SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights, Feeds and Contact

  • April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Visitors Count

    • 61,162 hits
  • Categories

  • Meta

Archive for the ‘General Society’ Category

OTM of Being A Man

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on January 10, 2010


“we cannot have mutual healing and enlightenment unless we also have recognition of harm done that goes both ways.”

No woman, except my wife, has ever told me that there is anything GOOD about being a Man – ever. No woman, except my wife, has ever expressed their appreciation for that which is typical male about me, or any man. It is as if a majority of women really think men are useless, worthless and meaningless creatures that they put up with for some inconceivable reason.

I find this realization quite painful, and it also makes me very angry, because I know that I cannot be the only man feeling like this. I know I am not.

I don’t hate women. I find women for the most part to be delightful, wonderful and intriguing creatures, until I see that hard, hateful glint in their eyes directed at me because I am a man, accusing me of all things horrible in the world including things I am either too young to be guilty of or too old to be guilty of, even in a theoretical manner. Every time that happens something dies in me, a piece of my ‘man’ wants to cease to exist, because no-one can stand that much hate.

When are ordinary women, who actually love men, exactly because they are men, (I have to believe that you exist…) going to revolt against the hatred against men conditioned into women from the day they are born? When?

Posted in Men | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

On the Matter of Feminism and Domestic Violence

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 23, 2009


“- Please be aware that in the midst of a serious discussion on gender issues, posting cruel or mocking humor tends to escalate things and upset people.  What seems funny to you might seem very offensive to someone else, and in any case distracts from the seriousness of such a discussion.” (From a Group’s guidelines on how to conduct a discussion on the matter of f.i Feminism)

- The guide lines were updated after “The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism” (posted below) was posted and resulted in one woman sarcastically attacking a man’s sources of statistics and generally belittling men who are abused by women and another man pointing out to her that sarcasm is a form of verbal abuse and that he would not feel safe with her given the level of prejudice she exhibits through that  use of sarcasm and belittling.

The addition to the guide lines of that Group was clearly made to make sure that status quo is maintained – i.e women remain innocent victims of male abuse, and men remain monstrous perpetrators of such abuse in the minds of people – women are not perpetrators, because she has never seen any men, in her practice as a doctor, that were abused by women. And if they exist, despite her professional experience that they don’t, (she used her professional experience as leverage – it’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” in the discussion so people will be convinced as to why she is right and the men’s statistics is wrong…so it’s only fair that this is called into question – her professional opinion.) they (implied) do so in such a small number compared to the number of women abused by men as to be (implied) negligible.

What does the number have to do with anything? Men are abused by women – they just don’t tell her about it, probably because they instinctively know that she’s not safe, despite her profession.

The fact is that women abuse men just as much as men abuse women, the methods of abuse just look different, and in the case of physical abuse the severity of the damage will differ between the genders, generally due to difference in physical strength  – if a 200lb male boxer beats his 100lb photo model wife, she is likely to be both bruised and broken, but if a 100lb photo model beats her 200lb boxer husband, she isn’t likely to cause more than bruises, unless she uses an implement (skillet, lamp, baseball bat etc), which means that she (if he beats her) needs to visit a hospital, but he (if she beats him) probably won’t have to do more than put on a band-aid and take a couple of painkillers. This doesn’t mean that some men aren’t seriously injured by women in domestic violence situations – a baseball bat will kill also in the hands of a woman. Add to this that men rarely hit back if they are hit by a woman, because despite what feminism claims men are still raised with the value that one does not hit a smaller or weaker person.

The amount of physical damage doesn’t determine whether abuse has taken place or not – whether the victim had to seek out the emergency room or not is irrelevant to the question of if abuse has taken place. If I steal a $100 from someone I am just as guilty of theft as if I had stolen $100.000 from some one.

Domestic violence is not a gender issue – it’s a serious issue, and it needs to be dealt with, but it’s not a gender issue, it never was and it never will be. The victim’s gender is and should be irrelevant – however, in the mind of the general public this is not acceptable reasoning, all because of what Feminism have taught about men and about women throughout history.

