Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Ladette binge-drinking violence soars by 300%

Now what is going on in England...

Violent attacks by binge-drinking teenage girls have risen by nearly 300 per cent in seven years in a frightening wave of ‘ladette’ violence.

And while more and more teenage girls are going on the rampage, criminal behaviour by teenage boys is on the decrease.

The extraordinary turnaround in teenage lawlessness emerges in figures that have been obtained by the highly respected Youth Justice Board.

It claims that new research suggests the number of violent offences against the person carried out by girls aged between ten and 17 has increased from 6,000 in 2001 to almost 23,000 last year.

Alcohol is one of the main factors: approximately one in three girls aged 15 to 16 admits that she binge-drinks.

The total number of offences by girls aged ten to 17 resulting in court action in 2007/08 was 58,500, a ten per cent rise in two years.

Nearly four in ten crimes committed by girls involved violent assault. Nearly one in three involved handling stolen goods.

The girls with the worst record in the group are aged 15 and 16.

However, while the total number of offences by teenage boys is still much higher – 120,000 – the number has fallen by six per cent in the same period.

If the trends were to continue, the number of crimes by teenage girls could catch up with their male counterparts in four to five years.

from here

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Age gap closing...

The question is are men living healthier, or women more unhealthy?

Men could live as long as women in just two generations as life expectancy gaps closes

While a typical baby boy born in 2009 can expect to live to 77 - a baby girl will outlive him by an average of five years.

But according to a new study, the life expectancy gender gap is closing and could have vanished for good within just two generations.

Researchers say that if improvements in health and lifestyle continue at their current pace, husbands will start to live as along as their wives by 2035.


The prediction comes from American government statisticians investigating the shrinking life expectancy gap between males and females.


“Men born in 2006 could expect to live 3.6 years longer, and women 1.9 years longer, than those born in 1990,” a spokesman for the institute said.

The US report found that male life expectancy for babies born in 2006 was 78.1. For boys the figure was 75.1 and for girls it was 80.9.

Although the figures are based on Americans, researchers say they apply to other western countries such as Britain.


The findings are backed up by research from the UK the Office for National Statistics. Its most recent report into life expectancy found that women over 65 outnumber men by three to two - but by 2032 the gap will have almost disappeared.

The average British woman born in 2006 is likely to live 2.7 years longer than one born in 1992 while men can expect to live 3.8 years longer, it reported last year.

Prof Tony Warnes, of the Sheffield Institute for Studies on Aging, said changes in smoking habits played a big part in the narrowing the gender gap.

"Men have reduced their smoking a lot and women, particularly young women, have been more resistant," he said.

According to official Government figures, 10 per cent of teenage girls under 16 smoke, compared with seven per cent of boys.

Lung cancer rates are falling among men but rising steadily among women.

Prof Warnes believes men are benefitting more from some life extending medical advances - including heart treatments.

from here

Women more attracted to men in expensive cars

Something more from the "we always knew it"-department

Men who drive expensive cars really are more attractive to women, according to a study by university researchers.


The university team showed women pictures of the same man sitting in two cars - a £70,000 silver Bentley Continental and a battered Ford Fiesta.

The women, who were aged between 21 to 40, picked the man sitting in the Bentley ahead of the same man in the Ford.

Dr Michael Dunn, of the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff, said it shows women rate a man higher if he is behind the wheels of a "fancy motor rather than in an old banger".

His research, in the latest edition of the British Journal of Psychology, also shows that men are more interested in a women's looks not her motor.

The researchers say the men tested in the same way are not impressed by whatever car a woman drives because they judge purely on her face and figure.

Dr Dunn said his findings confirmed that women judge a man by his wealth and status whereas men are primarily concerned with what a woman looks like.


He said: "There's a wide variety of evidence that does suggest that females are more influenced by wealth and status.

"It's not a recent phenomenon. It is very ingrained and the evidence is not just anecdotal.

"Females focus on questions of wealth and status because if the male possesses those, that male would be in a better condition to rear healthy offspring."

