without the usual anti-male comments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7504758.stm

5) Not optimistic, but at least parents are mentioned – however
punishing parents for their children’s crimes still is too late in the
process. Prevention is better than cure! Rewarding good parents is
better than punishing bad parents. What about teaching parents from
before they are parents? There is 9 months between conception and
birth; this period should be used to train parents. If they pass the
course then they should gain part of their benefits. The rest of the
proposals are obvious nonsense as they have all been used before and
just make the problem worse! More of the same is hardly going to make
things better!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7506618.stm

6)Hooray! Someone else has realised that men are far more likely to be
attacked than women and maybe men should be considered as victims!
First ever warning to men to be careful!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7510823.stm

7) Common sense has prevailed in South Africa – maybe. Proposals to
legalise prostitution in a safe area! Obviously the right thing to do,
hence the UK Government would not dream of doing it! Well done South
Africa!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7509357.stm

When you are a man in a woman’s world any small victory is a vital
step in stopping the elimination of men as a group and this is a small
but vital step -The feminists have been portraying circumcision of men
as a weapon to oppose spread of AIDS – like the use of the male condom
it also has the effect of reducing male pleasure in sexual intercourse
- a win-win for the feminists. However, circumcision of women is
illegal because it reduces female enjoyment of sex – so why is male
circumcision not illegal?
Clearly Kenya is more civilised than the UK! I bet not many people say
that very often! I like being the exception!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7514431.stm

9) Allowing thousands of men to be killed unnecessarily in Iraq and
Afghanistan and you keep your job. Walking into a pub and breaching
the no smoking ban and you get fired! Talk about disproportionate
punishment – for a man of course!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/7514458.stm

10) Someone else has noticed how unfair the plans to replace the
council tax with a local income tax are on workers – here MOD point
out the huge cost to their staff – yet another anti-male measure since
men generally earn more than women and work longer hours. Also another
anti-worker measure – why should people work as opposed to surviving
on benefits and hence not paying this unfair charge – better off not
working! What kind of attitude is the government encouraging? Also
divides further workers and non-workers – the workers of course having
to support the non-workers. I might go on strike!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7515699.stm

11) Not often I agree with the pope – but he is right about the problem
- a spiritual desert is spreading across the western world – replacing
morals and values with greed and the pursuit of money and selfishness.

What is needed is a secular list of morals and values to stand
alongside those for the religious ones – where people reject the
church they are also rejecting morals and values – something positive
is needed to fill the void – I bet it is mainly single mothers who are
rejecting religion!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7515888.stm

12) A needle in they haystack – an article about male DV victims and
the lucky few who made it to one of the tiny men’s refuges compared
with the hundreds of female ones.
The government takes male victims seriously – yeah right – who is she kidding?
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6500406

13) Some good news on prostate cancer for a change – a possible
breakthrough in treatment!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7502238.stm

14) Sounds like another battle over custody with transatlantic
connections – no doubt the press and the courts will take the
mother’s side, but it would be interesting to know the truth behind
this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7537034.stm

15)More signs of the ’success’ of feminism – massive jump in
alcohol-fuelled attacks by women – since they know they will receive
little or no punishment as compared with men, there is no disincentive
- not that there is much for the men either!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=336051

16) This story shows the pro-female bias in news reporting. To the
media, clearly women are more important than men. Somalia bombing
kills 16 women and possibly some others plus injures others…what are
these others? Chimpanzees perhaps?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7539395.stm

17) More indications of the more favourable treatment of women when
being violent – this article shows the success of feminism in
encouraging women to do all the bad things that men used to do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7550755.stm

18) More signs of the feminist control over men everywhere. Here in
Brazil an English man is arrested for non-payment of child support -
has the world gone mad? He has not been able to see his child, why
should he pay anything? It is a totally disproportionate punishment
for a penal rate of tax that almost only applies to fathers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/7550821.stm

19) With conservatives 20% ahead in the opinion polls (and who
believes opinion polls) David Cameron’s comments are those of a leader
in waiting. So when he talks of fixing the broken society as his
priority I give him huge applause. Of course the problem is HOW he
thinks he can do it. Unless he has been reading my blogs, I doubt if
he will be as radical and hence successful as I propose. He will
probably simply tinker with the benefit system. But it is a start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7566979.stm

20) You are just not allowed to tell the truth anymore if it reflects
badly on women. Why is it not politically correct to say that there
are some women who are ugly? Why is it not PC to suggest that people
choose partners based on looks and ugly women have very little chance
of getting a mate unless the men are desperate as they are in Mount
Isa apparently? Why is it not PC for women to admit that they want a
man? Oops of course the feminists are anti-male and
anti-heterosexuality and hence anything that might help people pair up
is bad news for them – particularly as ugly women rejected by men
are the best breeding ground for extreme feminists perhaps?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7567239.stm

21) Further evidence of the pro-female bias in gender selection on
birth? An indication from Australia that there are more women than men
there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7589382.stm

22) Further attempts by the feminists to undermine anything
competitive including team sports in order to undermine boys’ chances
in future lives as boys thrive on competition.

‘political correctness gone mad’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7599973.stm

23) Once again another distorted survey only asking girls’ views on
self-image and self-harm. Once again boys are ignored, even though
suicide rates are higher amongst boys than girls. Because girls are
continually asked and listened to the problem is less severe with
them. Because boys are ignored and treated as irrelevant the problem
is far worse.
When will the media realise that everyone is equally important not
just girls/women?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7502678.stm

24) an ‘arrest’ of a single mother who left three kids 11 and under
alone whilst on holiday. Why did she not leave them all with their
father?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7609727.stm
25) The only group to speak publicly about false allegations is the
teachers’ trade union.