The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism

1. Feminism requires you to talk about “equality” for both sexes but some sexes are more equal than others.
2. God could be a womyn, but the devil is most certainly a man.
3. We’re equal to men, and this makes us morally superior to them.
4. We are equally capable of doing anything a man can do and men can’t do anything right.
5. We must scorn behavior which is associated with stereotypical masculinity while whooping with praise when the same behavior is exhibited by womyn.
6. We must demand that womyn be allowed into military combat because we’re equally capable of smashing-in the faces of vicious terrorists. But we also laugh at the idea that a husband could be the victim of a wife’s physical abuse because everyone knows that women are never violent.
7. We seek to stop “violence against womyn” but girl-on-girl violence and lesbians who batter their partners don’t bother us quite as much.
8. We attack the gender-stereotypes that portray womyn negatively as we gleefully embrace the ones that portray womyn positively. It’s customary to invert this rule for “you-know-who”.
9. Helping womyn succeed is not nearly as satisfying as seeing men fail.
10. “Power” in the hands of men is always destructive, selfish, tyrannical and harmful. This same “Power” in the hands of womyn is always democratic, nurturing, honest, good for the environment and good for humanity.
11. Men of quality support womyn’s equality but womyn never have to do anything to prove that they are “of quality”.
12. Finally, us feminists are absolutely not anti-male and that’s why we rarely have any positive things to say about those penis-having bastards.
13. Women are just as good at everything as men are, except for things at which women are better.
14. We feminists are equal to men, and that gives us the elevated authority to pass judgment upon them.
15. If you’re not female then your opinion doesn’t count, you sexist bastard.
16. Any criticism of feminism is a form of Hate-Speech. A feminist’s own speech is allowed to be as hateful as she wants it to be.
17. If somebody has the temerity to criticize the behavior of feminists, you should dismissively sneer that they’re attacking “strawfeminists”– absurdist caricatures who don’t exist. Feel free to resume your usual attacks on strawpatriarchs every day of the week.
18. The only feminist you are officially allowed to criticize is Valerie Solanas. That’s because a feminist has to literally advocate the extermination of half the planet before the rest of us start to wonder if she’s got a screw loose.
19. You have 10,000 years of grudges to seek vengeance for in your single lifetime.
20. Collective guilt and collective punishment are anathema to a society which fulfills the feminist goal of treating people as individuals, which is why us feminists must constantly intimate the collective guilt of men and suggest that they need collective punishment.
21. You must demand that a father shoulder half of any effort to raise “his” children as you simultaneously demand that a mother be granted automatic sole custody of “her” children after divorce.
22. Whether or not you feel “offended” is the central principle to how the world should be re-organized.
23. A feminist must say “Patriarchy” at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy” you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize.
24. As a feminist, you are opposed to the spread of stereotypes. But don’t let that stop you from constantly stereotyping men as being an over-privileged class of dimwitted exploiters who always get everything they want.
25. Ovaries good, testicles bad.
26. We believe every woman should have unrestricted access to any kind of abortion, no questions asked. We also believe that abortion should be tightly restricted in China to prevent millions of potential girls from being robbed of their lives.
27. We feminists must demand aristocratic levels of deference while never behaving with aristocratic levels of gentility.
28. We must grouse continuously about traditionalist expectations of women while we conveniently forget to pay half the check on our dinner-dates.
29. Men avoid us because we’re too gosh-darned smart.
30. If a man works 60 hours a week to support a wife who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
31. If a woman works 60 hours a week to support a husband who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
32. If the majority of women do not call themselves feminists, the root problem lies with the majority of women and not with feminism.
33. We demand respect for all women and their diversity. That is why we dismiss, infantilize, mock or denigrate stay-at-home moms, traditionalist women, pro-life women, Republican women, Catholic women, Protestant women, Mormon women, Orthodox Jewish women, Muslim women who don’t object to hijab standards, Hindu women who don’t object to dowries, women who care about their weight, women who wear cosmetics, female researchers who study innate behavioral sex-differences, women who look forward to marriage, women who warn about giving birth after the age of 40, sorority sisters, cheerleaders, girls who like playing with dolls and any other woman who doesn’t slavishly dance to our tune. Except for them, we demand respect for ALL women and their diversity!4. Falsely accusing a man of rape is a great way of raising his consciousness.
35. If a teacher were to beat black boys more than white boys, we’d excoriate him for hateful discrimination. If the same teacher beat only boys, that’d be fine.

