Friday, February 27, 2009

Men and Women's Freindships

But the practical ramifications are that we (women) can't do the slightest thing wrong . . . And if we can't care for somebody who screws up, that makes our position on friendship very precarious.

Those are the words of Joyce Benenson of the Department of Biological Anthropology at Harvard, discussing recent research published in the journal Psychological Science. Researchers at Harvard, Emmanuel College in Boston and the Universite du Quebec have concluded that women are far less tolerant of their friends than are men. I would argue that carries over into intimate relationships with men as well, but the researchers don't broach that topic.

They only dealt with same-sex friendships and found that, compared to men's, women's relationships tend to be "significantly less tolerant, more volatile, and likelier to degrade based on a single negative incident than male same-sex friendships." These findings seem to fly in the face of long-held notions of women as the more relational of the sexes.

Debunking that notion comes hard on the heels of the study by Marta Meana of the University of Nevada about women's sexuality, that found it to be far more narcissistic than relational. (I reported on that in the posting "Fascinating Article on Women's Sexuality.") Although the two studies are obviously about different things, they both seem to contradict the concept of women as primarily motivated by relationships.

Of course as always, this study is not the last word on the subject. It's one of many and many more to come. But it's interesting.

Read about it here (Nanaimo Daily News, 2/13/09).

FRAMED

F.R.A.M.E.D. (Fathers Rights And Men Ending Discrimination)

By FramedFather

Was I FRAMED by the family court system here in Union County, Georgia? Oh Yes I was Folks!

I have been the target of a 'mock trial', allegedly found - capriciously - guilty, and convicted for being a loving Father and a concerned Parent.

I have done nothing wrong, I tell you all here and now. Notably 'folks' not a thing was said badly about me at the trial. The opposing attorney even suggested 50/50 custody in their closing arguments.

At 'the mock sentencing' farce, I was stripped of my rights to be a Father and Parent by the human rights violator Judge. Who then falsely sentenced me to only be a visitor not the father, with limited visitation rights only of: (4 days a month and even though I live only 3 miles from my daughter). I was also fined $10,400.00/yr. at the sentencing hearing, 66% of my income. The federal government also makes me pay taxes on that $10,400.00 dollars each year, which brings the fine up to almost 70% of my income -- for one child.

The mother is allowed to make up her own rules and violates court orders on a daily basis, with no accountability at all and with the support of the court. I am forced to walk on pins and needles as added punishment for being a visitor and I am under constant threat of incarceration.

Are father Optional

Its NOT about abandonment

Article here. Excerpt:

'In other words, more than 1/4 of white children, 1/2 of Hispanic children, and almost 3/4 of black children were born to mothers who did not feel that marriage was necessary. Since marriage reflects the commitment of mother and father to stay together permanently, it means that a large proportion of women chose to give birth without taking steps to make sure that the father would live with his child and be a permanent presence in his or her life.
...
However, as the birth statistics demonstrate, the problem is not simply one of abandonment. Women are actively conceiving and bearing children in the knowledge that their fathers will almost certainly not be living with them throughout childhood. Simply put, women are behaving as if fathers are optional.'

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

In The UK There are No Consequences for False Rape Claims

In The UK There are No Consequences for False Rape Claims

February 24th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In the blogpost "Outrage!" I reported on a case in the United Kingdom in which a man was accused by a BBC "personality" of raping her 40 times. He claimed innocence and she eventually recanted the allegations. His name is known to UK police as a suspect in a rape case. As such, he cannot get a visa to travel to the United States. He has lost job opportunities because of her slander.

Under British law, her name may not be revealed, she has borne no consequences at her job and no criminal charges will be filed against her.

In my previous post on this case, I encouraged the wronged man to file civil charges of libel, slander and defamation against his abuser, stating that these at least were still actionable in the UK.

And they are, just not in this case. It turns out that, in addition to there being no criminal penalties for this woman's outrageous behavior, there are no civil penalties either. Who knew? So, even more than I originally thought this woman and every other woman in the UK get a free pass. Don't believe me? Read about it here (Daily Mail, 2/1/09).

Women of the UK understand that, if you choose to do so for any reason or no reason, you may, safely, anonymously and without fear of any form of consequence, accuse any man of rape. What about that guy at the fish and chip shop who was rude to you? The teller at the bank who closed the window before you got to the front of the line? The boyfriend who forgot your birthday? They're all fair game. If you get caught in your lie, just recant and walk away. If they go to jail for 20 years or so, that'll teach 'em.

Men of the UK understand that any woman, any time can claim you raped her. If she's caught in her lie, there is absolutely nothing anyone will do to punish her wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. Realistically, there is nothing you can do to prevent it. And into the bargain, she'll remain anonymous, just in case she wants to do it again. And again. And again.

That's the way it is.

Non-Custodial Moms More Likely to be ‘Deadbeats’ than NC Dads

Non-Custodial Moms More Likely to be ‘Deadbeats’ than NC Dads

February 17th, 2009 by Robert Franklin

Ouch! That shoe hurts when it’s crammed onto the other foot.

It seems that men aren’t the only ones complaining about their lives as non-custodial parents; women are too. And guess what? Their complaints about the family court system are largely the same as men’s.

It’s true that non-custodial mothers have one additional complaint that their male counterparts don’t. Public perceptions of mothers without custody are predictably negative. Since women are assumed by popular culture to be natural parents who place the highest value on childrearing, mothers without custody can feel stigmatized.

But when it comes to visitation and child support, non-custodial mothers are singing close harmony with dads. According to this site, it seems the concept that it’s the noncustodial parent who takes the bigger hit financially is true after all and not something MRAs made up. And this site calls custodial parents “narcissistic” and says that children have a right to both parents. Both parents? It’s good to hear women singing that tune.

And now that I’ve mentioned child support among the litany of their complaints, take a look at this Census Bureau report of 2005 statistics. Apparently paying to support their children is something non-custodial mothers aren’t very good at. They do a poorer job of it than do NC fathers, even though their child support burden is less onerous than men’s.

The report shows 13.6 million parents with custody of 23 million children who had another parent living elsewhere. Physical custody was 84% female and 16% male. About 7.8 million of those parents had some form of child support order in effect, but mothers were far more likely than fathers to be the beneficiaries of support orders. Almost 61.4% of custodial mothers but only about 36.4% of custodial fathers had support orders in effect. That means there were about 800,000 custodial dads with child support orders and a little over 7 million custodial moms with orders.

Why are courts so much more likely to order support for mothers than for fathers? It’s hard to say, but I suspect that men’s greater tendency to be gainfully employed contributes. The same Census Bureau report finds that 73.4% of custodial fathers worked full-time year-round, while only 50.1% of custodial mothers did. What the statistics are for non-custodial parental employment, the report doesn’t say.

Custodial mothers were due, on average, $5,176 per year from NC fathers, who paid $3,579 for a 69.1% compliance rate. By contrast, custodial fathers were due only $4,471 per year and received only $2,797 for a 62.6% compliance rate. So NC mothers, although they had substantially lower child support obligations, still paid a lower percentage.

So yes, that shoe can pinch, whether it’s a Red Wing work boot or a Gucci pump.

Welcome to the Age of Female Rage

This woman is so up herself it's amazing! I love the comments from readers. Sample of her whining:

"My generation of women aren't having it all - we're doing it all. It's a constant struggle to meet the demands of my various roles as wife, mother, daughter, colleague, lover, friend. I feel as if I short-change everyone all the time.
...
I never have a moment that's just mine. Someone always wants a piece of me. Yesterday, in the middle of a bikini wax, I had an urgent call from the office and had to orchestrate a crucial meeting on the other side of the world, biting my fists to stop yelping at the wrong moments."

Comments:

Piss and moan
Piss and moan
Pretty soon...
You'll live alone.

Which is what you should have done in the first place, you whiny skank.

You'd have saved your whole family (certainly, including your husband) a lot of big headaches.

---------------------------------

Haha! Now she understands how men have felt since the beginning of time.

Father
Provider
Protector
Handyman
etc. etc. etc.

Along with getting a call in the middle of the night for emergency at work. Getting up in the middle of the night to bring pregnant wife to hospital. Getting up in the middle of the night because teen son/daughter got into trouble. And then, still going to work in the morning and getting home after all that to hear the wife bitch and moan and kids screaming.

Women, you wanted to be in the men's world and be just like us...well, there you have it! Enjoy!

Friday, February 20, 2009

Yet Another Unmanagable Teacher

Bliss H.S. teacher charged with sex crimes on a minor

A teacher at Bliss High School is facing charges of 2-counts of sexual battery of a minor who is 16-years old.

Anna Margaret Bettencourt, 38, of Wendell has been arraigned in Gooding County 5th District Court on the charges, both of which carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Bettencourt's preliminary hearing is set for March 19th, and a special prosecutor has been appointed to handle the case.

Officials with the Bliss School District told KMVT they couldn't discuss whether Bettencourt has been placed on administrative leave; or if the teen who was allegedly battered is a student at the school.

Still More Excuses for Women’s Rape of Boys

by Robert Franklin

I hope someone's keeping a list. Someday it could have a prominent position in the Buck Passers Hall of Fame.

This is another case of alleged statutory rape of a minor boy by his teacher, Carole Leigh Mayers (Delmarvanow.com, 2/4/09). Her defense this time is that he's now mature, so it must be OK for her to have violated statutory rape laws 2-3 years ago.

Never mind that it is for precisely that reason that statutory rape laws exist - to remove the defense of consent. The legal conceit is that the child is too young to understand and give consent to sex. Therefore, any claim that he's mature enough to have consented is irrelevant to the charge of statutory rape. It's just not an element of the crime.

And, as GlennSacks.com contributor Pierce Harlan has pointed out, we all know that girls mature physically and psychologically earlier than boys. So if statutory rape laws apply to girl victims, they should apply doubly to boys.

But none of that stopped this woman from moving to dismiss the charges. She's charged with 16 counts of sexual misconduct of various sorts with a boy who is now 17 but at the time of the alleged offenses was probably 14-16.

Another basis for her motion is that the boy is into porn, so somehow that excuses her behavior. It doesn't make sense to me, but I just report, you decide.

One of the more remarkable aspects of her claims is that the boy is now, at age 17, involved in a sexual relationship with another adult woman. How that should exonerate Mayers for what she allegedly did 2-3 years ago escapes me. It seems like its evidence of statutory rape by the second woman.

But what do I know?

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Rape is Never Funney, Except.....


...except in this case. When it happens to a man, it's a riot. Just ask the guy who wrote this and the woman who drugged and raped her boyfriend.

But that's no surprise for a guy who puts the Abu Ghraibesque picture at the right on his blog and who urges us all to "raise a glass" to the woman who some would argue belongs in prison.

You go girl!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Another Teacher Charged with Rape

This time it's Carmina Lopez, 32, who allegedly had sex with one of her 12-year-old students numerous times three years ago (NBC San Diego, 1/30/09). The boy has come forward recently and police say it's not just a "he said/she said" case. Apparently there are witnesses.

To those who say that boys this age aren't injured by their sexual abuse by women, please note that one school official said, "'The child is suffering from psychological issues and is being seen by a counselor.'"

Whatever turns out to be true in the end, it's worth noting that the State of California seems inclined to throw the book at Lopez. Dozens of charges ranging from aggravated sexual battery to child cruelty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and bail set at $2 million all sound like taking this one seriously.

Of course we don't yet know what happened or her side of the story. And the State of California may decide that a few months of probation is sufficient "punishment." Who knows? It's far too early to draw conclusions, but right now it looks like the sentencing discount may have been suspended in this case.

Because she's Hispanic?

Where's the Rape Charges

Story here. Excerpt:

'INNOCENT-eyed Alfie Patten spent his first night acting as a 13-year-old dad and declared: “It was easier than I thought.”

The four-footer — who looks no more than eight — said: “I know I’m young, but I plan to be a good dad.”

As he went on the PlayStation with 15-year-old girlfriend Chantelle Steadman, he added: “I think we’ll be good parents. I’ll have to work extra hard at school.”

Chantelle looked up from 18-rated action game Saints Row II to admit her first night out of hospital since having 7lb 3oz daughter Maisie had been tough and had left her “in a daze”.
...
Mickey and Minnie Mouse hold hands, surrounded by lovehearts, on the headboard of her bed — where Maisie was conceived when Alfie was just 12 and Chantelle 14.'

If the girl were 13 and the boy 15, wouldn't he be facing charges right now?

Men in their early 20s are MORE likely to be abused by their partner than women the same age.

Article here. Excerpt:

'New statistics suggest that men in their early 20s are MORE likely to be abused by their partner than women the same age. It's not a subject that's much talked about. On Newsbeat, we're changing that.

The official definition of partner abuse includes non-physical forms like emotional bullying as well as physical force. But men in this age range have been on the receiving end of all forms, including sometimes severe violence.
...
So why are men in this age at such risk? Are 20-something women becoming more aggressive? Are men less able to defend themselves? And is this a taboo that's now being talked about for the first time?
...
Reporting the crime carries risks too. Some men clearly feel that telling police can lead to the finger of blame being pointed at them. One, who wants to stay anonymous, texted us to say "ex girlfriend pushed me down the stairs ,i called the police and they locked me up for three hours and made me walk home with dislocated toes cos they did not believe me". Others say they were threatened with assault charges - even though they were the victim.'

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Super Bowl Myth, R.I.P.

by Robert Franklin

I know the Super Bowl is long past. But we must take our opportunities to celebrate where we can, and this is one of them.