Here once again shows the massive increase in false allegations by
children against teachers – and no doubt little if any punishment for
the pupils. Just like when women make false allegations against men.
Why should it be any different?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7613129.stm

26) The witch hunt starts today. The government allows anyone to ask
for details on the convictions of anyone else under the pretext of
sexual offenders. Yeah right. Of course they do not expect this to be
used sensibly – it is doubtful if the government cares about the
likely persecution of people on the register or what use this
information will be put to – except maybe in the extreme.

This is a vigilante’s charter and we will no doubt hear of stories of
men being persecuted and attacked – yet another success for the
anti-male feminists in this (single) mother land.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7612315.stm

27) Good news? Girls who have consensual sex under 16 with boys under
16 to be treated as criminals the same as boys – shock horror equal
treatment in the criminal justice system? Surely not! Anyway it has
been delayed as it might cause problems to girls! Yeah right – what
about the boys?

She added: “I don’t want a distinction between boys and girls. What I
am saying is if you want to make things equal, let’s make them equally
better and not equally worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7646934.stm

28) Another pointless study to help girls – why were they not asked
about fathers as well as mothers? Obvious really in the feminist
media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7648068.stm

29) Yawn! Another pointless study looking at two symptoms with
increased risk as a result of being brought up by single mothers and
surprise surprise they are linked! Same cause different symptoms -
when will these so called experts realise where they are going wrong?
Of course mental illness is increased in the absence of a father. of
course cancer risk is increased through smoking, poor diet and all the
other things that are at increased risk if brought up without a
father. Surprise surprise there appears to be a link!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7648460.stm

30) Interesting debate over so-called reverse discrimination in South
Korea. Is it right to reserve an occupation for blind people? Would it
not be better to fight the discrimination against blind people in all
other areas?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7649374.stm

31) Testing limits on freedom of speech – should someone with totally
unacceptable views be deported to a country where holding those views
is a crime? I don’t think so! Whatever next?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7652274.stm

32) Contrast these two news stories on parents who killed their children…

A father described as pure evil – life with a minimum of 17 years in prison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7650163.stm

Mother life with min 15 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7631734.stm

Notice the attempt to ‘justify’ the mother’s murder. Much more
sympathetic article.
Surprised that the sentences were so similar.

Lessons not learned by SS – father’s concerns ignored…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/28/ukcrime.childprotection

and another case where no one intervened as it was a single mother as
the murderer
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/10/bodies.found/index.html

and most disgusting of all, someone trying to profit from ‘justifying’
the murderous mothers and blame it on someone else…
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814756433/truecrimes-20

33)Further evidence of EU-wide anti-male discrimination. Extension of
maternity leave for mothers only – so who will be doing the work
whilst the women have a holiday? And as one astute observer commented
-”Ultimately some of the smallest businesses may think twice about
employing young women through fear of them going on maternity leave,”
he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7650988.stm

34) How can it be self-defence due to provocation to poison someone
over many months? What complete rubbish! Only a woman would try and
run that kind of absurd defence knowing that the judges’ prejudice is
in her favour. Provocation as a defence has to be real, immediate and
in the heat of the moment – this cold blooded calculated slow burn was
none of these. If she wanted to go off with another man, she should
have just left. Maybe there are still limits to the extreme of
feminism in courts – at least in Hong Kong – not here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7653942.stm

35) Not that I wish to enter the American election debate, but again
this shows the limits of feminism – using her position to persecute a
man that may or may not have a custody battle against a friend of hers
shows that there are no limits for Palin to be anti-male. She seems
an ideal candidate for the US president and just what the world does
not need – a man-hating extreme feminist as leader of the ‘free’
world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653938.stm

36) Further evidence supporting my argument of the damage to society
of being brought up without a father and hence in the more deprived
areas of the country – study here shows and repeats the fact that
people in deprived areas smoke more and hence die more from lung
cancer – here in west Scotland the worst area in the UK and most
deprived.

“We know that smoking rates are linked to deprivation – rates are
around 10% higher in working class communities.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7654692.stm

37) Notice the anti-male sentiment in this complaint about a programme
on the BBC – Nobody complained about a family treating a man as a dog.
It was only when they urged him to have sex with a woman that there
were complaints! In other words, what is done to men however horrible
and demeaning makes good television, even talking about doing
something to a woman produces horror and revulsion! Shows further
evidence of the increased division in treatments of the sexes. So much
for equal treatment! Not on the BBC!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7656578.stm

38) further attempts to brainwash young people into conventional
thinking – and to report anyone who thinks differently. Still using
the excuse of terrorism to hide their real policy of mind control.
Dangerous ground

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7656607.stm

39) More sexist anti-male nonsense in Iran – I hope this car is ten
times the price of the normal one – to penalise extremist views!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7657810.stm

40) Unbelievable! Talk about rape! Taking sperm from a dead man to try
and have another baby! What lengths will women go to in order to become single
mothers? As if the planet is not over-populated enough already?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7659430.stm

41) Sounds like another woman who could not cope with being a single
mother. Rather than give the children to the father she killed them by
setting fire to the house and left them in it. Sorry it is only
manslaughter when the mother kills the children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/7659538.stm

42) Men may be of more use than the feminists think after all! The sperm
may be able to be used for stem cells – are we worth more dead than
alive?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7659120.stm

Latest update from the (single) mother land as at 4th July 2008

bubblyian — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:36:14 +0000

1) So lapdance clubs reinforce the idea that women are sexual objects? What about the magazines and media where only beautiful slim women are used? Will the male strippers also be banned as they reinforce the idea that men are sexual objects? I think not! The law continues to operate one way only. Besides, it is in women’s interests to encourage this view as then there is less chance of a man being happy with a ‘real’ woman and the women working in this industry continue with their tax-free cash income and further transfer of wealth from men to women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7460302.stm

2)In spite of the survey showing most people blame crime on poor parenting, gov’t still talks about sentencing alone!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7460134.stm

3)It must be terrible being a feminist in the government. The more they try to educate women not to have sex (ie not to have anything to do with men) the more sex they have. They Tell them to use contraception and yet the number of abortions continues to rise. When will they learn that the main cause of this problem is the massive increase in single mothers and the children learn from their parents good or bad behaviour. Hence poor parenting and no male role model equals an increase in early sexual activity and higher numbers of abortions. This is further evidence of the success of the anti-father and- anti-heterosexuality policies of the government and the obvious consequences of such an absurd approach. Obvious to everyone with any common sense – which rules out most feminists and most of the government of course!
“Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people.”