The above list may seem to be tongue-in-cheek – but it really is not. It very accurately depict the ATTITUDE towards men (and women) fostered by Feminism.

While there was a time when Feminism was needed to get rid of some very basic injustices and inequality between the genders, it has now come to a point where it is damaging both men and women, and have in fact created injustices and inequalities, and we now need to get rid of Feminism.

Feminism has created some rather weird concepts, that have snuck into how various societal institutions operate in regards to men:

When a woman is taken to hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental and domestic violence is suspected (which is the rule) it is assumed by the medical staff that the perpetrator is male – despite the fact that the perpetrator could just as well be another female or the result of a mutual/reciprocal violent situation where the assumed victim was the instigator or a voluntary fight with another female.

Evidence it taken of all the injuries automatically, to secure DNA and photographic evidence, and most often a rape kit is used to determine if a sexual assault occurred.

When a man is taken to the hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental, it is assumed that he was in a voluntary fight with another male, domestic violence is rarely suspected, and no evidence is secured unless the man requests this, no DNA or photographic evidence is secured, and there is no assumption of sexual assault – there are no rape kits made that works sufficiently for male victims of rape/sexual assault.

When the police is called out to a domestic violence situation they automatically assume that it is a male who has beaten a female – in fact the expression “domestic violence as ” is so strongly wired into the very fabric of society that when one thinks “domestic violence” the images that it conjures up are of a man beating his wife. There are no neutral words for domestic violence in Swedish – it’s called ‘wife-beating.’ The term “domestic violence” was coined by Erin Pizzey in her 1974 book Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear”. While she never intended it to connote or denote ‘male-on-female’ domestic violence exclusively – which is evidenced by the fact that she is the patron of of the charity Mankind Initiative and “has expressed her dismay at how she believes the issue [domestic violence] has become a gender-political football, and expressed an unpopular view in her book Prone to Violence that some women in the refuge system had a predisposition to seek abusive relationships. She also expressed the view that domestic violence can occur against any vulnerable intimates, regardless of their gender” – the term has nevertheless become synonymous with male-on-female domestic violence.

If one uses the term ‘domestic violence’ and is talking about a woman beating her husband, one has to qualify this or one’s audience will automatically think “husband beats wife”.

Police, social workers and medical professionals are trained to assume that all domestic violence is ‘male-on-female’ – they have no training in how to get a male to speak the truth about his injuries or even open up enough for the authorities to be able to establish what happened, so that he can be treated adequately. This of course leads to charges never being brought against his abuser, who can keep on with her (or his) abusive ways.

Medical professionals are trained to assume that if a woman seeks out psychological counseling for depression, anxiety, panic disorders etc., the reason is her husband, and that is basically the first question they will ask – they will also assume that she is lying about being abused to protect her husband, they are also trained to encourage the woman to leave her husband, and will pressure her, coerce and manipulate her (if she stays in ‘therapy’) in such a manner that they eventually get what they have been trained to do, or she ends the counseling.

This is all because of the skewed view of men (and women) that feminism has imprinted on Western Society in the last 30-40 years.

Half of you who found this blog entry using the criteria ‘domestic violence’ did so because you were looking for information on ‘husband beats wife’, and I think that perhaps half of those are rather pissed at me right now :D for daring to rock the pink boat of feminism.

Here are some numbers for you:

In Finland, in a 2007 survey among men and women, the researchers found that 60 % of the victims of domestic violence are women, 40% are men and in half of the cases where the man was the perpetrator, the victim was equally violent. 60 % of the safe houses’ visitors/clients are violent in situ or have been violent in their relationships.

In a report to the Irish Department of Health and Children (March 2002) Kieran MacKeown and Phillippa Kidd found – going back as far as 1975 in Canada, UK and the US – that the number of female-on-male perpetrators of domestic violence was higher or significantly higher than the number of male-on-female perpetrators of domestic violence.

