Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4139
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:00 am    Post subject: Ridding the world of TOXIC MASCULINITY Reply with quote

This is for Queen Mandy.

Quote:
Universities work to purge male students of their ‘toxic’ masculinity

VIDEO: Undoing a legacy of ‘harm, oppression and dominance’

Universities across the nation are taking steps to actively purge male students of what’s been labeled “toxic masculinity.”

Examples abound of campuses hosting training sessions, group meetings, lectures and other programs to effectively cleanse what many campus leaders and left-leaning scholars contend is an unhealthy masculinity in young men today.

On campus, toxic masculinity is often blamed for sexual violence, body shaming, a “hyper-masculinized sporting culture,” acts of domestic terrorism and much more.

For example, a class at Dartmouth College this semester, “The Orlando Syllabus,” identifies so-called toxic masculinity as playing a role in the mass murder spree at a Florida club during the summer. This despite the fact that the gunman, Omar Mateen, told police on the phone as he committed the massacre he did it on behalf of ISIS.

Other instances of combating toxic masculinity on campus can be found at both the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Duke University, which launched programs specifically designed for male students to delve into “violent masculinity” and “healthier masculinity” and discuss issues like gender fluidity.

“How has the concept of masculinity contributed to the perpetration of violence in our society?” asks the UNC Men’s Project website.

Duke University started a similar program this semester for male students to reflect on topics such as patriarchy, male privilege, rape culture, pornography, machismo and “the language of dominance,” Fox News reported.

At a mandatory freshmen orientation training at Gettysburg College in August, male students had to watch a documentary which stated in part that the “three most destructive words” a boy can hear growing up is “be a man.” The freshmen also went through breakout sessions in which they were told mass shooting sprees are rooted in toxic masculinity.

The “Thrive” club, part of the Claremont colleges consortium which meets as a “safe space” to talk about mental health, advertises that “masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to preform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it.”

The group refuses to disclose the contents of its discussions due to “confidentiality concerns,” but students who attended one of the sessions reported that there was “a common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to those who express it and those affected by it,” the Claremont Independent reported.

Various promotional videos promoting health masculinity advocate challenging “the traditional norms of what we envision masculinity to be” by recognizing “male privilege.” Goals touted through the education include undoing a legacy of “harm, oppression and dominance.”

This trend did not emerge over night. Last year, Vanderbilt University hosted “Healthy Masculinities Week,” led in part by Jackson Katz, the first man to minor in women studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Katz criticized actors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone for their muscular physiques, which have gotten “larger” over the years. According to the presentation, “hyper-masculinized sporting culture” has also advanced unhealthy masculinity.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29757/


What do you think, Mandy? Lady Ga-Ga was "born that way" but males are not? Why should government tolerate masculinity if it is so upsetting to women? You like to make unexamined claims about equality -- OK, bring it on.

Although, from what I can see, Conservatives don't think in terms of 'equality' or 'freedom'. They're more into 'duty' and 'obligation'.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 211
Reputation: 92.7Reputation: 92.7
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure what you mean by "unexamined claims about equality," but having recently retired after over thirty years on various campuses, I've noticed a couple of things.
First, there is a segment of the male students and some faculty, that believe they are Gods gift to women. I include myself in this segment while I was an under-grad. I was in that special category whose toxic masculinity was mitigated by shyness and nerdiness.
The programs you refer to are an attempt to get guys to understand that women are not there to satisfy some guy's selfish need to get laid. In my work on campus, I have seen the results of date-rape close up. The guys who do these things have no idea of the damage they inflict. OTOH, these guys are a tiny minority and the programs you refer to are unlikely to have much effect. These programs seem to view the issue as one of biology. I believe the problem is up-bringing and a lack of civility. This is not a new issue. It was a problem back in the olden days when I was a student, and, I suspect it was around when Socrates was in first year.
If the Administration wants to cover their ass with these programs, let them, but all I can say is, good luck with that.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4139
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sorry not to respond to you earlier. My computer died, and I was incommunicado for three weeks.

You claim to have experience with real rapes on campuses. I defer to that. Rape is never a pretty thing. Although I note that all the great headline cases of rape on campuses have turned out to be hoaxes, as were the allegations against Ghomeshi, so I really have to discount the idea that rape is an everyday, celebrated event in our rape culture.

But I am not defending rape. I am attacking the idea that educational institutions have a right to define and change sex roles without any kind of community consultation whatever, and to bring state power to bear in enforcing those change.

What you don't have in the picture is that this social engineering has had the effect of lowering the controls on men. When I was a college student, if a woman came into your bedroom got comfortable, it implied consent. He knew it, she knew it, and consent was not generally a matter of words. Not now. Now, when the MPs who ended the careers of two Liberal MPs, and who provided the condom, claimed that she had never given consent because she never said "Yes" and Justin went for it.

That's the degree of change in these things!

My point is that standards are changing very rapidly, and educational institutions are the main reason for these changes! Rape is no longer the use of violence to get sex.
Now anything that offends a woman can be called 'sexual harassment' -- look up the legal definition for yourself.

Campus authorities are now encouraging women to complain about sexual threats in such things as 'manspreading', ie sitting with legs spread in the male way. People have gotten tickets on the New York subway for manspreading! There is rampant sexual discrimination against men in all the professional schools of universities. They are regularly denigrated as çis-gendered possessors of privilege. Some kind of social inequality is assumed, not proven, and used to justify campaigns of vilification.

If you were around universities for 30 years, you know it. All of it justified by stories of how vile men are.

Where's the limit? Right now, based on precedent, women can lie to bring sexual charges against men with impunity! Even when they are motivated by revenge! The procedural rights that protect defendants have been largely removed, so that what would be 'hearsay' in most criminal trials is accepted in sexual trials.

And now they want to rid campuses of 'toxic masculinity'. It makes you wonder who really is being 'raped' in the end.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When I was a college student, if a woman came into your bedroom got comfortable, it implied consent. He knew it, she knew it, and consent was not generally a matter of words. Not now.

If you are talking in the 50's perhaps, but I suspect not. Consent was perhaps lessened a couple decades ago but society and Canadians wanted better and we got it.
Quote:
Now anything that offends a woman can be called 'sexual harassment' -- look up the legal definition for yourself.

Absurd commentary. Perhaps , (likely) you are using the wrong word. If not then you should look it up, it clearly does NOT allow anything to be sexual harassment.
It does however cover these....
Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, sexual harassment is “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” In some cases, one incident can be serious enough to be sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can include:

asking for sex in exchange for something, like offering to improve a test score, offering a raise or promotion at work, or withholding something like needed repairs to your apartment
asking for dates and not taking “no” for an answer
demanding hugs
making unnecessary physical contact, including unwanted touching
using rude or insulting language or making comments that stereotype girls, women, boys or men
calling people unkind names that relate to their sex or gender
making comments about a person’s physical appearance (for example, whether or not they are attractive)
saying or doing something because you think a person does not fit sex-role stereotypes
posting or sharing pornography, sexual pictures, cartoons, graffiti or other sexual images (including online)
making sexual jokes
bragging about sexual ability
bullying based on sex or gender
spreading sexual rumours or gossip (including online).
Sexual harassment does not have to be sexual. It can also mean that someone is bothering you because they think that you don’t act, look or dress in the way that a man (or boy) or woman (or girl) should.

People may also harass you because you are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).

Did you mean sexual assault ?

Quote:
Campus authorities are now encouraging women to complain about sexual threats in such things as 'manspreading', ie sitting with legs spread in the male way.

Oh really? Where ?
Quote:
People have gotten tickets on the New York subway for manspreading!

Yes they have.