“We know what works to reduce abortion amongst teenagers.

“We need high quality sex and relationships education at school and at home and effective contraception.

“Primary Care Trusts must ensure they are investing in contraceptive services for young people.” “In other words – more of the same failed policies which make things worse!
note – there is no mention of men at all – sex is obviously something that only women are supposed to do (so how do they get pregnant????)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7462934.stm

4)So much for equality! First woman soldier to die in Afghanistan ‘hero’ (sic) what about the 105 men who died (disposable?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7462985.stm

5)This is what happens when the benefits of having a child are perceived to be much greater than the responsibility. These girls were obviously poorly parented and lacking in love and affection if they needed to resort to these lengths – plus peer pressure and group pressure to conform – more signs of ’success’ of the feminists – it is after all (to them) every woman’s right to have a baby – regardless of the society consequences as a result of irresponsibly having a baby without ensuring that the father is fully committed – and the mother should only have the baby for the RIGHT reasons – not as here! Poor babies – what a hopeless life they have in store.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464925.stm

6)more false allegations by an anonymous woman for publicity purposes and anti-male role model purposes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7464844.stm
Obviously not being treated seriously as they are being allowed to fly home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7466928.stm

7)Yet another undermining of civil liberties in the western society of feminists – this is yet another law that is not needed – trying to scare people into believing that there is a real problem with terrorism, which there isn’t.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7463333.stm
and in USA same…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7466544.stm

Further signs of the ’success’ of feminism – promoting women as engineers instead of men has left a shortage of engineers – surprise surprise. How about targeting boys? Surely not!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7460658.stm

9) At least someone thinks it is worth helping men find their fathers. It is just a devastating shame that they were either not allowed or not able to maintain contact and had to be adopted in the first place – if the fathers ever knew that they had a son?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7459578.stm

10) Somebody else has noticed that boys need male role models and at school they do NOT need women teachers!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2164363/Female-teachers-told-to-%27shut-up%27-to-inspire-boys-in-the-school-classroom.html

11)AIDS is something the feminists love as it is spread by penetrative sex and they can bang their drums and say that penetrative sex is dangerous so don’t do it! However this report shows that firstly it is still predominantly a male-male homosexual problem and secondly the numbers are incredibly low – so much for the apocalypse prophecies of 10 years ago. Still a problem and low but rising.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7466889.stm

12) Shows TUC completely out of touch with reality and dominated by feminists – this article on low pay completely misses the point that two-parent families are the best way of bringing up children and keeping children out of poverty – not by increasing the numbers of single mothers as Labour and the TUC clearly want! Also – completely missed the point – it is emotional and psychological poverty caused by lack of male role model and hence lack of motivation and way out of the benefit dependency culture which has massively increased as single mothers increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7465136.stm

13) More government over-reaction – this time with the aborigines in Australia.

“Vince Forrester, an elder from the Mutitjulu people, who are the rock’s traditional custodians, told a rally in Sydney that the government’s actions had been a disaster.

He insisted that Aboriginal men had been portrayed as violent alcoholics who beat women and abuse children. “

Not just aboriginal men, actually – if you read the rest of the media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7467093.stm

14)Just shows what the greedy MP’s are doing with our money – trying to get away with everything that they can!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7467752.stm

15)feminism gone mad! Fathers day cards banned from Scottish schools! Whatever next?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2176315/Father%27s-Day-cards-banned-in-Scottish-schools.html

16) Screening for men? am i dreaming? but not for 3 years and only in scotland for men over 65! aneurysms only.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7470436.stm

17) So teenagers think poverty is the number one problem? Could this be because so many have so little money spent on them by their single mothers? Maybe if they had been asked about having a father that would have been top? Best way of reducing poverty is to keep families together. Except the government is actively bribing people to separate by the huge benefits for single mothers if they separate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7471891.stm

18) A temporary limit for the anti-male paranoia of child rape – narrowly avoided the death penalty. Rape of course is discriminatory defined to be penetration by penis – thereby excluding women. Of course REAL rape includes penetration by anything and then women could also be prosecuted for rape – hence the reason for the very narrow law – to go with the narrow minds of the feminists drawing up the law! Of course the feminists would like men to receive the death penalty for any kind of heterosexual sex, or even thinking about it – but not yet reached those extremes. Albeit by a narrow 5-4 majority. Obviously the feminists will try again in a few years, and no doubt succeed next time round.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7473780.stm

19)It had to happen under a feminist government – a specific law legalising discrimination against men, but not the other way round! And guess who introduces it – none other than HH herself architect of the anti-male persecution and policies against men throughout society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7473568.stm

further nonsense by HH on this subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7474801.stm

20) Civitas have published a lot of stuff with which I agree and often quote. Once again they have highlighted the media/government/feminists over-reaction as ruining adult-children relationships and guidance and particularly in the category most needed – that of male role model. As families decline and single mothers take over so alternate father figures become even more important. However, the feminists love to persecute men and proclaiming that all men are pedophiles and rapists is a good way of driving men away from children through fear and paranoia. Children suffer so all the negatives in society increase even faster. Well done feminists! You should be REALLY happy now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7474692.stm
for example – could not print a picture of a baby on a cake, might be pornographic!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7474968.stm

21) More sexist misinformation from the feminist government/media. Of course they want to lock all men up for ever and never release them The problem is over-crowding and hence releasing 18 days early seems sensible. Of course the feminists want to try and stop that so they highlight that 4 out of 26,000 committed a further offence – wow is that all? it does seem to be working to me but not to the feminists as even one offence is too many – and the entirely anti-male tone of this article is typical of the hysteria surrounding so called DV crimes – many of which are false allegations that the Court believe and many are self defence but of course the man is found guilty. There is a huge industry built up[ around DV now and it is misrepresented as only being male on female violence when in fact around half of DV is female on male. You would never believe that fact from this distorted news story!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7476678.stm
-

22) So it IS possible in the extreme for a woman to go to prison! Abandoning her 2-year old for the weekend got her 2 years in prison. bet she appeals!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7477178.stm

Plus another woman sent to prison for enslaving other women…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7476927.stm

23) Further feminist control of the sporting world is spreading – banning competitive sport for under 8’s – whatever next!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7477154.stm

24) I must watch this TV program if it is critical of the criminal ‘justice’ system – and see how accurate it is??? It seems that the Legal World are complaining about it!

http://www.lawcareers.net/information/news/Detail.aspx?r=2059
http://www.newlaw-directories.co.uk/jobboard/cands/newsview.asp?id=964

25) Further distorted reality news coverage to make believe that DV is only men attacking women.
Why such illustrious organisations should only ask women if they have been victims is beyond me! They should not only have asked EVERYONE whether they have been victims but also ask the women whether they have ever been perpetrators of DV and/or provoked the man into hitting them. Then maybe just maybe we would start to get closer to the truth – of course if everyone has told the truth in completing the survey – surely they would not have lied to increase the figures? It is very easy to say you have been a victim anonymously when no proof of police or hospital involvement is needed – these results should be taken with a pinch of salt and the organisations involved should be severely criticised for divisive discriminatory and unreliable data analysis – but they won’t be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7484160.stm

26)Is this the level of oppression that the UK government is aspiring to? Guilty until proven innocent – the flimsiest of associations to terrorist groups is all that is needed in France…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7484587.stm

27)Family replaced by gun culture – so says head of Police authority….
So what is the role and/or purpose of the police then? promotion or
opposition to family breakdown?

Why won’t they join forces with us and oppose policies that encourage and reward family breakdown and punish those who stay together?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7484605.stm
funny – it has been deleted! But here is the text:

Family ‘replaced by gang culture’

The breakdown of family life can lead youths into gang culture, it is
claimed

Family life has been replaced by gang culture based on drugs and
violence for “almost feral groups” of young people, a police chief has
suggested.

Barbara Wilding, Chief Constable of South Wales, said in some areas
tribal loyalty replaced that of the family.

Her speech was made at King’s College London in May, and reported in
The Times, which obtained a transcript.

Ms Wilding said that family breakdown was the root cause of many
problems for young people.

Speaking at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, she said: “In
many of our larger cities, in areas of extreme deprivation, there are
almost feral groups of very angry young people.

“Many have experienced family breakdown, and in place of parental and
family role models, the gang culture is now established.

“Tribal loyalty has replaced family loyalty and gang culture based on
violence and drugs is a way of life.”

The former deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan Police
also said more focus should be placed on tackling the complicated
social and economic issues that lead to criminal behaviour.

“In an age of cost-benefit analysis… there is no appetite for
solutions that have no visible return and no patience for any which
will not bear immediate political fruit.”

During her speech, Ms Wilding also said disaffected young people were
a prime target for terrorist recruiters.

Give me the strength to change those things that I can change, the tolerance to put up with those I cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference.

Latest update as at March 8th 2008

bubblyian — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:22:47 +0000

Permalink–>

In the motherland, men…

1)… Are not allowed to say anything bad about any woman/women, even if it is true and was your own personal experience whilst in hospital!

“The nurses that looked after me were mostly grubby,” he said.

“We’re talking about dirty fingernails, slipshod, lazy.

“But worst of all my Lords they were drunken and promiscuous,” he told peers.

“How do I know that? Because if you’re a patient and you’re lying in a bed, and you’re being nursed from either side, they talk across you as if you’re not there.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…et/7270565.stm

2) Some good news, but nobody knows why teenage pregnancies have fallen so much, although everyone wants to take the credit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7271155.stm

3) More tired old repeated mantras from the opposition Tory party – these policies have been tried and do not work. The number one cause of crime is children brought up without a father – why is this not mentioned? Why simply ‘build more prison places’? What kind of policy is that? The policy of failure.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, called on the government to establish a royal commission, an ad hoc advisory committee often used to investigate major issues.

“Successive governments have allowed prisons to rot in a policy vacuum,” she said.

“… this government must reach beyond party politics and, instead of arguing about who can spend most money on more jails, it should establish a royal commission on the nature and purpose of imprisonment.”

They still do not or they refuse to understand the causes!

When will this country, or indeed any country realise that you cannot punish people into being good – it takes positive reinforcement not threats to make people behave and positive role models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7274148.stm

4) In spite of the so-called better performance by girls at school, they are less able at simple arithmetic – surely there cannot be some misinformation here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7271396.stm

5) Girl guilty of murder? Surely not! Well she won’t get very long in prison …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…ne/7275409.stm

Amazing! Women going to prison for life for murder! Surely not!
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7282776.stm

6) Non-news – trying to keep the feminists on board pretending there is discrimination when it is the women’s choice not to follow a career -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7269436.stm

7)More attempts by the feminazi to increase the NUMBER of men found guilty of rape, not the ACCURACY of the number. Moving nearer to the situation they would like where every woman who makes an allegation is automatically successful – who cares about justice? No mention of the fact that false allegations account for most of the claims as women know they are unlikely to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice if they make up the allegation. Of course, the feminazi want to undermine heterosexual activity and scaring people into avoiding sex is a powerful weapon,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7275588.stm

8)Funny how when it is a woman suspect no warnings to beware of women are circulated, but when there is a male suspect then ‘all parents are warned’…further attempts by the media to whip up anti-male paranoia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…ds/7276266.stm

9) Women clearly want it both ways (Surprise surprise!) Able to wear short skirts to inflame and annoy men who cannot have them as a girlfriend, but also to express their freedom – what about men’s freedoms to have respect for morals and not be offended by indecent exposure as they see it? Be interesting to see which group gets prosecuted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7276654.stm

10) Funny how when a mother suffocates a child they are quick to find it was accidental death. Maybe it was in this case, but who is to say for certain? Yet another problem of children brought up by single mothers. If the dad was around, he could have prevented this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7280096.stm

11) Only in the news because it is a woman – Council causing grief to tenants is a normal part of life under the LA dictatorship, but this one makes the news!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…re/7279825.stm

12) Another non-news story – why don’t they try and find logical reasons for the move before jumping to conclusions? And what about boys who are not at school? They are presumed to be truants and their parents are prosecuted? Why not treat both genders the same for a change????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7280970.stm

13) Yet more non-news and discriminatory stories to keep the feminists on board – why only stop violence against girls? What about the much bigger problem of violence against boys?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…on/7282038.stm

14) More failure to understand the need to differentiate between good and bad mothers – Turkmenistan starts to bribe women to have more babies rather than better quality babies ie brought up by 2 parent families – large families are bad news as kids cannot get enough parenting time from any adult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7279540.stm

Contrast with the 1-child policy in China -

Why change a successful policy – contrast this with the absurd ‘breed ‘em and weep’ policy of western governments saying more=better when in fact it is obvious that the people most likely to take the bribes are the least likely to bring up the children properly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7281023.stm

15) Of course a woman does not have to resign or be punished when caught out acting illegally – more discriminatory treatment in politics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7281820.stm

16) Another non-news story to keep the feminists on board – women trafficking – over-played exaggerated and made to seem like a major problem when most of the women come willingly to be prostitutes for the high money and easy work – here 10 women ‘rescued’ ‘most ever’ – hardly worthy of mention!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7282711.stm

17) More failure to understand the root causes of alcoholism – and an attempt to steal the headlines with knee-jerk reactions – trivial changes to tax on alcohol are hardly going to stop the serious problems of kids growing up without a male role model and hence feeling detached from society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7282308.stm

18) Italy – unbelievable! Protection for women (but not for men in the same situation, no doubt?) Why should she be able to lie about adultery and get away with it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm

19) As more single mothers smoke as they are poorer and clearly less willing to give up smoking (or anything?) for their kids – so more damage to children – further reason why there should be a clamp down on single mothers rather than encouraging and rewarding them as this government does.
“Mothers smoking is a greater risk than fathers smoking”
[mothers?] “He said parents often lied about whether they smoke near their children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e…de/7284793.stm
20) Whilst changing the system of council tax from a flat-rate (where everyone pays the same, but the poorer people get a reduction based on low earnings) to a system based on income would penalise men who earn more and hence pay more tax already, whilst women would benefit in paying less as they earn less on average. Once again this would increase the transfer of wealth from men who pay tax to women who receive benefits. When will men realise that they are being disproportionately punished and fight the high taxes on them?

News Article on increase in single mothers April 2007

bubblyian — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:35:37 +0000

Permalink–>

Updates on UK statistics – bad news for everyone that single parents
are on the increase – but no surprises!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6542031.stm

My thoughts on this article -

1) Single mothers
The graph shows the depressingly bad news that there is a rapid
increase in the number of single mothers, but not that of single
fathers. Clearly, the women are keen to take the bribe of the £4500
per annum per child and the men are not. Since all the negatives in
society are massively increased for children being brought up by
single mothers, the unsurprising news makes depressing reading. The
increase started more than a generation ago and shows signs of
accelerating. In ten years half of children may be brought up in
fatherless families. What is that going to do to the crime rate?
David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society,
told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “If you take almost any measure -
how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether
they commit suicide, etc – it’s better to have two parents.

2) 60% of single men staying at home
The article makes a big point about so many men staying at home and
tries to make this into a negative. The fact is that since so many
women and girls are getting pregnant as teenagers, they have a much
greater opportunity to leave home and get a Council House for free.
Since it is ‘easier’ for them to live on the state they are doing so
in ever increasing numbers. The fathers of those children have no
rights to council housing and have to pay the mothers the ‘fathers
tax’ of up to 25% of their net income so have not enough money to
leave home. they need to be supported by their parents in paying for
their children that they are denied reasonable contact with.

3) ’single parents are poorer’
WRONG! Since they get virtually everything for free – Free
accommodation, no rent, no council tax, free prescriptions, free
school meals, free child care, and £4500 per child in cash to spend in
anyway they choose (drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc), no punishment for
abusing their children or neglecting them or just being appalling
parents and almost impossible to be jailed as a mother regardless of
what crime they commit (because the children will suffer…)plus they
are allowed to earn additional cash tax-free through prostitution and
multiple fathers’ tax payments, they are far better off than a two
parent married couple working hard and having to pay for everything
and tax and national insurance as well! Needless to say, the people
examining their ‘income’ were looking narrowly at the wrong factor.

4) ‘The number of households has risen 30% since 1971, but the
population only rose by 8%’ and ‘More than seven million people in
Britain also live alone now, compared with three million in 1971.’
This is a disastrous indictment of how badly the ‘experiments in
living – the fatherless family’ is working out.
As a result, the number of houses required has jumped, so not
surprisingly this had led to shortages of accommodation and house
prices have jumped – ‘wages rose on average by 92% from 1995 to 2005,
but house prices rocketed by 204%’.
Thus traffic has increased as people have to live further away from
their jobs, people have to buy more of everything to stock the extra
homes (good for the capitalist system – is this another reason why the
Government is actively encouraging family breakdown?) and it is bad
for the environment – two cars when one would have done before.