The Blog “Dads and Things” which is citing this report, with a link to the report in its entirety, then goes on to say:

“The report is based on an examination of a good number of DV studies from all over the world.  It confirms what those with open and objective minds have known for decades: inter spousal violence is not a male monopoly.  It is at least as often committed by women as it is committed by men.

That the myth of men having a monopoly on that aspect of interpersonal violence persisted for so long in the face of so much evidence from reputable and even government sources is nothing less than evidence of the power of feminist propaganda promoted by people in thrall to an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”

In a Finnish online discussion about domestic violence the topic of female on male DV was discussed and the Feminist view was declared:

Discussion about domestic violence: “when the wife beats”

“It’s just a question of that in the marriage where it’s the woman who beats, the woman has taken on the male role between the partners. It’s a question of men’s power in society and the oppression of women which has forced itself in to the family in a way that differs from the usual.
It’s the same phenomenon in lesbian marriages. In those too there is domestic violence, it’s the perpetrator has taken on the male role in the society. This can occasionally happen also in heterosexual relationships”

“So the woman must first take on the male role before she hits? weirdly one managed to turn this thing too into men’s and male society’s fault..:”

“And I thought domestic violence was because the perpetrator was a little sick case, nervous, stressed, can’t deal with things, has few tools, so one tries to solve problems with violence. But it’s a male model? A real man model? Wow.”

“One must deny the explanations where the domestic violence is due to the perp’s psychiatric disorders. It’s a question of how, in society as a whole, men oppress women  as a group and the tool of that oppression is family and domestic violence. That’s why in Sweden it is forbidden to treat domestic violence with the help of therapy. The societal culture and societal structures are seen as the cause and as that which oppresses women.”

The last quote there, I can, as living Sweden vouch for – some 10 years back the then Minister of Equality, Margareta Winberg suggested, in all ernesty, that men should be obligated by law to pay a gender tax. That’s right, Swedish Feminists have so thoroughly indoctrinated Swedish Society that it is seen as an axiom that ALL men oppress ALL women, and therefore should be collectively penalized on the grounds of their gender. Fortunately the Proposition was voted down in Parliament, but it made it there and it was a serious Governmental Proposition. Which says a lot about just how Feminism have hi-jacked not only the gender debate, but Society in general.

Just a week ago the Hot line and Shelter Center for Men – the only one in all of Sweden – was closed down because of a lack of government grants – no Hot lines or Shelters for Women have ben closed. Interestingly enough the Shelter Center for Men didn’t just help some 50.000 men during its 3 years in existence, it also worked tirelessly among young men at risk and convicted perpetrators to prevent violence, domestic and otherwise from occurring or reoccurring in their lives.

Acknowledging that men are abused too and that women abuse too isn’t enough, especially not if we doctor the statistics in such a manner that they show that female-on-male violence is the exception to the rule of male-on-female violence or create legislation that discriminates one gender.

We have to move beyond the false premises of Feminism and realize, deep down, that  domestic violence is not a gender issue, that women and men are equally perpetrators and victims and that moving towards a thinking where victims of domestic violence are qualified not by their gender, but by the fact that they are victims, is a necessary measure if we are to land in an equal society. I believe that without a mutual acknowledgment of suffering (without dragging along the measure tape to see who has suffered the most) we cannot find reconciliation between the genders, and thus no true equality.

Somehow we have to move from ‘feminism’ (and its implied gender discrimination) to ‘equalism’ – where it doesn’t matter what gender a victim of sexism, violence and discrimination is, and where its our humanity that empowers us, not a perceived gender.

Posted in Domestic Violence, General Society | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

That’s what they’re really waiting for

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on January 17, 2009


“We used to make headlines when we did our job right. Now they bury them in the back of the paper. [...] You make the front page today only if you screw up. They only know your name if you’re the unlucky s.o.b sitting on 500 tons of dynamite. That’s what they’re really waiting for.” (Colonel Belt about the press/media, X-Files, season 1 “Space“)

Interesting statement – and totally true. Just look at one day’s head-lines – do you see any POSITIVE head-lines? No, it’s death, destruction, pain, suffering,  malicious lies about this and that, people being harassed by the press, statistics being exaggerated, all sorts of avarice.

Unless you screw up, the press is not interested, unless there’s blood, death and gore, the press is not interested, unless there’s something involving human tragedy, the press is not interested.

Posted in General Society, Press/Media | 4 Comments »

Openness as a weapon…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 26, 2008


“The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy,
but the best weapon of a democracy
should be the weapon of openness.”
—Niels Bohr

I have been responsible for a lot of Internet Groups. I was often advised to deal with any conflicts in private. I generally refused. There were many reasons for this – one was the fact that openness was the best assurance that any abuse that might occur was witnessed. Another was that when things are done in private people have a tendency to erupt into rumors and innuendos about what is really going on, which in the end result in disruptions worse than the original conflict.

True democracy is based on openness. Both between individuals and between the individual and the State. Openness is empowering. We need openness. Or we are no better than the worst dictator.

Posted in Democracy, General, General Society | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

The Evils of Statistics

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 7, 2008


Remember this entry?:

Women Would NEVER…or?

Some of the comments on those two news items in that entry coincide with a comment made on another News Item I posted today:

Young People Have Unwanted Sex
World (tags: Children, sex, dissertation, Sweden )

Henric C
abearsdayinthenews.wordpress.com

One in seven Senior High School girls have had sexual intercourse against their will. Among boys of the same age it’s one in seventeen.

The very first comment was: “BOYS! NO MEANS NO!!!” – no shadow shall fall on the woman who said it, she later came in and apologized and said that she should have included the girls too, and not singled out the boys – so don’t think badly of her.

The point I am using her comment to make is that it is all too common that people have knee-jerk reactions to news stories about unwanted sex.

People simply assume that if we are talking about unwanted sex, we are talking about girls not wanting sex, and boys forcing them to have sex.

Sexism – pure and simple sexism.

Not that most people will admit to being sexist, so they very often try and “save themselves” by referring to a statistical body which will confirm the idea that more girls than boys are being sexually abused and that the abusers are either men or boys.

The fact is that the statistics is skewed. The statistics has an agenda.

The fact is that the male gender-role doesn’t allow for victimization and the female gender role encourages victimization.

The fact is that we really don’t know exactly how many girls or boys are being sexually abused, either by their peers or by an adult they trust.

What we know is that more females report being subjected to unwanted sexual attention than males – but we have no way of knowing if this is a true indicator of an imbalance in the victimization, or if what we can glean from the statistics are the “white numbers” and that there are “black numbers” we are unaware of.

Even an anonymous survey of 4000 Swedish Senior High School Student is a blunt and inaccurate instrument.

The young people being surveyed may very well be lying, consciously or subconsciously remembering incidents where the gray zone between wanted and unwanted is closer to the truth than they are willing to admit even to themselves.

The adult who wrote the survey may consciously or subconsciously have written the questions in a manner that will skew the statistics in the end.

Why am I saying this?

Because we are all victims of the ideas of what is proper or expected of our respective gender-role.

Boys will more often that not write off unwanted sexual attention as not really being unwanted, because boys are (still) taught to take their self-realization as males from the sexual attention they get from girls (or women).

Girls will more often than not write off wanted sexual attention as not really wanted, because girls are still taught to take their self-realization as females from the idea that they are not really sexual beings.

So they will lie.

A boy will lie about not wanting the sexual attention from a teacher because he experienced an erection when she (or he) fondled him.

A girl will lie about wanting the sexual attention from a teacher because she has a crush on him (or her).

Both genders will lie about what actually happened (positive or negative) out of fear of what parents, peers and the school might say if they knew.

So, in the end we cannot really trust any statistics – it was not for nothing that Samuel Clemens said: There three types of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

The best we can do is to make an effort to not apply those horrid gender-roles to our views when we hear about sexual abuse or sexual activity, and try to remember to assume that what is true for one gender is true also for the other.

Unless we do we will never experience true Gender Equality.

Posted in Gender Politics, Statistics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Women Would NEVER…or?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 2, 2008


Women can’t rape, men cannot be raped….

The Local – Woman Charged Over Violent Rape
World (tags: female rapist, female victim, aggravated rape )

Henric C
thelocal.se

A 32-year-old woman from northern Sweden has been indicted on a charge of aggravated rape after forcing another woman at knife point to perform oral sex. The Prosecutor said that it is extremely unusual for a woman to be charged with aggravated rape.