And now the details, which anyone with any knowledge of NY laws or google (its apparently not your friend) would know.

Seven years ago the transit commission criminalized bad etiquette.

Seven years ago. Let that sink in.

Put your feet up? Criminal Charge
Spread out (manspreading)? Criminal charge
Take up two seats? Criminal charge
Empty trains and want to have a nap over two seats? Criminal charge.

6000 tickets in 2011.
The rule is rule 1050(7)(J) of the NY Transit code.

Too much hogwash in one post to counter.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4139
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This, from a discussion of sexual harassment ... I don't feel I can edit this down, simply because of the way laws are written, with extended clauses and sub-clauses. But the reader can skim through it. I have ''bolded' some of the more relevant passages.

Quote:
Definition of Sexual Assault in Canada's Criminal Code

Canada's Criminal Code has no specific "rape" provision. Instead, it defines assault and provides for a specific punishment for "sexual assault". In defining "assault", the Code includes physical contact and threats. The provision reads:
265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Interestingly, the definition 'appears' to include threats of sexual assault as a sexual assault itself. This suggests a person could be convicted of sexual assault without physically touching the victim if they make a threat of sexual assault [emphasis added](for instance, "I'm going to rape you"). One should check with their local Crown Attorney for information on how the Courts have interpreted this and whether such a Prosecution is possible.


It seems even experts in the field don't know what the law actually demands of the people. Does a person actually have to be physically present to commit a sexual assault, for instance?

On consent ...
Quote:
Consent

Consent is the critical issue in many sexual assault crimes. This is a question of fact and law that will be determined by the trier of fact in court. There are few set rules in terms of defining what constitutes consent and what doesn't. The code does specify some instances which do not constitute consent:
266 (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Consent gets even more complicated when alcohol and drugs are involved in that it becomes a question of whether the victim had the capacity to consent. Again, the court will look at the totality of the evidence and decide.

Another issue is whether the accused reasonably believed that the victim consented to the sexual act. This is dealt with in the Criminal Code follows by instructing the trier of fact to consider the "reasonable grounds for the accused's belief" (see s. 266 (4)). Obviously, again we have a subjective question with very little criteria to go by.

The question of consent is thus determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances. There are no magic words or actions that automatically determine the issue of consent. In the end, it's going to be decided based on the testimony of the victim and (usually) the testimony of the accused and who is the more credible/believable witness. [Emphasis added]
http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm


But the so-called Human Rights gang also have a somewhat different interpretation.

Quote:
Human rights law clearly recognizes that sexual harassment is often not about sexual desire or interest at all. In fact, it often involves hostility, rejection, and/or bullying of a sexual nature. For more information, see the section entitled “Gender-based harassment.”

The following list is not exhaustive, but it should help to identify what may be sexual and gender-based harassment:

demanding hugs[18]
invading personal space[19]
unnecessary physical contact,[20] including unwanted touching,[21] etc.
derogatory language and/or comments toward women[Emphasis added][22] (or men, depending on the circumstances), sex-specific derogatory names[23]
leering[24] or inappropriate staring
gender-related comment about a person’s physical characteristics or mannerisms[25]
comments or conduct relating to a person’s perceived non-conformity with a sex-role stereotype[26]
displaying or circulating pornography,[27] sexual pictures or cartoons,[28] sexually explicit graffiti,[29] or other sexual images (including online)
sexual jokes, including circulating written sexual jokes (e.g. by e-mail)[30]
rough and vulgar humour or language related to gender[emphasis added]
sexual or gender-related comment or conduct used to bully a person
spreading sexual rumours (including online)[31]
suggestive or offensive remarks or innuendo about members of a specific gender
propositions of physical intimacy
gender-related verbal abuse, threats, or taunting
bragging about sexual prowess
demanding dates or sexual favours
questions or discussions about sexual activities
requiring an employee to dress in a sexualized or gender-specific way[32]
paternalistic behaviour based on gender which a person feels undermines their status or position of responsibility
threats to penalize or otherwise punish a person who refuses to comply with sexual advances (known as reprisal).


