|
|
Content d'être un gars
|
|
Mardi, le 24 juillet 2007 |
|
.jpg)
Tout sur la condition des femmes d'ici et d'ailleurs
Ramdam à La Gazette des femmes
|
||
|
|
 |
 |
Green
castle story
Charrue story
.jpg)
Charrue légère polysoc ou cultivateur à disques pour déchaumer.déchaumeuse
The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, "What does a woman want?"
Sigmund Freud
Citation improbable
Ce que je préfère chez une femme c’est sa nuque.
Tout sur la condition des femmes d'ici et d'ailleurs
La fausse victime d'enlèvement accusée d'extorsion
Tout sur la condition des femmes d'ici et d'ailleurs
STRIPTEASE JUST FOR LAUGH 2006
JUSTE POUR RIRE DITA VON TEESE
Ron Paul, regarding the motives behind the 911 attack, pointed out to Giuliani that in 1953, dubbed operation Ajax, the United States and British Petroleum, orchestrated the covert overthrow of Iran′s popular and overwhelmingly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosedec and installed the Shah. An intervention the people of Iran still resent to this day (blowback).That was the mistake of a long gone administration. We don′t do that stuff anymore.
Do we?
Insolite
International community holds interest for Ron Paul the american presidential candidate who respects the american constitution while american media ignore him.
La communauté internationale s'intéresse au candidat à la présidence américaine qui respecte la constitution américaine alors que les médias américains évitent de lui offrir une tribune.
Ron Paul Revolution Nachrichten und Gedanken rund um Ron Paul und seine Präsidentschaftskampagne.
Va donc chercher une bière maintenant que tu es debout
Juillet mois des arnaques
 |
|
|
|
 |
Ne manquez pas le prochain numéro de la Gazette des femmes. Les femmes font pitié. Larmes assurées. Vous voulez des preuves? Ne manquez pas la Gazette des femmes. Font pitié rare. Elles se torchent même la plotte après avoir pissé. C'est dire combien elles font pitié. Si J'en étais une je demanderais une subvention pour payer le papier-cul. Les hommes sont tous des salauds soyez-en assuré. Des masculinistes haineux, que dis-je? Des antiféministes. C'est pire que pire. Depuis que je suis devenu féministe je pisse assis.
Mea coule pas.
ÇA MANQUE UN PEU DE SÉRIEUX CHEZ LES PITOUNES
AUJOURD'HUI C'EST LE 24 JUILLET ET LE NUMÉRO DE SEPTEMBRE-OCTOBRE DE LA GAZETTE DES FEMMES N'EST TOUJOURS PAS EN KIOSQUE.
Ce n'est pas nous qui sommes en avance
ce sont elles qui sont toujours en retard.
Preparing for a Broken Home
Mathias Mental
Cancer et sexisme ordinaire
AUCUN DÉPISTAGE POUR LES "MÉCHANTS" (?) HOMMES:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/814441148717/
MAIS CECI POUR LES "DIVINES" (?) FEMMES:
AUCUN AVIS ÉCRIT POUR LES HOMMES, MAIS CECI POUR TOUTES LES FEMMES D'UN CERTAIN AGE:
Un médicament pour les femmes mais pas pour les hommes ? .
Quelle idéologie misandre a érigé ce sexisme a l'intérieur même du système ?
Pourtant les hommes meurent plus souvent du cancer que les femmes:
Et le financement (tant au privé qu'au public) n'est pas au rendez-vous. Pourquoi ?
Quelques faits et chiffres:
• En 2005: $2.5 million was raised for the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada in the last fiscal year.
-->The federal government fund prostate cancer research to the tune of about $7.3 million
• $33.6 million was raised for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation in the last fiscal year.
-->The federal government fund breast cancer research to the tune of about $13 million a year.
Sources: Canadian cancer society, prostate research foundation of Canada, Canadian cancer foundation ( The Gazette, October 15, 2005)
Sue Montgomery
• Un homme sur 7 risque d'avoir un cancer de la prostate au cours de sa vie, le plus souvent après l'âge de 70 ans. Un homme sur 26 en mourra.