This, the report said, had left societies more fragmented and led to
much less trust and co-operation between neighbours.
Absolutely – and no support networks so single mothers have to abandon
their children on the street whilst they are off with their friends as
their parents live too far away to look after them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h…ial_trends.pdf

Looking at the report itself rather than the prejudiced article -

5) Table 1.2 shows the population by gender. There are more males than
females in the ‘under 16′ and 16-24′ groups, but more women from then
on – why is that? Men have a far higher suicide rate than women and
men do the more risky jobs – army, construction and mining so die off
earlier. Life for boys and young men growing up without a male role
model is far tougher and they just give up. Also murders of men is far
higher than women, although the reverse would be believed by the new
coverage,w here one woman being injured covers ten times the news
coverage of ten men getting killed. This is confirmed by table 1.9
‘deaths by age and sex’ which shows that in the 16-34 age group, men
have twice the death rate of women.

6) ‘In Europe, women could expect to live 8.4 years longer than men’ -
This shows the huge discrimination against men in every aspect of life
in Ethe Eu. In Britain, however, the gap is slightly less – possibly
due to the fact that more women smoke here, plus also life as a single
mother is actually not that much fun even if they don’t have to lift a
finger.

7) Page 15 – Black ethnic group had the highest proportion of single
mothers – half of ‘other black’ and ‘black Caribbean’ households but
only 10% amongst Indian and 15% Chinese – some racial groups still
believe in sensible methods of bringing up children properly – not
surprisingly the feminists are targeting the Asian women now to try
and unsettle Asian families and destroy them in the same way they have
destroyed western and afro-caribean families.

Table 2.21 shows the increase in teenage pregnancies.
This is not surprising as girls growing up in a fatherless house are
more likely to be short of male attention and more likely to get
pregnant. They are likely to be the children of teenage mothers
themselves. Since the rewards for being a single mother (free housing
etc) are the same regardless of age, and the fact that their mothers
are often unable or unwilling to show appropriate affection or
guidance to the children, it is not surprising that they believe
getting pregnant is an ‘escape’ from their ‘loveless’ home and that a
baby will be ’someone to love them’ – but like the RSPCA warning on
dogs – children are not just for Christmas they are for life. The
reality of the trap they are getting in to takes a long time to sink
in – and when it does they are prime cases for adoption. Luckily most
are having abortions, but too many are wrecking their lives and that
of their children by actually giving birth to the baby. Is this also
related to the increase in sex education which tells kids how to have
babies, but does not teach about relationships and the reality of
living with a crying, screaming, pooing living thing 24/7?

9) P29. Exclusion rates
Looking at troublesome children matches the characteristics for single
mothers – ‘other black’ and ‘black Caribbean’ children had the highest
exclusion rates, Indian and Chines the lowest. Boys were four time
that of girls – firstly lack of male role model and secondly the
discrimination against boys intrinsic in schools.

I could go on That is enough for now

A disastrous picture of a declining and collapsing civilisation.
Congratulations to consecutive Governments for destroying the family
and hence society in their pursuit of revenge for the women!

I may continue in another article.

Anti-Male discrimination in Education in the UK

bubblyian — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:34:29 +0000

Permalink–>

More than most
areas of society, this one in particular is largely filled with my
views and opinions, and less based on statistics and evidence than
others. i am still formulating my views on this subject and I am open
to debate on the following ideas, as indeed I am on any of the
articles,

If you catch the children young enough, then they will be suitably
brain-washed as adults, and that is what has happened.

1) Background

When I grew up in the 1970s, the news stories on education were about
the fact that boys were outperforming girls in most subjects ‘and how
unfair this was’. There was pressure to close the gap. Clearly, this
has now happened.

Going back into history, it was widely believed that there was no
point educating women, as they were destined for being house-wives and
stay-at-home mothers, and the cost of educating them would be wasted.
Similarly, it was not considered necessary for them to have the vote,
as they were neither interested nor bothered about politics. Clearly,
these views have changed, but large numbers of women DO stay at home,
whether through choice, necessity or the benefit trap, and less women
than men are interested in politics and less women than men bother to
vote.

2) Fundamental basis
This is the key to understanding the changes in education as being
along gender lines. if you agree with this statement, then I believe
you would agree that the rest of the article flows from here.
My controversial bit, and I believe backed up by most people’s general
view is that men are more logical rational consistent and more able to
focus on one task for long periods to the exclusion of everything
else. Women are more emotional irrational and inconsistent and more
able to multi-task – ie do many things or think many things
simultaneously. Women are able to understand spatial and conceptual
problems more easily, men prefer reality and facts. Men are more
curious and competitive, women more team-oriented
I must emphasise at this point that I am NOT saying that either is
right or wrong best or worst just simply to emphasise that men and
women are DIFFERENT but equally valuable and important. These
differences I think are the reason why children do better with two
parents, one mother and one father as these personality types are
complementary to each other. It is probably also why men and women
struggle to form relationships without conflict.

Since the feminists took over, there have been radical changes in the
education system, mostly for the worse. Most of these changes can be
viewed on gender lines as being disproportionately bad for men and I
would argue, that is why they have been introduced.

I believe that the role of parents during their children’s ‘minority’
is to bring them up to be law-abiding, independent, self-sufficient,
contributing, well-balanced members of society. I believe that the
role of education is to supplement the parent’s roles and provide the
knowledge and skills to cope as an adult.