The Local – Woman Held for Raping Man in Stockholm
World (tags: Rape, Female rapist, male victim )

Henric C
thelocal.se

A 41-year-old woman in being held by police in Stockholm on suspicions of raping a 30-year-old man who went home with her after the two met at an area pub on Monday night.

Isn’t ironic that the very same day when there is a discussion in Human Rights Network, in which it is being claimed that rape and abuse in war-zones is a male thing, and not something both gender can commit, I find these two news stories?

I am going to savour this – not because I think rape is something acceptable, but because I found RECENT news refuting the idea that women don’t rape and men cannot be raped.

Posted in Gender Politics, Rape, Sexual abuse | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Of course they protest – they are the main perps

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on May 31, 2008


Queue a parent who’s sole point was basically, this shouldn’t be given to the under 10s (the booklet is written for the 9-11 age group). But her point was that parents should be given the right to choose about whether and how this information is distributed. Which is laudable in most families. But not in others – in some families leaving it to the parents simply won’t work because it is parents who are abusers or parents who are protecting abusers. To claim, as she implicitly does, that parents can’t be part of the problem is naive and blinkered. Lets run that again – this is a booklet on child abuse, most physical abuse is committed by parents or caregivers, neglect and emotional abuse is committed by parents or caregivers, sexual abuse can be committed by parents or caregivers. Prioritising the parent in this discussion misunderstands the intention – to inform children that their rights are not reliant on their parents allowing them access to them.

Of course the Parents are going to protest – as parents are abusers more or less by definition, from the child’s point of view. Naturally they won’t want their source of drug/fix let go or be informed of its rights.

I’d report the parent that objected to the police as a suspected sexual abuser or protector of an abuser.

SoB

Posted in Child abuse, Human Rights, Parenting, Sexual abuse | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Australian, 12, Cleared for Sex Change

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on May 26, 2008


Australian, 12, Cleared for Sex Change 11:53 AM

Australian, 12, Cleared for Sex Change: Report – Yahoo! News Health & Wellness (tags: Transgender, FtM ) Henric C StarsButterfliesGold Notes – 13 seconds ago – news.yahoo.com The judge said that while the initial treatment was reversible, it needed to be seen as the first step in a process which, if continued, would allow the child to live as a male.


SYDNEY (AFP) – A 12-year-old Australian girl has been allowed to begin the first phase of a sex change after a judge decided it was in the best interests of the child, reports said Sunday.

The unnamed girl has begun hormone treatment to block puberty after the family court judge accepted an application from her mother for her to begin to reassign her gender, the Sunday Herald-Sun reported.

The judge said that while the initial treatment was reversible, it needed to be seen as the first step in a process which, if continued, would allow the child to live as a male.

“In my view, and on all the evidence, the treatment is in his (the child’s) best interests,” the judgement said.

During a hearing in December, the court heard that the 12-year-old had thought of herself as a boy since the age of four.

Several medical experts, including a psychiatrist, backed the sex-change application, as did an independent lawyer for the child and a family counsellor.

However, the child’s father could not accept that the girl had always seen herself as a boy and opposed the sex-change decision in part because of her young age, the court was told.

But the court said it needed to act quickly to prevent the onset of puberty as the girl dreaded the prospect of menstruation and developing breasts, the Sunday Herald-Sun said.

Further court applications must be made at a later stage if the child wants to take the process further and deepen her voice or develop facial hair.

Surgery to remove the womb and ovaries or build a penis cannot be done before the age of 18.

The court ruled that the 12-year-old can now apply for a new birth certificate and passport in a boy’s name.


A huge ethical row has erupted over a judge’s decision to allow a 12- year-old girl to have a sex change that will turn her into a teenage boy.

The child’s father, who is separated from her mother, is outraged at the prospect but despite his objections the taxpayer-funded sex swap has already got under way.

His daughter, who cannot be named because of her age, is already having hormone treatment in Australia in what is one of the first such cases involving a child so young.

The girl has also been given permission to apply for a new birth certificate, passport and medical card in a boy’s name.

Last night, a relative of the child claimed the girl had been ‘vindictively brainwashed’ by her mother into making the decision to have the change.