Source: Société canadienne du cancer et les "Statistiques canadiennes sur le cancer 2005"
• (...) Au cours de sa vie, une femme sur 9 sera diagnostiquée avec un cancer du sein, une sur 27 en mourra.(...)
Source: Cyberpresse, 18 octobre 2005
1.4.1 Leur santé physique
Les hommes décèdent plus hâtivement que les femmes et leur vulnérabilité par rapport aux principales causes de décès est beaucoup plus élevée que celle des femmes. Malgré cela, ils ont l’impression inverse et bon nombre d’intervenants ont tendance à minimiser les risques de santé auxquels ils sont exposés20. Les maladies du cœur sont les premières causes de décès chez les hommes. L’embonpoint, l’hypertension, un taux de cholestérol élevé, le tabagisme, le manque d’exercice et le diabète en sont les principaux facteurs de risque. Les accidents vasculaires cérébraux (hémorragie cérébrale ou obstruction d’un vaisseau sanguin du cerveau) sont la première cause d’invalidité masculine. Les hommes sont plus souvent victimes du cancer du poumon qui, à lui seul, est responsable du tiers des décès par cancer chez les hommes. Viennent ensuite le cancer de la prostate, deuxième forme de cancer la plus fréquente et dont les symptômes sont souvent inexistants au début, celui du côlon, relié au tabagisme et à certaines carences alimentaires, et, enfin, celui des testicules, pour lequel l’auto-examen si crucial est encore méconnu. Quant au diabète, il touche deux millions d’hommes canadiens, dont cinq cent mille (500 000) Québécois. Sa prévention, implique de réduire sa consommation de gras, de maintenir un poids santé et de faire de l’exercice. Les hommes se soignent beaucoup moins que les femmes et, tel que nous le mentionnions auparavant, posent moins fréquemment et moins volontairement que celles-ci les gestes nécessaires au maintien ou à la restauration de leur santé. En fait, trop souvent, lorsqu’ils se décident à consulter, il est très tard, et parfois même trop tard.
Rapport Rondeau, page 8
Preparing for a Broken Home
By JAMES ANDREW MILLER
Op-Ed Contributor
July 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16miller.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
A FRIEND from business school, just engaged, boasted recently not about the virtues of his wife-to-be but about the Byzantine process he and she had gone through in constructing what he considered the finest of prenuptial agreements, as if there were some sort of poetry in the laborious detail involved in dividing assets and wealth. Months earlier, another friend, who had separated from her husband, told me she’d decided to go back with him, but only after the two of them had constructed a “post-nup” that left no doubt as to how their finances would be divided should they break up again.
I suppose both kinds of agreements are understandable in an era when so many marriages fail, but it seems sadly clear to me that both couples, for all their meticulous planning, had overlooked and ignored the most important point of all. Dividing up money and assets after a marriage falls apart can be a mess, but it’s often nothing compared with the agony and emotional torment of a custody battle — dividing up the children. Money is, after all, only money — you can make it back, you can do with less of it if you need to, you can even file for bankruptcy. But children are not commodities that can be replaced.
Thus, a proposal, based on observation and my own recent experience of divorce: Engaged couples should enter into a new kind of arrangement, one that has nothing to do with houses or cars or the Warhol on the wall but focuses on any children born of the marriage. If two people can contemplate, before they ever marry, the possibility of what Walter Winchell called “splitsville” and agree in advance how they would divide assets, they ought to also be able to make sane arrangements for dividing time with their children.
For divorced parents, the financial equation is set as soon as the court or the arbitrator signs the order. Bank accounts, investments and pensions are divided, and child support and alimony are assigned. While it is true that support can be altered based on changing circumstances, most financial cases are settled, and lives go on. Judges generally adhere to common formulas for how the property should be divided, so it’s possible to anticipate how your financial life will look after the marriage.