3) Changes – Maths
Whilst I enjoyed maths, algebra, differentiation and the like, I can
see no purpose at all for the vast majority of children in teaching
maths beyond about 6th grade age 11. An average student by then would
have all the basic maths to cope with life. Unfortunately in the UK at
least 15-20% of ADULTS fail to reach this basic level, in spite of
having twelve years of education in which to study it. This is widely
recognised as a failure of the system. In the 1970s, boys were doing
significantly better than girls at maths. So the system was changed.
Instead of repetitive sums and learning tables by rote, which favoured
the boys, the system is now ‘conceptual’. You have to ‘visualise’ the
numbers joining together. You have to use ‘number ladders’ to do
adding and subtraction. Tables are out and long multiplication is
carried out by some bizarre method of repeated addition. When I taught
my son old style multiplication, he picked it up in minutes at the age
of 6. He had to UNLEARN it and got thoroughly confused by the
feminised version, which still confuses him.

4) Changes – Competition
The biggest damage to boys has arisen in the feminists view that
school time should be a fuzzy warm protective place where children can
be children immune from reality. Until they are thrown out of the door
at 16 or 18 to be confronted by cold hard real adult life entirely
unprepared for what happens to them. Specifically, competition is
BANNED! My son did well at keystage 2 what used to be 11+ and I asked
his teacher how he had done in the year group. I was told oh we don’t
want kids to know that as it might make them too competitive!
In the absence of competition for boys in particular, they are likely
to lack motivation. In team sports where overwhelmingly men are better
than women, and indeed they are so much better that in virtually every
sport there have to be separate competitions for women as they would
not get anywhere at all in the men’s competition otherwise. Bizarrely,
these second class games argue successfully for equal treatment at the
Olympics and even in tennis at Wimbledon (the last major ‘hold-out’)!
Even though they compete in best of three, compared with men best of 5
and even though the quality of the women outside the top 20-30 is
appallingly poor, they still demand and receive equal money!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6385295.stm
In golf, for example, the occasional woman has tried and failed
miserably to compete on the men’s tour, but men are banned from
competing on the women’s tour! So much for fairness!

At school, the competitive sport is frowned upon. It is not surprising
therefore that our national teams do so badly on the international
front. In particular the Australians and the Americans know all about
‘win or bust’ and appear to always have an ‘extra gear’ to use when
times are hard. I believe this is because they have been brought up on
competition from an early stage and revel in those tense situations,
unlike the British sportsmen, who fizzle out under pressure. I must
give credit here to the England cricket team for winning the Ashes in
2005 although they lost them this year, but they bounced back to win
the tri-nation one-day series!

5) Changes – Parent-teacher liaison
Ruth Kelly suggested that fathers who do not attend parent’s evenings
should be banned from having contact with their children.
My son has just moved up to secondary school and a new headmistress
has just taken over the very well performing school he attends. At the
first introduction event, she talked long about the ‘three-way’ golden
triangle of school, parents and children. Improving communication
would benefit the children. All wonderful stuff. So what does she do?
Virtually all communication with parents is via a ‘homework diary’
that the children take to and from school and has to be signed by the
parent oat the weekend. Virtually all additional information is by a
letter which is handed to the child in the class. Whatever happened to
email? Only used for ‘begging letters’. Thus overwhelmingly the mother
is the one who receives the information and denies the father any
opportunity to find out what is happening at the school. Requests for
two copies of everything still rely on the children to remember to
hand to dad at the weekends.
Further – the parents ‘evenings’ have been changed to afternoons! The
teachers were working too hard and need to go home, so it was felt
better to hold these ‘consultations between 3 and 5pm. Thereby all
working parents and particularly dads are automatically excluded. When
I complained about this, I was told that 98% of parents turned up last
year and largely voted in favour of the change. When I pointed out
that what really happened was that 98% of children had at least one
parent there and that he did not know what percentage of PARENTS,
simply percentage of children, he did not reply.
His other comment suggested that parents should treat visiting the
teacher in the same way as visiting any other ‘professional’.
I pointed out that schools were near where you live not where you
work. That visiting your accountant, solicitor etc could be arranged
near where you work and hence during the lunch-hour. Some even run
evening surgeries. Visiting your doctor would be a likely reason for
time off, although a GP had to be near where you live (further
discrimination against working people and in particular men). Needless
to say there was no reply.

6) Changes – history
I have noticed the feminisation of history lessons. It is perceived
that boys enjoyed history owing to the battles and the learning of
kings by rote, so all that has changed. The lessons now concentrate on
the ‘lifestyle’ of the times and the ‘female’ historical figures are
much more important. Suddenly the handful of Queens and wives of Henry
8th and Boudicea Joan of Arc etc become much more significant than the
vast myriads of men who fought and died for their country.

7) Changes – Science
On a similar vein, the male inventors are ignored and the tiny few
female inventors get disproportionate mention. Florence Nightingale,
Marie Curie (famous for CONTINUING the work of Mr Curie after he
died). Based on my personal opinion that men are better able to focus
on one issue to the exclusion of everything else, it is not surprising
that 99% of inventions and innovations in history have been by men (I
would say 100% as I cannot think of any by a woman, and my dad did a
PhD on the subject and could not name any, but I am sure there MUST
have been one somewhere!), It used to be said that behind every
successful man there is a woman nagging him on. In other words, a man
had a wife who supported, encouraged and helped him so that he could
concentrate on the job in hand (Now THAT is an old fashioned idea – a
supportive wife – wishful thinking nowadays?). However, the successful
women are overwhelmingly single. They often get to their late 30s and
realise they have sacrificed the possibility of a family to have a
career and realise their biological clock is ticking. They suddenly
get ‘baby hunger’ and apparently Cambridge is the place in the UK
where this happens the most(!), and grab the nearest man and have a
baby. Is this for selfish reasons or for the good of the child?
Also a vast fortune was wasted on schemes such as ‘WISE’ (Women into
Science and Engineering) to reverse the perceived discrimination
against women in entering science and engineering, as only 4% of
engineering students were female. As a result of dropping their
attempts to attract men into science and engineering and focusing only
on women, the number of women went up 20% and the number of men went
down 6%. The end result meant even greater shortages of engineers!
Once again feminism triumphed over logic and rationality!

Changes – subjects
More feminised subjects have been introduced which are ‘easier’ for
girls. Media studies is a good example of a meaningless subject that
has risen in popularity and is a very easy subject to get a degree in.
It appeals mainly to the fashion conscious, celeb watching mindless
brigade who cannot think for themselves – disproportionately women who
are interested in trivialities of fashion and ’street cred’.

9) University
It used to be the elite who went to university. The government now
wants 50% of kids to go to uni – to avoid them ending up on the
unemployment register!
Devaluing the university is a way of undermining the advantages of
clever kids, mainly men. It also puts off the employers as if everyone
has a degree, it is meaningless. Thereby removing the competitive
edge.

10) Hypocrisy
The feminists in charge know that the state system that they have
created is appalling and falling further an further behind the private
school system. Hence many (most?) of them send their kids to
fee-paying schools outside the state system. For example, Ruth Kelly -
education minister -
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a…isy/article.do

The future
Ruth Kelly was set ten tests as education minister.
-http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050106/ai_n9562564
Just a few points -
In order to ensure that nobody ‘fails’ as that is bad for the poor
little girlies – and taking away the stigma of failure means that
nobody passes – therefore it is not competitive as you will pass
anyway! In other words, the competitive boys are frustrated by not
having anything to compete over.
Truancy rates are rising as are all the other negatives in society as
a direct result of the exclusion of fathers from society. The number
one cause of truancy is family breakdown. Kids need a male role model
and if dad is denied contact, then they get the role model from the
local gang leader on the street with the inevitable progress down the
escalator of crime. Additionally, being brought up in a single mother
household makes kids more likely to be dependent on state hand-outs
and not seeing their mother working. Thereby the kids grow up
believing you can get anything on a plate without having to work for
it. They are not stakeholders in society therefore they do not value
anything they see around them, eg street furniture or other people’s
belongings – these things are all there for them to vandalise steal,
graffiti or whatever they feel like at the time – they have never
learned a conscience as there is no punishment either from their
parents, or from the state which refuses to seriously punish children
under 18.
False allegations – particularly male teachers suffer from false
allegations. According to the National Union of Teachers, 95% of
allegations are false, but the damage is done. The kids are not
punished, but the teacher is finished.
http://factuk.org/
Only 2% of child minders and 11% of primary school teachers are male.
Thus most kids from single mother households do not see a man in a
position of responsibility until the age of 11 – it is too late. It is
presumed that any man who wants to teach children must be a
paedophile.

The Jesuit priests say -’Give me a child until the age of 7 and I give
you the man’ – the vast majority of the child’s development is set by
the age of 7.

I have heard that a primary school head can look aroud the class of
new kids at the age of 4-5 and identify accurately which will go to
prison and which will go to university. The first few years are the
most crucial and have set the pattern.

Discipline – I have heard lots of nonsense from people believing that
reintroducing ‘corporal’ punishment will solve the problems at school
- in other words using the cane on disruptive pupils. Unfortunately,
society has changed so much that it would have no effect now. Those
kids who would have been good anyway do not care what the punishment
is as they would avoid it, even if just a detention. The bad kids will
consider it a ‘mark of their success’. the ones in the middle, MAY be
slightly affected, but would pronbably follow whichever of the other
two groups they belonged to. Being ‘bad’ is far more attractive than
being ‘good’. Remember from your own school days what happened to
‘teacher’s pets’, or ’swats’. They got bullied. I know, I did!
I saw a programme where the audience was asked about whether they
smacked their children and when. A woman put up her hand and she
stated that she smacked her children when SHE was tired! What kind of
message was she sending them?
I have seen mothers in supermarkets stop to talk to another mother.
The child sits on the floor and entertains himself, peacefully and
harmlessly. Mother finishes her chat and says ‘let’s go’. The child is
in the middle of something and does not move immediately – WHACK! He
gets a clip round the ear and is dragged off screaming. What has he
learned? When he is good he gets smacked!.

Other times I believe that the mothers only interact with their
children when they are naughty. When they are good, they are ignored.
Thus the child learns in a bizarre sort of way that his mother must
love him when he is being naughty because that is the only time he is
receiving any attention from her! It is not surprising that these kids
grow up to be criminals!
Fathers are more likely to ‘rough-house’ with their kids. They are
basically wrestling matches, but controlled. The boy learns how to
control his aggression, because if he gets carried away, the dad will
stop immediately. these are safe ways for letting off steam.
http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/roughhouse.htm
Dumping the kid in front of the tv or computer does not let out the
natural aggression, even through violent video games, and this
frustration boils over in dangerous ways on the playground etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3603235.stm
http://khloud.wordpress.com/2007/02/…-for-children/
Yet another reason why dads are crucial, particularly to boys.
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html

Summary
There are some calls for segregated education as there are some
studies which appear to show that girls do better in single sex
schools whilst boys do better in mixed schools. I doubt it. I do not
believe in segregated anything. The blacks fought hard and long to get
mixed education, for a very good reason, there schooling was second
class compared with the whites. There schools were treated less
favourably on the jobs market. I believe the same would ahppen if
boys and girls were segregated, the boys schools would be rubbish, the
girls would be favoured.
In any case, I believe that it is better for society if boys and girls
coexist in harmony and ultimately in relationships. It is extremely
unlikely to happen if everyone is taught in single sex environments
and that is exactly what the feminists would like to happen and
therefore I am opposed to it and in any case it is not a society I
would like to live in. Let’s fight against that segregated future
TOGETHER.