Archive for February, 2009

I use and support the "universal he".

February 25, 2009

I was just checking my gmail and this ad came up at the top:

Gender Neutral Language

Make your documents gender neutral

The goal of gender-neutral language is to avoid implicit or explicit references to gender or sex. The language should be as inclusive as possible and not make any assumptions about traits or professions belonging to one gender or the other. Methods include:

Avoid terms for professions that are gender specific, such as policeman or watchman. Instead, use neutral terms like police officer and guard.
Avoid modifiers that imply gender-specific traits, such as man-size. Use words that specifically identify the trait, such as large.
Avoid including gender modifiers that assume that certain professions belong to one gender, such as male nurse or female doctor. Remove the modifier unless it is absolutely needed in context.
When writing technical documents or manuals, try to avoid the use of he or him to refer to both genders. Try to reword the sentence to avoid their use, alternate or use combined phrases such as his or her.
Avoid general words that tend to exclude one gender, such as mankind. Use words like humanity instead.
Avoid language that makes assumptions about gender makeup of certain professions or endeavors, such as only girls dance ballet, or only boys play baseball.

They now have software to help us lie about sex differences.

Advertisements

A couple of links

February 23, 2009

one giant leap for personkind

when they aren’t attending masturbation workshops and orgasm awareness festivals on unc campuses, our feminist “scholars” are usually thinking of new words to ban in order to make womyn feel more comfortable in the workplace. recently, one of the sociologists at unc-wilmington actually banned the use of the term “mankind” because of its “sexist” overtones.

The real assault on science

Flush with their success in decimating the collegiate sports programs of America, the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, despite the fact that women already earn 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 59 percent of master’s degrees and a majority of doctorates. If successful in this effort, and initial signs indicate that they probably will be, in 30 years, academic science in America will be no more intellectually respectable or relevant than womyn’s studies are today.

Women love education; it’s the actual application they don’t particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something – usually a naked woman.

Between 1988 and 2004, Title IX caused the elimination of 239 NCAA Division One men’s teams and the addition of 682 women’s teams. Those 239 teams represented about 8.3 percent of the total, and the rate of elimination is increasing because, as the proportion of men attending universities continues to fall, more universities will fall afoul of the Title IX proportionality requirement and be forced to cut more men’s teams to stay in compliance with the congressionally dictated ratio. Now, what realistically offers a greater threat to science: a lack of public funding for what has proven to be the red herring of embryonic stem-cell research, or a politically driven 10 percent reduction of the male scientific community in the next 15 years, along with the enforced employment of three times that many female “scientists”?

Of course, this will sound to equalitarians and their sympathizers like nothing more than male whining, but it’s nothing of the sort. Because they are the intellectual driving force of humanity, men will be fine. They will simply continue to do what they have always done and pursue the same challenges they have always pursued, focused on the realities of success rather than its superficial attributes. It is the institutions they are exiting, voluntarily and involuntarily, that will be destroyed instead. It is written that “women ruin everything”; having destroyed the liberal arts, the classics and the pseudo-sciences, it is now abundantly clear that the more rigorous sciences are next on the equalitarians’ destructive agenda. And so, in the not-too-distant future, two plus two will finally be determined to equal five if a women feels that it should, or at least it will as long as she happens to feel that way.

Left-wing rants disguised as "science"

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

Left-wing rants disguised as "science"

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

<a href="
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/sexism_or_just_idiocy_from_cat.php”>Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

Left-wing rants disguised as “science”

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

February 21, 2009

Abuse more a risk in non-traditional families

NEW YORK — Six-year-old Oscar Jimenez Jr. was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two-year-old Devon Shackleford was drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro, also 2, died after being thrown across a room in Utah.

In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child’s mother — men thrust into father-like roles which they failed to embrace.

February 21, 2009

The Testosterone Crisis

While an excess of yang energy was considered explosive and dangerous, what happens in a country like contemporary America when there seems to be a dangerous oversupply of feminine yin?

In his book The Suicide of Reason Lee Harris argues that our present state of liberal democracy has led to “eliminating the alpha males from our midst, and at a dizzyingly accelerating rate.” Instead of supporting and valuing testosterone’s virtues we’re “drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin.” In addition, one could view Barack Obama’s election as the triumph of yin over yang. Obama’s policies promise to cast the father out of America’s parks and replace him with the more “caring” and yin oriented federal government. For Lee Harris however the feminization of American men comes at an extremely high price:

“The end of testosterone in the West alone will not culminate in the end of history, but it may well culminate in the end of the West.”

It was in ancient Greece for example when the West began to associate the masculine yang voice with freedom and self-reliance. Why? Because when Athenian citizens perused the known world they noticed something rather curious: in no country other than Greece did citizens enjoy freedom or the virtues of democratic government. Famous Greeks like the fifth century B.C. physician Hippocrates attempted to explain this fascinating anomaly. What Hippocrates and other Greek observers all tended to conclude was that the rest of the world’s subjects must be “effeminate” or else, like the Greeks, they would have demanded — like real men — to be left alone by their leaders.

February 21, 2009

A barbaric kind of beauty

She doesn’t care if the treatment is expensive, involves babies and is so controversial that it is not allowed to be performed in this country – among her well-heeled friends, this is the ultimate new elixir of youth.
The attractive brunette has opted for a controversial stem- cell therapy where umbilical cord tissue from new-born babies will be injected into her body.

The Treatment: Anti-ageing stem-cell injections made from aborted foetal tissue, £15,000 The past 12 months have seen this popular holiday resort become the stem-cell capital of the developed world, treating hundreds of patients in a year…. The clinic claims that the foetal tissue derived from elective abortions at six to 12 weeks is rich in regenerative stem cells.

Onion parody

February 21, 2009

East Timor’s First Female Dictator Hailed As Step Forward For Women

Amivi Gama’s violent rise to power has proved that women are just as capable as men when it comes to brutality and oppression.

Of course, they aren’t. There has never been a female dictator or conqueror. There are only two ways that women can become heads of state. They may get elected in democracies sympathetic to feminism, though it is exceedingly obvious that voters prefer male leaders. And that includes female voters; women have had the vote for decades and male politicians still far outnumber female ones. In fact, there were more female heads of state when most heads of state were monarchs and not elected politicians. Which leads us to the other way women can become heads of state: be born to it. No woman has ever seized power for herself or carved out an empire of her own, unless you believe the legends of Amazons.

February 19, 2009

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt. Such “treatments” for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

I suggest that, after restoring legal recognition of husbands’ authority, we bring back these customs in order to compel men to bring their wives under control.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated “over 2 million very violent wives.” While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.