In the world of child custody, however, there are few certainties.
Two friends of mine who went through divorce recently were told that their soon-to-be-former spouses were “willing” to give them visiting rights every other weekend, plus one overnight stay per week. (The idea of “visiting” one’s own children, when it first comes up, can be terribly jarring.) Both were outraged and each has started what promises to be a long, expensive and emotionally draining court battle for more of the children’s time.
Such battles are often waged before judges who have unpredictable points of view about child custody. There are so many different types of custody schedules and ways of calculating what’s fair to parents and children alike, that fathers, especially, stand a good chance of getting stuck with a plan they don’t like — one that leaves them feeling like a second-class parent. Given crowded court schedules and a shortage of judges to hear cases, many custody battles can take up to a year or more to reach a conclusion.
Once a case is finally heard, neither parent can be certain of legal precedent or anything else that might steer the proceedings toward a mutually agreeable outcome. A custody evaluator or a judge can never understand a family’s situation or individual children as well as the parents themselves do. Some couples have found that by the time the court has heard their custody case, many of the precious dollars divided between them in their prenup have found their way to the lawyers.
Absent a pre-arranged custody plan, the children in a divorce almost always start one custody schedule and then, once a court order is signed, must adapt to a new one. Worse, they may find themselves being used by one side or the other (or both) as bargaining chips or even strategic weapons.
For a parent, being without one’s children at such a time, and having to watch from the sidelines as they are overtaken by anxiety and uncertainty, can make the custody battle by far the most traumatic aspect of the divorce experience.
With a custody schedule outlined before marriage, children could have a single structure for their new lives from the moment their parents separate. They would know where they will be and when, they wouldn’t have to witness their parents arguing about the details, and they might not be subjected to custody evaluations or, worse, be required to testify in court.
In some states, pre-arranged custody schedules might not hold up in court, and one parent or the other might argue that circumstances have changed too much since they entered the agreement. Even then, though, an agreement could serve as a great starting point for negotiations.
Most of the pain involved in my own divorce would have been reduced by some kind of agreement before marriage detailing a custody schedule for children. I was fortunate enough to secure joint custody of my three children. But I would say to any two people contemplating a future together that however icy it may seem on the surface to include children’s lives in legalistic affairs, a little coldness at the outset could help prevent glacially slow wars — wars directly involving the children — later on.
Besides, conversations about custody between two newly engaged people could give them both a window on what their future spouse will be like — and what he or she will expect as a parent. For a couple contemplating children, it is never too early to start discussing parenting roles.
Packing up the children’s backpacks and preparing them to be picked up by a former spouse can be agonizing even in the best of circumstances. Even a prenup that outlines a custody schedule could never change that. But it could at least shield children from unnecessary pain and relieve some of the hurt for the parents.
James Andrew Miller is the author of “Running in Place: Inside the Senate” and co-author of “Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live.”
Activist Opinion
An interesting and surely good advice in this op-ed piece offered below from the New York Times. Incidentally and as a matter of interest I had a pre-nup (pre-nuptial contract) once-designed to be the mainstay and be all and end all of my marriage and what it meant in terms of tangible things. It also covered the emotive and rather personally important aspect of child custody. It was specially prepared by a lawyer friend for both of us. I remember going to sign it with her. There was much joking and laughter and cried of "Oh WE will never need this". It was a really good one-a solid contract and agreement which covered everything-from equal parenting and equal custody to the sharing of accumulated property, assets and wealth. Even though over 20 years had passed since it was first drawn up and signed I made sure at the time of trial that it was not only of lawful standing in Canada but was entirely relevant to the situation at hand.At my trial it was the very first thing attacked by my wife's lawyer. They had even tried to deny it existed and refused to offer a copy in disclosure. So I got a copy and entered it in evidence.The Ontario Canada judge threw it out as having no relevance due to my wife offering that she did not have independent counsel at the time and thus did not fully understand what she was agreeing to. In fact she DID have independent council but her point was never countered and I was not allowed to offer the truth or even be questioned about it. He just threw it out. I did not realize it then but for all the trouble I had gone to to get it and secure the future in divorce and separation not only of my wife but also of myself and my children it was just useless paper and she was well on the way to getting it all and I nothing.Ah yes Family Justice in Canada. Surely the best in the world right? Or so most clueless Canadians think or like to boast. From what I have learned in the time of my advocacy in Canada if you have a pre-nup now it is also just a worthless scrap of paper in the face of what I call "Judges Law" in Canada. You may not have bothered to get it in the first place. Having said that when eventually someone listens to us and realizes that the family law system really IS broken we should offer the idea of formal and mandatory pre/post nuptials as a part of the state of marriage. One that favours all-especially the children who need both parents.Jeremy SwansonOttawa Canada17th July 2007
Tout sur la condition des femmes d'ici et d'ailleurs
À la rédaction de La Gazette des femmesJe viens de lire dans le journal Le Devoir que votre magazine féministe serait en pleine crise. J'espère que l'État québécois aura le courage de mettre enfin la clé dans la porte de votre publication. Les contribuables ont soutenu, bien malgré eux, pendant de nombreuses années, l'évangile féministe colporté par la Gazette, évangile qui ne tolère pas que l'on mette en doute l'éternelle vision victimaire de la femme. L'Institut de la statistique du Québec a dernièrement jeté un pavé au milieu de votre propagande en démontrant que la violence conjugale était l'affaire des deux sexes. Ça n'a pas plu aux féministes grassement subventionnées de la Gazette qui vivent de la martyrologie féminine.De nombreuses jeunes féministes respectables en ont ras-le-bol de la diabolisation des hommes. Ils en ont soupé de toujours être associées au sexe victime qui fait bien pitié. Elles ont l'intelligence et l'honnêteté intellectuelle de tendre la main aux hommes, ce qui dérange la vieille garde féministe qui voit pointer à l'horizon la perte de jobs lucratifs si jamais il était démontré devant la population qu'au fil des ans elle a colporté des demi-vérités...Je suggère que tout l'argent consacré à la publication de la Gazette des femmes soit dorénavant versé aux familles québécoises.Jean-Pierre Gagnon
Goujat!
Ms Galipeau,
En référence de votre article Interdit aux filles du 16 juillet http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070716/CPACTUEL/707160446/5159/CPACTUEL
Il existe 354 refuges pour personnes violentées au Canada. Selon stat Can, il en coûte 325 millions de nos taxes par année ( pourtant les hommes contribuent 30% de plus en impôt!).
9 refuges sur 10 interdisent l’admission d’hommes, 8 % de ces refuges ont des politiques permettant leur admission.
Portant 6% des hommes subissent une forme quelconque de violence de la part de leur conjoint. ( 7 % pour les femmes).
Il existe un refuge pour homme violenté, mais aucune étude n’est disponible.
Foutez nous la paix avec vos SPM de jalousie!
Gilbert Claes
Source : Statistique Canada – no 85-002-XIF au catalogue, vol. 27, no 4
Madame Collard,Ah plus je lis La Presse plus je suis triste.La rigueur intellectuelle n'est plus au rendez-vous que très rarementComment faites-vous pour ne PAS parler du plus grand facteur de délinquance juvénile, de prostitution juvénile, de taxage, de décrochage scolaire, etc ?Les journalistes avez une responsabilité sociale de dire les faits... TOUS les faitsDans une démocracie vous avez un rôle important à jouer. Et dire les faits, TOUS les faits est votre DEVOIR "sacré"Vous n'êtes pas seulement une employée d'une multinationale, vous êtes une JOURNALISTE.N'êtes pas tannée de répandre des demi-verités ?Bonne journée quand même et j'espère qu'un jour vous allez arrêter de faire vos analyses à 2 cennes.Nos jeunes filles méritent d'avoir des journalistes qui vont vraiment aux racines des problèmes.Et savez-vous quel est ce 'facteur' ?Sébas