Going on ...

Quote:
2.3.1 Sexual solicitation and advances
Section 7(3)(a) of the Code sets out a person's right to be free from unwelcome sexual advances or solicitation from a person who is in a position to grant or deny a benefit. This provision of the Code is violated when the person making the solicitation or advance knows, or should reasonably know, that such behaviour is unwelcome.

People who are in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement would include an employer, supervisor, manager, job interviewer, housing provider, professor, resident don, teaching assistant, teacher, etc. Possible benefits might include employment opportunities, job-related benefits such as a promotion or bonus or favourable working conditions, housing benefits, a good mark in a course or a positive reference, and other favours.[47]

Example: A professor or teacher makes an unwelcome sexual advance to a student and implies or explicitly makes it known that if she or he does not accept, she or he will likely not pass the course.

Example: In a rental housing situation, a building superintendent asks for sexual favours in return for granting a tenant’s request to transfer to a larger unit.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/polic.....harassment


But what do the courts do in practice? They enforce the Human Rights rules criminally.

We have the interesting case of Gregory Allen Elliott, who was accused of sexual harassment for reneging on a promise made to make a poster to publicize a feminist event after he learned that these women were attempting to mobilize a crowd to get their target fired.

http://news.nationalpost.com/f.....ree-speech

He never made any sexual suggestions and was not even in their presence of the women involved for the behaviour that was deemed objectionable. Th ey objected to his comments on twitter, which were recovered, and not considered to be offensive by Toronto police. I would say any reasonable person would see his behaviour as well within the limits of normal social intercourse. The trial cost him over $50,000 and his job.

There is also the case of Jiann Ghomeshi, who was targetted by three women for the crime on not sleeping with them. The trial was based on the plaintiff's lies and who collaborated on their stories before the trial in order to get a conviction. The women who made the false accusations have not, to date, been charged, so I guess that means that women get to lie in sworn testimony without fear of punishment.

Jiann Ghomeshi's life is ruined.

This just touches the surface. In principle, people have a responsibility to know and obey the law, but in this case, nobody knows what the law actually is, and where the line between criminal assault and flirting is.

So the gap between what you tell us is as far from what the courts actually do as you are from reasonable discussion.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4139
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on the same theme, indicating that the current rage for transsexualism as a new category for human rights ... raises the possibility that so-called transsexual identities are simply a mental disease. A mental disease that leads people down a path so tortured that 40% of them commit suicide.

And that's what's being taught as mainstream in Ontario's new sexual education classes.

Quote:
The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder
Azadeh Mazaheri Meybodi, 1 Ahmad Hajebi, 2 and Atefeh Ghanbari Jolfaei 3
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
Go to:
Abstract
Background: Co-morbid psychiatric disorders affect prognosis, psychosocial adjustment and post-surgery satisfaction in patients with gender identity disorder. In this paper, we assessed the frequency of personality disorders in Iranian GID patients.

Methods: Seventy- three patients requesting sex reassignment surgery (SRS) were recruited for this crosssectional study. Of the participants, 57.5% were biologically male and 42.5% were biologically female. They were assessed through the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory II (MCMI- II).

Results: The frequency of personality disorders was 81.4%. The most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%) and the least was borderline personality disorder. The average number of diagnoses was 3.00 per patient.

Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed that the prevalence of personality disorders was higher among the participants, and the most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%), and borderline personality disorder was less common among the studied patients.
http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f.....mp;t=12217


Over to you, TC.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 586
Reputation: 90.6Reputation: 90.6
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am confused.

You post the Criminal Code Statute for criminal assault and then the OHRC Statute for rights violations.

They are not the same.

What is it you wish to be advised about?

Still confused I guess.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Ridding the world of TOXIC MASCULINITY

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB