SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • November 2021
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Men’

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 😀 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 »

On the matter of Gender Politics

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on February 18, 2009


Even when the person asked about their “shadow perpetrator” is a woman, does the conversation focus on the ills of men. “Do all men have an inner rapist?” The possibility of asking such a question about women doesn’t even register. Ok, well it actually did – for one line and only through the use of “human” instead of “men”.

Violence, domination , the need for and use of power is assumed when it comes to men, even by men themselves and any attempt to hold women accountable and responsible for violence committed against men and children by women is disregarded. Women and violence doesn’t even compute within the scope of a gender discussion.

What is this other than a willful invisbilization of men? What is this other than a willful denial of reality on the part of women? It is a crime against womanhood, committed by feminism and ultimately by women themselves, in that it denies women their full potential and paints an inaccurate and untrue picture of women and in the end keeps women from achieving any true equality. Feminism in that respect is just another “gender politics” that aims at maintaining status quo, while pretending to liberate women.

Without full accountability and responsibility there can be no true equality. Unless women step up and accept their full potential they will be forever locked in victim hood. Unless we demand of and allow the same for both genders, we cannot expect both genders to grow into Human, because maturity can only be had through accountability and responsibility.

In the 70’s a Finnish-Swedish author, Märta Tikkanen, wrote a book titled “Men cannot be raped”. The book tells a tale of a woman who avenges the rape she suffered at the hands of a man after a “night on the town”. The title of the book is the underlying thread that binds her actions together. She will get away with the atrocities she visits on her rapist, because it is assumed that rape entails two things women are assumed not to have: the physical strength to overpower a man and means by which to penetrate him. The book also assumes that men lack means by which to be raped. In the end the main character succeeds in her intentions to avenge herself and in raping her rapist. Without getting caught.

The book was received with loud cheers and a sense of triumph among Swedish and Finnish feminists as the ultimate revenge on patriarchy. It is still the staple diet of Scandinavian Feminists. While there is nothing wrong with wanting revenge on one’s rapist and it is quite understandable that one would want such a revenge, the general thesis of the book is symptomatic of what is inherently wrong with feminism; the assumption, which it shares with patriarchy, that men cannot, in any true sense, be violated and women cannot in any true sense violate.

A few years ago I hosted a men’s group on line. Women were welcome to participate in the discussions, which dealt with issues ranging from silly jokes to gender, equality and recognition of abuse, as long as they did so with the understanding that they were guests in the men’s home. A majority of the women held and expressed the opinion that men’s statements about being survivors/victims of abuse were offensive to women because such statements, by necessity, must be a negation of women’s reality as survivors/victims of abuse. Some even went as far as to demand that when men shared about their experiences of domestic violence and other abuse in the group, they must first qualify that women’s experiences of domestic violence and abuse are worse and more painful because 1. they are women and 2. there are more women that are abused by men than there are men that are abused by women.

What I am trying to say here is that it’s all good and well that men are being made to understand what kind of impact they have on women’s lives, but if we truly want gender equality and the eventual eradication of gender, we have to see both genders for what they are in terms of violations against humanity. This means that women too have to be made to understand what kind of impact they have on men’s lives and how feminism is screwing both genders to the bone and serving neither men nor women in the long run, but in fact cementing the skewed ideas we have about men and women.

Posted in General | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

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 »

Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Archetypes 1

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on October 25, 2007


“…I’m more troubled that boys who fall victim to abuse by female teachers are treated as lucky little Lotharios or junior Don Juans. As you might remember, Details declared a few months back that “we ought to be happy for these pubescent pioneers … any one of those little Miss Crabtree-bagging twerps is probably being carried atop the shoulders of his classmates like some conquering hero.” In other words: Break out the beer — these pubescent boys are culturally sanctioned men!” From Article by Tracy Clark-Flory

This is a perfect example of societal gender bias and how gender stereotypes are being used to both excuse the perpetrators and ignore the victims. Ms Clark-Flory seem to be condoning this, but I do wonder what she means by calling these abuse boys “little twerps”? Wouldn’t that be like calling the female counter-parts “little tarts”?

“But a mainstream media outlet — the Associated Press, no less — has finally tackled this cultural double standard. The article gives voice to 54-year-old Jeff Pickthorn, who was sexually abused at age 12 by his seventh-grade teacher, a 24-year-old woman: “Hollywood, they think it’s such a hot thing when a guy gets laid at a young age. I tell you, it’s not a hot thing.” The abuse left him “with no boundaries” as an adult, and the AP summarizes his life as “marred by affairs, gambling, and ruined marriages.” Same article.

It is good to see that also mainstream media is catching up to what men and boys have known for as long as sexual abuse have existed – that your gender doesn’t protect you against the painful consequences of being victims of sexual abuse, and that women too are perps.

Boys who suffer from sex abuse “are seen as studs,” the article notes, while girls are viewed as vulnerable victims, not by virtue of their age but their gender. As a result, male sex abuse victims have to process their feelings about the abuse while receiving a congratulatory pat on the back and frat-boy punch to the shoulder. Psychologist Richard Gartner, author of “Beyond Betrayal: Taking Charge of Your Life After Boyhood Sexual Abuse,” said: “A boy is likely, with a female teacher, to claim that it wasn’t a problem, it wasn’t molestation, it wasn’t abuse, he wasn’t hurt by it.” It can be several decades before he comes to terms with the abuse. “In our society, we’re socialized to think that men aren’t victims, that that’s the province of women,” Gartner added. “To say that you are a victim and particularly a sexual victim, for many boys and men, is to say that you’re not entirely a man.”

