The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Women and Men


For John, BLUFYour theory is correct.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Here is something that Ms Renee Astee, from Christian Hill, might like.

The Washington Post has an article by W Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson, "One way to end violence against women?  Married dads."  The second headline is "The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids."

The dramatic social media response to the UC-Santa Barbara shooting, captured by the hashtag #YesAllWomen, underlined an important and unpleasant truth: across the United States, millions of girls and women have been abused, assaulted, or raped by men, and even more females fear that they will be subject to such an attack.  As Sarah Kliff wrote in Vox:  a “national survey of American women found that a slight majority (51.9 percent) reported experiencing physical violence at some point in their life.”

This social media outpouring makes it clear that some men pose a real threat to the physical and psychic welfare of women and girls.  But obscured in the public conversation about the violence against women is the fact that some other men are more likely to protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence: married biological fathers.  The bottom line is this:  Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

The point of all this is that our culture and our social welfare system are working against the institution of marriage, which tends to work to the advantage of women.  While it is probably sexist to say this, but when I was young people actually said that part of the job of marriage was to allow women to help tame men.

The charts at the article are interesting.  One thing they say is children with their natural parents are better off, but we knew that, did we not?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

The Instapundit, in posting this, references a book by a Dr Helen Smith—Men on Strike:  Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and Why It Matters.

Regards  —  Cliff

2 comments:

Renee said...

I've been following Wilcox for years.


FYI

Just stating the idea of promoting conditions to encourage marriage rates, someone makes the claim you support spousal rape and banning divorce.

Renee said...


For example:
Men who are emotionally engaged during pregnancy and participate more in childcare live longer and experience less illness.
Toddlers of men who are engaged in supportive caregiving roles from the month after childbirth have stronger language skills and higher IQs.
Men who report more gender-equitable attitudes and open communication with their partners are happier and have better sex lives.
Families where women are supported to work have higher household earning potential and cope more effectively with economic shocks

http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/accelerating_the_new_macho