Dr Dunn believes this basic human trait will not change in the future - even as women become more independent and wealthy in their own rights.

He said: "It appears that the stereotype of women being positively influenced by a man's status is true and, evolutionarily speaking, this makes sense.

"However, even with the growing number of women in high-paid careers and the fact that they can be highly successful has no effect on how attractive they are to men.

"What you find is that these new, wealthy women still show a preferment for high-status males."


Dr Dunn admitted that his research could also be interpreted as evidence that women are shallower than men. He said: "Let's face it - there's evidence to support it."
from here

On a side note...I drive a Fiesta....*sigh*

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Male and female contraceptives

Oh my. Sometimes I feel I read too much feministing. It is much too interesting though to spot bias in people who might even believe they are for equality. It is especially telling in posts about male contraceptions. You know when you read posts like that

And I understand that a lot of the male-bashing on this website is reaction against the patriarchy, but it delves our whole community into stereotype and is a primary reason why I visit this site less and less.

it will get extra-biased. Now before I come to one comment in particular, some thoughts about male contraceptives. For men there are just condoms (although feminist like to point out that men can refuse to have sex or have an operation as well, easy to say when you got dozens of easy to use effective contraceptions, which is just using female privilege here but back to the point). The shocking truth according to the following, condoms are really not more effective than withdrawal:

A new commentary, “Better Than Nothing or Savvy Risk-Reduction Practice? The Importance of Withdrawal,” by Rachel K. Jones et al., published in the June 2009 issue of Contraception, highlights that withdrawal is only slightly less effective than the male condom at preventing pregnancy.


The best available estimates indicate that with “perfect use,” 4% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 2% of couples relying on the male condom. More realistic estimates suggest that with “typical use,” 18% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 17% of those using the male condom. In other words, with either method, more than eight in 10 avoid pregnancy.

A majority of sexually experienced women rely on withdrawal at some point in their life—56%, according to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. (By comparison, 82% have ever used the pill, and 90% the male condom.) However, only 5% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy currently use the method (11% when those who use it in conjunction with another method are included). A smaller study, the Women’s Well-Being and Sexuality Study, found that 21% of younger and more educated women were using withdrawal.


“Hormonal and long-acting contraceptive methods, such as the IUD, are the most effective means of preventing pregnancy,” says lead author Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute.
from here

Keep that in mind. Now some feminist are so deep in vicitm mode, they actually mistake privilege with opression:

one thing i found particularly interesting about the article, it reported that promotion of male birth control was slow because men complained about the side effects - mood changes, fatigue, etc. this one looks promising because it has fewer side effects.

i don't know what the extent of the side effects were, but it's possible that they were taken more seriously because they were men. meanwhile, women using birth control have always been dealing with side effects. just another way society controls women's bodies.

The irony, reverse the situation as in there was a male pill but not a female equivalent. The above would be more close to the truth. Well as some of the posts talk about the serious side effects of the female pill I did some research and it seems to me we are trying to rehash myths again:

The Pill makes you fat
Not necessarily:
When the Pill was first introduced it contained much higher levels of hormones than what is available in the formulations today (100-175 micrograms of oestrogen compared to 20-50 micrograms today). While weight gain was associated with these older high dose pills, the Pill formulations used today do not always result in weight gain. It is estimated that in the first year of use:

* 20-25% of women gain more than 2kg
* 60% of women experience no change or have a weight change within 2kg (both up and down)
* 15-20% of women actually lose more than 2kg weight (6).

The progestogen in the Pill can increase appetite which may result in weight gain. Some women may also experience water retention but this can often be reduced by switching to a lower dose pill. Some brands of the Pill are said to be more effective at reducing the symptoms of water retention.

The Pill makes you infertile
This myth may stem from the fact that women using the Pill as a form of contraception may delay childbearing until their late 30s, a time when their natural fertility has declined. When these women go off the Pill and experience difficulty getting pregnant they think the Pill has made them infertile when, in fact, the problem is age-related. In addition, a woman (or her partner) may have always had a fertility problem but it was never realised before because they were not trying to get pregnant (8). It may take a few months for cycles to return to normal for women who were on the Pill.

The Pill causes cancer
Not necessarily:
The Pill actually provides a protective effect from cancer of the ovaries and cancer of the endometrium (the lining of the uterus). Women who take the combined oral contraceptive pill show an increased risk of cervical cancer but a direct causal link has not been established. It has been suggested that women who use the oral contraceptive pill may be less likely to use condoms with new sexual partners and, therefore, can be more at risk of being exposed to the genital human papilloma virus (which is considered to be the main contributing factor to cervical cancer). A 1996 review of data on the Pill's use and breast cancer found there was a small increased risk of breast cancer in Pill users, but this increased risk decreased after stopping use and after 10 years of discontinuation it had disappeared altogether (10).
from here

Nearly 17 million women in the US rely on birth control pills for reliable contraception and other medical benefits. But I wonder how many others would benefit from the Pill if it weren't for several myths in circulation.

# The most prevalent myth is that "Taking the pill makes you fat". Not! Ironically, most women who told me this were teenagers who stopped taking the pill because they heard that and then got pregnant. Pregnancy makes you fat. Eating too much and exercising too little makes you fat. Most low dose Pills have little effect on weight gain, water retention or appetite.

# Another myth: "If I take the pill my face will break out." Not true. Studies have even found that certain formulations of birth control pills can even decrease the severity of preexisting acne.

# The myth that bothers me the most is that the Pill " may increase breast cancer risk". This is not true. An analysis of 54 studies in 25 countries found no increased risk of breast cancer 10 or more years after women stopped taking the pill compared with women who never took it. This is true for women even with a family history of breast cancer.

# Another myth is that "If you've tried one Pill, you've tried them all". Not true. While many birth control pills are similar, there are many different formulations offering different doses, side effects and different benefits.

# Some women mistakenly think that once they stop taking the Pill , they'll have difficulty getting pregnant. This is not true. A woman who stops taking the pill will have no more trouble conceiving than a woman OF THE SAME AGE who did not take them.
from here

[...] A 2000 British review article concluded there is no evidence that modern low-dose pills cause weight gain, but that fear of weight gain contributed to poor compliance in taking the Pill and subsequent unintended pregnancy, especially among adolescents. [...]

Health Benefits

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.

Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.

Taking oral contraceptives also reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, and improves conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome, and acne.
from Wiki

Can you actually belief this? Having X contraceptives availiable that even help against others diseases, are safe and easy to use, as well as having options on emergency pills, abortion and adoption vs a plastic bag the other gender can pull over their genitals and yet there is still only nagging from the most priviledged group on this planet (when it comes to contraception). Unbelieveable.

Apart from all of this and all this female bickering about the male pill one blog really hit the nail on the head. Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you

Oh another tidbit I found was that one:

According to data published this year by the National Center for Health Statistics, American men reported that only 65 percent of the children they had fathered over a five-year period were anticipated. Twenty-five percent were “mistimed,” and 9 percent were described as unwanted.

An international survey that included 1,500 American men found last year that nearly half of them would be willing to use some new form of male contraception. (They split on whether they would prefer a daily pill or a longer-term implant.) Only 12 percent said they would never consider it.
from here

Saturday, May 16, 2009

I am thinking, thinking....

Well this might be a little bit ranty because it is a rant....and I am drunk....and my socks are on fire.

Anyhow recently I was thinking about stereotypes. More specificaly the stereotype of the nagging wife. How can it be that among different cultures and centuries this stereotype is kind of a recurring theme. Again thinking about that one might wonder if there is something typical female and typical male. And by exermining closer, given the biological difference and the different expierience people will have because of that, one might wonder why feminists do not seem to be aware of such universal truth that is in that stereotype.

If we think about the so called feminist theory of sexual objectification and human history one has to wonder if sexual objectification in the feminist sense even exist.

Recently this figure has been found (40.000 years old) and suggest that even before media hijacked human conscience men were interested in "big boobs"

Try to backtrack the history of make-up and you will find examples arround 6.000 years ago. Makes one think about human nature.