A cousin who stayed with the girl’s family for two and a half years said yesterday that after a bitter break-up the mother had used the child to ‘get back’ at the father.

‘She’s been brainwashed from an early age,’ said the cousin, who has to remain anonymous to protect the Victorian girl’s identity.

‘The mother drilled into the girl from an early age that she would have preferred a boy.’

Now the father, who considers his daughter is far too young to make a decision on her gender, is appealing to Melbourne’s legal fraternity for help in fighting the case after he ran out of money to afford representation in opposing the sex swap request.

The Victorian Family Court was told that the girl had always considered herself a boy and was at risk of self harm if she continued to develop into a woman. Hormones now being implanted under the 12-year-old’s skin every three months will stop her from developing from a child into a woman, including preventing her hips and breasts from growing.

A further court application must be lodged in coming years for testosterone treatment to deepen the girl’s voice and promote growth of facial hair and muscles. Surgery to remove her womb or ovaries or build an artificial male sex organ must wait until she is at least 18.

The court was told that the hormone therapy was reversible and would give the family ‘breathing time’ with progressive sex change treatments and operations requiring further court orders.

‘I question how reversible the treatment is,’ said the cousin. ‘There will be psychological consequences that are not reversible. ‘I don’t think the side effects have been adequately considered. How people treat her will have an effect. ‘She will never have this time in her life again.’ News of the judge’s decision to grant the sex-change treatment has sparked furious debate.

Medical ethicist Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini described the ruling as ‘astounding’. He added: ‘I fail to see how it can be in the interests of a young girl to undergo treatment that will change her for the rest of her life.


This is a great story!

It is good to see that there are people in the world who realize that being transsexual/transgendered is not a choice, a disease or a mental illness, but a matter of IDENTITY and of life and death.

Too many TS/TG kids have killed themselves at the onset of puberty, because they had no other way of coping with their bodies betraying them.

I wish this little brother of mine all the love, acceptance and blessings he can pick up along his journey. And big kudos to his mother for listening and standing by her son.

Posted in Human Rights, Parenting | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

I want the boys to feel bad…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 25, 2008


because it’s fun…” (ten year old girl on the topic of this image on a T-shirt:

BoysAreStupid

Think about this: a picture of a fat, hairy woman, sleeping in a bed. A group of men start making fun of her, saying things like “think about waking up with THAT in your bed!” “disgusting!” “Think about having THOSE legs around you while making love!”

Pretty upsetting, huh? This is nevertheless the style a picture of a hairy man sleeping was commented in a women’s group in a debate forum, and when a couple of men got offended and sad by it, they were driven out of the group with insults and mockery… to this day those women don’t understand that it is just as insulting towards a man as it is towards a woman.

That same women chased me out of a Group for posting a post which said: “All Women are Stupid” and didn’t get why I would say such a thing – they didn’t get that I said that exactly to show how they would react if indeed the tables were turned. Their reaction was exactly what I had imagined it would be. They had absolutely no problem badmouthing men in general, mock and belittle their own husbands and boyfriends, but when I said “All women are stupid” all hell broke loose.

Not only are they misandrists and chauvinist sows, they are hypocrites as well.

Posted in Gender Politics | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Chivalry – demeaning to women

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 24, 2008


I heard an argument a while ago from a woman who claimed chivalry was demeaning to women, on the grounds that it showed male superiority.

Of course chivalry is demeaning to women, it was invented in the Medieval times. How could it not be demeaning to women?? Medieval times were by definition demeaning to women!

I mean, G-d forbid that a man should open a door for a woman at any time especially when both her hands are occupied with grocery bags, or pick up the tab, or offer her his seat on the bus, or offer to carry her 4 grocery bags 10 floors up when the elevator is broken or simply refrain from raping her. I mean that is really demeaning to women.

Men are by definition demeaning to women, and not their behaviour only, but their very existence. In fact anything male is at its very core a degradation of women. It’s a matter of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.

If you do not pay attention to women’s needs, you are a brutish bore, and if you do, you are a misogynist asshole…

But smile, E. – at least you get to choose which one you want to be on any given day…

Technorati tag:

Posted in Gender Politics | 4 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.