The ultimate betrayal of boys and men who are victims of sexual abuse is exactly that they are not allowed to view and name the abuse for what it is: ABUSE. That which you are not allowed to name, you cannot properly heal from. This means that not only are we ignoring and diminishing what those boys and men have been through, we actively condone the abuse as something they should be grateful for, because it proves they are men.

Now, that is just sick.

Posted in Gender Politics, Men | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Good Marriages, and Bad…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on August 27, 2007


 

I saw a woman in Dr. Phil – about elder women and younger men. She used to have a toy boy (yes, she called him that!) until she was in hospital for operation and he didn’t show up… He was “lovely” as long as he looked good and entertained her in bed, but not anymore when she needed a human being instead of a “living doll”… >:-> Instead of looking at herself and realizing that SHE had objectified the guy, she expected that her girlfriend (who had a “boyfriend” 14 years younger) saw her “toy boy” the same way she did. To me it was pretty clear that the girlfriend didn’t have a toy but a spouse, a partner, a friend – a human being.

I thought of my brother who is born 1961 and has a wife born 1975. Her best friend dated his best friend at the same time, but the friend was way too “young” to the relationship… My brother and my sister-in-law are doing fine; they have been married for over 10 years and still love each other dearly and can really count on each other through thick and thin.
It’s not about the age and years between, it’s about the relationship, the way people see each other.

I love my wife – I have for 12 years now and I expect to do so for the rest of my life – despite ups and downs, hard times and easy times we have the best marriage I have ever seen, perhaps with the exception of my mother and father-in-law. 🙂

But there are miserable creatures out there, who for some reason just loves to hate their spouse/SO, to a degree that they’d rather stay in a Bad Relationship and attack those of us who are actually in Good Relationships. I guess it’s jealousy or envy.

Toxic people, people with small lives and small minds and sick experiences they have no tools to deal with. Those people end up in bad relationships – the rest of us actually live happily ever after, despite ups and downs and attacks from others on our happinesses.

So Whiney, Rocket Scientist and Catgal go to hell, whatever our personal flaws might be, we live openly, happily and actually very functional lives.

Posted in Marriage | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Mental Hygiene – A Men’s Issue?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 27, 2007


Are men really less emotional than women?

Over the past decade or so the effects of emotional expression on health, and the differences between men and women in this regard, have become more widely understood. An increasing body of research shows the importance of emotional expression on emotional well-being and, while the exact mechanism between emotional expression and health is not entirely clear, the link appears to exist. Men are traditionally thought of as being less emotional than women but the evidence points more towards a situation where men tend to show emotions that are bad for them and the people around them. Here is a quick overview of some of the research findings about men, their emotional expressions and their health. More…


Big boys don’t cry. That is the first basic rule a boy is taught about being a man. I remember when my wife’s nephew, 5 y/o at that time fell and hurt himself. I rushed over to check that he was safe, and to comfort him. I could see in his face that he was both scared and in pain – yet he desperately sucked his lower lip to keep from crying. This was not something he had been taught at home, where boys and girls were taught that they are humans, people, not a gender. This was something he had learned in kindergarten – big boys don’t cry. All I could do was accept that he chose to be “a big boy” and tell him that crying is alright. Somewhere in his little soul he had already internalized the emotional abuse Society had subjected him to. Men are taught that emotional expression is unmanly. Unless it’s about sports or war.

Crying soldier

How are men supposed to handle emotions, if emotions are unmanly? Mental Hygiene is a necessity, without it you literally go mad. I think that is what happens to men in war. They are supposed to be these big, strong soldiers, yet they must constantly fear for their lives. A fear they cannot release, because it’s “unmanly”. It is no wonder that so many Veterans return home mentally shattered, they have seen and felt too much and have had no natural release for the emotions they have bottled up during the time of stress a war is.

While “Medical News Today” reports that there are few or no differences between the genders in terms of how male and female soldiers are effected by exposure to a war-zone, it is my guess that females are slightly better trained in dealing with those effects, as they are socialized differently than men.
However Donna L. Washington, MD, MPH Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) says that

Research on women veterans poses a number of methodological challenges. Cross-sectional studies of veterans generally have small sample sizes of women or often are not designed to include detailed gender-related measures and therefore may lack the statistical power to detect gender differences. This may contribute to an erroneous assessment that access barriers and other factors affecting VA healthcare use for women veterans do not differ significantly from that of male veterans.”

Not that it matters. My point is that men are generally less educated in Self-Administered Mental Hygiene, apart from group-socializing, brawling and sports.

Mental Hygiene, in my opinion is made up of two elements: expression of feelings and techniques for recovering emotional balance. As it says in the initial article – men are more likely to brood on negative emotions, and brooding for a while is good – thinking things through, sort thing, but if it stops there, the risk that bits and pieces are never resolved, either because they are too painful or because they seem insignificant, is great.

This in turn may more often than not lead to the use of substances for relief (another way for men to deal with stress and emotions…), something that delays any attempts to take care of the issue behind the need for relief.

Men do not have the same social network structures women do – mens’ networks tend to focus more on activity than on peer-to-peer communication on an emotional level which means that while they very well get rid of physical stress through “goofing” and playing, they have few out-lets for emotional stress, other than those that are seen as traditionally male: Aggression and Joy. So what do you do, as a man, when there is nothing to be happy about? You either brawl or you bottle it up.

mental.jpg

Boys need to be seen as human beings, not as boys, so as they grow up, they can learn healthy expressions of feelings along the entire human emotional spectrum. Men need to learn to see themselves as human first, and men second, and validate that which is human, rather than “manly”.

Gender polarization has to go. It is doing no-one any good. Really. While women have made significant headway in traditionally male sectors of society, men have not done the same in traditionally female sectors of society. Whether we like it or not, in the end it will come back to bite both men and women in the @$$, in the form of increased substance abuse, violence and depression.

Posted in Men, War | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: