The Reformed Buddhist

The difficult truth about male victims of domestic violence

2012-01-31T12:59:00.003-05:00

For the longest time, the popular view within society is that domestic violence is something that men almost exclusively commit against women. Indeed, even though for the past 20 years multiple peer reviewed studies have shown that domestic violence is actually committed equally between male and female partners, the stubborn belief that women cannot be violent towards their spouse/boyfriend persists. Certainly, this is the view that most feminist groups have held steadfast to, and even to this day legislation which these groups lobby so hard for, continues to be enacted that endorses this false singular paradigm of male perpetrator / female victim.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the shamming, disbelief, mocking and marginalization of male victims of domestic violence can be found, and almost celebrated, seemingly everywhere. For instance, here are a few quotes from a random internet forum (Mugen Fighters Guild Forum) who were discussing a previous post of mine:

"While I think the subject of abused men is laughable, young boys aren't. They are as vulnerable as small girls and deserve the same protection under the law."
....
"Because it has the gall to suggest that men are being abused by women. There's nothing I hate more than when the powerful pretend that they're being persecuted."
.....
"also some men are abused by woman. Yes, they are a ridiculous small % compared to women, and everyone that claims they are on the same level is crazy and probably misogynist, but they exist."

These kind of beliefs are all to pervassive in our society today. The Duluth Model, a very popular feminist 'go-to' study on domestic violence, and one which is used often in forming governmental policies, minimalizes and marginalizes men who are victims of domestic violence, calling their experience trivial:

"Do women use violence as often as men in intimate relationships?

When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence. Men's use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women."

Even in Australia's National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their children, they talk about the need to stop arresting women for domestic violence, since they believe, just as the Duluth Model states, women are almost always acting in self-defense. One of the studies which the Australian Plan often cites is a survey of women who had been arrested for domestic violence and were facing criminal charges, in which asked if they had acted in self-defense.

Women, just as much as men, are capable of perpetrating violence towards their partners and towards men in general. *Warning graphic videos*

Until society can start to accept that men can be victims of violence from women, and that the suffering they feel is no less painful, nothing will change. It's a dehumanizing view of domestic violence, and one in which ownership of one's actions and the sympathy for one's suffering is judged solely by the genitalia of the people involved.

No, seriously, what about the truth?

2012-01-29T12:52:00.018-05:00

I do not know why so many of us get caught up discussing real world problems on feminist blogs whose focus is talking about men's issues. Usually, the discussions on these sites are benign, like dating advice or some other such crap, but when these blogs do talk about real problems facing men, there is a formula that they follow which enables them to dismiss or "explain" away men's problems. No calls for action, no ideas for fixing the issue put forth, no blame laid at biased programs or projects which caused or added to the problem.

Their formula goes something like this:

Obfuscate the reality of the situation by presenting only selected data to conclude things aren't that bad for men
"Gender Role" the problem to explain why men's behavior is the reason they suffer more than women
Talk about how women suffer just as much, even though they are given preferred treatment
Never ever blame feminism or a feminist group(s) for pushing biased legislation that hurt men
Ignore any information or data that shows governmental programs and projects that help women but exclude men, which created or adds to the real problem
Don't offer any concrete advice other than "gotta fix those gender roles" which is a nice way of saying "Patriarchy hurts men too"
Ignore societal and institutionalized sexism

For example, let's take the recent discussion about homelessness that occurred on No, Seriously, what about teh menz? and The Good Men Project. Since the GMP literally just regurgitated what NSWATM said, let's focus on what ozymandias42 wrote.

Item 1 -
Obfuscate the reality of the situation by presenting only selected data to conclude things aren't that bad

"Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).

In the United States, therefore, as of 2007, roughly 60% of homeless people are male: this suggests that the problem is somewhat gendered but not strongly gendered. However, some big shit has happened since 2007, most notably a recession, so we might want to look for more recent stats."

This is a perfect example of giving only half of the data, but pretending it is the full story. The numbers she posts are a combined look at those who are in long term residences, short term shelters and those who are unsheltered. In these numbers and statement, Ozymandias is actually pointing out why things goes sideways for homeless men. Almost all of those women and women with children are sheltered homeless though dozens of different programs which the government offers, mostly for families.

The truth is that there is about a quarter of a million unsheltered homeless, who are literally sleeping on heating grates, park benches or underpasses, whose numbers get lost in those who have actual shelter. And the overwhelming majority of these unsheltered homeless are men. Depending on which study you believe, AHAR, HHS, Housing Coalition, US Mayors Study, etc etc, conservative estimates put the number at about 83% men, while other studies have calculated the percentage to be as high as 95%. [1][2][3][5][7]*

What also wasn't mentioned by NSWATM and the GMP, is that the biggest problem with finding the sex of unsheltered homeless people, is that even though HUD and HHS both required that box to be checked during the street count, neither publications come out directly and give the actual figures. They do however give counts for the sex of the sheltered homeless over 18, hence by subtracting out the sheltered figure, then adding in boys under 18, you can come to a good approximation of the number of unsheltered homeless males.

One way to look at the sex of unsheltered homeless people, is to sort through the local counts that cities and counties do. Dupage County, Illinois is a typical example of this:

99 individuals total unsheltered homeless
90 males
09 females
3 families consisting of 9 individuals
Grand total of 108 individuals

Even HHS admits the failure of federal and state programs to help homeless men find shelter.

"Single men who are poor may be more vulnerable to homelessness because of large gaps in the Unemployment Insurance program and because the largest safety net programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, are for families or elderly people. The share of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance has declined in recent decades and the gap may be particularly perilous for men because poor women are likely to be accompanied by children and thus eligible for TANF. Adult poor men also have higher rates of substance abuse than women, but substance abuse has not been a categorical eligibility criterion for SSI since 1996. Thus, some women may fall through one social safety net but be caught by another; men may miss them all.

In addition, men are more likely than women to have institutional histories that are related to homelessness, including incarceration. And finally, relatives may feel a stronger need to give a temporary home to families with children than they do to single men."

Item 2 -

"Gender Role" the problem to explain why men's behavior is the reason they suffer more

"First, it is necessary to consider aspects of the male gender role that might make men more likely to be homeless: for instance, men’s greater likelihood of being veterans, or the tendency of men to not seek treatment for their mental illnesses and substance abuse. Looking at it without the gender lens risks missing important aspects of gender."

While I agree that looking at gender roles is important when talking about things like homelessness, it isn't the answer to the problem, but only a partial description. For instance, being a veteran in and of itself is only a characteristic, and not a cause. Indeed, the Department of Veteran Affairs has implemented a female only housing project for veterans, but none for men only.

Mental illness and substance abuse, however, are actual causes, but unlike women, who have many federal programs to help them deal with these problems, men have none. We can say all we want that men won't go seek help, and to some extent that may be true, but unless there are places for them to go, which are readily available, then it doesn't matter much, does it?

From HHS, here are the characteristics of a homeless man.

1 in 10 are Veterans
4 in 10 has some sort of disability, including mental illness
75% are over the age of 30, most are older than 40
Race- 42% African-American, 38% white, 20% Hispanic
1 in 17 men living in poverty will access an emergency homeless shelter each year, compared to 1 in 35 women living in poverty

Looking at homelessness through a "gendered lens" is important, but it is no substitute for the fact that men are still sleeping out in the cold. "Gendering" away the problem doesn't actually fix it, nor does it take into account how the government has programs geared towards or are heavily biased to women. An in-depth study of these programs, as well as information about family court systems and its bias favoring women, can be found here.

Item 3 -
Talk about how women suffer just as much as men, even though they are given preferred treatment

"Third, it is important to note that there may be reasons why women are more likely to be housed than men that still don’t mean the women are in a particularly good situation. For instance, women are more likely to participate in survival sex in exchange for housing. “Survival sex or homelessness,” however, is one of those dilemmas that really leaves no one in a particularly good situation."

I'm want to quote a comment left on TGMP by Typhoon_Blue, who is the author of the excellent blog GendErratic.

Those studies that break survival sex down by sex find the following:

“21 percent of the boys and 5 percent of the girls said that they had engaged in sex in exchange for ‘food, shelter, money, or drugs.”[a]

“13 percent of males exchanged sex for money or drugs and 7 percent of females exchanged sex for money or drugs.” [b]

“43 percent reported experience with survival sex (46 percent of young men and 32 percent of young women).”[c]

“41 percent of the youth had been sexually exploited in survival sex or prostitution. 47 percent of females and 37 percent of males were propositioned to sell sex.” (Note: Propositioned to sell sex, does not equal selling sex for survival. I’m just including this for completeness.)[d]

I was basing my understanding on:

“Depending on the survey, between 18% and 39% of the youth identified as sexually exploited. There is a common perception that sexual exploitation happens mostly or only to females, but street-involved males were just as likely to be exploited as females.

“Around 1 in 3 street-involved youth indicated they were sexually exploited. Among the younger street-involved youth in both surveys, a higher percentage of males than females were sexually exploited (33% males vs. 24% females in 2000, 34% males vs. 27% females in 2006). In contrast, among the older street-involved youth in 2001 in Vancouver, a higher percentage of females identified as exploited (53% vs. 32% males).”

http://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf

Indeed, men can and are sexually exploited or abused on the street frequently. Many men turn to a life of prostitution in order to survive, and is not a unique phenomenon to women.

Just a couple other quotes from NSWATM that I felt should be addressed.

"The primary causes of homelessness– poverty, lack of affordable housing, unemployment– affect everyone, regardless of gender."

Well, no, unemployment affects men more than it affects women. When the last round of job creation programs were passed, jobs typically held by women benefited much greater thanks to pressure from the National Organization of Women. In fact, men have about 2.1% greater unemployment rate, which equals out to be:

Unemployed Year End 2010

Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000

Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000

As of 2010, men have fallen to about 41% of college enrollment, and hence the job market for guys under 30 is very poor. However, the federal government, along with many state programs, have a plethora of female only affirmative action monies and programs still cranking away for higher education. There are still no affirmative action programs for men in post secondary education, even though their percentages have fallen below those of what women were at in 1965. In fact, women under 30 flat out make more money than men, even when taking into account things like dangerous jobs.

"Second, it is necessary not to erase the existence of women who are homeless. Even though men are more likely to be homeless, homelessness is a lot more gender equal than a lot of people present it."

No one is attempting erase the existence of women who are homeless or live in poverty. But homelessness is NOT more "gender equal" than people present it. Living in a low income apartment, with money stipend through TANF, is a hell of a lot better than sleeping on the street. People in poverty have it bad, no matter how you slice it. However, when it comes to society, men are often forgotten. But when news comes out of a slight increase of women becoming more homeless, the media and government light up with crys for help, along with the money and effort to make that help happen.

Horribly sexist Denver Post Op-Ed
Huffington Post Article
NPR Article
First Lady helps build house for veterans who are female only
Awfully sexist interview run by CNN about homeless
Fayetteville Observer Article
Change.Org Article stating women are under served by government programs
Specialized programs for homeless female veterans

GAO report to Congress about homeless female veterans

And the media stories and government programs geared towards men?

.....well, no, nothing there.

I would invite any of these folks to come to Washington DC with me at some point, and walk the streets between midnight and 6am, to see what a life lived on the streets does to a person. I work with an organization which has been lobbing for more money and more resources for men sleeping on the streets for quite awhile now. So far we have had little luck, as many in Congress have been very open about not wanting to be seen supporting programs benefiting men, because they worry about being seen as anti-woman. This is the world we live in folks.

I wonder when men will been seen as worthy enough to receive the help they need?

References:
[1] http://www.societaldistress.org/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf

[2] http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy498/gendertype.html

[3] http://www.hudhre.info/documents/4thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
[4] http://www.popcenter.org/problems/homeless_encampments/endnotes/#endnote4
[5] http://www.hudhre.info/documents/3rdHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
[6] http://www.dupagehomeless.org/2011%20PIT%20Comparison%20Report%20REV%202..pdf
[7] http://www.hmis.info/classicAsp/documents/AHAR%20Revised%20Brief%20(FINAL)%20for%20Website.pdf
[8] http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat2.pdf
[9] http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/Ann_hmlss_rpt_508.pdf

[a] Feitel, B., N. Margetson, J. Chamas, and C. Lipman. 1992. Psychosocial Background and Behavioral and Emotional Disorders of Homeless and Runaway Youth. Hospitality and Community Psychiatry 43(2): 155‐159.
[b] Rotheram‐Borus, M., H. Meyer‐Bahlburg, C. Koopman, M. Rosario, T. Exner, R. Henderson, M. Mattieu and R. Gruen. 1992. Lifetime Sexual Behaviors among Runaway Males and Females, The Journal of Sex Research, 29, no.1: 15‐29.
[c] Kipke, M., S. O’Conner, R. Palmer, and R. MacKenzie. 1995. Street Youth in Los Angeles: Profile of a Group At High Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 149: 513‐519.
[d] Wagner, L., L. Carlin, A. Cauce and A. Tenner. 2001. A Snapshot of Homeless Youth in Seattle: Their Characteristics, Behaviors and Beliefs About HIV Protective Strategies. Journal of Community Health 26, no. 3: 219‐232.

Additional resources:
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Center on Family Homelessness

Appearance on Dad's on the Air Radio Show

2012-01-21T14:39:00.004-05:00

I am honored that the folks at Dad's on the Air asked me to join them for their January 31st radio show.(Jan 30 for us Americans) Dad's on the Air is an Australian based radio program dedicated to discussing issues concerning fathers, men and boys. They have been doing the show for 10 years now, and have a very large international audience. The topic we are going to discuss is the 'Australian National Plan to Reduce Violence', so I am very excited to be able to get more information out there about this very serious topic.

Washington DC EST Time: Monday, 30 January 2012 - 06:30PM - 8:00PM

Sydney, Australia Time: Tuesday, 31 January 2012 - 10:30AM - Noon

Host - Bill Kable

You can also listen over the internet, and all of the links to tune in to the show can be found here.

I hope you can all tune in, and spread the word!

I miss being a jack-ass

2012-01-20T00:56:00.003-05:00

When I used to write about Buddhism, I took great pleasure in writing twisting words of trolling humor. It was OK to do that, not a lot of controversy in being a Buddhist. Men's Rights.....ugh, well, it's kind of like being that guy who comes to a funeral in daisy duke shorts and sandals. For instance, one blogger found an old post of mine, and linked to it, thinking it was hilarious. But then she came back and found out I was an MRA! HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, NOT AN MRA!!

Black Hypatia writes:

"http://www.thereformedbuddhist.com/2010/07/15-types-of-western-buddhists_16.html

If only I could write this well!

Actually, never mind. He’s still a good writer, I’ll give him that. But he’s big on Men’s Rights. Should have read the full homepage."

Well, I'm used to getting shunned I guess, but damn, I'm not a bad dude. I just want to see equal rights and equal protection for men. I don't have cooties! Meh, it could be worse.

On the bright side, my hate mail has increased, now with extra crazies. On downside, I wouldn't post their emails and make fun of them because I'm pretty sure they'd come find me, and proceed to saw my head off. And I like my head, it fits on my shoulders nicely. People take gender politics seriously! FOR REALZ, YO!(STOP! Don't kill me, I'm a Buddhist!)

In other news, I pissed off a lot of feminists in Australia apparently. I also found out what a 'Seppo' is.

So, the good news is I never run out of material for Men's Rights articles; the bad news is it's hard to troll people about homelessness and rape. Anyway, just an update, back to the grind....Burn Notice marathon on USA...FUCK YEA!

Here, you guys get Crowded House tonight:

Socially Acceptable Bigotry: Men are Humans Too

2012-01-15T10:46:00.005-05:00

As an egalitarian, a Buddhist and a Men's Rights Activist, I have often written on subjects concerning equal protection under the law. Sometimes my work has been critical of political conservatives and sometimes its been critical of political liberals. But not until I started writing about men’s rights, have I experienced such outright hostility and bigotry concerning equal protection for men and boys from all sides of the political spectrum. It’s as if it has become socially acceptable to ignore the suffering of men, to marginalize their basic civil rights and to show a downright spiteful attitude towards anything male.

Down in Australia, the government has come out with a new proposal to 'reduce violence against women and children', which not only ignores the significant portion of male victims of domestic violence, but also has called for the creation of laws that are enforceable towards only the male portion of the Australian population. It doesn’t matter to the National Council that over 1/3rd of domestic violence victims are men in Australia, (even more if you count abused boys under the age of 15) nor does it mention that women are the largest portion of child abuse perpetrators. What they are calling for (and I am not sensationalizing this) would literally remove due process and almost all assumption of innocence from men only, in matters of domestic violence and sexual assault. Furthermore, it calls for only women to receive preferred access to domestic violence services, as well as make it very easy to request protection orders against men. No such benefits would exist for men, indeed, their plan completely ignores battered men and battered children.

Tory Shepherd of the Australia opinion publication ‘The Punch’ wrote a piece calling me a Men's Rights Extremist after I wrote several articles questioning not only the basic statistics that the Australian National Council used, but the startling fact that people are so willing to remove the basic human rights of men. She went on to marginalize and ignore the voices of black men, Asian men and Hispanic men (and even women) in the movement, when she made the racist assumption that men’s rights was generally just “angry white men.” Shepherd then made some horribly ignorant and awfully offensive statements, generalizing what she really believes are the views of the men’s rights movement as a whole. I can’t tell you how much Tory’s bigotry bothers me, since I am part of a religious minority and I know damn well that voices from other "minorities" are a huge part of the Men’s Rights Movement. In fact, it was a black man, a person who goes by the handle Krazie316, whose video brought me to the MRM.

I also sent my article to Graham Young, the editor of the news and commentary site Opinion Online, to see if they were interested in letting their readers discuss this situation in Australia. Here is the article I submitted. Young was not very keen on my conclusion which was:

“No victim of domestic violence, whether they are a man or a woman, should be forgotten by society, simply because they are a man or a woman. Not one!”

He stated that he disagreed with my conclusions, and that I needed to be more specific. But in February 2011 Young wrote an article touting the equality and greatness of his Online Opinion site:

"On Line Opinion is an open platform for ideas. We have a larger audience than any other Australian opinion site outside the mainstream media because we offer diversity and quality, and because we treat our readers with respect, promoting equality as a core value."

Later on in his article, he laments that an unpopular opinion can be harmful to his revenue:

"That advertising income, which helped to sustain both us and a number of the blogs, has just fallen to close to zero, and all because I published this piece by Bill Muehlenberg opposing gay marriage."

Well, I am personally in favor of gay marriage, and many other things which are seen as left leaning, so why is he worried about an article on Civil Rights? Is it because any mention of men being discriminated against is seen in society as acceptable, therefore discussion is viewed as controversial? I understand his concern that publishing an article that challenges the corrupt status quo could cost him money, I really do. But at least he doesn't have to get called an extremist, day in and day out, for demanding equal protection under the law.

Young goes on to call my article, which is nothing more than statistics and the opinion that men should receive equal protection under the law and not be systematically discriminated against, a “rant against women.” To this, I was highly offended. (Hell, my wife was highly offended by Graham Young’s statement) This seems like the M.O. of most people who are against equal protection for men; ignore the facts, and accuse MRA’s of some very bad things. Not saying we don’t have a few nut jobs, we do, as every group has their share. However, what was more telling was his statement to me:

”The problem with your article is that this is an area where one has to tread carefully and you’re not treading carefully.”

Why is the truth about domestic violence data an area that anyone needs to tread carefully? Here in the United States, domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women, yet somehow, people don’t want to hear this information. Why is it that a National Council report on domestic violence, which was sponsored by the Australian government, able to use disingenuous statistics, ignore child abuse data and call for the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of battered men without so much as peep from almost any media outlets? Why is it that the civil rights of men are less important that the civil rights of women in our society?

Feel free to tell Graham Young and Tory Shepherd what you think about all this. Australian men and boys deserve to know what is about to happen to their civil rights.

Tory Shepherd and Graham Young, this doesn’t have one thing to do with bashing women, this is about viewing men as equals, and as worthy of equal protection under the law. This has to do with the basic premise of civilized society that laws should not be enforceable towards only one segment in society based on a characteristic such as their sex, race or religion. And trust me when I tell you I have firsthand experience of bigotry towards me because of my religion.

This, the MRM, has to do with those men who die each year by the thousands in dangerous jobs, by homicide, by suicide, and those homeless men who sleep on the street because our society has decreed that there is only room at the inn for women. It has to do with agreeing that fathers should have equal rights to their children and deserve fair treatment from the family court system. It has to do with the ugly fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of offices and programs geared toward women only in government, but NOT ONE for men. And this is despite the fact that men are doing very poorly in so many areas. This is not a call to remove the privileges women have; it is a demand for equal and fair treatment in the eyes of the law!

And these biased programs continue to grow, men keep falling further and further behind.
Here are the facts:

Unsheltered Homeless (2009) [1]
Women – 12,000 – 4%
Men – 240,000 – 96%

Life Expectancy (2006) [2]
Women – 80.8 Years
Men – 75.7 Years

Suicides (2008) [3]
Women – 7,585 - 19%
Men – 28,450 - 81%

Deaths by Homicide (2004) [4]
Women – 3,856 – 20%
Men – 14,717 – 80%

Deaths from Cancer (2004) [4]
Women – 269,819
Men – 290,069

Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004) [4]
Women – 3,357
Men – 8,756

Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research [5]
Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 - 40,000 Deaths
Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 - 33,000 Deaths

Deaths on the Job (2010) [6]
Women – 355 - 7%
Men – 4,192 - 93%

Injuries on the Job (2007) [10]
Women – 36%
Men – 64%

College Enrollment (2009) [7]
Women – 58% - 11,658,000
Men – 42% - 8,770,000

Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific) [8]
Women – Yes
Men – No

Unemployment Rates (2010) [9]
Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000
Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000

Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010) [11]
Women – 36.1
Men – 40.2

High School Graduation Rates (2005) [12]
Women – 72%
Men – 65%

Incarceration Rates (2009) [13]
Women – 114,979 - 7%
Men – 1,502,490 - 93%

Child Custody Rates [14]
Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers
Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers

US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010 [15][16][17]
Women – 139 - 0.01%
Men – 100,063 - 99.9%

Federally Funded Battered Shelters [18]
Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year
Men – None – $0

Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research) [19]
Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000
Men Only – None – $0

Forced Selective Service
Women – No
Men – Yes

Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010) [20]
Women – 5.8%
Men – 12.2%

Yet we are called the extremists, we are called “misogynists” or “neckbeards” for demanding equal protection under the law; we are the bad guys for requesting fair and honest treatment in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of society. It’s acceptable and OK to denigrate men, to chuckle at their genital mutilation and to laugh off the hardships of those men who sleep on the streets or who die every day on the job or through suicide. This has become the norm, standard operating procedure.

Segregation of legal protection in the Southern part of the United States during the early 20th century, through Jim Crow laws, was a horrible display of bigotry and dehumanization, and really showed just how awful some human beings could be towards other human beings. You would have thought we would have learned some lessons from that. All men are not powerful business men, CEO’s, millionaires or politicians. 99% of us struggle to survive every day just like everyone else, and the suffering of men is not somehow less painful than the suffering of women. Suffering doesn’t care about sex or race or religion; and unlike many people, it does not discriminate on such superficial things. When will it become acceptable for society to view men as human beings who suffer too?

That’s why this Men’s Rights Movement is a Civil Rights movement, and nothing less – and I do not plan to tread lightly.

The Exclusion of Child Abuse Statistics in Australia's National Plan

2012-01-14T21:58:00.002-05:00

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021' is that the plan doesn't address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been conspicuously omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council's plan.

Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun "their," regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their children's lives. But perhaps the government's failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let's take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to gauge the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

The Exclusion of Child Abuse Statistics

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a child's well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.

In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G and Hall G (1996) [2] and Tomison A (1996) [3] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia. Indeed, the Angus and Hall publication posted some very stunning data. The first chart shows family type of the victims for five Australian states:

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

Angus and Hall also studied the finalized cases of child abuse for five Australian states:

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

The Angus and Hall study also showed a graph of the types of abuse by perpetrator:

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

In 1997, the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published 'Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996' for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus and Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [4-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

"The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations." [4-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

"In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)"[4-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

40% single parent female
46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators)
6% single parent male
8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. According to several sources, this information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser.[5]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

However, in a recent email exchange with a spokesperson for AIWH's Child Welfare Division, the AIWH defends their reasoning why the Australian government no longer keeps information on the sex and relationship of the perpetrator.

"Data on ‘sex of person believed responsible’ were included in the annual child protection data collection up to 2001-02, but were not published due to ongoing issues with data availability/quality/comparability.

These issues were mentioned in Child abuse and neglect 1995-96, but not in subsequent reports. Child abuse and neglect 1995-96 (p33) notes: Data were collected from each State and Territory on the relationship to the child and the sex of the person believed responsible for substantiated abuse and neglect. However, some States and Territories had a large number of unknown values in their data on these items and most either could not report on the sex of the person believed responsible, or could not do so reliably.

The decision to discontinue the collection of these data would have been approved by the state and territory government representatives on the former National Child Protection and Support Services data group, and was most likely the result of ongoing data quality issues.

Some of the underlying issues with identifying and recording information about ‘the person believed responsible’ are shown by the related data item: ‘person believed responsible, by relationship to the child’. These data were published up to 2001-02, but always with caveats around data comparability and availability."

It must be stated that the information that was released to the public after 1998 did not contain this information, but were only cited in internal papers which are available only upon request. Furthermore, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada have not had any such problems recording the sex and relationship of child abusers, and is part of each countries yearly statistical reporting. The reporting of this data in Australia up until 1996 shows fairly complete information on most of the Australian states and territories, which has left many confused or upset over this development.

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

"Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers."[6-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women's violence can be explained away.

"This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’.....I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another."[6-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

"In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent and Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.

Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus and Hall (1996) observed that "the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented." Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours." [5]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia's numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

I believe it is important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children' when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is missing, obfuscated or perhaps even concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women's violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.

By omitting this key data, it is clear that the National Council is attempting to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia's problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse was intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies. It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it's a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out.

Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit could be seen as helping to condemn Australian children to lives of invisible pain. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. Moreover, it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.

References:

[1] 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021'

[2] Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

[3] Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

[4] Broadbent A and Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

[5] Discussion of AIHW Data

[6] Fitzroy 2003 - ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

[7] Australian Bureau of Statistics

The Forgotten Men of Domestic Violence

2012-01-14T15:31:00.007-05:00

In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) headed by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, approved a 'framework for action' called 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021'. The effort was spearheaded by Tanya Plibersek, former Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women and Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The main body of work was completed by the National Council's Advisory Group which is chaired by Libby Lloyd, who founded the White Ribbon Foundation in 2003.

'The Plan' is split into several parts, which puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.

The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:

"While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know."[2-pg1]

But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.

The National Council's plan is put forth as a direct response to several academic papers and various activists around Australia, which purport data and statistics that claim to show an epidemic of men's violence against women. However, the National Council readily admits its data on actual incidences of domestic violence and sexual assault is poor, sporadic and in some cases inaccurate. Nevertheless, the council makes most of their recommendations based on the conclusions of several academic papers and studies, and rarely address any comprehensive analysis of their own. Indeed, 'The Plan' never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

"Data relating to violence against women and their children in Australia is poor. Data on services sought by, and provided to, victims is not readily available, and the way in which information is reported is generally inconsistent and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of violence against women. Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by differences in what is captured, counted and reported across States and Territories.

There are also personal and institutional barriers in decision making within and across systems that reduce the extent to which sexual assault and domestic and family violence is disclosed and reported. This affects the capacity of data to accurately reflect the real numbers of women and children who experience this violence. The difficulty [is] in measuring the true extent of sexual assault and domestic [violence]."[1-pg47]

What 'The Plan' lacks in substantial comparative statistical data, it makes up for with hyperbolic references to various academic publications which they imply contain extremely compelling data. However, when direct statistical data is mentioned, it is at best an out-of-context use of very some basic data; and at worst an obfuscation of the full picture of domestic violence. Here is an example of one statistic 'The Plan' mentions over and over again in several of its various publications:

"Violence in relationships remains high in our communities, and most would agree that unless the unequal power relations between women and men are more meaningfully addressed, the incidence will not change. Around one in three Australian women experience physical violence, and almost one in five experiences sexual violence over their lifetime."[1-pg59]

What they don't mention is this "1 in 3" (or 29%) stat isn't just domestic violence, or even violence men perpetrate against women - it's all forms of violence women experience. Furthermore, it's only violence that occurs after the age of 15, and does not consider child abuse experienced by young girls and boys. The exact same data set from which the National Council used, shows that over 41% of Australian men experience violence in their lifetime (12% more than women) as men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women.

Here is the complete data from the same Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) source, which shows a larger picture of data on violence for both women and men.

Violence experienced since the age of 15:

29% (2,243,600) of women experienced physical assault
41% (3,031,800) of men experienced physical assault
17% (1,293,100) of women experienced sexual assault
4.8% (362,400) of men experienced sexual assault

In the 12 month data prior to the ABS survey:

4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence
10% (779,800) of men experienced physical violence
1.6% (126,100) of women experienced sexual violence
0.6% (46,700) of men experienced sexual violence

Of these numbers:

79,500 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator
195,300 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator
77% of men (60,900) who experienced physical assault by a female occurred in a home
64% of women (125,100) who experienced physical assault by a male occurred in a home

What does 'The Plan' have to say about violence against men?

"While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence."[3-pg1]

If the ABS data is correct, which does not include abuse to children under the age of 15, certainly men constituting one-third of all domestic abuse victims is not a "small proportion" in any sense of the meaning. In the prior 12 months to the survey for sexual assault, men experienced 27% of the incidents of sexual violence; again, not a "small proportion." The question must be asked why a well funded government study on domestic violence doesn't even begin to address the victimization of men when they do account for significant portion of domestic violence victims? According to the council:

"Enhanced community awareness and education programs are needed to change violence-supportive attitudes. These initiatives must be always based on the notion of gender equality and the need to shift men’s consciousness from one of privilege to one of mutuality. They need to make men question their own economic, social, and political power over women."[1-pg47]

Does the National Council believe that the violence men endure is not as important as the violence women endure?

"Attitudes and beliefs about gender are learned, and society often teaches deeply held sexist views. Evidence shows that communities increase the risk of violence against women when they allow norms that support men’s controlling attitudes and behaviour over women, or attitudes that support the notion of male privilege.[1-pg39]"

Let's look at the basic statistics for men in Australia in terms of health, education and welfare when compared to women, to see the statistical evidence of 'male privilege'.

Men Live on average 5 years less than women - (in 2007-2009 men had a 40.9% chance of surviving to age 85 years compared with women’s 57.3% chance) [A]
Men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in Australia (2009-2010) [B]
Men die of suicide at 3 times the rate of women (2008 Men 16 and women 5 per 100,000 population)[C]
At least 1 in 3 victims of family or domestic violence is a man [D]
Men are more frequently victims of violent assault (3.9 % man compared to 2.4 % women)[E]
Men are more frequently threatened with violent assault ( 5.0 % men compared to 3.5% women)[F]
Men's enrollment in post secondary education for 2010 is 43.8%, women's enrollment is at 56.2% [G]
Men are more than twice as likely to be victims of homicide (1.8 victims per 100,000 population) than women (0.8 victims per 100,000 population)[H]
The imprisonment rate for men in June 2009 was 13 times the rate for women (329 prisoners per 100,000 male adults versus 25 prisoners per 100,000 female adults)[I]

Men seem to be on the disadvantaged side of many basic areas of concern for any Australian citizen. It's no secret that in the Western world, men have been falling behind for sometime now, which many would argue is due in large part to the emphasis in government on placing the needs of women above men. Moreover, the entire premise of this National Council's Plan is predicated on the belief that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. Their own data refutes that claim, and furthermore, several significant studies have been done that show domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women.[5][6][7]

After close examination of the National Council's drastic recommendations of judicial and legislative changes, which call for 'gendered civil and criminal laws' meant to enact a type of gender profiling against men, holding them to a lower standard of proof for incidents of domestic violence, one can only wonder how such a one sided study made it past the desks of some of Australia's most prominent politicians without any protest. Furthermore, while the National Plan doesn't commit to equal protection under the law, they attempt to justify the 'gendered treatment for civil and criminal laws' stipulating that "reforming legal frameworks with the aim of improving the safety of all victims of family violence—the effect will be to the benefit of all victims, whether male or female."[4-pg51]

I think many Australians may be curious to ask if Prime Minister Julia Gillard knows the real facts about domestic violence, and if she is aware of the National Council's call to create gendered laws that will in effect be enforced against only the male portion of its population? Sadly, it appears, that the National Council's study regards the men and boys who are victims of domestic violence in Australia as irrelevant and unimportant.

No victim of domestic violence, whether they be a man or a woman, should be forgotten by society, simply because they are a man or a woman. Not one!

References:

[1] Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021

[2] The National Council's Plan - 2010 Update

[3] The National Council's Plan - First Three Year Action Plan

[4] Australian Law Reform Commission(ALRC) - Family Violence - A Legal Response

[5) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

[6] Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men's Health, 6, 54-71

[7] Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

O' Buddhist World

2011-11-28T19:07:00.003-05:00

First off, I want to apologize that I will not be working on this years Blogisattva awards. (shields self from boo's) I just don't have the time, so I'm not sure what will happen with that this year. We asked for help administrating them, but got very little interest. Seems people like to be a part of the project as in nominated, but not a lot in the department of volunteering time. Too bad, this year would have been a bit easier, since those who were criticizing them last year are all probably occupying something at the moment. Not that the OWS is good or bad per se, it's just a relief to know that the anarchists are off harassing someone else.

I lied about backing off on the Men's Rights thing. Yep, still writing about it as I get time. I've alredy written five articles for the MR activist site 'A Voice For Men' and for some reason many feminists don't really like me now. Wouldn't be surprised if many of them were the same Buddhists who disliked me. Hmmmmm, wonder why. While my own personal politics are rather moderate or centrist, I am finding it very interesting seeing conservatives, liberals, libertarians and everything in between coming to join the same movement and working together. It's very strange, but it works. Lots of new voices joining in the conversation everyday.....it's getting very big.

Ummm, been trying to think about something Buddhisty to write about, but I've been drawing a blank. Oh, I got one...publishers, please stop sending me books to review! No seriously, the just end up in a big pile of 'shit I'll never read'.

I have no idea what drama has been happening in the Buddhist world lately, I assume that the Chinese still hate the Dalai Lama and people still think Zen is something you can figure out with a cup of indie coffee house espresso, a $400 yoga mat, a mix tape of Maroon 5 and John Mayer with a teacher named Zen Master Bob. Yea, nothing has changed.

Killing us Quietly: How the US Government legally favors the health and well-being of women over men

2011-11-16T22:54:00.009-05:00

In honor of Movember, I wanted to write a piece about the current disturbing situation regarding the enormous gap of disparity between men's and women's health inside the United States, as is legislated by our government.

In the United States, the life expectancy for men has lagged well behind that of women for quite some time. Today's life expectancy of men is 75.7 years, 5.1 years shorter than women, whose life expectancy sits at about 80.8 years. For black men, the data is even worse, as of 2006, their life expectancy was just around 69.0 years. The reasons why men die 5 or more years sooner than women is a rather complex question, which weaves in many different factors directly related to the cause of death. In order to understand this issue thoroughly, we need to take into account causes that men die from at much higher rates than women.

The two major events of morbidity for men that were usually of an 'unnatural cause' were accidents (in 2005 - 78,941 - of which 5,000 were work related fatalities) and homicides (14,717). Of the 1.2 million men and 1.21 million women who died in 2005, the percentage of difference factoring in these events was a mere 0.018%, which does not come close statistically to account for the current five year gap. Certainly, this leaves men with many serious questions about the outstanding and deadly medical conditions that effect them in larger numbers which ultimately lead to a shorter life span. With this information, one would believe that if the Federal government wanted to allocate funds for health research that it would want to spend at least some of that money on research for medical conditions that effect men which lead to their lower life expectancy.

Funny thing happened though; the United States Government did the exact opposite. Despite an already longer and healthier life span, Congress and the President, between 1970 and the present, have passed over 70 different medical programs, research projects and treatment initiatives, at costs exceeding $100 billion dollars, which are specifically allocated for women and girls. Indeed, not only did Congress aggressively pursue health issues and projects that related strictly to women, with the help and prodding of several feminist lobby groups on Capitol Hill, they completely and systematically rejected and ignored any calls to do the same for men. The disturbing and outrageous truth is the Federal government has consciously created medical offices, grants, and research programs for only one portion of its population, which just happens to be the healthier portion, women.

Federal Funding For Women's Health Initiatives

One issue which came up often with women's groups and feminists in the mid to late 1980's, was the lack of federal funding for female centric diseases such as breast and uterine cancer. After many years of lobbying and activism, Sen. Barbara Muklski (D) successfully took up the challenge of championing this cause with federal legislators. In 1990, Congress passed the first in a series of women's health care programs entitled the 'Women's Health Equity Act', which established the first such gender specific entity, the Office for Women’s Health Research (OWHR) at NIH. In 1991, Congress passed the second 'Women's Health Equity Act' which established the Office on Women's Health (OWH) in the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) The bill was re-authorized again in 1993, and further saw the creation of the NIH Revitalization Act as well as funding for a Women's program at the FDA.

Again in 1996, Congress passed another version which created the 'National Center’s of Excellence in Women’s Health', which is currently run in several Universities throughout the US. Each successive year after the '96 bill, up until as recently as 2010, Congress passed greater funding for these and other women's health initiatives, which today adds up to over 70+ gender specific offices, projects, research grants and other female only health campaigns and actions. Well funded feminist organizations along with many women's councils and other associations have lobbied Congress every year for more funding and more programs, and have met with great success each Congressional term.

What started out as a call to fund research of diseases which were affecting only women, quickly snowballed into a 20 year avalanche of gender based legislation. Below are a small summary of many of the more public offices and projects that were the end result of these Congressional efforts.

Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Women's Health(OWH)

With a FY 2010 Budget of $34 Million just for administrative operating expenses, the OWH is one of the keystone programs of the 'Women's Health Equity Act', acting as both an administrative hub as well as a think tank for new projects to promote women's health initiatives. The OWH main website, where it posts its programs and grants, can be found at 'womenshealth.gov'.

There is no Office of Men's Health, nor any menshealth.gov.

The stated goals of the OWH are:

"To develop and impact national health policy as it relates to women and girls To develop, adapt, implement, evaluate, and replicate model programs on women’s and girls’ health To educate, influence, and collaborate with health and human services organizations, health care professionals, and the public"

What else does OWH support?

National Women's Health Week (NWHW) - "National Women's Health Week is a week long health observance coordinated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on Women's Health. May 13, 2012 and is celebrated until May 19, 2012. National Women's Checkup Day is Monday, May 14, 2012."

National Men's Health Week an event that is run by a private organization.

OWH also runs the 'The Heart Truth', a national awareness and prevention campaign about heart disease in women sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Heart Truth program excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable male only program.

Another OWH program is the Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1, a campaign for Women that was launched by OWH in early 2011, that educates women to call 911 when suffering symptoms of a heart attack. But why support one group of people with an awareness campaign for a medical condition, heart disease, that effects more men than women?

The campaign Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1 also excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable program.

There is GirlsHealth.Gov, dedicated to the health and well-being of young girls and teenagers, with the tag line , "Be Happy. Be Healthy. Be You. Beautiful."

There is no Boyshealth.gov nor comparable male only program.

The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
This governmental program is aimed at improving and promoting the physical fitness and health of it's citizens. The Council does has a fitness.gov/women which has a rather comprehensive annual study called 'A Report of the Surgeon General Physical Activity and Health Women', while men do not have the luxury of such a report.

The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/men nor other comparable male only programs.

The President's Council also runs 'Physical Activity and Sport in the Lives of Girls' project and website at fitness.gov/girlssports.htm. I also entered in the URL for fitness.gov/boyssports, to see what the President's Council had to say about boys, and got 'Error 404, Page Not Found'.

The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/boyssports nor any other comparable Male only programs.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

In 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) created their own Office of Women's Health which have several programs and initiatives. While the CDC does have a Men's Health webpage, they do not offer any such special programs or offices such as those that were funded for women's health

US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA)

The US Department of Veteran Affairs runs several female only health programs, two of the biggest being the 'Women's Health Sciences Division' (WHSD) and the 'Veterans Affairs Research and Development for Women's Health.' The mission statement for the VA's WHSD project states:

"The Women's Health Sciences Division located in Boston, MA, focuses on the special issues of women and PTSD, and especially on effective treatments. The Division has pioneered research on the psychological impact of military service on women veterans. Such initiatives include development of psychological assessment techniques, the impact of sexual assault and military sexual trauma, and on the effect of PTSD on women's health and medical problems."

Along with all the other health program that the VA operates for all Veterans, these two women's only programs have their own operating budget of $217.6 Million per year. Men have no such gender specific programs in the VA.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

In 1990, the National Institutes of Health established its 'Office of Research on Women's Health' (ORWH), yet men never received the same funding for an office of research. Instead, NIH gave men a generic link to a Men's Health page, much like the one that Health and Human Services placed under their OWH website. While no gender specific funding exists for male only programs, the NIH also funds three additional women's only projects above and beyond the ORWH. These projects are 'Specialized Centers of Research on Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Women's Health' (SCORs), 'Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health' (BIRCWH) and 'Advancing Novel Science in Women's Health Research' (ANSWHR).

Other Federal Agencies offering female only or maternal health programs that favor women at a 90% or greater rate

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - 'For Women' and 'Women's Health'.
Medicare/Medicaid - 'Women's Health USA'

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - 'Women: Life Stages Program'
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) - Programs offered
HRSA's Office of Women's Health -(Annual budget exceeds $100 million)
Office of Maternal and Child Health ($660 million annually)
Women, Infants, Children and Youth – Part D ($78 million annually)
Healthy Start - ($104 million annually)
Family Planning - ($316 million annually)
Safe Motherhood and Infant Health (p131) - ($55.7 million annually)

Attempts at passing a Men's Health Act

As early as 1999, several members of both the House and Senate proposed a bill that would establish an Office of Men's Health as a compliment to HHS's Office of Women's Health. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R), who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999, and underwent a radical prostatectomy in January 2000, became the spearhead of this effort to seek parity for health funding for men of the federal level. The Men's Health Act never made it out of committee, in either the House or Senate, and died a quiet death of a tabled motion. Crapo has since unsuccessfully attempted to bring this bill to a vote in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2009, Congressman Baron Hill (D) of Indiana tried to revive the bill, attempting what he thought would be a more acceptable approach by the members of Congress renaming it the 'Men and Families Health Care Act of 2009'. This bill also died in committee, never receiving a vote.

One of the several men's groups who supported both Crapo and Hill in their attempts to pass this bill noticed that "There appears to exist a lingering fear among elected officials that if they support any program designed to help men, they will be criticized as being "anti-woman" by certain gender advocacy groups." On the other hand, no feminist groups came out in direct public opposition to theses bills, as many of them worried that they might be seen as "anti-men." That didn't mean that many feminist groups weren't able to find other ways to express their disapproval over any such Men's Health Act, as several feminists spoke out in opposition as private individuals. USA Today reporter Rita Rubin was one such individual, who has been a frequent speaker at feminist gatherings concerning health issues, and wrote an Op-Ed piece in 2004 condemning the Men's Health Care Act stating:

"It might not have to be that way. Increasingly, research implicates behavior, not biology, for men's shorter life spans. Men are more likely to die violently or accidentally, and they're less likely to seek medical care when they don't feel well. Changing men's health behaviors is nearly as tricky as changing their biology."

Yet Rubin's argument against an Office of Men's Health, she presents no data or detailed research to support her claims. This is an argument many feminists have made against Men's Health initiatives in the past 10 years, however, by saying that because men die in greater numbers by accidents, (per year approx 78,000 men vs 42,000 women) homicides (per year approx 14,000 men vs 3,500 women) and poor health standards, that it isn't nature killing off men sooner, but rather reckless and dangerous behavior exhibited by men. Therefore, many have argued, that men just simply need to change their lifestyle and behavior if they want to live as long as women. This is a terribly disingenuous argument given several factors:

1) Approximately 1.2 million men and 1.21 million women die each year, meaning that a difference of 46,000 more deaths, or 0.018%, and does not statistically in any way account for the 5 - 7 lower life expectancy of men.

2) Over 4,100 of these deaths by accidents for men each year were on the work related fatalities, where women only make up about 7-8% of deaths on the job. Furthermore, many of these accidents for men involved work around the home, approximately 10,000. Even home repairs can sometimes be dangerous work, and these are activities that are traditionally preformed by men.

3) None of the 14,000 men a year who die by homicide asked to a victim statistic. So I find it very curious and rather ironic that some feminists would resort to victim blaming like this, (ie men put themselves in more dangerous situations to get murdered) in light of how vocal they are against the blaming rape victims because they placed themselves in more dangerous situations.

4) There is no evidence, that any credible institution has done, to suggest that men have a less healthy standard of living than women. Indeed, even if that were the case, would those who say people who don't lead healthy lifestyles don't deserve health care?

In 2001, one women's group did speak out to the public against endorsing the Men's Health Act, this time completely stating wrong information concerning dollars spent on research for women's issues:

"National Women's Health Network is not endorsing the bill, says Amy Allina, the group's program and policy director. At the same time, she says, "We believe there are health issues that are particular to men and we encourage health advocates who are concerned about men's health to work to get more attention for those things."

That given, says Allina, "We still think it's necessary across the medical field to work to get more attention to women's health. We think that women's health has been under-researched. Clinical trials as well as the historical medical practice model have assumed male as normal and female as a small version of men. From the perspective of saying women are getting too much attention and men need more of it. Obviously we had some problems with that. I appreciate that they've changed their approach to recognize that they can advocate for men's health without detracting from women's health."

Ms. Allina's reasoning has been the standard format used by many groups that have since opposed an Office of Men's Health, and has been rehashed by many feminist lobby group.

Cancer Research Funding

The National Cancer Institute(NCI) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive the bulk amount of Federal funding for critical cancer research, which they distribute to promising programs that are searching for treatments and cures for cancer.

This issue alone could be its own article, however these basic statistics showing how breast cancer, which effects 99% women, has become the most important health research program of the government and public. The funding disparity shown here, despite the many deaths by other cancers, included some male only cancers, says a lot about the current state of affairs regarding the perceived worth of one sex as more important than the other. Pancreatic cancer, for instance, that effects both men and women, and kills almost as many people a year as breast cancer, receives very little funding from public funds.

Suicide and Men

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about suicide, a serious mental health issue, or more precise the outcome of untreated mental problems, which men suffer from in very disproportionate numbers. In 2008, 28,450 men committed suicide compared to 7,585 women. Each year in the US, about 28,000 men will kill themselves, many of who never sought out or asked for help. And although women do attempt suicide in much greater numbers, men complete the act at almost four times the rate of women in the US. Here is an excellent site that discusses the issue of men and suicide.

These numbers are not much different in other countries, like Canada, the UK and Australia. Several of the programs dedicated to women cited above, do have some sorts of programs designed to help those who are suffering from mental illness. While generic help exists for disadvantaged persons with mental illness, the Federal government, outside of reporting the numbers from the CDC and NIH give each year, haven't directly addressed the problem of male suicide. If you look through the CDC list of programs offered by both the Federal and State governments to combat suicide, you won't see even a single mention of a project aimed at curbing the disturbingly high number of suicides among men. The Australian government has a Mental Health and Well-Being program that does acknowledge and attempt to take action against the plague of male suicide, which other countries would be wise to take a serious look at.

Conclusions

The point of all this is not to condemn health programs for women, or to say that women don't deserve gender based projects. Whether or not it is right or wrong, justified or unjustified to use public funds for these types of social programs I leave for others to debate. However, I feel strongly that any successful and prosperous democratic government must protect, defend and hold accountable all of its citizens, to equal and fair standards, to best of the abilities within any given circumstance, regardless of any human characteristic such as race or gender. Here in the US, this is embodied in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which is known as the equal protection clause. The second part of the amendment reads:

"....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many times I'll hear people that are against Men's Rights say that equality is "not a zero sum game." And they are right in so far as the aspect of each person's individual abilities and needs. However, equal protection under the law is very much a zero sum game. To enforce or enact laws favoring 1/2 the population, without acknowledging the other half, is by its very nature the antithesis of equal protection. While there are times that arise in every country's history that a group may need some special protection or action, when the justifications for enacting these protections are false, but moreover, when such efforts intentionally marginalizes one group in favor of another, despite irrefutable evidence that the group receiving special benefits are in a better position than the vast majority of the other group, many would tend to call this systematic and institutionalized discrimination.

As I tried to demonstrate in my articles on homelessness and education, and in this article, we need to make it known that there are some rather ugly and destructive consequences which can result when the spirit of equal protection under the law is bypassed, ignored and willfully overridden, despite the good or bad intentions of the governing body. Almost everything about these health programs and projects, notwithstanding the necessary and justified maternity initiatives, by the very principle of the legal exclusion of men, violate both the spirit and the law of equal protection, which clearly promotes the health and well-being of one sex as more important than the other. Discrimination doesn't get much more obvious than this.

Where did our system go so wrong? And more importantly, how can we begin to change this?

Tom Martin sues LSE's Gender Institute for teaching sexism Video

2011-11-04T14:39:00.000-04:00

This is worth the watch.

How the National Organization of Women's Agenda Left Hundreds of Thousands of Men Homeless

2011-10-24T09:00:00.010-04:00

Today, homelessness in the United States is an overwhelmingly male problem. Approximately 9 out 10, or about 205,000 unsheltered homeless people on any given night in America will be men or boys, while women, who represent about 36% of those without a permanent residence, constitute only 10% of the unsheltered. This disproportionate disparity between the sexes is disturbing both because of how little attention this fact receives within society, but also because its tells a grim story that runs parallel, and in many ways is is a direct result of, several other difficult problems men face today.

Scope of Reasons

There are many reason someone finds themselves in a situation where they become homeless. While these reasons are quiet important, such as mental illness, unemployment, physical disability or substance abuse, the scope of this article is to examine why men have fewer emergency assistance options, and what lead to this large disparity between the sexes.

Homeless Basics

In order to explore this issue throughly, we need to take a look at some of the terminology in regards to homelessness. There are two basic categories of homeless; those who are sheltered, by either a private or religious organization or through public assistance of some form, and those who are unsheltered, which are those literally living in areas not fit for human habitation (ie cars, abandoned dwellings etc) or those who we are more accused to encounter, that sleep on park benches, underpasses or heating grates. In addition to sheltered and unsheltered, there are three types of homeless people;

*Chronic - Those who remain without a residence for over 180 days, and usually experience multiple periods of extended homelessness throughout their lives
*Transitional - Homeless by a variety of temporary circumstances, and are in a shelter or receive other assistance less than 180 days
*Publicly assisted long term residents - Technically not homeless, however it represents those families or individuals who spend long periods of time, usually years, in publicly funded or subsidized housing. In the US they number over 1.5 million adults and children. The overwhelming majority of this number are single parent adult women with children

Statistics 101
These facts can be found through several studies done by different organizations. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) annual report is the base line for these statistics.

643,047 people in the US will be homeless on any given night (does not include long term assisted)
403,308 of these are sheltered
239,759 of these are unsheltered (this number is estimated to be higher due to the difficulty of tracking unsheltered homeless)

83% of the unsheltered homeless are adult men
7% of the unsheltered homeless are boys under the age of 18
10% of the unsheltered homeless are adult women and girls under the age of 18. The CDC and HHS estimates almost half this number are "runaway" teenage girls.

edit: As a reader pointed out to me, and which is something that I already knew, is that this HHS study among others are Point in Time (PIT) statistics. This means they ran these figures, as they almost always do on a January night, when many northern US cities have "out of the cold" programs, which reduces the number of unsheltered homeless by almost 1/2. Furthermore, as you will find in these studies, it is difficult to ascertain gender ratio's for unsheltered that can be correlated back to other studies easily. The much more brutal truth is that on an average night in the US, the number of unsheltered homeless is almost double, perhaps more, than the 240,000 figure. Furthermore, the data indicates, taking into account all nights during the year, that men and boys actually account for 94-97% of the unsheltered homeless; or 9.4 to 9.7 out 10 unsheltered homeless on an average night are men. I went with the conservative figures, which in themselves are devastating, as no one can really challenge their validity in any meaningful way.

A closer data point in reality for an average night in the US would be closer to 400, 000 men or 95.8% of the total of the unsheltered homeless. This is data I am still working on confirmation on through more than just one study.

404,957 are individuals
238,110 are persons in families*
142,000 or 60% of homeless families are children
71% of sheltered individuals were adult men
25% of sheltered individuals were adult women
80% of sheltered homeless families include adult women and 20% include adult men. (Most of them include adult men who are part of a two parent homeless family)
Almost all of the publicly assisted long term residents that are single parent families are headed by adult women

General Characteristics of Homeless Men
1 in 10 are Veterans
4 in 10 has some sort of disability, including mental illness
75% are over the age of 30, most are older than 40
Race- 42% African-American, 38% white, 20% Hispanic
1 in 17 men living in poverty will access an emergency homeless shelter each year, compared to 1 in 35 women living in poverty (1)

Discussions about homelessness and gender

One of the ironic problems that I have encountered while discussing this issues with many different people, when faced with the facts about unsheltered homeless men, inevitably someone will say or try to argue "but men make up about 65% of the total homeless population." The problem with this view, as we will explore later, is that this 65% includes individuals and families with access to public assistance and housing shelters, including the long term projects. Individual men almost always fail to met the requirements for almost all public assistance, (with the exception of Medicaid and Social Security programs) especially those that are meant to benefit children but have the side benefit of helping the parent. The brutal kinds of homelessness, whether it be an overcrowded shelter or more importantly the unsheltered, those literally living on the street is far and away a men's problem. The big glaring issue, is that society has provided with public funds, many layers of safety nets for women, but almost none for men.

Indeed, Health and Human Services (HHS), the governmental agency tasked with managing most of these programs has openly admitted the some of the reasons there is a huge disparity between homeless men and women. Their 2009 annual report states:

"Single men who are poor may be more vulnerable to homelessness because of large gaps in the Unemployment Insurance program and because the largest safety net programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, are for families or elderly people. The share of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance has declined in recent decades and the gap may be particularly perilous for men because poor women are likely to be accompanied by children and thus eligible for TANF. Adult poor men also have higher rates of substance abuse than women, but substance abuse has not been a categorical eligibility criterion for SSI since 1996. Thus, some women may fall through one social safety net but be caught by another; men may miss them all."

Children, Custody Battles and the Effect on Men

Our court systems have to this day still have not caught up with the radical social transformations of the later 20th century, and in many ways still operates under the 18th century ideas of women as the primary care givers and men as the primary providers and protectors. As divorce rates began to skyrocket during the 1970's, the courts appeared both overwhelmed and paralyzed on what to do in light of these changes, and still to this day have not made a concerted effort on the national level to transform the polices governing child custody and support to fit these new social roles. What people remember as the Women's liberation movement, or early feminism, took good advantage of this anachronistic judicial system to lobby on one hand for the courts to enforce these old gender roles, and on the other to propel women as independent and liberated from these exact same gender roles. The consequences for fathers have been devastating. Even though the rates for single parent families lead by men is rising, 11.3 million single parent families are still lead by females versus about 2.8 million single parent families headed by males. Although this trend is slowly changing, fathers within broken families have been systematically removed from much of the family equation.

The National Organization for Women along side several other feminist organizations fought hard and won protection for women, via proxy of the children the courts awarded to them as custody. And despite having just about 500,000 members, NOW wield tremendous political clout within the US, which has given them the ability to influence much of this legislation. Dozens of these laws and programs, which NOW and other groups lobbied for and supported, have been enacted to socially underwrite, and hence guarantee the basic necessities of women through these court mandated gender roles. In essence, in the absence of fathers to provide either direct support via being part of the "nuclear family" or in lieu of court ordered payments of child support, feminists have been able to influence lawmakers to enforce these ridged gender roles they outwardly oppose, by having the government, or better yet, society become the surrogate provider and protector for disadvantaged women. 79% of sheltered families, and an even greater number in long term subsidized housing, which are not considered homeless by HHS or NIH, are female lead. Indeed, no sane person would argue that society shouldn't look after children in poverty, as of course kids deserve all the benefits they need to grow up healthy and educated. However, NOW has almost always defended the mother's right to custody over the father, even going to the point of calling Father's Rights Groups as fringe and extremists.

1974 Title IV-D of the Social Security Act aka Child Support Enforcement Program

NOW’s leadership deemed 1973 as “NOW’s Action Year Against Poverty,”(7) and led many campaigns that year to enact programs dedicated to women in regards to poverty, health care and child support. While much of what they lobbied Congress for died that year, they were able to call Title IV-D of the Social Security Act as a victory. What came out of that act was the Child Support Enforcement Program. Under the bill, the then Dept of Health Education and Welfare, known today as Health and Human Services, created the Office of Child Support Enforcement(OCSE), which is dedicated to funding programs to track down parents who are behind on their support payments.

In FY 2007 alone, OCSE spent 2.7 billion dollars to help states maintain their own CSE divisions, and enacted many now maligned practices, (9) such as reporting delinquent parents to credit bureaus, suspending drivers, professional, occupational and recreational licenses and in some cases press criminal charges. Obviously, due to the antiquated custody laws, this bill and subsequent programs were and continue to be aimed almost exclusively at men. The effect it had on men was when a man lost his job, or couldn't find employment quickly, a big hole of arrears of child support would be created, which too often became a hole they could never recover from. Despite taking into consideration circumstances that would cause payment delinquency, politicians and officials inside OCSE showed little mercy towards fathers.

Federally Funded Programs for Women and Families

Welfare had always been a program rife with abuse, bad press and astronomical costs. In 1996-97, President Bill Clinton pushed an initiative to replace the 1935 law Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with someone that requires more responsibility on the recipients, and less waste of money overall. What was born was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF), a $7 billion dollar project that placed emphasis on families, and moving them to self dependancy over a period of time. Again, TANF with almost all the other programs targeted families, which because of our still antiquated court system and custody laws, overwhelmingly favored single parent mothers. Today, this benefit is extended to around 4.3 million Americans.

But Congress wasn't finished yet, and continued to enact additional grant based programs for families and youths under the purview of HHS. While again, no one is question the importance of children to receive food, shelter and the basic necessities, an enormous disparity between women and men exists as to who benefits in conjunction with the child/children. Pregnant women or women with young children have even more programs funded to supply medical services, food and education. The more prominent ones are:

Community Services Block Grant
Social Services Block Grant
Transitional Living Program for Older Homeless Youth
Head Start
WIC
Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant (Offers over a dozen smaller programs)
SNAP
HUD Programs

The Decoy of Domestic Violence

For the past 25 years the portrayal of domestic violence within most media, TV, movie and magazines, and moreover, the general public, has been one of exclusive male on female violence. This attitude has become so ingrained in our society as truth, without a close look at real statistics, that extreme measures have been taken to attempt to curb this perceived epidemic of male violence. The problem is, none of these portrayals of domestic abuse are even remotely correct. Studies done by both public and private institutions, including the CDC, DOJ, HHS, the American Journal of Public Health and Family Court Review have shown a very different reality of violence inside the home. For many years now, we have known that women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.(10) "In at least half of all cases, partner violence is mutual."(11) Another CDC study showed that one way physical aggression is perpetrated by the female in about 70% of the cases. Furthermore, acts of child abuse or neglect are committed by the mother in about 40% of cases, 18% by the father and the rest of the time, 52% by either both parents, non-family members or step-parent/partner and parent.(12)

What is true, for reasons beyond the scope of this article, is that men almost never report incidents of domestic violence where they have been the victim. It is also true, when violence escalates, that women are more likely to be injured 62%, while the men are injured about 38% of the time. In incidents where the police are called, the men are much more likely to be arrested for domestic violence when both parties were equal aggressors, especially in states that have a mandatory arrest policy. Not only are men the victims of domestic violence many times more often than has been portrayed, but men are also much more likely to be accused and arrested for domestic violence than their female partners.

In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed Violence Against Women's Act, which was sponsored by now US Vice President Joe Biden. The bill was a high priority within groups such as NOW, National Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Women’s Political Caucus, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and several others. NOW President Patricia Ireland, made a statement in 1996 where she likened VAWA to the civil rights act of 1964, saying domestic violence is a hate crime and ironically mentioned the significance of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Under the law clause.

The net affect was the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Department of Justice was established in 1995, along with about 20 different programs and hundreds of millions of dollars oh new grant money to administer. Much of this money was allocated to finding housing and basic needs for both just women, and both women and children. A list of VAWA created programs from DoJ's website:

Campus Grant Program
Children and Youth Exposed to Violence Grant Program
Court Training and Improvements Program
Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services for Victims Program
Education, Training and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of Women with Disabilities
Engaging Men
Services, Training, Education and Policies to Reduce Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking in Secondary Schools Grant Program (STEP)
Tribal SASP
Sexual Assault Service Program-Cultural
Enhanced Training and Services to End Violence and Abuse of Women Later in Life Program
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders
Grants to Indian Tribal Governments Program
Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions
Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program
Rural Grant Program
Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program
Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth Grant Program
Sexual Assault Services Program
State Coalitions Grant Program
STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grants to States
Transitional Housing Grant Program

VAWA truly became a cornucopia of federal money along with political capital for NOW to sell the nation on their version of domestic violence; male offender/ female victim. It also created a lucrative federal cash flow for the specific use of housing, education, college campus programs and other gender specific programs. In many ways VAWA was a homerun for NOW, giving them a strong social safety net to which single women and single women with children have in the event of a housing emergency, or even a long term poverty issue. While the law was later tweaked to favor a more gender-neutral wording, the emphasis has always been on women, while those rare men who have come forward to report to being battered aren't given the same treatment, nor access to the same programs.

Originally passed in 1984, but then renamed and passed as a modified bill was the Family Violence Prevention and Services Grant Act which grants some 250 million a year of Federal funds to support around 2,000 privately owned domestic shelters. Almost without exception, as these shelters opened up and received funds, they have become exclusive for women and children, and at best, a battered man could receive a hotel voucher for a weeks stay at a local hotel and perhaps specialized and segregated counseling. From NOW's current push to reenact this bill: "Unless Congress reauthorizes FVPSA, over 2,000 shelters in the U.S. and millions of women and children could be left without funding or assistance. With domestic violence affecting so many women and children, NOW activists must demand that Congress pass the FVPSA reauthorization (H.R. 4116)"

The net result of these programs, which do include others not specified here, is a publicly funded safety net layer for women, at the expense and exclusion of men. Men are de facto excluded from the lion's share of these funds and shelters.

Specialized Federal Programs on Women's Health and Poverty

Although it is well known that men have a life expectancy 5-7 years earlier than women, several federal programs have been set up over the past 10 years, dedicated towards health and poverty issues geared for women only. These programs have many grants that directly benefit health care issues that women in poverty have. The National Institutes of Health(NIH) has established The Office of Research on Women's Health but have no such office or resources dedicated to men's health outside of a "topic link" to a generic page about men's health. The Veterans Administration also has a the 'Specialized Programs for Women Veterans' which "awarded grants to eight community-based homeless veteran service providers to support programs designed specifically for women veterans," which also includes items on women's health, though no equivalent program at VA exists for men. HHS has an Office on Women's Health which offers programs, advice, research and links to sites like Women and the Affordable Care Act.

Invisibility of Men and More of the Same

The book, Anthropological locations: boundaries and grounds of a field science By Akhil Gupta, James Ferguson, talks about this problem(p.159):

Several stories (this one article suggests a link between sexual assault and female homelessness) regarding an increase in the rise of homeless female vets hit several media outlets this past couple of months. Indeed, Michelle Obama took notice as well, and championed a female veterans only housing project in NC. In January of this year even CNN did a special report on female homelessness that they called 'Homeless women face more obstacles'.

In the piece, Roseanna Means, founder of Women of Means told CNN:

"There are so many things that women have to deal with more so than men do -- reproductive years, and then mammograms, then menopause. A lot of women's health is preventive care, and if women lose out on those screening tests, their lives are in danger.

In the world of homelessness, there are lots of emotional issues, psychiatric issues, women who have been beaten up so many times they can't connect the dots. They don't have an address. They don't have a phone. They're all sitting in a shelter together, but they're not necessarily friends. There's not a common bond of, "We're all in this together." Everybody is struggling. Everybody's isolated. Everybody's miserable"

Even though men are much more likely to be unsheltered than females and go through many of the same kinds of problems as these, but 10 fold, this attitude that when men are homeless and mire in abject poverty no one notices, but when women start to show a rise, it becomes an urgent crisis. It is more than abundantly clear that feminist organizations, and even society in general view men suffering as less than as important than women. Indeed, we have so many programs and public funds that go towards women, that this invisibility and disposability of men is written in law.

Only passing mention in any of these media stories mentioned the enormous disparity between the amount of homeless men and women. Indeed, one story quoted male homelessness as a matter of fact:

"Years ago, homeless veterans were almost exclusively men. But with new wars and a changing Army, young women in their mid-20s to early 30s are encompassing a larger part of the homeless population, especially in Fayetteville."

A website called change.org recently ran an article titled 'Poor Women Underserved by Government Anti-Poverty Programs.' They write:

"As Kathryn Baer writes over at Poverty in America, the one possible positive outcome from this report could be that we finally start reevaluating our safety net programs. It isn't enough to talk about women's rights. The government needs to step up and fix these failing programs that so many women and children desperately need."

In an all too familiar tone, the Denver Post wrote a 2009 Op Ed entitled 'Too many single, homeless women left out in the cold':

"Denver streets are no place to spend the night when the mercury drops below zero, but several single, homeless women faced just such a challenge this week due to a shortage of shelter beds. Even though the number of women affected is small, it's an appalling reality and ought to be a call to arms."

They continue:

"We can't always expect government to be the safety net, especially in dire economic times. And we can't assume there are enough people volunteering at shelters and donating the money and resources required to fill the need."

But 30 years of men sleeping on the streets wasn't a call to arms? The appalling reality is that men's suffering is seen as less important that women's suffering.

Why are men an afterthought when it comes to destroying poverty? So every time I hear someone laugh off Men's Right's voices about all these overwhelming problems men face with "What about teh menz?" it really enforces that the National Organization of Women, for the past 30 years, wasn't ever truly about equal protection under the law.

Conclusions

200,000 men sleep on the street tonight because much of society has forgotten about them. Feminist organizations who used their political influence to garner multiple safety nets for women, at the expense of men, certainly don't care. Since it isn't a glamorous topic, most politicians tend to only worry about helping those people who will make them look good. The thing is, they are more than just a dirty bum living inside those cardboard boxes, or sleeping on park benches, they are sons, fathers, grandfathers and brothers. Simply put, they are human beings, and deserve a voice in the discussion when our society begins to dole out money to combat homelessness. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution demands equal protection under the law. What Congress has done over the past 30 years spits in the face of equality.

With men and boys falling behind in education and unemployment, this problem is bound to get worse. We need a voice for men in poverty, we need a voice that can stand up to Congress, we need an strong and unified organization that is willing to tackle these issues. It is more than abundantly clear if we don't speak out and work towards solving problems such as male homelessness, no body will.

References and further reading

(1) http://www.societaldistress.org/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf
(2) http://www.societyandculture.com/Runaway_Children
(3) http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy498/gendertype.html
(4) http://www.nchv.org/women.cfm
(5) http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy498/genderformer.html
(6) http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
(7) http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/wpp/flf/pdf/welfare_case.pdf
(8) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/
(9) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/cse_factsheet.html
(10) http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Myths-of-ABA-Commission-on-DV-Summary
(11) http://smu.edu/experts/study-documents/family-violence-study-may2006.pdf
(12) http://www.nij.gov/publications/dv-dual-arrest-222679/ch1/findings.htm
(13) http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/women.html
(14) http://www.change.org/petitions/support-the-reauthorization-of-family-violence-prevention-and-services-act
(15) http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5996/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2207
(16) http://www.saveservices.org/reports/
(17) http://www.now.org/press/07-96/07-29b96.html
(18) http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/programs/poverty/
(19) http://www.womenshealth.gov/

(20) http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/poverty/welfare-to-work.aspx
(21) http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/domestic_violence.htm
(22) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30442.pdf
(23) http://now.org/issues/economic/welfare/TANFtestimonySept2011.pdf
(24) http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm
(25) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/familyviolence/factsheet.htm
(26) http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3659
(27) http://www.societaldistress.org/Content.aspx?ID=29

(28) Anthropological locations: boundaries and grounds of a field science

Buddhism, Men's Rights and Off-Broadway

2011-09-29T22:07:00.005-04:00

Yes, I'm still a Buddhist! And yes, I am going to start writing more again on that topic. I have a lot of catching up to do, as I haven't read much of anything in the Buddhist blogosphere as of late. Getting involved with Men's Rights recently, I found how grateful I am to have my practice, as I've never had to deal with so much anger and hate directed towards me in all my life. See, for some reason, Men's Rights is seen as a fringe movement, something to mock or laugh at or something rotten. The thing is, for me and many others, it is a very troubling thing to really take stock of facts such as 90% of unsheltered homeless people are men, and that 80% of all suicides are men, and that the number of men going to college is decreasing lagging behind their female counterparts by almost 20%, and furthermore illiteracy, unemployment and incarceration rates among men are on the rise.

Not to even mention the sad fact that domestic violence against men isn't seen as a problem even though it accounts for almost 50% of DV incidents, nor that men still only get physical custody of their children in about 10% of divorce cases. So, for most of us, it isn't about the battle of the sexes or hating feminism or some want to bring back the sexism of the past, but is rather just about the humanity of knowing how many men suffer in silence and trying to do something about it.

Basically, a disproportionate number of men in the bottom 30% of our society are forgotten and are seriously struggling, which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. So I'm not so sure why Men's Rights, outside of the fringe assholes that populate any group, are so derided and despised. It's rather disheartening to be honest.

OK, so anyway, remember that play up in NYC that was using my material as dialogue? Well, they had their first showing this past Monday. Are You There God? It's Me, Blogologues Apparently it went rather well, and what was even cooler was that Tricycle magazine went out to see the play. They wrote a review about it today on their blog here. They wrote:

"And I certainly didn't think that I would be the one to get offended. But during the show, as the actor portraying Lovett started to caress his face with a Buddha statue, almost licking it, I found myself feeling a bit...proprietary."

Well, I admit that I laughed out loud when I read this, but I do feel a bit concerned that if I am reading her reactions right, Buddhism may have been mocked rather than just shown in an irreverent light. I don't know, but I'm going to try to get up to NYC next month to check it out for myself. I know I wouldn't be offended, because well, fuck I wrote the damn stuff. We'll see!

That's about it for now.

Male Privilege?

2011-09-17T23:26:00.002-04:00

I posted the following on Reddit as a comment concerning homelessness.

This source is has total amounts for transitional/sheltered and does not include including chronic/unsheltered. Transitional Homeless:

Men accounted for 63.7% of the adults who used emergency shelters or transitional housing over a 12-month period.
Adults in families that are in emergency shelters or transitional housing are predominantly women (79.6%) whereas individual adults without children are predominantly men (72.7%).

From HUD's 2009 annual report, an offical acknowledgement why women are more likely to be sheltered while homeless

Single men who are poor may be more vulnerable to homelessness because of large gaps in the Unemployment Insurance program and because the largest safety net programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, are for families or elderly people. The share of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance has declined in recent decades and the gap may be particularly perilous for men because poor women are likely to be accompanied by children and thus eligible for TANF. Adult poor men also have higher rates of substance abuse than women, but substance abuse has not been a categorical eligibility criterion for SSI since 1996. Thus, some women may fall through one social safety net but be caught by another; men may miss them all. See the 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C. 14 The share of individual sheltered homeless men reported in the HMIS may be artificially high. First, the HMIS data do not include adults served by domestic violence providers, most of whom are women, because domestic violence providers are prohibited by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (reauthorized in 2000 and 2005) from participating in HMIS. Second, some shelters have policies prohibiting men over a certain age from sleeping in family shelters, requiring men and teenage boys to stay at men’s shelters alone.

And so what about the undsheltered:

On a single night in January 2009, there were an estimated 643,067 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide. More than 6 in 10 people who were homeless at a single point-in-time were in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, while 37 percent were unsheltered on the “street” or in other places not meant for human habitation.

That equals about 240,000 people on a typical night that are unsheltered. Approxemently 83% of them are adult male, with an additional 8-10% being boys under the age of 18. That means roughly 90% of the unsheltered homeless population are males, or about 204,000 males and 36,000 females

Nearly two thirds of the people homeless on a single night were homeless as individuals (63 percent), while more than a third (37 percent) were homeless as part of a family. Family members were much less likely than individuals to be unsheltered. Only 21 percent of all homeless family members were unsheltered on the night of the point-in-time count, while almost half of homeless individuals were unsheltered.
People who are homeless by themselves are very different from those who are homeless with children. Sheltered individuals are overwhelmingly male. More than three quarters are over 30, more than 10 percent are veterans, and more than 40 percent have a disability. In contrast, adults in sheltered homeless families are overwhelmingly female, most are under age 31, and very few are veterans or have a disability.

A U of M study shows that this means, at least up in the late 1990's, 83% of unsheltered homeless were men, which would be about 188,000 adult men a night vs about 55,000 were either adult females or people under the age of 18, which is about 22% according to HUD. Of those under the age of 18, the numbers are about 60/40 male - female, meaning an additional 8,000 of those 55,000 are boys. Between 80-85% of unsheltered homless are men, seems to be the typical range found in most government and University studies.
And here is another interesting tidbit on HUD's study about males/females in poverty:

Gender of Adults. Most sheltered homeless individuals are men. In 2009, 71 percent of all sheltered individuals were adult men and only 25 percent were adult women staying alone. Assuming that most homeless persons are poor before using a shelter, the high rate of men among individuals suggests that for every 14 men living by themselves with incomes below the poverty line, 1 is likely to access a homeless shelter at some time during the year. Only 1 of every 35 women living alone in poverty access the homeless shelter system. By comparison, adults who become homeless together with children are usually, but not always, women. In 2009, 79.6 percent of adults in families with children were women. Women in families with incomes below the poverty line are 2 times more likely to use a shelter than their male counterparts.

Furthermore, this study is indicating that there are actually about 250,000 people on any given night that are homeless. Yet what makes news? The rise in female homeless vets, like here and here. Of course a rise in any group becoming homeless is troubling, but media knows what pulls on people's heart strings. Instead of acknowledging the massive discrepincies in male/female homelessness, which HUD has admitted is due to the vast number of programs geared towards women (which most can be traced back to direct activist lobbying by feminist organizations), Michelle Obama is spending her time building houses for homeless females.

And ya wonder why men are starting to wake up the realization that male privilege is a nasty little lie, which has become so throgouly engrained in our society and culture. Yes, CEO's and the top 1% of the super rich are men by a disproportionate amount, but a disproportionate number of the bottom of society are men. Does anyone really think the top 1-2% of men really give a shit about all the men at the bottom of society? Yet we keep spending more tax dollars and more college funds looking solely at the problems women face, and hardly a fucking dime on the problems men face. Feminists talk about glass ceilings, so I want to talk about 4 walls and a cot.

California to Release Thousands of Female Inmates - But No Men

2011-09-14T00:15:00.000-04:00

Via CNN:

Thousands of women inmates from California prisons could soon be released to be reunited with their families under a program the state began implementing on Monday.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said offenders whose crimes were nonviolent, nonserious and not sexual, with less than two years remaining on their sentences, are eligible for the Alternative Custody Program, which was signed into law in 2010 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Approximately two-thirds of CDCR’s female inmates are mothers whose children are either with relatives or are in foster care,” CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate said in a press release. “ACP is a step in breaking the intergenerational cycle of incarceration, as family involvement is one of the biggest indicators of an inmate’s rehabilitation.”

About 45% of the state's 10,000 female inmates may be eligible for the program, the CDCR said. It may be made available to male inmates in the future, the department said.

Several thousand men, under this new California program, would also qualify for the release, given the parameters laid out. The sole exception of course is that they are men. The CDCR gave no indication why it was starting their release program strictly with females, and furthermore gave no indication as to when, or even if, the men would qualify for the benefit.

Though while several people interviewed by multiple news agencies, from State officials to local citizens, stated that bringing families back together was a wonderful idea, almost no one questioned the double standard being imposed on men. Indeed, most news agencies, with the exception of one line in CBS LA , did't even question if this move is constitutional, either at the state or federal level. Females already serve on average 48 months less time in prison for the same crimes as men. Furthermore, the focus on women being the more important single parent than a single father in the eyes of CDCR, is also quite telling of society as a whole.

The bottom line in all this is that men have been so forgotten and so demonized in society, that there is hardly a peep from anyone when something like this occurs that is such an obvious egregious violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection under the law clause. This is just one of countless acts and laws and guidelines, aimed at the institutionalized discrimination of men. The CDCR and the California state legislation are just another bigoted cog in the wheel on the quite war on men.

The men's rights movement needs to move forward, as an issue driven political organization with some punch, and soon. Just today, Slate.com wrote an article asking "Are men finished?" Even in an article and a upcoming debate that will discuss this, the title is the same double standard example of sexism. I wonder how many people would be up in arms if Slate wrote an article called "Are women finished?"

Blogologues in NYC - A chance to hear my humor as read by talented actors and actresses

2011-09-09T13:35:00.003-04:00

I was contacted by a couple of very cool and talented ladies, Allison Goldberg and Jen Jamula, who run a production company up in NYC called Lively Productions. The cast and crew of Lively have created a rather popular theater series they call the Blogologues. Basically they take selective blog posts from around the web (with the permission of the bloggers), and turn them into a an on stage performance. They are finishing the work on their new series dealing with religion, and asked me if they could use one or two of my posts. They have other religious blogs and bloggers lined up for this series as well. Honestly, I was surprised that anyone would want to read some of the stuff I write out loud....well that was until I read their tag line "other wacky material that probably shouldn't be read out loud." Now I'm happy, as theater goers will be forced to listen to one or two of my most....ummm blue humor posts. Bwahahahahaha!! No, seriously, this makes me happy!

I won't be able to make it up to see the opening night of the show unfortunately, but if you are up in or around NYC, here is the information about the Blogologues if you want to go. Oh, and they got beer too. I won't say which posts they asked to use, but let's just say you won't be disappointed....perhaps offended, but not disappointed. However, I am very grateful they asked me, as I get the opportunity to entertain (or offend) folks 400 miles away.

Show info:

Are You There, God? It's Me, Blogologues
Produced by Horse Trade Theater Group in association with Lively Productions
Conceived and compiled by Allison Goldberg and Jen Jamula
Under St. Marks (94 St. Marks Place)
Monday, September 26th
7:00 PM and 9:00 PM
$15, including a beer!

Blogologues brings your favorite blog posts to the stage– as well as other wacky online material that probably shouldn’t be read out loud. Conceived by Allison Goldberg and Jen Jamula, Blogologues gives voice to what’s overheard in New York, what happens when parents text, and your missed connections. A hilarious romp through the interwebs.

Reviews and press about the show:
The Local East Village
Back Stage - Blog Stage 'Internet Fads Jump From Screen to Stage in 'Blogologues'

So please, anyone that can make it, go and give me a blow by blow account of the audience reaction. From what I hear, the cast and crew do an excellent job of bringing a lot of these posts alive in exciting ways many would say they weren't intended for. For me, that's the coolest part. So it should be entertaining even if my work makes people scream in horror at the actors.

The Removal of Due Process by Executive Order

2011-09-08T12:13:00.001-04:00

In case you haven't heard, the Obama administration began a new initiative to crack down on sexual assault on college campuses by threatening to cut off federal funding under Title IX to any colleges that don't adhere to their new policies regarding sexual assault. To many readers who don't dig into what that plan actually entails would come away thinking that of course a crack down on sexual assault is a noble cause. Unfortunately, the way in which Obama is going about it, bypasses both the entire police and court systems as well as the legal right to due process, and has placed university and college tribunals in charge of weighing the evidence of guilt or innocence. As someone who supported and voted for Obama, and feel that he is doing a fairly good job, I am rather disturbed by this act of the Executive branch overstepping its bounds.

The Wall Street Journal wrote an article that does a good job of explaining the big problems:

The Obama administration has aggravated the problem. On April 4, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, head of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), distributed a 19-page "Dear Colleague" letter to "provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations."

At the cost of losing federal funding—on which all major institutions of higher education have grown dependent—colleges and universities are obliged under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex) to thoroughly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus, including the felony of rape. They are also obliged, according to Ms. Ali, to curtail due process rights of the accused.

OCR's new interpretation of Title IX "strongly discourages" universities from permitting the accused "to question or cross-examine the accuser" during the hearing. In addition, if universities provide an appeals process, it must be available to both parties—which subjects the accused to double jeopardy.

Most egregiously, OCR requires universities to render judgment using "a preponderance of the evidence" standard. This means that in a rape case, a campus disciplinary board of faculty, administrators and perhaps students serves as both judge and jury. Few if any of these judges are likely to have professional competence in fact-gathering, evidence analysis or judicial procedure. Yet to deliver a verdict of guilty, they need only believe that the accused is more likely than not to have committed the crime.

One of the driving factors behind this has been a move, an off-shoot of sorts from just the problem of removing due process has been the push by some activist groups for the government to crack down on sexual activities while alcohol is involved. No one can question that alcohol does play a major part in sexual activity and even sexual assault such as what is refereed to as "date rape." However, the standard many colleges are beginning to look towards for guidance, is the belief, as pushed by some of these activist groups, that a female who has had any alcohol can not legally consent to any sexual activity. Again, no sane person would argue that either a man or woman who is intoxicated beyond any rational cognitive thought is able to consent to sex. The problem beyond that, besides this policy has so far been targeted strictly towards men, is the standard for sexual assault or rape charges to be brought forth only requires the female to have had any amount of alcohol then claim wrong doing happen after the fact, even if she had given consent. Certainly, if I were a female, I would be highly insulted, that as a woman I am considered incompetent to make rational decisions with as little as a beer consumed. This is ironic since these policies changes are being pushed by groups claiming to be looking out for the interest of women.

The difficult part, which these groups, colleges and universities and the Obama administration are side stepping is to what degree do they feel a woman are incapable of making decisions. Since placing a number, say .005 or .01, on the alcohol blood levels needed for a woman to lose her ability to have either responsibility for their actions nor are capable of rational decision making (ugh, I seriously want to vomit after writing that sentence) the open ended scale means it is entirely at the discretion of these tribunals at the colleges as to what degree should be stipulated. Thankfully this particular issue of alcohol hasn't been formally indoctrinated into the administrations new policy. However, this does not mean that some college tribunals haven't already taken this aspect into its policies, as some have done already. The lack of direction for a legal process, has left an arbitrary open gap for colleges to selectively enforce and enact their own procedures and standards. Not only is this a serious injustice to men, who now maybe looking at expulsion, loss of college credits and an inability to attend another university, many women are finding this whole thing highly insulting. And just because the man wouldn't necessarily be facing criminal charges, it doesn't mean that something like this couldn't ruin his life. Furthermore, there is no provisions for the protection of men that colleges are looking at enforcing such as if a man claims sexual assaulted because he was intoxicated and the female is not.

Sexual assault on college campuses, especially date rape is a serious problem, no question. But by bypassing the judicial system, lowering the standard for what is considered assault and systematically stripping men of due process and women of the insane idea that they aren't capable of giving consent for sexual activities while drinking (since the lack of judicial process guidance from the Office of Civil Rights), the US government is in itself, making a hostile schooling environment. If a crime has been committed to the point of a person accusing another of sexual assault, it should be turned over to law enforcement and the district attorneys for criminal fact finding and formal charges, and not be left to he said/ she said standard of prosecution by tribunal. It sadly mocks the actual brutal crime that is sexual assault.

Here is a great article from the blog False Rape Society about this too.

Other Articles - CS Monitor, Stanford Daily

You brought that ring from where?

2011-09-05T19:05:00.002-04:00

Domestic violence towards men funny? Check out this poster someone on reddit linked to, which was placed in the men's bathroom of a jewelry store.

Seeing how men are the victims of domestic violence in almost 50% of all DV cases, I fail to see the humor in this. Swap out the men and women roles here, and see who is laughing then.

In case you were wondering, here is the information about Zachary's Jewelers.

Annapolis Zachary’s Jewelers
100 Main St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-266-5555
sales@zacharysjewelers.com
www.zacharysjewelers.com/guysonly
www.twitter.com/keithzacharys

Homelessness: A Male Epidemic by Omission

2011-09-04T12:15:00.000-04:00

Beyond the major causes of homelessness, which effect men and women equally as far as occurrence, (not meaning homeless because of mental illness, drug addiction, etc, but as just instances of frequency within the general population) there are many reasons why men, usually single men, are by far the largest segment of the chronic and temporary homeless population. To date, the focus of private organizations and government funding has been on protecting children first, and rightfully so. However, given the numerous custody laws and de facto court customs that bias custody towards the mothers, coupled with the hundreds of battered women's shelters around the country, females have many more options when they are faced with the terrible reality of becoming homeless.

Since women are by default given custody of children in most separation or divorce cases, they are also given the lion's share of benefits granted by state and federal funding put in place to house "families with dependents." One of the biggest of these programs, but not the only one, is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF). While TANF does house a fair number of two parent families, and some single/separated men with dependents, the vast majority of this grant is given to single/separated women with dependants. Indeed, state and local government funding also buffers much of coverage towards 'families with dependants' where federal funding falls short. Another of these programs is the US Department of Health and Human Services' Family Violence Prevention & Services Grant (fact sheet), which often works closely with NGO's, many of whom are overwhelming geared towards the support of women in need. Medicaid grants and the popular Head Start program ared also targeted towards helping women who are pregnant, new mothers and women with small children. While these are all fantastic programs, none of them really address the massive amount of homeless men that end up on the streets every night.

Another issue which lends to the disproportionate number of homeless men is the battered women's shelters, which many single women can temporarily stay, many times even if domestic violence is not a factor (or proven factor). The majority of battered shelters do not, by policy, house single men, though many do offer hotel vouchers and counseling. Indeed, most of the men who do come to shelters seeking assistance due to a domestic violence situations, are by in large those who are in a homosexual relationship. Of course, this does not mean that homosexual relationships are somehow more prone to DV, but rather, its the multitude of complex reasons that heterosexual men have a difficult time in admitting to being the victim of DV. Pride, stigma, worry over counter charges by the female perpetrator, feelings of somehow being less of a "man" all play a part in this rather baffling problem.

Furthermore, given the disposability mentally towards men that society has begun to embrace, men aren't generally seen as people who can be in need, and may require assistance from time to time. Men, especially men in need, are inivisible. Moreover, women are often seen as the default victims of several issues, such as domestic violence, rather than culprits, as men are often viewed. This is sadly true, even though men are on the receiving end of domestic violence, by many reports, up to 50% of the time. This is not to say that women should be just as homeless as men, but rather, as a society, we need to really examine why single men are left out in the cold at such disproportionate numbers. How can we get more care for mental illness, disabilities and drug addiction, as well as the basics such as food and shelter, to homeless men without taking away from the aid that is given to house and feed children and families? Well, perhaps we can begin to start seeing homeless men as actual human beings who suffer, rather than a nuisance, or simply the victims of their own making.

References and Further Reading
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
http://www.usich.gov/funding_programs/programs/medicaid/
http://www.thenovetleftbehind.org/stats.html
http://www.hhs.gov/homeless/grants/index.html
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/kelly03.pdf
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
http://www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf
http://www.beyondshelter.org/aaa_programs/housing_first.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

DoM - Not having menstrual sex? Misogynist!

2011-09-03T08:35:00.001-04:00

One important item of interest that I will be addressing quite often is what I talked about in my last post, the demonization of men. I’ll place up in the title DoM to denote when a post is discussing this, in case folks were wondering.

Jill, from the very popular blog Feministe wrote a post yesterday decrying men who don’t have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is menstruating as not only misogynist, but also as people to be thought less of as human beings. No, I'm serious....She writes:

"I have met a grand total of one dude in my entire life who was like “no” on the period sex (for the record, he wasn’t saying no in the moment; it was a general conversation, not a negotiation). His reasoning was “it’s gross.” And when I stopped seeing him approximately 24 hours after that conversation, my reasoning was, “I don’t want to be with someone who thinks that a natural, healthy uterus-having body is gross.” Do you have a right to refuse to have period sex because you think bleeding vaginas be nasty? Of course. And do I have a right to leave your ass and think less of you because of that? You betcha. Because it does come down to misogyny, basically — most pre-menopausal people with uteruses and vaginas who are old enough to consent to sex bleed once a month."

Let me get this straight, if a man, for what ever reason, doesn't enjoy sex while a woman is menstrating, then that somehow equals (misogyny) hating females? More importantly, as Jill thinks, this also makes them less of a person because of it. Isn't this a bit of a petty thing to hate men over, or to think less of them as humans? So what, some guys just don't like sex during that time period (pun kind of intended), that doesn't make them evil, women hating bastards worthy only of contempt. Unfortunately, this is just further evidence of the increasing demonization of men coming from certain radical elements within the feminist community. Some women won't have sex with men for various reasons, one being that the man isn't circumcised. This doesn't make the woman a misandric, why should it be different for a man?

The ironic thing about this all, is this writers ability to play the victim role, but at the exact same time label men as women hating assholes for not performing a sexual act when she wants it preformed. Think about this if the roles were reversed for a second; demanding sex from a partner or spouse by using emotional guilt or making them feel less of a person when they don't want to, or aren't in the mood? I believe this is also called hypocrisy. She continues:

"Basically, dudes who have sex with women and think period sex is disgusting are the brothers-in-badnews-sexytime with people who think oral sex is gross. Don’t like normally-functioning vaginas? Then you should be disallowed from fucking them."

I, for one love cunnilingus, but what does one have to do with the other? The answer is nothing except for the demonization of men.

New Direction of This Blog - Men's Rights

2011-09-02T12:28:00.006-04:00

I've taken the decision to start writing again, but not about Buddhism (although I may write about that from time to time). Over the past few months I've become more involved with Men's Rights issues, and I thought instead of starting some new blog, that I wanted to just change the direction of this one. So, just as a bit of warning, if you still link to this blog as strictly a Buddhist blog, please feel free to unlink. For the record, I consider what I write about from an MRA perspective, than from a "masculinist" one. There is a very important distinction, which I'll talk about at a later time.

Men's Rights is becoming a rapidly growing but also a divisive topic of late, due to many many factors which fall outside of the scope of what I am writing about today. However, a few of the reasons as to why this is I do want to address here. The first is the sobering fact that many feel men don't have actually problems on a gender level worth addressing. Secondly is that the Men's Rights movement is a fringe movement filled with mostly conservative or radical voices. Lastly, that MRA's are seen as in complete opposition to feminism. All of these points are not true, though the last point is much more complicated than at face value.

As for the first issue, here is just a small list of issues that truly do affect the lives of men on a daily basis.

Men have a life expectancy of 5-7 years lower than women in most Western countries.
Men account for about 50% of the work force, but between 90-92% of deaths due to work related accidents.
Men are 3-6 times more likely to commit suicide than women. In some countries that number is almost 10x.
Men account for over 85% of the homeless population.
Fathers only get custody of children in only about 10% of divorce cases. In many states, the mother is by de facto the person given custody in court cases, and it is up to the father to prove that the mother is an unfit parent. (This subject is of great personal interest to me)
Cases of domestic violence (intimate partner or spousal) are almost 50% initiated by women, yet society looks at DV as almost purely a crime perpetrated by men. Men are many times more likely to be arrested for DV than women, even when there is convincing proof otherwise.
Why is there a "Office for Violence Against Women" in the United States when men are more likely to be the victims of violence?
Of those surveyed, 5% of male prisoners have stated they have been the victims of rape or sexual assault. Given the low number of men willing to admit to being raped or sexually assaulted, this number is by many estimates much higher. (No Escape: Male rape in US prisons)
Females are 5-8 times more likely than men to be acquitted, or not even brought to trial, for murdering their male spouse.
On average, female serve 48 months less jail time for the exact same crimes as men.
Women now out pace men in higher education by 10-20%, depending on the level of post-secondary education.
In the US,UK and Canada the male unemployment rate is 3% higher than women.
Even though women make up 40% of the teacher - student sexual assaults, 90% of the prosecutions are brought against male teachers.

And many more troubling questions remain unanswered:

Why is it that a studio full of women can laugh so callously at the mutilation of a man like what happened on the Talk, yet hardly a peep from anyone condemning that? I find it is becoming more common that it is socially acceptable for both men and women to talk about the mutilation/murder of men out in public. Seriously, go to openbook, and type in "I hate men" then type in "I hate women" and you'll find in general an 20-1 disparity against men. If you dig deeper, you will find thousands of references to 'cutting off a man's penis' or even murdering men. This kind of hate towards men, violent rhetoric to be exact, has spilled beyond the radical feminist walls, and I'd say it seems to be much more accepted in the public realm. This behavior is bordering on the institutionalized hatred for men, and is something that has become almost invisible.
Why is there still alimony in the US?
Why do men face jail time when they are unable to pay due to lack of work?
Why aren't women, who are already serving in great numbers, also subject to the mandatory selective service enrollment that men are?
Why is it so hard for a man found innocent of rape or child molestation, especially when those that reported it later admit making the story up, have such a horrible time putting the pieces of their life back together?

As for the second part, that Men's Rights folks are all right wing or conservative people, this is most definitely not the case. Yes, just like some feminist groups have their share of radical lefties and misandrics, MRA's have their fare share of radical conservatives and women haters. This is the exception and not the rule. One of the reasons I started this site back up is to be an example of this fact. It is very inspiring to see all spectrums of the political scale come together, men and women alike, who are beginning to speak out about seriously problems facing men.

For the last point, that Men's Rights stands in direct opposition to feminism, is a bit more difficult to work through. In what some are calling the "third wave" of feminism, has had many radical elements emerge from within it, which indeed have driven the public discourse about sexism away from practical social egalitarianism, into that which seeks the demonization of men. A heavy fog of misandry has settled into much of the work that feminists in the past have done, and in my opinion, is one of the reasons that it has become so acceptable to view men as disposable, untrustworthy and worthy of only contempt. That isn't to say that this is all of feminism, as their have been quite a few feminists that have become outspoken in the issues regarding men. This issue is something I am still learning much about as it is rather complex.

I'll be changing around the blog roll, adding some Men's Rights sites, leaving up a few Buddhist sites and linking to a lot of resources to the issues regarding men. For any of my old readers, I hope to keep you entertained with some of the antics of the past.

Trolling for Jesus

2011-08-04T17:57:00.007-04:00

Yes, like I said a couple of months ago, I am really moving on from Buddhist blogging. It's true....just let the tears flow, it's ok. I've tried to quit in the past, but always felt drawn back into it. There are several reasons why which I will briefly mention, however there is one rumor I wanted to address, just because I enjoy drama. A few people have thought that I quit the blog because I was trolling Barbara O'Brien's blog, but that isn't true.Oh the back stories about the behind the scenes Buddhist world I could talk about would make for a great book. I mean, maybe, just maybe I trolled her blog, but holy fucking shit balls, I've been trolling blogs for years now! Is it that much of a shocker? Seriously, I say I'm a troll right on the side bar!

If you have a blog there is a good chance I've trolled you to at some point! Christ, I troll myself sometimes. Anyway, so I was trolling some racist twat, (and you'd be suprised at the amount of racism against white convert practitioners there really is) and like usual, the "I hate myself" brigade came flying in to make dark acquisitions about the boogeyman coming to get them. In all honesty to you guys, and you know who you are, if you've accused me or vaguely accused me of something awful or evil, there is a good chance it actually was me. I am really out to get you. I'm the villain, and it's a fun role to play!

There are quite a few e-Buddhists that take themselves just way too seriously. This isn't the god damn Paris Peace Accords, so I'm not sure why every damn thing has to be life or death discussions. It's OK to laugh every once in awhile you silly fuckers; we are all going to be dead one day, and living your entire life in some sad hand wringing social crusade may be noble, but social awareness overload is kinda fucking lame. The Buddha's teachings often talk about the problems we accrue when getting too involved with oneself, and one's harmful attachments to the fleeting moments in life. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, if after several years practicing a Buddhism you have become more angry, confused, self absorbed and bitter, you are probably doing it all wrong.

I did shut down this blog at first, but I had numerous people ask that I leave up the archives. So, here they are, not sure why anyone would want to read them. I still want to write, but I felt my time has past writing as a "Buddhist." Yes, I'm still a Zen Buddhist, and yes I still take the practice seriously, but frankly I got a whole lot of nothing left to say on the subject anymore. That history blog I started like a month ago, yea, I took out behind the woodshed and murdered it last week. Sure it's interesting, but I much prefer my crude jokes, my foul language and rantings way more than writing about dead people. I very well may take back up this blog in a few months, but for now I need to step away.

It was a fun 5 years of being an attention whore and a general pain in the ass to everyone. I wouldn't take it back for the world. I don't have any real words of wisdom, but I'll say this: never apologize for who you are and never stay silent when something needs to be said. Don't depend on someone or something else for your own happiness, it's not something you acquire, it's something you discover - or perhaps re-discover. Most of all, find out for yourselves why the Buddha's teaching, still after 2,500 years, resonate so powerfully with humanity. Some may say the path is something you believe in, and to that I say horseshit. I say only believe in yourself and your own ability to understand your true nature. It's down to you....it always has been, it can be no other way.

The 9 D&D Alignments of Buddhist Traditions

2011-07-28T01:34:00.005-04:00

If I hear even one god damn nerd joke because I'm an old D&D player, I swear to God, I'll delete this blog and start writing a blog all about smegma. I'm serious! OK, so what? I used to play D&D as a kid, and still enjoy some alone time with my collection of 6, 8, 12 and 20 sided dice. No big deal! Anyway, so one of the most important aspects when creating a character in the old Dungeons and Dragons game was to choose an alignment. The character's alignment was important as to how the character was supposed to act during certain events or situations in the game. Example: Say my Troll Necromancer was Chaotic Evil, I wouldn't be donating a portion of my dungeon crawl proceeds to help a handicapped children's hospital, but rather I should be raiding their hospital beds to feast upon their tender young flesh and steal their balloons.

I felt like an alignment of the major Buddhist traditions was in order, given the fuck ton of D&D nerds that decided to drop everything and become Buddhist over the past 10 years. (I can't get away from you motherfuckers, can I?) Funny thing though is they still aren't getting laid, at least without a webcam or craigslist. So, without further ado, one of my more tasteless posts, where the word fuck is used one too many times; The D&D Alignments of 9 Buddhist Traditions. The first pic, which you can click on to see the full size turd, is the classic grid style, and beneath that, for you lazy fuckers, is each offensive tile in all its stupid glory. And no, the chick on the motorcycle in the first tile is not real. Her head was severed long before she was mounted to his bike. Way to go Pure Land!

(Click for the full size picture)

Good

Neutral

Evil

Well that was a shitty post. To redeem myself, I give you Bruno Mars, The Lazy Song:

Glenn Beck, Utøya, Hitler Youth and Stupid Assholes

2011-07-26T08:11:00.002-04:00

I am finding myself agreeing more and more with The Amazing Atheist these days. While I never listen or would watch the disturbing man that is Glenn Beck, I do hear some of the things he says when others call him out on it. The thing is, people may disregard the harm that morons like Beck do, but millions of dumb shit morons actually listen to him and nod their heads in excitement and agreement. Case in point, the very tragic story of the recent shooting at Utøya in Norway that left almost 76 dead. Before the video, I wanted to show this comment left on a Fox News website about the Utøya shootings, (you know that channel that is run by Rupert Murdoch and the neo-conservative Christians) just to demonstrate how much people like Beck and other far righties are taken so seriously. I’d put money that the person that left that note on my wife’s car probably listens to this asshole, agreeing with everything he is saying.

Please click on the pic or here to see the full size.

Hitler youth? HITLER YOUTH???? FOR FUCKING REAL???? Oh my holy Christ, how can any person with a shred of common sense even entertain this worthless crap?? The bottom line is the far right excuses disturbing crimes like what happened in Utøya for no other reason than they follow the same line of thought, yet lie to themselves about the reality of the situation. Neo-Christian Conservative Nationalism is a lot fucking closer in ideology to the Hitler Youth than the Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking would ever be. They are fucking Socialists for Christ's sake! In what world is kind of shit ok?

Excuse me while I go throw up now.

Misandry and Other Stuff

2011-07-23T11:59:00.006-04:00

You may remember the post I made about a week ago about the female hosts on the CBS talk show ‘The Talk’ laughing quite callously at the story of a man’s penis being severed. This past Tuesday these same women, minus Sharon Osbourne, made what I thought was a somewhat heartfelt, albeit forced apology. Sharon, however, couldn’t keep a straight face, as I don’t think she feels that the man didn't somehow deserve his penis being cut off. Yes, misandry is a real issue. The first video below is the apology with a quick forward by the man that started the whole backlash Krazie316; huge kudos to him. The second video is by the Amazing Atheist, who I usually disagree with, and I do disagree with some of his language here, but I think he captures the essence of the whole double standard issue quite well. The last video is a video about misandry and what it really means, and to me, is the one that definitely is worth the watch.

It’s odd that in this age, viewing and talking about people as individuals, who all carry an equal and innate ability to do either harm or good in our society, is looked down upon and frowned on. Judging people by their actions and not their characteristics is seen as wrongheaded or incorrect in today’s political spectrum. Placing certain traits and stereotypes based on the color of their skin, their sex, their age and even their country of origin is seen as the right way to correct wrong deeds of the past. This attitude unfortunately has been gaining steam for the last 25 years, and not until recently has the hypocritical nature of these studies or views been called out for what they are; nothing but the same mistakes of the past. The point should be to learn from our past, and not forget our past. But it is certainly should not, nor ever be, to repeat our past in the name of fixing the past.

Hate me if you want to, but I try to live and interact with others based on their actions and deeds, and not on some superficial traits that people have carved out for them in some academic sociology study. Call me a radical egalitarian, (not in the political sense, but in the human sense) I don’t mind. I think both the left and the right have the idea of equality and egalitarianism all wrong; it's not something you think or study, it's something you live. Moreover, I certainly feel that this attitude fits my Buddhist practice as I’ve come to know it quite well. I make no apologies for that, nor do I apologize for being white, for being straight, for being a man, an American or any other superficial trait for that matter. Nor should anyone else. We are all human, and we all suffer from the same human condition. And this puts us all in the same damn boat, whether we like it or not, or want it or not.

PS. You don't think that there is a lot of male self hate, check out this Facebook exchange I had about this subject.

How Buddhist Squirrels Stay Cool When it's So F*cking Hot

2011-07-22T14:14:00.002-04:00

The last three days in the acorn tree have been hotter than Betty White's vagina after sex with a Narwhal. Today it's suppose to reach 104F here, which will be the third day in a row over 100. And the next two days are looking about as appetizing as an assistant crack whore at a debutante's ball. For you folks that haven't switched the easier imperial system of measurement, (come on world, the metric system is so 1990's) that's at about 40C according to my Canadian wife. I tried some sitting meditation outside, but it got so hot, my ass stuck to the sidewalk. The good news is it popped all my hemorrhoids, and now the outside of my apartment building looks much like a bloody murder scene. So here are some ways we squirrels stay cool when it's this hot.

Step #1 - Lay the fuck down:

Step #2 - Lay the fuck down some more:

Step #3 - Stay the fuck down:

Step #4 - Remain laying the fuck down until mother nature decides to stop baking us:

Step #5 - Hot nasty squirrel sex in an Oak tree:

Step #6 - Stay away from the dogs:

Step #7 - Stay away from this guy:

Clowns, Zen and My Birthday

2011-07-20T07:37:00.001-04:00

Yes, you sons of bitches, I've made it another year, today is my birthday. One year closer to shitting myself in an old folks home, and having a guy named Leon giving me a sponge bath. I wanted to celebrate tonight, but any kind of liquor is most definitely out of the question. No seriously, I don't drink. Last time I did, which was a couple of months ago, this happened. Seriously, these are the voicemails I left my wife while she was back up in Canada for a week. She was both amused and not amused. I post them here as both a self humiliation and as a powerful reminder not to drink EVER AGAIN!

So, since booze is out, I decided that I'm going full clown this year. Several years ago Roshi Bernie Glassman attempted to start a trend of mix Zen and clowns. I don't think it caught on so much, which is why I wanted to pick up the mantle of 'Clown Zen' and try to re-spark that romance just a bit for my birthday. Below are some clown suits and art work I've found and created that I think all the boys and girls will find exciting and joyful, and aren't in the least bit creepy or disturbing, honestly! I eve made a video at the very bottom, which is the outfit I believe I'll be going with this evening for my debutante debut. What do you all think?

Smile you motherfuckers, don't be so serious!.....Oh, such a bad punny reference.

Dinner Time!

This is the look I give the dentist when he asks if I floss.

Here is me riding a scooter to Dairy Queen.

A poster I placed up all around the hallways inside a Children's hospital nearby.

In this picture, I am attempting to bridge the gap between the convert and Asian Buddhist communities.

"Some candy for zazen little boy?"

This is my Lars from Metallica clown face.

Can't go wrong with Pennywise for dinner at Chucky Cheese.

I'm lovin' it!

I think this is the good Rev. Danny Fisher without his makeup.

Once again, the race relations publicity stunt turned out rather badly.

"Jesus Christ! Why don't you guys laugh sometimes......you silly motherfuckers? Always so serious and shit!"
~ The Buddha

Watch Your Penis and then the Laughing

2011-07-17T13:29:00.033-04:00

Though I don't agree with 100% of the language used here, this is a much watch video concerning this story (Catherine Kieu Becker cuts off husband's penis). (Forward to 5:01 of the video below if you just want to see the repulsive remarks made on the Friday July 15th's edition of the TV show 'The Talk')

What the hell is wrong with the hosts on the TV show 'The Talk', for laughing so callously at the genital mutilation of a man? Julie Chen, Leah Remini, Holly Robinson Peete and especially Sharon Osbourne, who commented that male genital mutilation is "quite fabulous," should seriously apologize, or perhaps even lose their jobs over how careless and cavalier they acted. Only Sara Gilbert seemed to have any amount of sanity in this situation. No person should be subject to physical abuse like this, no one. And as much as it is horribly wrong to circumcise young girls as they do in some Muslim countries, it is just as wrong to cut off a man's penis and throw it down the garbage disposal.

I mean, just imagine if this was 5 men sitting around a table on national TV laughing about a woman's clitoris being cut off. Their careers would have ended right there and then. Double standard anybody? This behavior is beyond just simple sexism, it's inhuman. I'm sorry, I just don't see the humor in this at all.

You can make a formal complaint to CBS here. You can also check out the over 1,500 comments on Reddit about this story as well. From what I understand, several thousand complaints have already been submitted to CBS, and this video got over 90,000 views in less than 24 hours.

Other posts around the web:
The Washington Post
No Seriously, What about teh menz?
The Masculine Heart
Danny's Corner
ethecofem
Reddit
I am. What?
Castles Made of Sand
The Pigman Cometh
The Escapist Forums
A Voice for Men
The Huffington Post
The Student Room
Another couple You Tube Videos here and here

Alabama Prisoners Turn to Meditation

2011-07-16T17:28:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Rod Meade Sperry for the heads up about this. I am certainly leery of "socially engaged" Buddhism when it comes to political stances, but there are many other excellent Buddhist outreach programs that are making a real difference in the community. One of those I fully support is the Prison Dharma Program, especailly after seeing the film Dhamma Brothers. Rod posted up over on Shambhala SunSpace a small video and a bit of information about prisoners in Alabama turning to meditation that is definitly worth a look-see.

Here is a small trailer about the movie Dhamma Brothers.

10 Sexiest Buddhist Celebrities

2011-07-15T09:33:00.005-04:00

I wanted to do something a little bit different for this post, as I think we pay way too little attention to our politicians and celebrities in the West. This is especially true for famous people who are Buddhist, along with their status as a sex symbol. And since Tricycle Magazine is asking everyday people how they came to Buddhism, I thought I would ask the more important people, you know, celebrities and shit, how they came to Buddhism. Below is my top ten list of the hottest, sexiest Buddhists on the planet, with a quote and some basic information about them. I hope you all enjoy!

Stephen Harper - Prime Minister of Canada - "I found Buddha for the first time when I was going through my daily routine of murdering kittens by yanking their heads off. All of the sudden, it was like a light went on after I popped one of the little fuckers heads off, and I looked down and it smiled at me. After that moment of clarity, I've been much more compassionate while murdering kittens, just like how I am murdering the Canadian economy."

Country of Origin: United States

Measurements: 32 - 42 - 26

Dr. Henry Kissinger - Former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon - "I first came to Buddhism after I convinced Nixon into bombing and killing a few million of them Buddhisty people in Vietnam. I felt so badly that I had helped bombed the fuck out of their country, that I wanted to at least replace one of them."

Country of Origin: Germany

Measurements: 40 - 40 - 70

Actress Dana Plato from the TV show Different Strokes - "I became a Zen partitioner after I found myself one night on the streets of Las Vegas, giving old men hand jobs for a hit of crack cocaine. Now I can cup the balls of my johns much more mindfully. Different Strokes for Different Blokes I say!"

Country of Origin: United States

Measurements: Dead

Singer Amy Winehouse - "Who the fuck are you and where did you put my bloody tennis racket?"

Country of Origin: Great Britian
Measurements: 26 - 12 - 18

Actor/Singer David Hasselhoff - "A Tibetan Lama who I met in a bar in downtown LA showed me how not to vomit cheeseburgers after drinking a 5th of vodka. I took her back to my place and had sex in the shower after we shared a scrumptious puppy. Turned out he was just a Mongolian transvestite named Crazy Train, but none the less, I stuck with Tibetan Buddhism."

Country of Origin: United States

Measurements: 48 - 60 - 36

Meow Mix Spokescat - Mr. Meow Meow - "You have no idea the shit I have to put up with from the execs at Meow Mix. They are such a bunch of fucking ass-clowns, and after attacking and slicing up a few of their fucking ugly faces on the set of my commercials, I was sent to an anger management class run by a Sri Lankan monk. It was perfect! He taught me how to control my anger, but more importantly how to quietly get rid of the Meow Mix executives like the Sri Lankan government got rid of those Tamil Tigers."

Country of Origin: Hungary
Measurements: 8 - 17- 10

Rapper Lil John - "Say What?"

Country of Origin: United States
Measurements: 30 - 20- 20

Actor Mel Gibson - "I need a woman! Not a fucking little girl with a fucking dysfunctional cunt. I need a fucking woman. (panting) I don't need medication. You need a fucking bat in the side of the head. All right? How 'bout that? You need a fucking doctor. You need a fucking brain transplant. You need a fucking, you need a fucking soul. I need medication. I need someone who treats me like a man, like a human being. With kindness, who understands what gratitude is, because I fucking bend over backwards with my balls in a knot to do it all for her and she gives me shit, like a fucking sour look or says I'm mean. Mean? What the fuck is that? This is mean! Get it? You get it now? What mean is? Get it? (panting) You fucking don't care about me. I'm having a hard time, and you fucking yank the rug, you bitch, you fucking selfish bitch. (panting) Don't you dare hang up on me." (He actually said this, I didn't even have to make it up. Mel spent many years in Bhutan learning how to skillfully beat up his girlfriends and wives.)

Country of Origin: United States/Austraila

Measurements: 38 - 38 - 38

Julia Gillard - Prime Minister of Australia - "Stop fucking calling me Reba McEntire you stupid twat!"

Country of Origin: Australia
Measurements: 36 - 26 - 32

Actress Christine Hendricks - Mad Men - "One morning I woke to find one of my tits had turned into Bruce Willis's head. He looked up at me and whispered something about needing more LSD and loving the Buddha. Today, Bruce and I are happily pursing the path of the awakened titty."

Country of Origin: United States
Measurements: 36/42 - 26 - 36

God, I love satire posts! See, they didn' actual say any of this stuff.

Whiteness and Shit White People Should Apologize For

2011-07-12T11:26:00.006-04:00

Ever since I read that demeaning and lecturing article posted a few weeks ago on the web site womanist musings, stating that white people who choose to be Buddhist are racist and imperialist, and that her conclusions were drawn from the social theory of 'Whiteness' studies, I felt like I needed to find out more about it. So after I started to look a bit deeper into this very new field of academic study, I became outraged when I found that there is certainly no shortage of some very rather disturbing theories and generalizations about white people and people of color, which are being taught in about two dozen Universities around the United States and Canada. I wanted to make a ranting post, to expose these people and their ideas for what they are. I felt angered that not only was I being told that whites really shouldn't be Buddhist until they go through some formal indoctrination of cultural studies, but how the convert Buddhist community contains a large portion of people who not only applaud this degrading horse crap, but accept it as fact. However, after some time mulling over what total non-sense that this 'Whiteness' business is all about, and it is a business for sure (with books tours, speaking engagements, tenured jobs and federal and state funding), I just didn't feel like writing a 35 paragraph essay on what is tantamount to a theory that a couple dozen crackpots came up with.

I honestly don't think I've researched such degrading, irresponsible and reprehensible rhetoric since I studied the abhorrent institution of Jim Crow or Apartheid system in South Africa back in high school and college. Of course there is still a lot of racism in the West, but taking such an unsettling and despicable approach as this, is not in any way an acceptable or plausible manner to address theses concerns. So I came to a compromise of sorts, I decided to first list out some facts and observations about 'Whiteness' studies, then take a giant shit on a lot of not-so-real modern day crap that white people should be sorry for. (Don't worry, I have several links and references at the bottom to all this information, least you think I am making this up - sadly I am not)

The theory and study of 'Whiteness'

Whiteness theory states that the white race does not really exist, it is merely an illusory social construct
Whiteness studies is the academic discipline that looks at the pseudo-taxonomy of people who call themselves white
Whiteness is studied in a critical and negative light, which claims racial superiority is a fabricated construct meant to justify discrimination against non-whites
The key ingredient of Whiteness is a thing that they call white privilege, and more importantly the denial of its existence
They state that Whiteness is invisible, subtle and elusive, and is almost always unknown to the benefactor of 'Whiteness'
There are over 30 Universities in the United States that offer courses in ‘Critical Whiteness Studies’
Unlike African-American, Hispanic or Asian studies, Whiteness studies is taught in a strictly negative and disapproving manner
Many far right wing political groups have seized upon this recent development as a legitimate excuse to celebrate white pride and have pushed for right wing type white studies in Universities
The vast majority of these professors are white, and many of them belong to a group that call themselves 'The Race Traitors'
The motto of the Race Traitors is "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."
The key to solving the social problems of our age, they argue, is to abolish the white race. They argue that this is not a violent abolishment, (though they don't discount the possible need for future violence) but an abolishment and destruction of the white race, and only the white race, as a viable social category
They refer to white people who have not acknowledged their invisible Whiteness as “wretched members of society"
They call themselves intellectuals who have overcome their ‘Whiteness’, and look upon guilt and shame as a positive tools towards the destruction of the white race, and insist that with enough ‘defectors’ this system will eventually collapse
Many of their writings are rather condescending, often stating things such as “You may be confused” and “Those for whom the distinction is too subtle” when referring to the vast majority of whites, and often attack their detractors as anti-intellectuals who have not acknowledged their ‘Whiteness’
One of their most vitriol statements is: “We hold that so-called whites must cease to exist as whites in order to realize themselves as something else; to put it another way: white people must commit suicide as whites in order to come alive as workers, or youth, or women, or whatever other identity can induce them to change from the miserable, petulant, subordinated creatures they now are into freely associated, fully developed human subjects.”
These professors state that they have a clear picture on to how best redefine and rebuild whites and so-called white culture after its eventual destruction.

No, I am not making any of this up, this is some serious tin-foil hat craziness here. I’m just going to point out the obvious things. First off, it seems that these professors, who are overwhelmingly white, have a difficult time themselves finding diversity within their own field of study. Ironic? They also state they want to destroy the white race, but then say the white race is a fictional concept. Furthermore, they continually state ‘Whiteness’ at its very core is invisible and elusive, except to those who are enlightened enough, as they so unabashedly consider themselves. So let me get this straight: Those who hold up this social theory of ‘Whiteness’ as true, want to destroy a people who don't exist, and who don't know they exist, and are unaware of their invisible and unknowable subconscious bias and prejudice? Perhaps they need to call the Ghostbusters, because if you are fuckin' insane enough to try to destroy invisible people who don't exist and who don't know that they exist, then you need fake actors who call upon Gozer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

While there are many things we obviously need to make amends for, I put together a list of some of the lesser known things that us white people have so ungracious heaved upon the world.

On behalf of all white people (HA!) we are deeply apologetic and sorry for the following:

Christian Rap
The politics of Arizona
George W Bush
Creepy ass motherfuckers like this

Yes, that is a sex doll in a wheelchair

Nickleback
Communism
Foot Fetish Porn
Shit like this

Her liver resembles a fruit roll up

White Jesus
The comedy stylings of George Lopez
People who shove harmful objects up their ass, then end up in the hospital
The hairless cat
Celion Dion
Olde timey porn

Why the clown suit? Is it not disturbing enough?

Lionel Riche
Serial Killers
ADHD
Kenny Loggins
This guy and his super mullet

World of Warcraft
Nazis
People who dress their pets up in human clothes
Jersey Shore
Matthew Mcconaughey

People who drive the Nissan Cube
Carrot Top
Tiger Beat Magazine
The Sham Wow guy

The Goldendoodle
The shaved vagina look being popular
The Tramp Stamp
Creepy white dudes with lots of guns

Hi Adam!

We are sorry that white is the color of three things that bring joy to all peoples; clouds, Q-tips and semen.
The NY Jets Football team
This Guy

HAWT!

Jackie Chan movies
Bob Evans restaurants
**Founding Father Apologists - Sleep with, and violates the dead corpses of America's Founding Fathers - (see the comments and you'll understand)
Most of all, we are sorry for these low life hipster elitist professors, who not only think they are better then everyone else, they think they know what is best for all people of color. Ironically, I think that's the most offensive thing about all this.

Except maybe this...

Maybe it's time we started defunding these kinds of studies, and have these professors lose their tenure and be terminated for spreading such divisive and hate laden bullshit?

In case you care, links and references:

http://racetraitor.org/
https://www.uclaextension.edu/r/Course.aspx?reg=V4281
http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2011/06/plague-of-whiteness-studies.html

http://siu.academia.edu/WalterMetz/Teaching/23412/Whiteness_and_Masculinity_in_Cinema

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/Whiteness/syllabusf01.htm

http://www.mmep.net/Politicizing_Research_on_Whiteness_and_Education_A_call_to_action2.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/?hpt=T2

https://www.uclaextension.edu/InstructorContent/prod/FileRoot/Syllabus/207907.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies#Race_Traitor

Cultural Appropriation of Buddhism is Positive Cultural Diversity

2011-07-11T14:01:00.000-04:00

There has been a bit of talk lately about this idea of cultural appropriation of Buddhism here in the West, which has been viewed many times in a rather negative light. Some critics of Buddhism’s progress in the West have even compared it something called cultural imperialism, going as far as to call it cultural theft. Voice of America published an article a couple of days ago talking about the Dalai Lama’s current visit to the US that I think address some of these issues. (Oh shit, yes, they even mention Richard Gere….for the love of God!)

VOA - American Buddhism Keeps Asian Influence, Adapts to West

Here is the interesting part that I wanted to look at.

An American-born priest at the International Buddhist Meditation Center in Los Angeles, Kusala Bhikshu, said Buddhism has a history of more than 100 years in the United States.

"And it now has dug its roots into the soil of America, so there are people [like] myself being born in Iowa - people who were born in America - who are coming as a convert to Buddhism, some becoming ordained as Buddhist monks or nuns, and bringing those teachings to everyday Americans."
.....
There are Tibetan Buddhist facilities around the United States. Kusala Bhikshu said his Los Angeles center brings together several Buddhist schools. He studied under a teacher from Sri Lanka and was ordained in the Vietnamese tradition. His center was founded by a monk from Vietnam, and is located in a Korean-American neighborhood.

He noted that Buddhism's rich body of teaching varies from one tradition to another. Here at the Hsi Lai Temple, they say that despite the diversity, the core of the teaching is the same: a respect for the tradition, a desire to adapt it to the American context, and a search for harmony among people of all faiths.

"Every being is connected. It is like we are connected to this world," said Miao. "So I think we should be working towards harmonizing with one another. Harmony and peace would be something that we should all work toward."

Buddhists say there is a bridge that links the many strains of American Buddhism. It is the American-born children, who share a Buddhist faith and American culture, regardless of where their parents were born.

Ignoring the hippie feel good harmony and marshmallow talk, the Buddhist priest Kusala Bhikshu, brings up some very interesting and quite valid points. The West, the United States and Canada in particular, have had a long history, for better or for worse, due to the extreme diverse cultural, racial and historical make up of its people, of integrating various parts of 100’s and 100’s of vastly different cultures, most of which usually resonates well with a large portions of the population, and lets go or discards many other parts. However, while there are some instances of racial or cultural prejudice that have, and continue to occur in this integration process, most of the cultural assimilation that takes place is most definitely a celebration of the accomplishments of these societies, rather than a negative reflection, and is indeed the embodiment of true cultural diversity.

While I disagree with the theme of the article that there is an ‘American Buddhism’, I find it refreshing that true cultural diversity or our melting pot of numerous cultures, which is one of our greatest strengths, hasn’t been totally forgotten in this discussion. Obviously we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the historic roots of Buddhism, but we can certainly keep our tradition of slowly working towards a Western Buddhism that is unique and fits the needs of our society in much more equitable manner. And while we still have a long ways to go, as the racial and cultural divide of Buddhist practitioners is still vast, we shouldn’t be sidetracked of our tradition of an inclusive, rather than an exclusive society.

An Atheist Convention, An Elevator, A Skepchick and a Drunk Horny Dude

2011-07-10T10:44:00.001-04:00

OK, before I begin I just want to mention a few things.
A) The Skepchick is what the female at the center of this mess calls herself, not me. But please feel free to send the hate mail as usual.
B) These are pictures of me being as sexually disturbing as I can with a bronze statue and 2 root beer bottles on a recent trip to The Blue Ridge mountains with my wife.

Apparently Buddhists aren’t the only group with wacky radical politicos among its ranks. You may have heard the story already about the woman at the atheist convention in Dublin who was propositioned in an elevator, but in case you haven’t, here is the gist of the story from the Friendly Atheist article 'Everyone Calm the Fuck Down':

(Female 1 is Rebecca Watson and Female 2 is Stef McGraw)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone else has had a go at it, so I might as well jump in, right?
Here’s the story so far, from what I can gather.
1) Female 1 says she is tired and wants to go to bed. It’s 4:00a.
2) Unknown Male approaches Female 1 in the elevator and asks her if he’d like to come to her room. (Guys, that’s creepy. Don’t do that. No matter what you think, you’re never going to be suave enough to pull that off. If you wanted to talk to Female 1, you had several hours to do it and now she’s going to bed. Game over. I don’t care if you just wanted coffee. That’s irrelevant.)
3) Female 1 says no and then goes to her room.
…
That should be the end of the story. We all learn a lesson in What Not To Say To a Tired Woman at 4:00a and we move on.
But of course that’s not the end of the story.
…
4) Female 1 makes a video in which she mentions the situation.
5) Female 2 responds to the video saying that situation doesn’t sound as bad as Female 1 made it out to be.
…
I think Female 2 is wrong here, because (from what women I know have told me) those situations have a history of escalating badly… so even if it sounded harmless — even if it was harmless — it’s the principle of the thing: Don’t be creepy. Inviting a woman to your room when you’re in an elevator with her sends off Creepy Vibes. Was it misogynistic thinking on her part (as some have suggested)? Are you kidding me? No. I don’t think Female 2 is anti-women or anti-their-rights. But if she hasn’t been in a situation where a guy made unwanted advances (perceived or otherwise) on her, I can understand why she’s questioning how scary this situation could possibly have been.
In any case, that should be the end of the story. Female 2 gets some comments on her blog which point out where she gets it wrong. Or, better yet, those who disagree with her can email her privately and have a conversation about it.
That’s what you do with people who are on your side when it comes to the big picture. You don’t have a public spat. You take them aside privately and tell them why you have a problem with what they did. Everyone wins.
But of course that’s not the end of the story.
…
6) Female 1 calls out Female 2 in front of her friends and peers at a conference.

Tons of other atheists have been wringing their hands over this issue for the past week, with people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers weighing in on the situation. And tons of other people weighing in here, here and here. Us Buddhists have had our share of fucked up arguments, but daaaaammmmnnnn atheists, you make our lefty radicals and ranting loons look kind of sane in comparison.

This is what Richard Dawkins had to say about it all, to which he is being both agreed with and demonized concerning this statement on PZ's blog:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

My take on it all is pretty simple, (besides the obvious NO, MEANS FUCKING NO - why do we still need to tell guys this in 2011?):

Guys need to learn not to be so creepy - probably not the best message coming from me
Some women need to realize that sex is a natural human thing, so a dude might be attracted to you at some point in your life
She said NO, he said OK - LIFE MOVES ON!!! - We all gotta deal with creepy people at some point in our lives.
LOL Atheists - Lighten the fuck up

As for the rest of the discussion, I really don't know, everyone just goes really way to far into this mess for my attention span. I agree with Dawkins for the most part, but I also agree that smaller battles at home need to not be ignored just because there are larger battles to fight elsewhere. I think Dawkins kind of missed what she was saying, but she did use a poor example of sexism to bring up this debate.

Do you all think there is a problem with sexism in the Buddhist community, and if so how bad is it? Please feel free to bring up this issue elsewhere if you hate me and want to pretend like you don't read this blog. I promise not to call you out as it is an important discussion.

I can't tell you all how many times I've had women try to get me in bed.......no....no that's a lie.

Master Troll vs Orlando Police Department

2011-07-09T08:20:00.000-04:00

I wrote an article a couple weeks ago about the ongoing fight between Orlando Mayor Dyer and the Orlando Police Dept versus a small community group that had been feeding the homeless in the city’s public parks. Ever since Mayor Dyer derided the group as "food terrorists" there has been an escalation in conflict between the police, who now have added more patrols to catch these groups feeding the homeless, and pro-feeding the homeless protestors.

Well a couple days ago, one solitary man came out in support of the OPD, a man who I now seriously must pray too in the evenings and at church. The skill of this troll far exceeds mine, and can only be the troll prophet that many around the world have been preaching about. He may indeed be Troll Jesus…..meh, you just have to watch to understand.

Troll Buddhist Gonna Troll

2011-07-06T09:15:00.001-04:00

U mad?

Ummmm, yea....see, for those of you still staring at the webcam on my last post....it's not really a webcam....it's just an animated gif picture. You have been dupped, I have pulled the wool over all your eyes merely for my own sick and twisted amusment. And no, I had no intention of showing the world my hairy balls...for now. That will cost you extra. Now, at one point yesterday I had a high of 216 viewers spending an average of 24 minutes viewing the fake webcam. (One dude was on there for, not kidding, 2 hours and 47 mins) If you happened to be one of those people, than all I have to say is Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha. *breathe* Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha.

For those of you who haven't heard Tricycle Magazine did a short Q&A with me, which I thought it was quite lovely and it was very kind of them to do. My bags of cocaine as payment are in the mail Trike, but I'm sorry, I wasn't able to round up enough midgets! They move very quickly, and my lasso skills aren't up to par.

Now, one person made a comment on their post which got my attention:

"Reply by moonaysl on July 5, 2011, 6:36 pm
Would love to see a counterbalance to this blogger getting so much attention by seeing a Q&A with the Angry Asian Buddhist, or someone else equipped to discuss the experiences of people of color confronting racism from white Buddhists. It's quite relevant, I think. And a good way to ensure that POCs who are familiar with online debates in the Buddhist community know that Tricycle wants them to feel included and safe in this community."

A counterbalance to me?
I'll admit moon-ASL, I am an attention whore, but is this some sort of sick fat joke? Let's see:

AAB - American
RB - American

AAB - Male
RB - Male

AAB - Buddhist
RB - Buddhist

AAB - Human
RB - Human

AAB - Breathes, Eats, Drinks, Shits
RB - Breathes, Eats, Drinks , Shits

So where exactly is this counterbalance supposed to occur?
Ohhh, I see, this is a fat joke moonaysl......
I am now an angry fat squirrel Buddhist!!!

This is the only known photo of Arun in existence btw.

Don't let it fool you, the mullet is angry too!

I hereby do challenge Arun, of the AAB to a guest post swap, or a Q&A swap with me. All you good folks should go over to his blog and try to talk him into it!!!

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! Come AAB, Mr. Person who hides behind a fake name so we can't even verify how angry you really are, show us how engaged you really want to be!

Or better yet, I challenge you to an ice cream eating contest at the Buddhist Geeks Conference....and I will say right now, that I am highly lactose intolerant, so alternating Dutch Ovens (see below for diagram) will need to be a part of this contest too.

I'll eat 2 gallons of ice cream, and when the foul smelling noxious fumes of Texas come chugging along my oversized colon of doom, I will pull a blanket over your head and fart, holding you there for 2 minutes. Then it's your turn!

What do you say?

Also, I will be establishing the "The Casey Anthony - Babies, Bags, Bottles and Booze Baby-Sitting Service" for those families on the go, who need a reliable and acquitted person to take ultra good care of their child. She also very patriotic as you can see, as well as being damn good at hide (the body) and seek!

Watch Me Meditate, Live!

2011-07-05T12:16:00.005-04:00

In the spirit of #openpractice I have for the next 48 hours, placed a digital webcam in my apartment so you all could see me go about my daily routine. Oddly, I do most of my meditation in the shower, so that's where I have placed this camera. *Warning - There may be a small amount of nudity, among other things, so please only watch if you are not easily offended. Thanks, and let me know what you think!

Remember, I'll be in and out, so you'll have to keep an eye out.
(If you don't see a picture below, you'll neeed to install Adobe Flash)

Happy Independence Day!

2011-07-04T13:08:00.001-04:00

Happy American Independence Day everyone! I know, it's a shocker right.....that I'm proud to be an American? I better keep that quite least other Buddhists find out this fact and start writing letters saying how much they fear me. /sigh

Since military history is kind of my thing, here is a documentary on the little known military actions during 1781 in and around Gloucester County Virginia, which directly lead to the siege of Yorktown and subsequently American Independence.

Friends of Tibet and Other License Plate Ideas

2011-07-03T07:00:00.004-04:00

Virginia has been adding a lot of flair to their license plate series over the past few years, with all sorts of different type of themes. Since I am Buddhist, I wanted to go with the Friends of Tibet license plate, and am trying to decide on what my personalized plate should say. I brainstormed for a few minutes, and here are some of the ones that I've come up with so far that are available. (from the Virginia DMV website) I'm looking for something to really show off my Buddhist pride in a rather stylish way. Let me know which one do you all like the best?

*Yea, it's probably a good idea to tell you all now that this is the most distasteful, disrespectful and childish stuff I've done in awhile, and really should be read by no one. The jokes are just terrible. You have been warned.*

And some non-Buddhist plates: (read the plate types with the message)

Why yes......yes I am quite juvenile, thank you! But did you get all the jokes? (le sigh....I'm a horrible Buddhist)

How Counterfeit Cultural Diversity and Social Justice are the Antithesis of Buddhist Teachings

2011-07-02T10:21:00.007-04:00

It may be nice to think or to say that through Buddhist teachings, one will or must come to the conclusion that social justice or forced cultural diversity is the end result of the Buddha’s teachings. Perhaps it even may feel good to think that one has challenged and confronted perceived social inequities, thereby releasing them of some kind of moral guilt that they have leveled upon themselves. But in reality, these kinds of endeavors not only stray away from Buddhist teachings, both philosophically and historically, but are the antithesis of a Buddhist path. Indeed, in most academic circles, where these kinds of theories are propagated, there is a tendency to define, to divide, to rate and to rank people and cultures based on mostly superficial characteristics, which lead to conclusions that are at best, completely subjective from the point of view of self.

I would argue, and I think even the Buddha would, that the point is to define less, not more. To live in a world where one begins to believe their social theories are absolute truth is to forget that there is no us and them. Worse yet, to push these ideas of division and stratifications and rankings of suffering or pain or perception of other people as some glorified tenet of Buddhism, moves a Buddhist path into the false realm of social and political relative truths. While these fights may be justified or righteous, in the end they have nothing to do with the dharma. Furthermore, in the West, where this leftist or liberal interpretation of Buddhism was born from the counter-culture movements of the 60’s, or most recently social theories of class equality, whether they be Marx or Hegel or Strauss or Engels, actually is nothing more than an appropriation of a privileged (mostly) white movement. In other words, the West continues to trap and confine itself in terms of a Buddhist path, based on nothing more than a superficial and horribly unhealthy marriage of radicalism, powered by white guilt elitism and basic Buddhist teachings. They are, in fact, in direct contrast to each other, splitting the one into the innumerable; and in reality this kind of political connection is as silly as a sporting team thanking God for their victory over their opponent.

What one finds out in the long run is that they run into so many contradictions, not only in a philosophical and moral sense, but also in a practical sense, such as notions of strict pacifism or this idea of engaged Buddhism, that they often find they must choose between the two. While these may be noble causes to take up, I sense, at least in the white or politically radical Buddhist community, that there resides an overwhelming feeling this marriage of social justice and Buddhism is the only true and correct path. What we end up with is a Western Buddhism that is confined to insular and isolated Asian enclaves, wealthy privileged mountain retreat center whites and a small community of political radicals, most of whom are white. It leaves little room for the regular middle to lower class person, regardless of race or region, or even political beliefs. Ironically, while much of these political and socially engaged Buddhists rant about social justice and marginalization from what they see as the mainstream Buddhist media, they are indeed, in their own rhetoric, marginalizing and disregarding the middle of the road, lower to middle class moderate, or even some conservative folks who may be interested in Buddhism.

Not to say the two can’t co-exist, as of course they can. Just as I think one could take up a pursuit of social justice and be Buddhist, one can also be a hockey player, or a fisherman or a bouncer at a bar and still be Buddhist. The West needs to stop defining what being a Buddhist is, and start to ask rather, how we can get others interested in exploring Buddhism in all its forms, and not just those defined by the wealthy retreat center whites, insular Asian communities or political radicals. As much as carrying around unnecessary cultural baggage can be a hindrance, so can unwittingly redefining the parameters of who can and cannot be a Buddhist based on a relativistic ideas of political leanings, social mores, wealth or even cultural identification. I’d like to ask these insular and isolated Asian enclaves, wealthy privileged mountain retreat center whites and the community of political radicals, where is room at the inn for the rest of us?

CIA in Tibet - Escape of The Dalai Lama

2011-06-28T20:38:00.001-04:00

If you haven't seen them yet, here are a few very interesting videos about the CIA efforts in Tibet during the 1950's and subsequent escape of the Dalai Lama.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Someone is Scared of Me

2011-06-28T13:18:00.006-04:00

So, I'm not going to commentate on this too much, but nevertheless I wanted to say a few things about what Arun posted on his blog. A young woman from Sri Lanka, who moved to the US wrote an article called "The Unbearable Whiteness of Being, Part III: A Brown Buddhist and a Handful of Mustard Seeds," (I'm sorry, even the title is racist....why is being White supposed to be unbearable?) ,where she calls white Buddhists, among other things, "imperialist, disrespectful, and mostly racist." I looked at another post this woman wrote "I’m Sorry Whiteness, You Can’t have Everything" where she writes "I’m sorry white peeps. I know it’s hard having an identity that’s negatively defined. I know that white culture is produced and reproduced as utterly normal and unflavored, so that the rest of us can be racialized and othered." Why is "Whiteness" even capitalized?

I wrote an article blasting this woman as racist, arrogant and ignorant, and Barbara O'Brien mentioned it briefly here. Nathan of Dangerous Harvests then said, despite the out-pouring of white guilt comments applauding this woman;

"This post, written by a young woman from Sri Lanka who lives in Minnesota, has been getting a lot of attention in the Buddhist blogosphere. It's not an easy to read post. And it's gotten a bit of negative attention already, as well as dismissive comments about how she's a just a young, angry, and/or ignorant woman."

So Arun posted this letter stating that this woman and her friend are scared of myself and Barbara O'Brien because of some, well very weird things;

"I would like to tell you, but I am afraid. I am afraid of you Barbara O’Brien, Kyle Lovett, and Anonymous Commenter. I have a bone-deep fear of the things you will say about my father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my cousins, my grandparents, and my three-year-old brother. I am terrified because I can see my future in what you are presently doing to Tassja.

You might tell me that Buddhism belongs in the meditation center and not the hospital. You might tell me that the war is over so what does it matter. You might tell me famine is a state of mind or any number of other things equally indicative of never having helplessly watched a child starve to death. You could discount all my family’s blood, sweat, and tears and the way they flow into and out of the Buddhism I live everyday."

And she continues:

"Every time I want to express my differing perspective, I’m silenced by the shitstorm I know is waiting to demean my person and mock my loved ones, rather than engage with the logic of my thesis."

Oh my. Well if that isn't just a flood of guilt trips. Hey, I'll say this....at least I engaged her, even though you didn't like what I said. Except Nathan, Arun and Barbara, I don't think any other blogger took this up, precisely because of the volatile nature of race, especially when mixed with religion. No one wants to get their hands dirty, and by just ignoring it and going on talking about loving kindness and a Zen retreat they just had, is the best way for them to stay away from it. I'll say it again, her articles are racist, horribly mis-informed and demeaning to an entire segment of society based solely on the color of their skin. Ironic, no? And mocking your loved ones? Really? Here was your thesis, it was racist...we disagree. But spare me the victim role, honestly; remember it is you who are saying what a shitty race white people belong to.

I like to think respect goes both ways, and by the simple fact of me speaking up and saying, "hey, that's racist" I've gotten hate mail and even death threats in the past. Scott Mitchell, a Professor at The Institute of Buddhist Studies for Buddhist College of America even went as far as to say people of color can't be racist towards white poeple. (And that was after I got emails calling me a "snow monkey" and a "glacier nigger") Nathan at Dangerous Harvests, in a polite manner, asked me to shut up about it all and just listen. And now this long guilt trip? Wait, I thought everyone wanted a conversation about this? And you wonder why no one talks about race, even on this liberal end of the political spectrum.

Any time I've written about a white person being racist, which I have done WAY more than calling out people for being racist against white people, no one tells me to shut up and no one tells me that those racists don't deserve what was said.

And Buddhists in the West wonder why there is a convert community and an Asian community, and people never want to talk about why they are separate? Hey Liriel and Tassja, you want to rant about an entire race of people, telling me how horrible a person I am just because of the color of my skin, then tell me you fear me because I call you out on it? (And really, fear of what I am going to say about your family? Give me a fucking break!)

Let me ask you one thing....if you think that I reacted so poorly to your massive stereotypes and ugly generalizations, how do you think the rest of white America, (or white Westerners for that matter) who are far more conservative than I, are going to react to Buddhists and Buddhist culture when they read this stuff?

Don't fear me, no, please don't.....if you are going to live in fear because you hate white people, you might want to fear the real monster on the other side of the fence who you haven't even begun to see. I'm not silencing you, no one is stopping either of you from writing whatever you want, go ahead, talk your head off, as for me I'm done talking about race in Buddhism. Let all those other bloggers who dare take up the subject do so. Just one small warning though, one side of the story isn't the whole story, and you are in for a rude awakening when there aren't enough 'white guilt' folks there to applaud your hatred and racism.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer Calls Homeless Food Program Members "Food Terrorists"

2011-06-28T12:01:00.000-04:00

In an increasingly bitter dispute between Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer and a local food program, Food Not Bombs, which freely feeds meals to members of Orlando's homeless community, the hactivist group Anonymous has announced that they are getting involved after the mayor reportedly called members of that food program "Food Terrorists."

Really, “food terrorists?” Seriously, are you that fucking stupid and callous Mayor Dyer?

Here is a video of several Orlando Police officers arresting members of the food program while they were serving food to some of the homeless community in Orlando.

Even after a federal court ruled that Orlando's '2 a year' permit laws were unconstitutional, the Orlando police and Mayor's office continued to enforce them, specifically targeting the food programs for the hungry and homeless. The Mayor's office claims it's a matter of public saftey, and that the group Food Not Bombs is merely seeking attention. Yes....hungry people on the streets of a nation that is one of the wealthist in the world is a public saftey issue....because they are part of the public.

When we start sending police officers out to arrest people who are feeding homeless memebrs of our community, we need to seriously start taking a look at what kind of leadership we have in these areas.

I wonder if Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer has ever known what it's like to be homeless, or has ever felt the unceasing pangs of hunger. No...no, it doesn't look like Mayor Dyer has missed a meal in quite awhile.

Fuck you Mayor Dyer, and fuck your crack team of Orlando's finest, arresting people serving food to the hungry. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

History, Exhumed

2011-06-26T09:26:00.001-04:00

I've started a new history blog, History, Exhumed, which something I've wanted to do for a long time. I probably won't be writing much more over here, maybe a post a week, as I think after 5 years there isn't too much more for me to say on this subject. The new site will be a series of short posts, highlighting things such as maps, quotes, propaganda posters, people, photographs and the like; which will allow me to post 2-3 times a day. I might be posting some longer historical pieces like you've seen here, but they will be few and far between. I figured it was time for me to have fun again writing, and felt this is the way I wanted to go about doing that.....next to an iguana porn site, which the wife already vetoed.

So, if you care to, go check it out! History, Exhumed ~ Digging up the Corpse of Posterity (Why I came up with a tag line like that, I have no fucking clue!)

White Buddhists are "imperialist, disrespectful, and mostly racist?"

2011-06-23T00:59:00.011-04:00

(Hi people from Womanist Musings. Above is a picture of what I think about your misandry. Oh, and hey, way to let a blatant racist get such a big platform to speak from. Why not just let the Grand Wizard of the KKK write some guest posts for Womanist Musings? It's no different.)

One of the main reasons I've been writing online less and less about Buddhism, beyond just getting burnt out, has been an exhaustion with this political radicalization that many are attempting to intertwine into the tradition. I'm not just talking some kind of passive political message, but a sharp and decided turn towards a message that I can only describe as not only out of touch with us 'devil white Buddhists' but with the majority of Buddhists around the world. Case in point, this post on the website Womanist Musings entitled "The Unbearable Whiteness of Being, Part III: A Brown Buddhist and a Handful of Mustard Seeds" which was written by a woman from Sri Lanka who is now living in the United States. I don't want to spend a lot of time hand wringing over this rather, well, lets just call it what it is, disturbingly racist, arrogant and ignorant post, which was followed by the expected plethora of 'I agree' white guilt comments.

After talking about her dissatisfaction with white Buddhists in general and her lamenting the way she sees that they interpret Buddhism, she writes:

"Much like the commercialization and appropriation of Yoga serves as a profound source of anger and frustration to many South-Asian Hindus, I'm alternately befuddled and angered by white appropriation of Buddhism. No, I don't care how many times Richard Gere used his private jet to visit the Dalai Lama, stripping a belief system of its cultural context and putting it on like a pair of shoes, without acknowledging the struggles and realities of the people whom that culture belongs to, is imperialist, disrespectful, and mostly racist. The shallow ease with which Whiteness claims to understand the experiences of cultures of colour continues to bewilder me. How can you claim something as part of your identity, on par with people who grew up living and breathing that culture everyday? How can you claim to own something you've never had to defend, or fight for? And please, spare me the details of how your white Lutheran parents disapproved of your visits to the meditation center."

Ah yes, I've heard this before, a person claiming ownership of Buddhism for their culture. Moreover though, is her unabashed dismissal of white Buddhists as "imperialist, disrespectful, and mostly racist" for not spending the time to acknowledge the one true form of Sinhalese Buddhism. Yea, because Sri Lanka is fucking mecca for tolerance and justice towards other people and religions. (Do I need sarcasm captions?) It is quite sad that even a few people from these countries can't see that Buddhism has not in any way, shape or form become some gold standard of what she latter says is "informed by belief in social justice, in anti-oppression, in peace." Tell that to the Tamil Tigers who were executed by the dozens on the battlefields in Northern Sri Lanka, or to the woman of Bhutan who have to live in a climate where 70 percent of the men living there says it is necessary to hit their wives every now and then or to the 10's of thousands of Burmese girls who are sold into the sex slave trade each year.

Secondly, when she asks "How can you claim to own something you've never had to defend, or fight for?" does she even know what the hell she is talking about? How about trying to come out to Christian friends and family as Buddhist, only to get rolled eyes at, chuckles, sneers and jokes about setting oneself on fire. How about having to pretend you are Christian to your evangelical boss just so you won't lose your job? And no, I highly doubt, unlike yourself, that other people in the West, who are way more than just 'white' by the way, claim ownership of Buddhism. I mean, you live in the West and are Buddhist, aren't you?

She goes on to say:

"When I wrote that reclaiming a Buddhist identity in North America is political, I was referring to its inseparability from my other identities, and to the context of racist appropriation surrounding cultures of color in the global North. I don't go to a meditation center, I don't know what 'lovingkindness' is supposed to mean, I don't conceive of myself as a serene speck of unruffled dust floating along the karmic Universe; in short, I have no part in the individualistic, elite, consumer-oriented, pseudo-hippie global tourist bullfeces that Whiteness tries to pass of as practicing Buddhism.

I have plenty to be angry about in this world, and my anger at injustice does not make me a lesser Buddhist."

It's political only because you make it political, just like those "individualistic, elite, consumer-oriented, pseudo-hippie global tourist bullfeces" do, who you lump all white Buddhists in together with. I am neither elite, consumer-oriented, pseudo-hippie global tourist nor am I entitled by some sense of superiority such as you, who says her view of Buddhism was crafted by a "by belief in social justice, in anti-oppression, in peace." And trust me when I say, you are coming off just as individualistic as myself or anyone else in the West. No, see, it's only in the West that people really try to tie these two together. In Buddhist countries, they can be just as racist, hate filled and violent as any other nation. If she really believes differently, then perhaps she should buy a few books on the history of these countries that she claims to know so well. Furthermore, oddly enough, she doesn't see these two categories that she attempts to pigeon hole Buddhists in the West into, as being the same fucking thing. No, I'm just a lowly old Zen Buddhist, and you know, being white does not make me any lesser of a Buddhist either. I have no idea what kind of hardships and difficulties in life she grew up with, nor does she know mine or what any other "white" Buddhist had to face.

Fuck everything about this, and fuck everything about this online political radicalization of Buddhism. It is very sad that she calls white Buddhists racist, when she doesn't even see her own stereotyping and racist attitudes towards white people. This is all very sad indeed.

Buddhist Humor?

2011-06-18T13:57:00.001-04:00

It seems that Buddhist humor has become a topic of discussion lately in the Buddhist magazines Tricycle, Shambhala Sun and her sister publication Buddhadharma. **begin sarcasm**I have to say, after reading the Buddhadhara 'Make Me One With Everything' and P.B Law's Buddhisthumor.org site, the uncontrollable fits of girl like giggles flowed quite freely. My yucks were most definitely satisfied! Trust me, nothing says funny more than Bernie Glassman and Norman Fischer! I feel like I need a tophat, a glass of brandy and a monocle for this shit.

I must admit, Law's keen sense of humor puts publications like The New Yorker or cartoon strips like Family Circus to utter shame. **end sarcasm** As you all may know, humor to me is a rather foreign concept. I've attempted it perhaps once or twice on this site, only to bomb with bad puns or with a poor use of sperm humor. So I decieded to post a few of Law's cartoon's here, to give him (might be a female, don't really know and am too lazy to find out) some free plugs, then post my reaction/take on a few of them directly below. Again, all of these can be found on Buddhisthumor.org, and you should definitely bookmark that shit right now before you forget.

(At the bottom, you'll find P.B.'s Terms of Use which you should read in case you'd like to share these as well. My terms of use is 'steal anything you want from this post, take credit for it, I don't fucking care, I don't make money off this shit and I steal most of the pictures anyway')

LOL I enjoy PB's pointing out the modern dilemma of females, between finding happiness for oneself or trying to conform to society's idea of what is attractive. Ok so here is mine:

See, it's an ape-man slowly inserting then removing a taco from his mouth. As you can see, this has both disturbing sexual overtones combined with some serious WHAT THE FUCKNESS to it.

Oh, indeed, it is the best revenge! Bravo, you don't need revenge because you do not suffer from whatever affronted you to begin with. A capital idea! Now mine:

Sometimes revenge is enlightenment, sometime's it's a .357 inside a secluded log cabin in the woods.

HAHA PB tickles my funny bone with this ballyhoo, pointing out that enlightenment can not be bought in a box! How funny is that? And mine:

I mean...I....I don't even know where to begin with this family picture.

Get it? It combines the misunderstood concept of rebirth and corporate greed into one hilarious cartoon! And mine:

Sometimes it takes pinecones in the butt to make a marriage work...what can I say?

Oh, well played sir! No-self help because there is no self to help. Oh my, what shenanigans. Last one:

Yea, I got nothing.

Indeed, finding humor in everyday life is important. Whether you find that humor in witty high brow cartoons, enjoying an afternoon listening to Bob Hope on the radio or sticking your penis into an electrical socket, you just can't go wrong with a little laughter every now and then. And shout out to the Frog Man for a couple of these groovy pictures! How does it feel being on the blog roll of a god damn Buddhist? :-D

PS - Oh get over yourselves, this isn't mean spirited.

**BuddhistHumor.Org - Terms of use: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. Smelly feet and balls.

Well, There Ya Go

2011-06-14T14:11:00.001-04:00

I took down yesterday's post (for now) about the Buddhist Teacher Conference after this post was made on Hardcore Zen. Not that I was really bashing the conference that much to begin with, compared to a few who were comparing the gathering to some conspiracy plot that rivals JFK assassination theories, I don't think my voice added much to the discussion. While I do think an opportunity may have been missed by not reaching out to more people, I don't think the state of Buddhism in the West is at any stage where people can form something that most can agree upon. Fuck, I don't know...I don't even know if I really care.

So here is a picture of a baby elephant in a waterfall.

What would you ask the Dalai Lama?

2011-06-11T14:13:00.000-04:00

I posted this video below on twitter earlier today of a reporter, during an interview with the Dalai Lama, awkwardly trying to tell the 'make me one with everything' joke. It was rather uncomfortable to watch, like the time I stumbled upon my dad's collection of porn, which included some Polaroid’s of a certain person who I wish to not think about in that manner.

Now, you are a reporter and have 15 minutes to ask the Dalai Lama anything...and you do this?

Just a couple of items; I know most the people who read this site know, but it's worth repeating, the Dalai Lama does not represent all Buddhists...not even close to a majority of the world’s Buddhists. You'd be surprised to learn that most people think he does. Well, most people think the Capitol of Illinois is Chicago.

Secondly, the joke, usually told with a monk going to a hot dog vendor, is really fucking lame. It's about as funny as poking a dead raccoon with a stick.

I came up with a better joke he could have told:
'So the Dalai Lama walks into China...'
That's it, that's the joke.

Meh, here is an inappropriate cartoon to stem your chorus of boo's.

Credit Checks for Employment, 21st Century Bigotry

2011-06-07T07:52:00.007-04:00

I don't usually bitch about social issues too much, but one item that has gotten my panties in a bunch lately is this growing practice of employers using credit checks to discriminate against potential employees. Over 60% of employers now do credit checks on applicants, and use the results to disqualify people based on the idea that if the person has a bad credit score, that they will be an unreliable or incompetent employee. The problem is, especially with the housing bust of the mid 2000's, and the past 5 year slump of unemployment, most times low credit scores are not an indication of ability, but rather an indication of just another victim of unavoidable circumstances.

California has already begun to take steps to curb this practice:

California lawmakers have voted to block employers from using consumer credit reports when they are deciding whether to hire workers for most jobs. May 19, the state Assembly passed AB22 with the bare majority needed, sending it to the Senate.

If signed into law, the bill would stop the use of credit checks in hiring, except for managers, law enforcement, financial jobs and certain other positions that handle valuable items or information.

The bill's author, Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza of Artesia, says credit checks often are inaccurate and hurt minority and female job seekers. Opponents say they are a useful tool for employers assessing the integrity of job candidates.

The measure passed on a party line vote of 42-28. No Republicans voted in favor. Similar bills were approved the past three years but were vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Judging people’s worth by as something as volatile and many times uncontrollable as a credit score, is at its very root nothing more than another way to weed out and discriminate against those some employers deem undesirable. It used to be that minorities got caught in this surge of Jim Crow like employment tactics, but now it is hitting middle class white America hard. It is indeed sad that this ugly practice, that has been an oppressive tool for employers for decades, has taken the inequity and bias to hit the white middle class for people to stand up and take notice.

Furthermore, even a poor credit score earned by an individual from taking poor personal financial choices, is not and has not been shown to be an indication of one's work ethic, job preformance or ability. Indeed, most studies (see links below) have shown that the comparison is absurd and that there is absolutely no statistical correlation whatsoever. And what's even more appalling is now insurance companies have begun setting rates for customers based on credit scores, with or without evidence to the person's perspective of filling a claim based on past history. A person's ability to earn money, get insurance and chase the overall 'American Dream' has become stunted, and is increasingly becoming dependant on this flawed credit system, which has never been shown to be an accurate indicator of anything beyond one's ability to pay monthly bills. (Reports, studies and links can be found here, here, and here)

Of course Republicans are firmly in the camp of the corporations, and have voted 'no' in all the states that legislation has been brought forward to ban these practices. When we begin to judge people based on money, or more importantly when money, or worse, a many times meaningless number on a piece of paper becomes more important than the person themselves, we have a serious societal problem on our hands. And when hard working folks, competent, able and willing workers, who have been caught in a tidal wave of circumstances many times beyond their control, become unjustly thrown aside like an old shoe, it is time for our Congress and our President to step up and take action. I urge everyone to write their Congressmen and Senators to put an end to this blatant form of corporate bigotry.

Write your Senators here.
Write your Representative to Congress here.

People are not a damn number on a credit score; they are flesh and blood human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and should be judged by their actions and abilities, and not by some digit on a computer screen! This employment practice has, and continues to feed into the cycle of poverty, prejudice and intolerance, and it needs to end now.

I'm Switching to The Jedi Religion

2011-06-03T10:07:00.001-04:00

So, I got this little advert in my email about a new meet-up group that calls themselves the Maryland Jedi Order. Awesome, best troll ever I thought!

Oh shit....wait...

Oh my fucking God, they are serious.

Yes, there is really a religion - Tax Exempt Status and all - that calls itself The Jedi (just like the Star Wars films - wait, did I really need to clarify this point in parenthesis?) or sometimes known as 'The Rebel Religion.' The dude that runs it in Maryland even calls himself a Jedi Master too; Jedi Master Zindel to be exact. From what I read, which wasn't much because I'm lazy, it is a religion based on a combination of philosophy from the Star Wars movies, meditation based on Eckhart Tolle and martial arts training.

YAY! We have finally gotten rid of that dude, Tolle is officially no longer a Buddhist problem....so long you silly fucker.

Hmmm...it seems this isn't localized to Maryland either, it appears as if it is spreading through the entire nerd community (I'm a nerd too, so it's OK that I pick on them - just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does with black people). They even have started to adapt costumes and have a basic guide on amazon!

My Jedi name will be 'Gin 'n Ton'ac' - (yes that is the best name I could come up with)
My wife's Jedi name will be 'E Peas E'ot O'me' - she is a little torn up over that name (sound it out folks)

Well, I suppose unlike most other religions, this one at least admits it comes from fiction.

Let us pray...
Hail Lucas, full of grace and money.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among nerds,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Yoda.
Holy Lucas, Mother of Star Wars,
pray for us 35 year old virgins,
now and at the hour of COMIC-CON.
Amen.

All Hail Lucas! All Hail Lucas! All Hail Lucas!

Ok enough talk, how about a few pictures from this new religion.

No...no, those aren't from the Jedi religion, those are just Star Wars Cosplay folks. (It's OK, the wife approved these pictures)

Resource Links for all those interested in converting before they start sending missionaries to Africa.
Jedi Resource Center
FORCE COLLEGE
Order of the Jedi
Center for Enlightenment...
Jedi Church

The 23 Most Annoying Types of People to Meditate With

2011-06-01T23:08:00.002-04:00

We all have our little quirks that can drive other people nuts, many times without us even realizing it. I certainly know I have more than my fair share of these quirks, and probably fit into a couple of the categories below. These quirks can become more than just a minor distraction when meditating with a class, as sometimes other people's oddities, habits or appearance can slowly drive us crazy if we aren't mindful. So, just because I can, here is a list of some of those people, and their distinctive quirks that I've run across in the past. I've even given them names to go along with their descriptions, so we can all be on the same page when it comes to annoying people we meditate with. (Why the fuck am I writing this?)

The Stare - This person will creep you the fuck out by their intense stare during meditation. They might not be staring at anyone in particular, but the intensity of their stare will probably have you planning an escape route from class.

The Stare has been working on his pseudo mullet for months now.

Bowels McSneaky - No matter what they ate before class, the endless sound of their stomach and intestines churring massive amounts of air and food and poo can drive you absolutely insane. Their stomachs aren't just growling; it's more like the souls of a 1,000 tortured men have been trapped inside their gastrointestinal tract, yearning to escape.

Over the Belt Ben - These guys usually look as if they are holding a basketball on their stomachs, but indeed, it is in fact, just their stomach. Nothing worse then the crease under your man boobs filling with sweat during meditation to attract the ladies after class.

Over the Belt Ben showing off for the ladies

Tick Tock - They don't really have Tourettes, but the moment they sit down all the tiny muscles around their face will start to twitch and quiver into an unnerving and rather awkward symphony of spasms.

Dr. Footy - Always comes barefoot to reveal his thick yellow toenails, multiple plantars warts, excessive toe jam and foot calluses one inch thick.

Mrs. Sniffles - It could be fucking July, and this woman's nose will still run as if her face opened up a mucus factory. Sniffle....sniffle....sniffle....DEEP NOSE SNOT SUCCCCK

Larry the Lurker - Creepy ass old guy that shows up just for the babes. Drives a beat up 1979 Chevy Impala, chats up the ladies with his stories about his oval waterbed and sometimes wears and ankle bracelet.

Larry the Lurker - probably should be in jail

I Have Worms (Ass Drag) - An itchy ass will result in this meditator slowly and methodically dragging their ass back and forth over the zafu to relieve their discomfort.

The Shifter - A cross between Tick Tock and The Ass Drag, this person will shift their body every ten to twenty seconds, until you want to punch them in the face.

La Queefer - She can try to control it all she wants, but every hour or so, a couple puffs of air will make a mad dash for her vagina, ending in what sounds like muted applause by a couple of chipmunks.

El Gasso - SBD's, "wet streaks", "the old plooper", "the angry zipper" and "sneaky squeakys" are just some of the names of the farts in his ass arsenal.

Walnut Bladder - Without fail, this person has to stand up to go pee every 5-10 minutes. 'Silence, feet shuffle, bathroom door closes, stream of unending urine echos, door opens, feet shuffle, silence.' It's like a pee koan.

Smiley - With creepiness that rivals the The Stare and Larry the Lurker, this fucker just sits there and smiles like an idiot for the entire session.

Smiley showing off his pearly whites

Cell Phone Stan - Always forgets to turn off his cell phone before class....then switches it to vibrate so all class long you hear his pants buzzing.

Professor Erection - 10 minutes into Zazen and without fail, Charlie the Worm makes an inappropriate appearance to the class.

B.O. Jim - Hasn't showered in 11 years and is completely oblivious to his own noxious vapors. Always wears baggy gym shorts, a tie-dyed bandana and an Eddie Money 1986 Tour T-Shirt.

B.O. Jim still follows Jerry Garcia even though he's been dead for years now

Chuck the Chronic Throat Clearer - Can't go 30 seconds without clearing his damn throat.

Song Loops Hummer - The second this person sits down, BAM, a Journey song loops repeatedly in their head. Usually, any bad 80's song will make it's way from the depths of their sub-conscious and fester in a continuous loop of frustration, anger and Night Ranger tunes. Then the muffled humming starts.

Doctor Twisty - These people usually do yoga too, and always feel like they need to one up everyone in the class by contorting their body into some bizarre poses.

Meditating Hipster - Skin tight jeans, retro scarf and ironic t-shirt are these folk's mainstay. They also usually wear thick black rimmed glasses, carries a large coffee and smell like an ashtray / moth ball combo.

Runny B. Hind - Couldn't show up on time for class if his life depended on it.

Sleepy Sally Slumber - Seated meditation = Sally's eyelids now magically weigh a ton. Usually Sally is noticeable by the quick jerking motion to wake herself up as she begins to tip over. Snoring and drooling are not uncommon.

Sweet Sweaty Steve - Sweats profusely during class for no apparent reason. Then after class, when he is soaked to the bone, he insists on shaking your hand which leaves a thin white layer of salt covering your hand.

Sweaty Steve says "Forget the handshake, how about a hug?"

Why did I write this, and why did you read this?? argh!!

Worst.Post.All.Year

Night Ranger - Sister Christian (I am sorry to do this to you all)

On Memorial Day - The Buddhist Soldiers

2011-05-30T16:32:00.000-04:00

I'm on a short vacation for the next couple of days, but I wanted to post a couple quick comments and links for Memorial Day. First, (nothing to do with Memorial Day) if you haven't read Justin Whitaker's post 'In Search of Original Buddhism' I highly recommend it. A lot of issues and differences between the many varied traditions are always springing up these days, and Justin does a outstanding job of framing the issues of sectarianism into a concise and welcome article. As much as I rail on not worrying about being on the over intellectual side of a Buddhist practice, Justin reminds us why Buddhist scholars are still of vital importance to all of us.

In Spring 1996, Tricycle magazine ran an article written by US Army Capt. Lawrence P. Rockwood entitled 'Apology of a Buddhist Soldier'. Being Memorial Day here in the US, I thought this quite an apt article and very much worth the read. Here is one excerpt I wanted to point out from Capt. Rockwood's article:

"Around the neck of every American soldier hangs a pair of “dog tags” on a metal chain. Their purpose is to identify the name, Social Security number, blood type, and religious denomination of the owner’s mortal remains upon his or her death. On the final line of my dog tags one finds a designation many find curious: Buddhist. I am one of the few Buddhist commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces not of an Asian ancestry.

Although being a Buddhist in the U.S. Army is novel, it is a novelty based on simple geography (if I were a Burmese soldier no one would comment) and the fact that the relationship between Buddhism and the profession of arms is a subject given precious little discussion in the West. I have noticed that Western students of the dharma are often quick to erect a wall separating the history of Buddhism on one hand and the history of war on the other. I can certainly appreciate why. Many individuals, especially in this post-Vietnam era, are naturally drawn to spiritual traditions that appear untainted by the injustices of war. So it only seems natural that many of my fellow Euro-American Buddhists would be uncomfortable with the suggestion that soldiers in Buddhist societies have been just as adroit in accommodating the first Buddhist precept on nonviolence as soldiers in Judeo-Christian societies have been in accommodating the Fifth Commandment."

Also, if you hadn't read this article concerning the death and funeral for Marine Corporal Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse, who died on March 23, 2003 during combat operations in Iraq, it is also worth the read. The 22 year old Marine, who was also a Thai Buddhist, was buried on April 29, 2003 in Arlington National Cemetery with his friends, family and several Thai monks in attendance.

Finally, if you get a moment, check out the following blogs that discuss, or are written by Buddhists in the US armed forces. US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Jordan Fountain authors the blog Slow Zen, Again, and he is one of the growing number of Buddhists serving in the US military today. Scott Xian-Liao writes the outstanding blog The Fierce Boddhisatva, which discusses issues with Buddhists serving in Law Enforcement and the military. And finally, of course, there is the blog Buddhist Military Sangha, which is also always chock full of news about Buddhists serving in the US military.

All these men and women serving in our armed forces deserve our deep respect and admiration for doing a job that most of us couldn't or wouldn't do. Being a soldier and a Buddhist can not be an easy task in today's military, as there are many obsticles these men and women are having to overcome.

As it Happened....

2011-05-24T14:05:00.000-04:00

One very cool feature that Google was working on, which it just announced that it has stopped, was its effort to make a digital archive of several thousand newspapers over the last 300 years. As someone who studies history with great interest, having a look into how major historical events were reported and perceived at the time, is a great way to get a feel of the different popular and political sentiments that unfolded around them. You can still access what Google had completed so far here. I thought, since this is a “Buddhist” blog, that I would share five articles that revolve around Vietnam from 1947 until 1969.

The News and Courier - Jan 3, 1947

The Sydney Morning Herald - Nov 1, 1966

The Free Lance-Star - Jun 12, 1963

St. Joseph Gazette - Jun 12, 1963

The Milwaukee Journal - June 1, 1966

Buddhists Judging Other Buddhists?

2011-05-23T08:31:00.002-04:00

I think one thing that many Western converts carry over with them to a Buddhist practice is this idea of an absolute right way and wrong way of doing things. Ever since I started blogging online, I have run across my fair share of Buddhists who have relished in judging and labeling others as good or bad Buddhists. Even those who I know aren't meaning to judge or label, (especially with the last couple of events in the 'media', one being the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the other the wacky Rapture folks) but there has been this undertone of "well, if you were a good Buddhist you'd feel, say or think this."

Some of things I hear often revolve around judging others actions based on their idea of the eight-fold path. I'll hear things such as (and all these are real quotes):

"Insulting and demeaning comments against these people, who believed this, is the epitome of wrong speech."
"As a Buddhist, she should know that is wrong livelihood. No Buddhist woman should ever expose her body in front of men for money."
"I know right intention, and that wasn't right intention!"

Another thing that bugs me is the judging of Buddhists based on the precepts or their interpretation of Buddhist sutras, or worse, rehashing what a famous Buddhist teacher or writer said:

"But according to Roshi XYZ, she says that kind of action is dead wrong, and goes against every reason we sit in Zazen."
"Buddhism makes it very clear on how a person should act and feel in this situation."
"If you are serious about being a Buddhist, you don't drink. Period, end of story."

Finally, comes this mixing of political leanings and ideas of what compassion should look like (which in my opinion, often takes the form of pity):

"In order to remove yourself from duality, you must not only have compassion for people who gave up everything for the rapture, but also for the people who attack them."
"The fact that people are laughing and joking about it means that they don't feel the suffering of these people."
"By not owning and accepting your privilege, you miss the entire point of Buddhism."

I don't in the least begrudge people for expressing their opinions or speaking their minds from a Buddhist point of view; but I find it to be a real turn off when I hear others, either aggressively or passively, being judged on how good of a Buddhist they are by their words and actions. I realize we all judge and we all make assumptions about other people from our relative minds, because we are all obviously still very much human-beings, but this kind of judging reeks of the same holier-than-thou backgrounds many of us came/escaped from. Even leaving out the fundamentalist, and quite frankly a little nutty "BUDDHIST DEFENDERS," there is a ton of this undercurrent of defining who is a good Buddhist and who is a not so good Buddhist going around. It stinks of elitism and a sanctimonious self interpretation of what is, at its very root, a very individual and personal practice between teacher and student.

Honestly, Buddhism is nothing more than a superficial label to me. I started a Zen Buddhist practice because of the very nature of the "don't believe me, see for yourself" attitude. Fuck everything about this passing judgment on the quality of another's Buddhist practice. If I wanted that, I'd still be Catholic. I guess I think of it kind of like someone going to a ball game, and instead of enjoying the game and atmosphere, they spend their entire time bitching about how much shitter the other fans are when compared to themselves. And I totally realize how this post itself is judging too! But I say judge others as humans, and not as a measure of how good or bad a Buddhist they are.

A Tax Exempt 'End of Times' and an Army of Stupid

2011-05-21T08:57:00.004-04:00

Harold Camping, the man who made himself famous with his end of the world 5/21/2011 prediction, is President of the not-for-profit company Family Radio based in Oakland California, which recieved over 80 million dollars in donations from 2005 to 2009. Camping and his company has made a reputation of making these 'end of times' predictions as far back as 1994, and have preached what many consider speech aimed at playing to the darkest fears of his listeners. His vitirol 'repent now oh ye sinners' rhetoric has garnered him the support of hundreds of thousands of people, by propagating his message through the use of his 150 radio stations, a viral internet campaign and thousands of trucks, billboards and placard carrying employees placed all around the US and Canada. He has certainly become the greatest marketer of 'end times' ever.

What people don't know is Camping, is that he and many of his family and employees live in luxury, bypassing direct compensation rules for a 501(c) entity, and obtaining much of their material wealth through the auspices of Family Radio's holdings and business dealings. Family Radio has made disaster and fears of the apocalypse into a lucrative business venture, churning out new signs, vehicles and internet ad campaigns as quickly as the donations come in. While most Christians and Christian organizations have called Camping and his outfit a hoax, many evangelical groups play on the exact same fears of an angry God and 'end times' rhetoric, albeit in a much more obscure fashion, to successfully pull in the massive amounts of donations, usually from those who can least afford it. God is very much a big business, ever since the rise of tele-evangelicals of the 70’s and 80’s to today's all too familiar massive mega churches that dot almost every major metropolitan area. Has anyone else noticed the rise of religious zealotry in this country has coincided with the growth of the radio, television and internet? Fear spreads easier when it's digital.

Harold Camping in 2010

When will we stop allowing a tax exempt status for organizations such as these, who aren't in any fashion charitable or even really religious in the purest sense, but who use religion as a money making venture? Camping, and other vultures like him, prey on the poor, the uneducated and the naive to be the spokes of their business model. Family Radio and other organizations of the same ilk certainly don't merit a tax exempt status, and in all good conscious, should have their operations shut down and liquidated. When an organization begins to run itself as a business, and only uses the cloak of “religion” to avoid paying taxes, it should cease to enjoy the good faith and charity of the general public.

May 21st, End of the World!-Lootin' for Jesus

2011-05-20T09:42:00.013-04:00

As you all may well know, tomorrow, May 21st, is Raptor day, the time when Jesus returns to Earth with his army of Raptors to eat all the non-Christians. And damn we are delicious, aren't we? Well, except the agnostics of course...really agnostics, take a shower every now and then, eh? Put some more washy in your wishy-washy! After the raptor buffet is complete, and after being judged by the panel of judges, St. Peter, St. Paul and Paula Abdul, all the good Christians will magically be sucked into heaven by a giant vacuum cleaner that God is going to stick down from the sky. All the Christians deemed non-worthy will be made to roam the Earth as metro-sexual zombies and forced to worship French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's massive forehead, until enough sober Catholics can pray them up to heaven. (they'll be waiting a long time)

I think some may have already beat me to the idea, but I have decided to offer to all those that believe the raptors will be coming tomorrow, to store their stuff in my house, so I can keep it protected....you know, from other heathens. As an ex-Catholic, I feel I should have a higher standing within the heathen community, and therefore, you can rest assured your stuff will be in good hands. We will start will your money, jewelry and electronics to be on the safe side. Please send me an email, along with an 8x10 glossy, and lets see if I can fit you into my "Lootin' for Jesus" schedule. And may the force be with you!

Oh PS, I have a large stock of Converse tennis shoes in case you forgot to buy some...(let's see who will get that joke)