With that in mind I can only think of one enlighting information a feminist gave us some time ago. This interesting article gave us a background on typical male and female sexual roles, suggesting that women want to be desired while men desire women. This pretty much devalues the "objectification" theory and this again makes me wonder about the agenda behind the feminist critique about it. If you think about it feminist critique is often about what men do, ignoring what women do. You simply have to read feministing for a month to understand what I mean, or simply these two postings. On the one hand you will see women complainig about a man not wanting to date a woman he is not attracted in and on the other hand you will find an overweight women who is just attracted to "non overweight" men. In one post you will find women bitching about "shallow men" just being interested in looks, in the other you will hear that it is okay to only be interested in someone you are attracted to, including a list of reason why to reject a man (he isn´t that much into football is one example) and why this is not bigotry (because of the current ongoing opression, whatever that is supposed to mean).

This is simply nagging online. Horrible.

The way feminist frame even male problems as a female problem (men getting longer prison sentences is in reality sexism against women as the judges don´t see women as responsible adults) makes me think about something similar as well. When it comes to sex you just can´t take the other gender out of the equation. I heard about an essay called "I am not my penis" which is simply an extension of that logic and a true conclusion as well. If women are objectified, doesn´t that mean men are stereotyped as well, as ever-lusting sex-addicts? If sex is shoved into our faces on a daily basis, doesn´t that mean that we do not only get used to women as sex objects, but to men as being constantly in need of sex as well?

This post is really missing a punchline and I will simply blame it on the alcohol...haha.

It is almost 3 am and I hope I could give some food for thought (or make some people laugh), oh and I didn´t proofread, this makes it more ranty.

Yes I know ranty is not a real word....get over it.

Feck out...

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Girls had simply not been part of this problem so far...

Some news from Germany or what is going on in schools here:

Homemade bomb found in teen school attacker’s room

Published: 12 May 09 16:27 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090512-19217.html

Investigators have found a homemade bomb in the room of a 16-year-old girl who planned to torch her school and attacked another student with a knife near Bonn, the website of magazine Focus reported on Tuesday.


“It was filled with explosive materials and completely functional,” Bonn public prosecutors told Focus, saying the girl had probably got the bomb-making instructions on the internet.


A spokesman for the Bonn public prosecutor said the girl was considered to be at risk of committing suicide and authorities were debating moving her to a youth psychiatric clinic.

On Tuesday, school director Anne Marie W√§hner described Otto as “actually a really good student.” But two of Otto’s classmates last week told school authorities that the 16-year-old was plagued by problems. They said Otto had often spoken about suicide with her friends.

Another 17-year-old female student was able to stop the arson attack when she happened upon Otto in the girls’ bathroom at Albert Einstein high school in Sankt Augustin, some 10 kilometres from Bonn, around 9 am on Monday. Otto then slashed the other girl with a knife and severed her thumb.

The alleged attacker reportedly had several knives, a tear gas pistol, 10 Molotov cocktails, a flame thrower and five kilogrammes of gunpowder, local media reported, adding that her rucksack also contained a suicide letter to police.

Screams alerted teachers to the incident and they called the police to tell them the school was under attack. The injured girl was transported to a Bonn hospital for emergency surgery.

Authorities evacuated some 800 students from the school to a neighbouring athletics building.

Just last week, Otto reportedly threatened to attack the school, for which she was scheduled to meet with a school psychologist on Monday.

Barbara Sommer, North-Rhine Westphalia’s minister for schools, said she was concerned that the suspect was a girl, saying girls had “simply not been part of this problem so far.” - from here

The suicide letter reads (according to AFP and translated by me) "First I want to see my schoolmates cry, then I will depart this life".

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The fish and the bicycle

Another interesting post seen on feministing:

[Men] just hate being blamed for everything bad in society. If you ask me, man-hating has increased since the Second Wave, where it was a hot anger. Now it's a cold hatred, plus a ridiculous assertion of women's moral superiority over men.

"If I were a man, I would soundly object to the very implication that women are morally superior to men."
--Betty Friedan

"I believe that women have a capacity for compassion and understanding that a man structurally does not have. He's just not capable of it."
--Barbara Jordan

Yeah, we feel really uncomfortable calling ourselves feminists when it's considered sexist for a man to claim that women do need men or that men don't need women, yet it's not sexist for a woman to say that men need women, but women don't need men. The mantra "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" isn't going to recruit the other half of the human race to your cause, because it tells us that not only are we unnecessary to you, we're also irrelevant.

Feminism blamed for ‘erosion of manhood’

Straight out of Manila onto your screen:

Feminism blamed for ‘erosion of manhood’

By Lito Zulueta
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:58:00 01/24/2009

MANILA, Philippines—A high-ranking Vatican official currently in Manila has warned of the erosion of manhood and the “crisis in fatherhood” that have resulted in millions of children worldwide without a father or enjoying emotionally healthy relations with one.

German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, president of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum,” the Vatican dicastery (or administrative agency) on charity, aid and relief, blamed “gender mainstreaming” and “radical feminism” for attacking biological manhood and insisting that “sexual roles are learned.”

He said men are demeaned and what is held up as an ideal is a man who is feminized and emasculated, one who, in a European study, is held up to be “a sweeter man.”

“Is male identity then nothing other than a product of a special culture and the consequences of social circumstances?” Cordes asked in his speech, “Fatherhood-An Auxiliary Role?”, which was his doctorate address Friday after receiving an honorary doctorate in theology from the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas.


He said a Catholic Charities survey in the United States showed that 24 million children are living in homes without a father. He said “fatherless boys are twice as likely to be in prison; they are more likely to drop out or be expelled from school; they account for 63 percent of suicides, and 90 percent of those who run away from home.”


“A bill passed recently in Britain (‘Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill of 2008’) allows two lesbians or single mothers to conceive a child without a father; all that is needed is ‘supportive parents.’

Some newspapers hailed this as ‘the end of fatherhood.’”

He said a survey of German universities recently showed that while there were 98 university chairs “for deepening questions on womanhood,” only one existed for men.

“In Europe, psychologists and anthropologists have labored to diminish masculinity,” Cordes said. “New investigations such as that published by the Council of Europe in 1998 claim that the ‘new man’ is ‘sweeter.’

Men and fathers should be led to become more like women and mothers in their behavior and reactions. They also advocated ‘flexibility of the sexes’ in the education of children.

Cordes said the erosion of manhood and fatherhood has a negative impact on “boys’ self-understanding,” adding that even girls form their self-understanding by their relationship with fathers and men.

Fathers are “an anchor for us in cases of loss and danger,” said the German prelate. When children try to carve out their own autonomous existence from their parents, it is the father they look up to.

“From the presence of the male body, something is transmitted to the ‘I’ that makes the child blossom,” Cordes said. “Whoever as an individual has never been generated or raised in the way by his father or his fathers will have a limited self-esteem.”
- from here

Monday, May 4, 2009


The last few days I was researching shelter studies. I was in need of a number and learned some useful stuff about shelters one has to consider when talking about shelters in the context of domestic violence.

First of all something about the shelter service. Most DV-shelters offer emergency shelter (the average stay here is 36 days) and transitional housing. Transitional housing means after the stay in a shelter one can stay up to 24 months (average stay is 300 days) until permanent living arrangements are made. That is usually the place (including hotel rooms) where an american shelter puts men who need shelter. The percentage of men who actually stay in an emergency shelter is below 1%. A real surprise to me was the sheer number of children who stay at a shelter. Arround 51% of shelter inhabitants are children, for transitional houses it are arround 60%.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the organisation of the 2,000 DV shelters in the USA. Most of them are small shelters and it seems to me there isn´t a huge network and there is not much information on the number of sheltered women (the number I was searching for). What I did find though was snapshot data from the National Census of Domestic Violence Services (Census). This survey calls every DV-shelter available and asks about the inhabitants for that day. With this number I was able to calculate a number which is of course not accurate. It should however be good enough to give us a rough overview.

To clarify the table below. During the Census not every shelter gave out information (or couldn´t be reached). The return rate tells us how many shelters answered and again how accurate this information is. The number I used for this table is the number of sheltered adults (no children) as well as requests for emergency shelter that couldn´t be met. I didn´t include transitional housings as this would include previously sheltered women as well and screw up my calculation. The estimated total should give us information on sheltered adults if the respons rate was 100%. This guess shouldn´t be that inaccurate. I included all 3 snapshots there are to see if there is a huge fluctuation in that number. It is not. (Information taken from the Census Data of the National Network against DV found here)

Estimate for the daily snapshot:


I really hope blogger doesn´t screw my table up. Anyhow my second estimate the projected number for a year will be a more inaccurate guess. I am using the average shelter stay (36 Days) with the number of days in a year to create a factor I can multiplicate my Estimated Total with. The factor is 10.1. The closer the shelters were to an average day the better my guess is.

The last column takes the following information from a different study into account:

Study is based on a survey of 3,410 people served by DV shelters in eight states during a six-month period in 2007/2008.
One in four (24%) had stayed in a shelter before that visit during which they took that survey [...] the mean length of time participants had stayed in shelter was
33 days, and the median was 22 days (27 days for mothers)
from here

I just subtracted the quarter to avoid double counts.

Year___Estimated / Year___Without multiple visits

2006 from here
2007 from here
2008 from here

The intersting question now is, how inaccurate is my guess. I found some information for the state of Texas for certain years which I can compare with the detailed state information from the 2008 census.

Validation of Data from Texas:
Services Received In Texas by Family Violence Victims
2001 - 12,581 Adults served

Compared to 1179 * 10.1 = 11,907

(I did not use the unmet request number here and had to calculate the number from the study as the responded rate was not 100% ( 71% - 1675 -> 100% = 2359) I took into account that 50% of those should be children)
from here

The difference is not that big. It wouldn´t surprise me though if my guess is in the +/- 50% range.

Why is this number important? I have seen a number used to give an "at least" rate of horrible DV cases, badly battered women. But can we asume that all those women stand for the worst DV cases there are? We can´t and sadly there is not much information I could find for the USA. Canada has a similar Census report with more interesting information:

Shelters for abused women

Nearly one-third of all women who had sought temporary accommodation in a shelter for abused women on April 14, 2004 had stayed there at some time during the past, according to a new report.


Of all women who had stayed in shelters previously, 40% had been there once in the previous year, 38% had been there two to four times, and about 1 in 10 had been to the facility five times or more during the previous year.

The largest proportion of women staying in shelters, just over one-third, were between 25 and 34 years old.

The report is based on data from the Transition Home Survey, a biennial census of residential facilities that provide shelter to female victims of domestic violence. The survey provided information on the facilities and their services for the full year between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, as well as a one-day snapshot of activities and clients served on April 14, 2004.


According to the one-day survey snapshot, taken on April 14, 2004, of the 6,109 women and children residing in shelters, about 5,000 had escaped an abusive situation representing about three-quarters of all women residing in shelters. Women also turned to shelters for other reasons such as problems with housing, addictions and mental health.

The vast majority of the women staying in shelters to escape abuse were fleeing psychological or emotional abuse. Almost 7 out of 10 reported physical abuse, 50% threats, 46% financial abuse, 31% harassment and 27% sexual abuse.


Women using shelters for reasons other than to escape abuse constituted about one-quarter (24%) of shelter residents. Over two-thirds of these women sought shelter because they were unable to find affordable housing.

Seven out of 10 women with parenting responsibilities brought their children with them to shelters. Children accounted for about half of shelter residents and two-thirds of these children were under the age of 10.
from here

Looking at the above for the situation in Canada, about 1/4 are not abused (most of them just unable to find a house and using the shelter as a social service) and about 1/3 are not physically abused. I do not want to marginalise emotional abused women here, but this just shows us however that it is not so simple to say something about the situation of women in shelters so it is only faulty to equal shelter inhabitants with severly beaten women.

By the way the number that was given to me by a feminist was 380% higher than the number I calculated.