Friends, we have successfully passed another Super Bowl Sunday without a massive spike in domestic violence, by testosterone-poisoned men against their wives and girlfriends. Indeed, it seems that the peddlers of that particular myth seem disinclined to continue hawking it to a public that's not buying. To learn about the birth, short life and timely death of the Super Bowl DV myth, click here.

I'd like to say that it joins a long line of other myths about male perfidy that have been disproved and discarded. But in fact it only joins a long line of myths about male perfidy that have merely been disproved. Most are still clung to regardless of facts, logic or common sense.

To cite but a few, only 2% of rape claims are false, men perpetrate 90% of DV, the wage gap is caused by sex discrimination, 24% of women will be the victims of rape or attempted rape during their four college years, divorce makes men wealthier and women poorer, and on and on from nine million women burned as witches in the Middle Ages to contemporary nonsense about Venutians and Martians, the myths hang doggedly on.

They do so because they corroborate the preconceived notions of a lot of people whose worldviews seem to depend on them, and so can't stop preaching the 'men bad/women good' gospel to the rest of us.

So whether you were backing the Cardinals or the Steelers, give a cheer for the death of one of the sillier myths of recent times.

The Child Is Dead, but at Least Dad Didn’t Get Custody…

February 16th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks

“In 2003, Kansas City police responded to a call about Brown walking dangerously close to traffic near Interstate 470 and Blue Ridge Boulevard with a child, according to police records.

“She appeared to be high on drugs, and at one point, police were worried she was going to throw the child into traffic, according to the records.

“Police were eventually able to restrain her but with a struggle, and the officer came close to using deadly force when she became combative, according to the records…

“The boy’s father said he had been trying to gain custody of his children but that he could not afford an attorney.”

From Police: Mom Sat On, Killed Son (KCTV5.com, 2/9/09):

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas City woman was charged with second-degree murder in the death of her 7-year-old son, who appears to have died of suffocation.

Police spokesman Darin Snapp said Esmond Ross died Saturday at his home. Snapp said the boy showed no signs of life when officers were called to the home.

The child’s mother, 28-year-old Lakeesha Brown, told detectives she believes she suffocated her son by putting her legs across his head and sitting on his chest.

Police said Brown had no explanation for why she sat on her son.

A body exam revealed that Esmond’s right arm was broken in three places, and he showed signs of being suffocated.

Edwin I. Ross, the boy’s father, said his 10-year-old daughter called him from Brown’s house, distraught. He rushed to the house in the 3700 block of Prospect Avenue. He said Brown was sitting on the boy when he arrived, and he said it was clear the boy had been dead for hours.

The boy’s father said he had been trying to gain custody of his children but that he could not afford an attorney.

In 2003, Kansas City police responded to a call about Brown walking dangerously close to traffic near Interstate 470 and Blue Ridge Boulevard with a child, according to police records.

She appeared to be high on drugs, and at one point, police were worried she was going to throw the child into traffic, according to the records.

Police were eventually able to restrain her but with a struggle, and the officer came close to using deadly force when she became combative, according to the records.

Brown remained in custody on Monday. She also was charged with abuse of a child resulting in death and endangering the welfare of a child.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Women the new pimps in human trafficking trade

Comment: Women victimizing other women - goes against the woman=good - man=bad paradigm. INCONCEIVABLE. maybe we will have to reconsider and realize that there are good and bad people. Evil is not determined by Gender.

WOMEN are emerging as the pimps of the global trade in humans with a third of countries reporting more female traffickers than male, a United Nations study shows.

The first international report into the scope of human trafficking, published yesterday, found a disproportionate number of female perpetrators, more than in any other crime, selling other women into slavery in countries including Australia.

With demand for cheap goods and services rising with the fall of the world economy, experts fear labour exploitation will grow.

Sex slavery accounts for 79 per cent of all human trafficking, most victims being women and girls, says the UN Office on Drugs and Crime's Global Report On Trafficking In Persons.

It used data from 155 countries to establish patterns in trafficking and what individual nations were doing to fight it.

The office's executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, was alarmed by cases in which victims went on to become ringleaders in the trade. "We need to understand the psychological, financial and coercive reasons why women recruit other women into slavery," he said.

See full article here

Think Tank Criticizes Child Support

Important mainstream attention to the injustices of child support recently appeared on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is a respected and influential free market think tank.

Hans Bader writes:
This financial havoc can’t be justified by claiming that divorced fathers had it coming: most divorces in this country are no-fault divorces initiated by wives, rather than husbands (wives initiate about two-thirds of all divorces, according to data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, and the many studies reviewed by Sanford Braver of Arizona State University in his 1998 book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths).
For background on the federal policies that result in this diabolical family destruction machine, see my scholarly article in the Independent Review, "From Welfare State to Police State." (There is also a shorter op-ed version.) Filed under: blogStephen Baskerville Ph.D. @ 8:47 am |

Male Bashing Continues, Even in the Worst of Times

By Robert Franklin

We're in a serious economic recession. Negative economic growth, car companies gushing red ink, home values plummeting, jobs evaporating all signal grim times ahead, and most agree it's going to get worse. So it must be time for feminists to make up facts about the downturn affecting women more than men, for the purpose of directing government largesse their way.

And sure enough, that's what Women's Enews does in this online piece (Women's Enews, 1/14/09). Judy Patrick and Surina Khan let us in on the little known fact that, "in the current economic recession, women are losing jobs at a faster pace than men." (I use the term "little known fact" to refer to the old "Peanuts" character Lucy who once confided that certain obviously false "facts" she was telling her little brother were "little known because I make 'em up." And so it is here.)

Inexplicably, they follow that claim with this admission,

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate among women is 5.9 percent; however, the overall unemployment rate is 7.2 percent.

So how is it that women's unemployment is rising faster than men's? They don't explain, and I guess that's what passes for intellectual honesty these days.

But what's not honest is to cite the BLS unemployment statistics and neglect to say that that same data show that from November 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008, men in the United States lost almost 1.1 million jobs while women gained 12,000 jobs. Read about it here (The Boston Globe, 12/05/08). And that was before the economy coughed up 500,000 more jobs in each of November, December and January. Women losing jobs faster than men? Don't believe it for a second.

I've written about this before when feminists Randy Albelda and Katha Pollitt tried a similar ruse back in December. (See, "The Sexist Downturn") The ruse didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

After all, this is not hard to figure out even if you've never heard of the BLS. What led the economic downturn? The housing market; new construction fell off a cliff about a year ago and it's still falling. Who builds houses, men or women? Over 90% of construction workers are male. See? You don't have to be an economist to at least have a clue about which sex is taking the hit in these bad old times.

Patrick and Khan's intellectual dishonesty doesn't stop there, though. They recycle the long-debunked notion that workplace discrimination results in the 23-24% pay gap between men and women. Admittedly they do use some weasel words to hide what they're doing. They say women earn less than men for doing the same job. That could be true in some cases where the woman has fewer qualifications, less seniority, etc. but still holds the same job at lower pay as a better-qualified man.

But are they really claiming that that's what explains the pay gap? They don't say exactly, but that's the strong suggestion. Even former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich admits here that sex discrimination explains at most a small sliver of the pay gap (The New York Times, 5/1/08). But why would Patrick and Khan pay attention to the likes of him when they so casually ignore BLS statistics?

Meanwhile over at the feminist blog Feministing, we have this gem. The writer describes as the "kind of article that I like to see" a piece in the New York Times saying that the economic downturn may be so bad for men that women may actually surpass them in the labor force. She goes on to call that phenomenon "the light...in darkness."

For these feminists and some others I could name, economic devastation is a great opportunity to make good at the expense of men. And if all it takes is a little intellectual dishonesty to promote their righteous cause, well, that's nothing new.

I want men and women to have equal opportunities in the workplace. That means, among other things, that when one sex bears the vast majority of job losses, we stop making up facts and direct our resources at that sex and those jobs. That's called fairness and rationality. It's something Patrick, Khan, Albelda and Pollitt are having none of.

It is beyond disgraceful to see these people using economic catastrophe and disinformation to try to divert tax money away from men who are losing jobs at a record pace, toward women who aren't.

At long last, have they no shame?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Stockton Teacher Accused Of Sex With Student

The headline says "sex" with student. I want to know why it doesn't say "rapes" student.

Stockton Teacher Accused Of Sex With Student

STOCKTON, Calif. - A 24-year-old English teacher has been arrested after being accused of having sex with a 16-year-old student, Stockton police said.

Christina Oliver works at Ronald E. McNair High School in Stockton and is employed by the Lodi Unified School District, assistant Chief of Police Blair Ulring said.

Police said they got a call from a parent who said he thought his son was sexually involved with a teacher at the school.

Oliver was booked just after 2 a.m. Wednesday at the San Joaquin County Jail on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges. She is being held on $125,000 bail.

Pete Smith of the Stockton Police Department said the boy was a student of Oliver's, and that it's unclear how long the relationship lasted.

Police said the school district and staff at the high school have cooperated with the investigation.

In a statement, the school district said, "health and welfare of our students, but the school district is not rushing to judgment, however, we won't have the teacher in the classroom with kids."

Parents were alerted to the news by an automated message.

"I expect them to protect my children, not sexually assault them or go beyond the boundaries of an adult," parent Nellie Rigas said.

"It does surprise me. She's a good teacher, but it happens all the time. You hear it on the news all the time," student Ronnie Lawson said.

"I never thought she would do anything like that," student Eric Madison said.

Oliver, who is unmarried, worked at the school for two years.

She will appear in court on Friday.

'Hetero' gal benched 'for not being lesbian'

By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Brooke Heike

A former star basketball player is now suing Central Michigan University, claiming the school's basketball coach benched her and revoked her scholarship because she wore too much make-up and was not a lesbian.

Brooke Heike has filed a federal lawsuit against the college and its women's basketball coach, Sue Guevara, alleging discrimination by Guevara caused her emotional distress, physical injury and eventual loss of her athletic scholarship.

According to the Detroit News, Heike claims, "Throughout the 2007-08 season, defendant Guevara continued to subject plaintiff to unwelcome harassment and discrimination because of plaintiff's heterosexual preference and refusal to abandon her heterosexual preference and adopt a homosexual preference."

The paper says Heike, a 6-foot-2 forward, helped take Romeo High School to its league championship in her senior year after joining a team that went 1-17 when she was a freshman. She was named most valuable player and was recruited by the University of Michigan and other schools before accepting a scholarship from CMU.


Sue Guevara

The lawsuit claims that while Guevara was head coach at U-M, certain players who left the team cited Guevara's invasion of their personal lives, "such as being upset because they wore make-up or tight clothing or otherwise acted in a feminine way."

"CMU is familiar with the allegations, which are being made without merit," university spokesman Steve Smith told the Detroit News. "CMU will vigorously defend its position in court."

According to the Associated Press, Coach Guevara told an appeals committee last June, "I didn't feel that she (Heike) did anything to improve herself after being told over and over what she needed to do."

Heike reportedly played in 11 games as a freshman but only six in her sophomore season under Guevara.

"I had faith in CMU. I liked CMU. I wanted to give it everything I could," Heike told Guevara during the meeting on her appeal. "I wasn't going to give up. You gave up on me."

Heike has been attending community college since leaving campus, her lawyer, Cindy Rhodes Victor, told AP.

"She was so traumatized by the experience," Victor said.

Also named as defendants are Central Michigan University athletic director Dave Heeke, scholarship official Patricia Pickler and the university's board of trustees.

The suit seeks a jury trial and an unspecified cash award.

The case is already making waves across the Internet. One letter sent to the Washington Post says:

"You are a hero, Brooke. We all know what she is. Doesn't the coach realize that homosexuality is really just a distorted sense of power? Power to dominate subconsciously. She wants to be the alpha female which she expresses sexually. It's not love but power she seeks. If rape were legal she would most likely be a rapist. They both come from the same place in the brain. It's all about power expressed sexually."

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Dangers of Letting a Woman move in with You

Men, please consider the rights you may be giving up (like you ever really had any when it comes to women) if you let a woman/girlfriend move in with you, if only for a little while to help her out.

I know most men are big hearted.

From Edmonton Sun:

In a bizarre case before the courts, an Edmonton man has been forbidden from going to his own home while his girlfriend - whom he has told to get out - is still living there.

Todd Shandro, 36, went before a judge yesterday to try to resolve the situation, but he was told there were jurisdictional issues and he has to take the matter to civil court.

"It's very sick what is happening here," said a frustrated Shandro. "I am the sole owner of the house. The mortgage and title are in my name and she is essentially a squatter.

"It's ridiculous. The system doesn't seem to be working here and she is bending the law to her own advantage."

NO OVERLAP

The problem appears to be there is no overlap between civil matters such as land titles and home ownership and criminal matters where no-contact orders are issued.

Court heard yesterday that Shandro is charged with two counts of assault, one against the ex-girlfriend and one against her mother.

After his arrest, a justice of the peace released Shandro on $500 bail and issued a no-contact order barring him from going within five blocks of his home near 102 Street and 113 Avenue.

The JP also ordered that Shandro could revisit the residence issue by bringing his ownership documents to court.

However, Shandro has twice appeared before a judge to amend the bail conditions, with both a lawyer and the documents showing he owns the home, but to no avail.

And the same thing happened again yesterday.

"All we want is to amend the bail conditions so I can live in my own home," said Shandro.

Court heard Shandro and his ex had been dating for more than a year when he invited her to move in to the home on a "trial" basis approximately eight months ago.

In October, Shandro realized he wanted to end the relationship with his girlfriend and asked her to leave, said defence lawyer Chady Moustarah.

"She said 'no, I'm not leaving', " said Moustarah, adding Shandro repeatedly tried to get her to leave.

On Dec. 5 he came home from work and found both his ex and her mother there and asked them both to leave. When they refused, he went to a pub and had a couple of drinks, said Moustarah.

ALLEGED ASSAULT

He returned and again asked them to go and the mother told him to go to the bedroom and lie down.

He again left, but quickly returned and demanded they leave, which is when the assault allegedly happened, said Moustarah.

He told the judge the ex-girlfriend says she is fearful of Shandro, but questioned why she is then staying at his house.

"It doesn't make sense," said Moustarah. "Essentially she is a squatter. She is trespassing."

The Crown told court the girlfriend has been paying bills and said she wants to remain in the home because she has two children and they go to a nearby elementary school.

Justice Stephen Hillier ruled the matter should go to civil court and adjourned the bail review to March 2.

Teacher Accused Of Having Sexual Relationships


Article follows

Why is it when a female teacher has sex with students its "sexual relationship".
When a male teacher does it its "rape".
I don't think I've ever seen a female teacher and rape in the same headline- WTF!!!



A Rittman High School teacher was arraigned in Wayne County court Monday, accused of having sexual relationships with students.

Erin Speicher, 34, of Orrville, was arrested at her home on Sunday. She was charged with sexual battery. Rittman Police Chief Mike Burg said the investigation began when word about inappropriate conduct with male students came to light.Burg said all the alleged incidents took place at Speicher's home.

Police believe there were multiple incidents and multiple victims.NewsChannel5's Bob Jones said that Speicher is married and has two children.

She is being held in the Wayne County jail on a $75,000 bond.Rittman police, the Rittman School District, the Wayne County prosecutor and Wayne County Children's Services are investigating.

Violence Against Men

Texan who died in prison cleared of rape conviction

CNN) -- A Texas district court judge Friday reversed the conviction of a man who died in prison nearly a decade ago, almost two decades into a prison sentence for a rape he swore he did not commit, CNN affiliate KXAN reported.
Timothy Cole died in prison while serving a sentence for a rape DNA tests show he did not commit.

Timothy Cole died in prison while serving a sentence for a rape DNA tests show he did not commit

Timothy Cole was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for the 1985 rape of 20-year-old Michele Mallin. He maintained his innocence, but it was not confirmed by DNA until years after his 1999 death, when another inmate confessed to the rape.

In the courtroom of Judge Charlie Baird Friday afternoon, Mallin, now 44, faced Jerry Johnson, the man who confessed to the rape.

"What you did to me, you had no right to do," she told him angrily, according to Austin's KXAN. "You've got no right to do that to any woman. I am the one with the power now, buddy."

Cole's family also addressed Johnson.

"He'll never have the chance to have children," Cole's mother, Ruby Session, said. "I want you to know he was a fine young man."

Johnson has been in prison since 1985 on two convictions for aggravated sexual assault, according to the Texas Department of Corrections. He was given a life sentence for the rape of a 15-year-old girl, and a jury later tacked on a 99-year sentence for another rape, according to the Lubbock, Texas, Avalanche-Journal. He cannot be charged with the Mallin case, as the statute of limitations has expired.

Johnson also spoke Friday.

"I am responsible," he said. "I say I am truly sorry."

Then a student at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Mallin was walking to her car, intending to move it to another parking lot, when a man approached her asking about jumper cables, she said. In a matter of seconds, he put her in a choke hold and held a knife to her neck. He forced himself into her car and drove her to the outskirts of town, where he raped her.

The next day, police investigators showed Mallin pictures of possible suspects. She chose a picture of Cole and said he was her attacker. She later identified him in a physical lineup, according to the Innocence Project of Texas.

"I was positive," she said. "I really thought it was him."

But there was one detail: Mallin told police her attacker was a smoker. "He was smoking the entire time."

Cole, who suffered from severe asthma, "was never a smoker," said his brother, Cory Session. "He took daily medications [for asthma] when he was younger."

"He was the sacrificial lamb. To them, my brother was the Tech rapist, there was no backtracking. It was the trial of the decade for Lubbock."

The "Tech rapist" attacked four women other than Mallin -- abducting them in parking lots near campus and driving them to a vacant location, where he would rape them and flee on foot, according to the Innocence Project of Texas. The rapist "terrorized" the Texas Tech campus in the mid-1980s, the organization said.

Cole, like Mallin, was a student at Texas Tech. He had finished two years of college previously and was returning to school after spending two years in the Army, his brother said.

But his dreams of getting married and having children never materialized. He was arrested and charged with Mallin's rape, declining a plea bargain offer that would have put him on probation. A jury convicted him and imposed a 25-year sentence.

That night, "he hugged my mother and he said, 'Mother, why these people lie on me, why they do this to me?'" Cole's brother Reggie Session recounted for the Avalanche-Journal, which published a three-part series on the case in June.

"He said, 'They know I ain't done nothing to that girl. I don't even know that girl. Why they do this to me, mother?' ... He cried in my mother's arms on the floor."

Later, while in prison, Cole rejected an offer of parole that would have required him to admit guilt. "His greatest wish was to be exonerated and completely vindicated," his mother, Ruby Session, told KXAN.

But the asthma that plagued Cole throughout his life brought about his death on December 2, 1999. The cause was determined to be heart complications due to his asthmatic condition. He was 39.

It was 2007 when a letter addressed to Cole arrived at his family's home, written by Johnson. Read the letter »

"You may recall my name from your 1986 rape trial in Lubbock," says the letter, dated May 11, 2007. "Your Lubbock attorney, Mike Brown, tried to show I committed the rape.

"I have been trying to locate you since 1995 to tell you I wish to confess I did in fact commit the rape Lubbock wrongly convicted you of. It is very possible that through a written confession from me and DNA testing, you can finally have your name cleared of the rape ... if this letter reaches you, please contact me by writing so that we can arrange to take the steps to get the process started. Whatever it takes, I will do it."

Johnson did not know Cole had died. In fact, according to the Avalanche-Journal, he had been writing to court officials for years to confess to the rape, but got nowhere.

Upon finding out that Cole was dead, Johnson wrote he "cried and felt double guilty, even though I know the system's at fault," according to the Avalanche-Journal.

"A day later, I am still bothered, terribly, by the death revelation. Because, not knowing Mr. Cole at all, I wonder if the wrongful incarceration contributed to his death."

The Innocence Project became involved after Cole's family received Johnson's letter. DNA tests confirmed that Johnson was Mallin's attacker. Now, Cole's family hopes the court hearing will be the final step in clearing his name.

Mallin is helping them. "I was very traumatized," she said. "I was scared for my life. I tried my hardest to remember what he looked like.

Feminism is much more dangerous than Hitler

In a model not unlike Hitler or fascism, feminists and attorneys established feminism as a master model of living, split the human race into two halves (women vs. men), and instigated a brutal civil war pitting common people against each other. The fact is that many millions of women, men, and children have suffered great pain, poverty, economic plunder, murder of each other, economic abuse, and imprisonment for merely being poor. The amount of child abuse and neglect occuring in America makes China look quite civilized in comparison.

Feminism is much more dangerous than Hitler because in fascist class warfare there are no tanks, an Auschwitz, or mass graves to point to. The results are visible everywhere: poverty, child abuse and neglect, overfilled prisons, gang violence, and men, women, and children murdering each other. Its on page one of your local newspaper every day, if you care to understand its significance.

Feminism has controlled America for over forty years. During this time period, every social indicator measuring the well-being of women and children has declined substantially. Marriage remains the most likely safe haven for living the American dream."

Anyone wondering why marriage is passé and illegitimacy is at record levels can find the answer in the recent case of the unmarried California mother with six test-tube children who just launched octuplets with the help of an unethical feminist fertility clinic.

Why would she do this? Because she gets about eight times more welfare than women who merely shake down the welfare system one kid at a time. The mother admitted she did it because she “got paid for it“. In addition to a load of welfare the mother is entitled to, the sperm donor will be facing a whacking child support order if his identity is known. This forgets to mention that she wants $2M from Oprah for an interview.

The final defeat of the ERA June 30,1982 did not mark an end to the pogrom of feminist activism. It just meant feminists had to change their game. Instead of demanding vague equal rights, they began hawking hyper-sexist victim-fear campaigns designed to achieve the same ends targeted in the ERA. The 2008 elections prove this chicanery has been horrendously successful.

Post-ERA Lesbians and gays magically became victims of their genetic proclivities and supposed oppressors. Feminists began to make allegations of sexual improprieties against anyone who disagreed with them — blackmailing politicians into granting feminists the very economic rights, civil unions, and same-sex marriages that brought the ERA down.

“Trapped” housewives fearfully excommunicated themselves from the safe-haven of marriage, convinced that husbands are unnecessary rapists or abusers. A woman’s right to be supported and cared for by her husband became an ongoing public entitlement burden to be supported by Congress and screaming taxpayers. The mutilated beggar children highlighted in Slumdog Millionaire have their American counterparts — leveraged away from one or both parents by feminist policy and then used to beg for more marriage-destructive entitlements.

Post-ERA feminist legal scams such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) were marched through Congress by feminist trial lawyers in 1996. The legal trade profits immensely by destroying the marriages and futures of America’s women. VAWA destroys marriage on allegation alone. This is why lawyers in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) automatically pass anything that A.B.A. feminists want.


Politics have changed in the post-ERA era. To restore America’s ethical, economic and social dynamism to a level worthy of world leadership, two things must be done:

First: Feminism has controlled America for over forty years. During this time period, every social indicator measuring the well-being of women and children has declined substantially. Marriage remains the most likely safe haven for living the American dream. We must constantly remind women of this truth.

Second: Conservatives must formulate and aggressively socialize attractive pro-family “Marriage Values” policies, get them passed in the states, and later in Congress.

The National Organization for Women has a freight train of radical legislation set for passage. With über-feminists Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the National Organization of Women running the White House, Congress fearfully passing anything feminists want, and 2010 another impending Waterloo, the RNC must make “Marriage Values” its top priority yesterday.






Monday, February 9, 2009

Deerfield mom charged after slitting daughter's wrists, her own

Deerfield mom charged after slitting daughter's wrists, her own

DEERFIELD BEACH - A mother accused of slitting her young daughter's wrists and then her own early this morning has been charged with attempted murder, the Broward Sheriff's Office said.

The 40-year-old woman and her daughter, age 6 or 7, are listed in stable condition at area hospitals and expected to live, said Sheriff's Office spokesman Veda Coleman-Wright.

SunSentinel.com is not identifying the mother or daughter.

The woman's husband, who also is the child's father, found the two victims when he came home and called 911 at 3:08 a.m.

Woman arrested for stabbing boyfriend in the head

Orange County deputies arrested a woman this weekend for allegedly stabbing her longtime boyfriend in the head.

Deputies were called to the Orange County home about 4:45 p.m. Saturday and found the 48-year-old victim bleeding from the back of the head.

The victim told deputies his live-in girlfriend, Donna Pittman, 56, stabbed him in the head, reports show. The victim was taken Orlando Regional Medical Center for treatment.

Deputies confiscated the knife used in the stabbing as evidence and arrested Pittman. She was charged with attempted second degree murder with a deadly weapon, records show.

From Welfare State to Police State

Family fragmentation costs taxpayers at least $112 billion annually in antipoverty programs, justice and education systems, and lost revenue, according to a report released last week. Astonishingly, the report’s publisher, Institute for American Values, is using these findings to advocate even higher costs, through more federal programs.

As welfare and child support enforcement programs show, there is zero proof that further government intervention into families would be a good investment for taxpayers.

After more than a decade of welfare reform, out-of-wedlock births remain at record highs, and married couples now comprise less than half the nation’s households. “The impact of welfare reform is now virtually zero,” says Robert Rector of Heritage Foundation.

Welfare reform, as currently conceived, cannot possibly make a difference. Out-of-wedlock births no longer proceed only from low-income teenagers. Increasingly, middle-class, middle-aged women are bearing the fatherless children. This excludes children of divorce, which almost doubles the 1.5 million out-of-wedlock births.

The problem is driven not only by culture, but by federal programs not addressed by welfare reform—such as child support enforcement, domestic violence, and child abuse prevention—which subsidize single-parent homes through their quasi-welfare entitlements for the affluent.

It’s not called the welfare “state” for nothing. Even more serious than the economic effects has been the quiet metamorphosis of welfare from a system of public assistance into a miniature penal apparatus, replete with its own tribunals, prosecutors, police, and jails.

The subsidy on single-mother homes was never really curtailed. Reformers largely replaced welfare with child support. The consequences were profound: this change transformed welfare from public assistance into law enforcement, creating yet another federal plainclothes police force without constitutional justification.

Like any bureaucracy, this one found rationalizations to expand. During the 1980s and 1990s—without explanation or public debate—enforcement machinery created for children in poverty was dramatically expanded to cover all child-support cases, including those not receiving welfare.

This vastly expanded the program by bringing in millions of middle-class divorce cases. The system was intended for welfare—but other cases now account for 83% of its cases and 92% of the money collected.

Contrary to what was promised, the cost to taxpayers increased sharply. By padding their rolls with millions of middle-class parents, state governments could collect a windfall of federal incentive payments. State officials may spend this revenue however they wish. Federal taxpayers subsidize state government operations through child support. They also subsidize family dissolution, for every fatherless child is another source of revenue for states.

To collect, states must channel not just delinquent but current payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, subjecting law-abiding parents to criminal measures. While officials claim their crackdowns on “deadbeat dads” increase collections, the “increase” is achieved not by collecting arrearages of low-income fathers already in the system, but simply by pulling in more middle-class fathers—and creating more fatherless children.

These fathers haven’t abandoned their children. Most were actively involved, and, following what is usually involuntary divorce, desire more time with them. Yet for the state to collect funding, fathers willing to care for them must be designated as “absent.” Divorce courts are pressured to cut children off from their fathers to conform to the welfare model of “custodial” and “noncustodial.” These perverse incentives further criminalize fathers, by impelling states to make child-support levels as onerous as possible and to squeeze every dollar from every parent available.

Beyond the subsidy expense are costs of diverting the criminal justice system from protecting society to criminalizing parents and keeping them from their children. The entitlement state must then devise additional programs—far more expensive—to deal with the social costs of fatherless children. Former Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary Wade Horn contends that most of the $47 billion spent by his department is necessitated by broken homes and fatherless children. One might extend his point to most of the half-trillion dollar HHS budget. Given the social ills attributed to fatherless homes—crime, truancy, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide—it is reasonable to see a huge proportion of domestic spending among the costs.

These developments offer a preview of where our entire system of welfare taxation is headed: expropriating citizens to pay for destructive programs that create the need for more spending and taxation. It cannot end anywhere but in the criminalization of more and more of the population.


Stephen Baskerville is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College, and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).

Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father”

Article here. Excerpt:

'While the topic I have chosen here, “Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father” may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights.

A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.
...
So where are all these well-reasoned arguments when it comes to a father and his unborn child? Why do people who have Equal Protection claims at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

Mom Cooks me in the Oven

Story here. Excerpt:

'HAMTRAMCK -- The license plate in the window of the family Cadillac reads "Best Dad." But a 4-year-old girl told police Mom wasn't nearly so kind.

"Mom cooks me like a turkey in the oven," she told police.

Hamtramck cops stumbled onto the graphic allegations of burnings, beatings and torture after the girl's mother phoned police Jan. 23 and confessed to "harming her children," Detective Ben Bielecki said Thursday.
...
Police said Valentino's husband, Randy, wasn't home and there's no evidence that he abused their children.

After the incident, Valentino called police about 3 p.m. to come get her.

"She said she is harming her family," Bielecki said. "It's extreme. It's an awful thing that's happened. I just hope she doesn't get custody of the kids -- ever."'

Friday, February 6, 2009

Girl did this to me on a one-night stand


Incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!

HORRIFIED Wayne Robinson yesterday showed for the first time the tattoos a girl carved on him as he slept after a night of lust.



The Sun told last week how pretty Dominique Fisher was convicted of wounding for slashing her name on Wayne, 24, with a Stanley knife as he lay in a drunken sleep.

As he displayed the permanent scars, he said: “I went to her place for sex, not to be tattooed. I look like something out of the TV show Prison Break. I can’t believe she did this to me and I hate her.”

Wayne, of Fleetwood, Lancs, met Dominique during a night out in nearby Blackpool and she invited him to go to her flat in Blackburn next day.

Cut up ... Wayne Robinson has the marks for life

Cut up ... Wayne Robinson has the marks for life

Jeff Morris

They enjoyed a boozed-up night of sex. But when he woke in the morning he found she had carved “Dominique” on his right shoulder.

He also had multiple slashes on his left shoulder and arm and a star design on his back.

Blood

Wayne was so drunk he had not felt a thing. He went to hospital for painkillers but is stuck with the marks because he cannot afford laser treatment to remove them.

He said: “I can’t believe I didn’t wake up at the time. But to be honest I couldn’t even remember having sex with her. She told me we did it in different positions.

He went on: “She looked really good in the club and we got on well. She asked me to spend the weekend at her flat.

One-night stand gone wrong ... Dominique and Wayne Robinson

One-night stand gone wrong ... Dominique and Wayne

Jeff Morris

“I said yes straight away. It was clear she meant to have sex.

“When I woke I was covered in blood. Dominique was snoring. I just had to get out of there. I didn’t even wake her to ask what she’d done.”

During her two-day trial at Preston Crown Court, Dominique, who has eight tattoos herself, claimed Wayne asked her to cut the marks into him.

But he said yesterday: “There is no way I’d ever agree to that.

“I’m scarred for life. I wish I’d never met her. I thought I was going there for a good time and if I’d known what was going to happen I’d never have gone near her flat.”

Dominique is due to be sentenced later this month.

Woman Convicted of Poisoning Husband

Woman Convicted of Poisoning Husband, Harming Daughter

SYRACUSE, N.Y. — An upstate New York woman was convicted Thursday of murdering her husband by poisoning him with antifreeze and then trying to kill and frame her daughter for the death.

An Onondaga County jury found Stacey Castor, 41, guilty of second-degree murder in the poisoning death of her husband, David, in August 2005. She was also found guilty of attempted second-degree murder for trying to kill daughter Ashley Wallace, then 20, with an overdose of drugs and vodka in September 2007.

"If there is a ceiling in terms of evil, she (Castor) is at the ceiling," District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said.

"Justice was served," said David Castor Jr., the husband's son by a previous marriage.

Defense attorney Charles Keller said he would appeal the verdict, adding that his client was "disappointed, and that's probably the least of it."

In September 2007, Castor was accused of murdering her second husband, David Castor, after Cayuga County investigators exhumed the body of Michael Wallace, her first husband and the father of her two children.

Prosecutors said Castor used a kitchen baster to give the antifreeze to David Castor over a four-day period, and then staged the scene to make it appear a suicide.

The death of Wallace's first husband had been ruled a heart attack, but after the exhumation, authorities also ruled the death a homicide caused by ingesting ethylene glycol, a toxic chemical found in antifreeze.

Castor has not been charged in Wallace's death, but prosecutors used evidence surrounding it to build their case against her. Keller said he would challenge the judge's decision to allow the evidence about Wallace's death.

Fitzpatrick said Castor wrote a bogus suicide note for her daughter and wanted authorities to think the young woman killed herself after confessing to killing her stepfather. Castor was accused of drugging her daughter with sleeping pills and using a teaspoon to feed her vodka and a mix of prescription pills over a 17-hour period.

Wallace survived and testified against her mother. She left the courthouse sobbing but did not comment.

Castor faces 25 years to life in prison for the murder and another 25 years for the attempt on her daughter's life. Sentencing was set for March 5.

Killer Moms are not Uncommon

Letter to the editor here.

'The horrific killing by Penny Boudreau of her 12-year-old daughter, looking into the child's eyes while strangling her, should make us both shudder and consider. While this cold-blooded killing is extreme by any standard, a large sample study of child deaths in the United States showed that mothers were involved 60% of the time and acted alone as the perpetrator in one-third of the killings.

Despite this, governments have ministries for women and children and universities have faculties of women and children -- all designed to further the myth that the greatest risk to children comes from men, and specifically fathers. The research statistics suggest otherwise.'

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Lesbian DV "Impossible"

As one lesbian said in my study, the feminist analysis used by the domestic violence agency she volunteered at not only made her abuse "invisible, it made it impossible."

Here's an interesting article about a study of domestic violence in lesbian couples (Off Our Backs, 10/01). Its findings include the fact that DV shelters for women often simply deny services to lesbian victims of DV. It seems the workers there just can't wrap their minds around the concept of female perpetrators of DV, even when the victim is a woman. They'll tell you they're all about protecting women who are victims of DV, but apparently that's only true when the perp (or claimed perp) is a male. Some of the lurid case histories in the piece show the need for women's shelters to change their ways.

In short, this article and the study it's based on come uncomfortably (for some) close to revealing that DV shelters are as much about demonizing men as they are about helping women. That's not news, of course, as anyone who's read Erin Pizzey's experiences with feminist true believers knows. But it's further corroboration. (Here's a link to a short description by Pizzey of her early DV efforts. If you don't know her work, please check it out.)

Don't get me wrong, this article makes no reference to female DV against men. Despite the quotation above, it still manages to advocate a "feminist" view of relationships and DV. It accepts the feminist notion that DV is all about power - the control by one partner of the other. It doesn't even consider the possibility that DV results from personality disorders that can be treated therapeutically.

So it more or less stumbles across the truth about the domestic violence industry, but it's the truth nevertheless.

Another Rape and DV Double Standard

The Dallas Police Department is fed up with false claims so it has implemented a new procedure. Read about it here.(WFAA.com, 1/21/2009.) According to the news account: "There is going to be a lot more responsibility placed on the victim to tell the whole story," said Rob Sherwin, Dallas Police Department.

The example the police cited that led to the change in procedure is the case of "a man who claimed he was robbed by two unknown females, who he said demanded his vehicle at gunpoint." Originally, according to the news account, "police called it a case of aggravated robbery. But after further investigation, the suspect told officers he was actually picking up prostitutes."

Under the new policy, police won't automatically label such an incident a "robbery" but "they'll call it an investigation of a crime and the alleged victim will be required to come in and talk with a detective."

The lone exceptions to this new procedure are mentioned in the very last sentence of the story. They are not very difficult to guess: rape and domestic violence.

Now tell me, what is the difference between a rape or domestic violence claim and the example given by police, above, that involved a garden-variety "he said-she said" robbery claim? The police touted that false robbery claim as an example of why they are tightening their procedures.

Let me see: could the difference be the gender of the typical claimant? After all, despite the fact that men in significant numbers are victims of rape and domestic violence, it is women who report the vast majority of alleged rapes and domestic violence incidents to police.

Could it be that even suggesting that women sometimes lie about rape or domestic violence is politically verboten (at least so long as women are accusing a male and not recanting a claim that accused a male)? Could it be that adopting a policy that either such claim requires further investigation before they could be declared a "crime" would subject the police department to angry protests?

It is ironic that the police are tightening their procedures with respect to every alleged crime except the two where false accusations are most rampant -- and most destructive to one, and only one, class of citizens: males.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

STAY-AT-HOME DADS ARE WORTH $125,340 A YEAR

According to a 2007 survey, 37% of working fathers would quit their job to become a stay-at-home dad . . . if they could afford to do it.

But that begs the question: Just how much is a stay-at-home dad worth?

Well, according to a website called Salary.com, when you factor in tasks like cooking, cleaning, teaching, and working as a child psychologist . . . a stay-at-home dad is worth $125,340 a year. (CNN)

Unbiased "Pay Gap"

Recognizing the importance of unbiased research on the pay gap, the Labor Department recently contracted with CONSAD Research Corporation for a review of more than 50 existing studies as well as a new economic and statistical analysis of the pay gap. CONSAD’s Report, which was finalized on January 12, 2009, found that the vast majority of the pay gap is due to several identifiable factors and that the remainder may be due to other specific factors they were not able to measure.

CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.

The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

The Labor Department’s new report is clearly an important contribution to the debate over pay equity. But where is it? Although it was posted on the Labor Department’s web site just days after it was finalized, it was apparently removed as the transition in power was occurring between former President Bush and President Obama. We don’t know why the report was taken down, but certainly the timing is suspicious.

Monday, February 2, 2009

First Wives Club a Disgrace

When the movie “First Wives Club” came out in the fall of 1996, the men’s movement had never done a multi-city protest. The internet was new and the possibilities endless. Within 10 days a 25-city protest was organized that recieved a historic quantity of national attention.

Our point was not to urge a boycott of the movie, but to do an informational picket at movie theaters everywhere reminding people that the movie was not a comedy — rather — it was the best documentary ever filmed on sexism in America.

As it turned out, a lot of people in media and the theaters we picketed agreed with us. Some movie reviewers rated it that way. You can see articles reporting our efforts in Time Magazine and the Washington Post (which agreed with us).

For those who have not seen “First Wives Club”, here is the basic plot line: Three women who have supposedly been abused by their husbands terrorize them, steal their money, kill their businesses, destroy their lives, and abuse them in just about every way imaginable. The husbands in the movie are portrayed as nice guys who apparently never did anything wrong and are shocked at what is going on.

First Wives Club is truly a sick attempt to popularize Valerie Solanis’s ultra-radical hate of men with a sour candy coating. It is raw sexism equivalent to views once held by the Ku Klux Klan towards blacks.

Our protesting was quite successful. The movie did not last long in the theaters, despite the huge opening. The uproar caused Universal to cancel the sequel which was already scripted and headed to pre-production.

Unfortunately, theatrical feminists in San Diego have not learned their lesson. The Old Globe Theater is resurrecting a theatrical version of this diatribe, opening July 15 and running through August 23.

We need a dedicated group of activists in the San Diego area to contact the Globe management, express these truths, and then leaflet the dickens out of the Globe every possible night educating the public about the indefensible hate this play attempts to profit from.

The only difference between racism and sexism is the target of hate. Anybody who thinks hate is funny needs a good lesson in their face until they get it right.

Manly Men near extinct

'Last April, the Telegraph published the results of a survey that should have infuriated all self-respecting British. The study highlighted “the extent to which men have had to change within one or two generations.” It also revealed how emasculated British males have become.

Over half of the men polled thought that society was turning them into “waxed and coiffed metrosexuals.” Fifty-two percent said they had to live according to women’s rules. Men said they “felt handcuffed” by political correctness, and two thirds openly admitted that they felt they could not speak freely and had to conceal their opinions.
...
“Manly men” have been “hunted to near-extinction in the British Isles,” says historian Neil Oliver. “There’s been some kind of politically correct revolution where we’ve forgotten—or discarded—the value of being manly men.”'