Tommy responding to a black woman’s shaming tactics
commentary from Jan 2013
Exploration of male psychology and men’s relation to women particularly as regards emotional support. Looks at pornography and the role of men in society. Examines how men are intentionally divided from children and each other.
What are the consequences of society’s demonisation of men?
• Man’s inhumanity to man
• Men refuse to defend themselves
• Act like a man!
• Is it gay for men to hold hands?
• Are men more dependent on women than women are on men?
• Men’s identity
• Why won’t women leave men alone?
• TV is a female-thing
• What does it take to be a strong man?
• The abuse industry charities government and the attack on intimacy
commentary by Tommy
December 27th, 2013 4:41 pm Jason Sattler
You and your brother are tied as the fourth richest person in America with $36 billion in assets each, the fruits of owning the second largest privately owned corporation in the world. How would you spend your spare time and money?
Perhaps you’d donate millions to medical research, public television and the arts. Or maybe you’d dabble in politics and try to expose the “Science of Liberty” and economic freedom to help “the most vulnerable.”
That’s what the Koch Brothers do. And how are they helping the most vulnerable?
By attempting to rid the public of programs like Social Security, which has kept more Americans out of poverty than anything the government has ever done.
While the Kochs insist that their goal is freedom, their agenda seems entirely based on policies that increase economic inequality and make it easy for carbon polluters like Koch Industries to continue their unfettered domination of energy markets.
Perhaps the best example of the Kochs’ hypocrisy comes in their war on solar power.
While the Kochs spent millions to try to put politicians in office who have vowed to never raise taxes on the rich or anyone, the billionaires are aiding efforts to “tax the sun” in an effort to squash the nascent solar industry.
One of the main benefits of powering your home or business via solar cells, especially in a state like Arizona, is a process known as “net metering,” which allows you to sell excess wattage back to the utility. While the virtue of using a renewable resource that is essentially carbon-neutral is a decent selling point, it’s the economic value of net metering that has fueled Arizona’s solar boom and made it the top solar state per capita.
This boom hasn’t pleased Arizona Public Service (APS), which stands to lose as much as $2 billion over the next 20 years if solar adoption continues at the current pace. That’s why the state’s largest electricity provider has been fighting for new regulations that would raise the cost of solar by $50-$100 a month, effectively killing the benefits of net metering. And APS has been waging this battle with some very powerful allies.
Why would the Koch brothers be interested in a small regulatory battle in Arizona?
Because it isn’t just about Arizonans reaping the unique benefit of living in a desert. It’s about freedom! The freedom of carbon polluters everywhere to make massive profits at the expense of the environment.
As the decision of the Arizona Corporation Commission neared, the state was hit with a series of ads ironically decrying the solar industry’s dependence on “corporate welfare” and comparing the solar businesses in the state to Solyndra, which is conservative for “something that makes me mad for some reason.”
An APS spokesman denied that they were funding the ads because they were funding them indirectly, through a consultant. The Kochs could also deny that they were funding the effort to tax the sun, because they weren’t funding the effort directly. Instead, the dirty work was being done by The 60 Plus Association, which models itself as the conservative alternative to AARP.
The brothers help fund The 60 Plus Association through another shadowy organization known as Freedom Partners,which gave $15.7 million to the group last year. And that wasn’t the only way they were involved in the fight in Arizona.
“APS appears to be leading the first assault of a national campaign by the utility industry trade association, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), and fossil fuel interests like APS, to weaken net metering policies,” notes the Energy & Policy Institute’s Gabe Elsner. The EEI is trying to push “model legislation” that saps the benefits of solar in several states through the American Legislative Exchange Council, another Koch-supported group. The State Policy Network, another Koch-supported “nonprofit,” is trying to roll back renewable energy credits in several states.
The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer helped popularize the term “Kochtopus” to define the Kochs’ ideological network. It’s so vast and cloaked in vagaries of election law that we truly have no idea how vast their influence is.
But we do know that again and again, these titans of industry are trying to crush renewable energy, even when it has Tea Party support, and it’s rare if they have to get a Koch Industries lobbyist directly involved. Often they’re trying to roll back breaks for non-carbon-based energy companies, while taking no such stand against the billions in government help the oil industry benefits from, but they’re even willing to pursue new regulations if it suits their needs, which ledThe Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur to say, “…the Koch brothers hate the free market.”
The good news is that in Arizona they lost, mostly. Regulators voted to impose a $5 monthly fee on net metering, a fraction of what APS and The 60 Plus Association wanted.
The solar industry in Arizona survived this time, despite the Kochs’ best efforts.
“Looks at the prevalence of female sexual harassment of men in the workplace and how this is ignored in favour of only recognising male misbehaviour.
• Employment and personal risks for men in working with women
• The arbitrariness of women’s harassment complaints
• Personality disorder and sexual harassment”
“Examines the mythology of oppression built up around women’s suffrage and the inaccurate view many people have about the facts of peoples voting rights: the vote was always about “class” and never about “sex”.
Looks at the development of Men’s and Women’s right to vote in the UK. Explores the history of voting in England including the Reform Acts of parliament. Featuring Angry Harry and others.
• Women living in a climate of fear
• The suppression of mens views
• Discrimination against men in UK Pension rights”
All-girls schools may be more orderly, but they are also bastions of strict conformity in which non-feminine behaviour is ruthlessly stamped out, according to a Concordia University study that may have implications in the ongoing push for single-sex education in Canadian schools.
In the words of lead researcher Kate Drury, a classroom filled exclusively with girls leads to “more pressure to behave ‘like a girl.’”
The finding runs in sharp contract to the popular notion — much-espoused by single-sex education boosters — that all-girls schools are stereotype-free zones pumping out high numbers of women scientists, engineers and woodworkers.
“They’re probably giving boys too much credit,” said Concordia psychology professor William Bukowski, the study’s co-author. “What this paper is telling us is that it’s girls who enforce the female sex role.”
The study, which was recently published in the behavioral science journal Sex Roles, was conducted among 469 fourth, fifth and sixth grade girls in the Colombian cities of Bogotá and Barranquilla.
The location was incidental, said Mr. Bukowski, but the study noted the “advantages” studying in a region in which gender roles are so much starker.
The researchers credited this to a “stronger emphasis on machismo among Latin American men compared with men from North America and Europe.” Colombian single-sex schools are also more common, leading to a wider sample size.
Girls at both single-sex and mixed-sex schools were given the same questionnaire. When the results were tallied, researchers found that the students at all-girls schools were much more likely to answer ‘yes’ to questions such as “most kids would think it is weird if I did something that boys like to do” or “kids in my class don’t like girls who act like boys.”
At the same time, however, when girls had no boys in their class, they were much less likely to report overt instances of bullying or name-calling, answering “no” to questions such as “others treat me badly.”
Although single-sex education was once almost exclusively the domain of private and religious schools, it has increasingly been championed by educational reformers as a way to close perceived gender gaps in public education.
Last year, for instance, the Calgary Board of Education opened its first all-boys school, a kindergarten-through-Grade 5 program designed to offer boy-centric educational programs.
“We don’t view normal boy behaviours — like wanting to move around or play more or build things — as problems, because they aren’t,” principal Garry Jones told Postmedia News.
Takhini Elementary School in Whitehorse, Yukon, spent five years employing single-sex classrooms as a way to boost grades and cut down on disruptive behaviour — but scrapped the program last March when administrators concluded it was doing neither.
Ultimately, the Concordia study refuses to say definitively whether a mixed-sex school is superior, but it does note that a single-sex school is no place for a tomboy.
At an all-girls school, those who “deviate from a female sex role” are swiftly ostracized, said Mr. Bukowski.
“But at the mixed-sex school, these girls could go hang around with the boys.”