Myths of Male Rape

There are numerous frequently accepted myths about male rape and in all probability more so than there are about female rape. These myths have the effect of minimizing the gravity of the crime, and the accountability of the perpetrator.

These myths about male rape also have an effect on the way men think about themselves when they have been assaulted, and, sadly, the way those men are treated by many other individuals.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

Ten Steps to Help Men You'll Never Meet

1. Understand that violence (in all it's forms) against men is as damaging to ourselves, our loved ones, and society in general as it is to women.
   
   
2. Recognise that female power is upheld through (practically) legal immunity and false allegations of abuse, rape, or other hideous crimes.
   
   
   
3. Cease turning a blind eye to misandry - You wouldn't want it said of your Father or Son, would you?
   
   
4. Help & support organisations that help men.
   
   
5. Create and maintain none-profit groups, child care for Father & children/babies, assist with housing where necessary and implement training for men to get into worth while careers so they may support their family with less government intrusion/welfare.
   
   
6. Provide justice for men who need and deserve it.
   
   
7. Make women accountable for their illegal activities (child/elder abuse/neglect, drug/drink habits, false allegations, etc.)
   
   
   
8. Cease demonizing men - no more 'must have been a mans fault, somehow...' comments, boycott television programmes that purposely misrepresent men/fathers, and similarly boycott products that use misandry in their advertising campaigns.
   
   
9. Contact your local MP's and demand some form of secure funding for a specific men's group you know of. We need to get political.
   
   
10. Listen to the men who have lived through the hell of divorce (stripped of children, home, pension, etc.) false allegations (stripped of social circle, standing, respect, etc.) or other situations which have cost them greatly.
    
    
    

What campus rape crisis?

What campus rape crisis? by Heather Mac Donald

It's a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic -- but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No. It means, according to campus sexual-assault organizations, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

It is a central claim of these organizations that between a fifth and a quarter of all college women will be raped or will be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years. Harvard's Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response uses the 20% to 25% statistic. Websites at New York University, Syracuse University, Penn State and the University of Virginia, among many other places, use the figures as well.

And who will be the assailants of these women? Not terrifying strangers who will grab them in dark alleys, but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

If the one-in-four statistic is correct, campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No felony, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20% or 25%, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in the U.S., was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants -- a rate of 2.4%.

Such a crime wave -- in which millions of young women would graduate having suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience -- would require nothing less than a state of emergency. Admissions policies, which if the numbers are true are allowing in tens of thousands of vicious criminals, would require a complete revision, perhaps banning male students entirely. The nation's nearly 10 million female undergraduates would need to take the most stringent safety precautions.

None of this crisis response occurs, of course -- because the crisis doesn't exist.

So where do the numbers come from? During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results -- very few women said that they had been. So Ms. magazine commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way to measure the prevalence of rape.

Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had ever experienced actions that she then classified as rape. One question, for example, asked, "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" -- a question that is ambiguous on several fronts, including the woman's degree of incapacitation, the causal relation between being given a drink and having sexual intercourse, and the man's intentions. Koss' method produced the 25% rate, which Ms. then published.

It was a flawed study on a number of levels, but the most powerful refutation came from her own subjects: 73% of the women whom the study characterized as rape victims told the researchers that they hadn't been raped. Further, 42% of the study's supposed victims said they had had intercourse again with their alleged assailants -- though it is highly unlikely that a raped woman would have sex again with the fiend who attacked her.

Why Equal Rights Amendement Failed

Excerpt from "Time to Scale Back the Pedestal" by Carey Roberts

Full article here

Some will recall that back in October 1971, the House of Representatives approved the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed by an overwhelming 354-24 margin. Everyone knew it was just a matter of months until the necessary 38 states came on board.

But four months later, Phyllis Schlafly penned her history-altering essay, “What’s Wrong with Equal Rights for Women?” Schlafly pointed out that American women are the most privileged of all classes of people that ever lived: “We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties.”

Abundant rights and rewards, with fewer duties – that’s the pedestal.

Schlafly then posed the question, “Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That one sentence spelled the demise of the ERA. In the end, it was wrath of millions of American women who, fearing the loss of that special privilege, brought down the Equal Rights Amendment.

After the ERA heaved its last breath in 1979, feminists bitterly accused Mrs. Schlafly of “hating” women. But in truth the bra-burners took their next cue from the conservative icon.

This was their ploy: Instead of striving for mere equality, why not seek to expand women’s special privileges – all the while claiming to be working for equality? And that proved to be the winning formula.

THE CRIME ONLY A WOMAN CAN COMMIT

PATERNITY FRAUD - THE CRIME ONLY A WOMAN CAN COMMIT

Article here

DID A FEMALE SOCIOPATH SCAM YOU WITH CHILD SUPPORT?

No money disbursed without DNA first!”

For her, once is a fault, twice is culpable irresponsibility and any more than that is disgustingly shameful! At any rate, the number is not always significant, but could be as important as the crime itself. When discovered, Paternity Fraud should be punishable by imprisonment.

Face it, fraud is fraud and it doesn’t make any difference if it’s corporate, love or marital. When caught and there’s a DNA substantiation that this baby does not belong to mom’s husband, boyfriend or current partner, and these men were continually paying heavily out of their pockets, then there needs to be some jail time. This would also include artificial insemination, without the donors’ permission or in other words, sperm theft. The mom who duped the guy into paying for children he did not father should be put into the slammer, no question.

While she is serving her term, which should be a minimum of one year, per count, (1 child=1 year, 2 children=2 years, etc.), any money she makes while working within the prison system, should be given to the ex-husband, partner or defiled donor. It would be either to start paying back the ‘payer’ or to help support the children. Why would the fact that ‘she is the mother of those children’ have anything to do with her serving an established sentence? She did not show regard for either the husband or the children, so it’s a little late to claim she was merely considering the welfare of the children, isn’t it? Where was her concern for the welfare of the children when she deprived them not only of the love and company of the father they had known, but also of their real, albeit sometimes obviously, undeserving of it father?

She was the one who was completely reckless, not the partner; so why didn’t she tell him she was unhappy, or just end the marriage or relationship before any pregnancies. In fact, if the woman finds it that difficult to confide her feelings to her man, then why have any relationship or get married at all?

If this was a sperm theft, then she should be locked up permanently. However, this isn’t possible, but she should get ample time, no less than five years, in the slammer for a grand theft, so she will reconsider and learn from what she has done. What she’s achieved would be the same as stealing a man’s body part, for Pete’s sake!

When women cheat on their husbands, thousands upon thousands of them do not take precautions. WHY? For too many years, men have been paying child support for children they have not fathered, and it’s spreading like a bad disease of the female psyche.

The wives have duped their spouses into signing anywhere from one to five birth certificates. Then, the women get tired of their partners, they hightail it to a lawyer to begin divorce proceedings. Dad must then ‘own up’ to his responsibility of supporting the children. Depending on how many there are, this could cost him nearly all of his hard-earned paycheck, a hefty divorce settlement, his 401K and everything he had put away for a rainy day. Well guys, put away your umbrellas because if the battle is fought properly the payload and payback could be sweet.

If any man recalls the old saying, “The squeakiest wheel gets the oil” then the necessary steps are at the fingertips of the lawmakers. I do have one question, though. Where is the ACLU when men really need them? Shouldn’t they be protesting on Capitol Hill somewhere, for MENS RIGHTS? Where ARE these people when men really need them? They sure squawk for everyone else’s rights. Why not MENS PATERNITY RIGHTS? Com’on gentlemen, they’re not doing their jobs over there, and men are still in turmoil about this issue. If some men are sitting back doing nothing, then they ARE taking the path of least resistance.

Mandatory DNA, live birth testing should be made binding across the nation. It should begin in Washington and proceed to each state. In the meantime, the dad who has been deceived, is now left standing on the heavy end of justice scales, while mom stays at home, pretending she is the helpless, hopeless victim of a bad marriage. She runs to the officials of the Friend of the Court, Family Court and Child Support Agencies whining about what she does not have, and they actually believe her.

It is just so astonishing that suddenly she is so concerned about the welfare of her children, but she could have cared less when she decided to deprive them of the company of their father. On the other hand, is their DAD REALLY THEIR DAD, or did mommy actually run away from dad before he found out the children were not his? First and foremost, ‘DNA before you pay.’

Give her jail instead, for jumping into his bed!”

She had the itch, so it’s jail for the witch!”

The Modern Day Debtor’s Prison for Dads

The Modern Day Debtor’s Prison for Dads

By Denise Noe
Link to Article

Think “debtor’s prison” and the mind automatically reels back to the 19th Century and the horrors depicted so powerfully by Charles Dickens. Indeed, even the idea of debtor’s prison is apt to strike modern minds as primitive at its base since how is someone in prison supposed to get the funds to pay off a debt? Debtor’s prison seems barbaric since it can criminalize poverty. It is easy for we moderns to congratulate ourselves on coming out of the confused and confusing worldview that led to something as brutal and counterproductive as debtor’s prison.

Except that debtor’s prison is in fact alive and sick and politically popular in contemporary America. It is known as a crackdown on “deadbeat dads.” Indeed, the common alliterative term “deadbeat dads’ is used because much of our child support system is built upon a single model of a non-custodial parent in arrears, that of the feckless, irresponsible father. That stereotype was not woven out of whole cloth as there are indeed men who father children, could easily support them, and simply choose to avoid their obligations.

However, there are many so-called “deadbeat dads” who do not pay their full court-ordered child support simply because they cannot. Our present legal system makes criminals out of them even when their failure is for reasons that are no fault of their own.

The Bradley Amendment, named after its originator Senator Bill Bradley, was passed by Congress in 1986 to further the cause of child support collection and render child support collection laws uniform across the United States. It automatically puts in a non-expiring lien on non-custodial parents, the vast majority of whom are fathers, whenever child support is past due. The Bradley Amendment does not permit judicial discretion and requires child support payments be made regardless of the obligor’s physical capability.

The Wikipedia reports that the Bradley Amendment has led to some breathtaking injustices against fathers: “A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.

A Texas man was wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.”

The above are horror stories. But on a day-to-day basis, our child support enforcement makes criminals out of men who are doing their best and still not making it. The Wikipedia cites Ford Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy as finding that between 16-33% of obligors are “turnip dads” who earn less than $130 per week.

In our enthusiasm to ensure that children are adequately supported, we have adopted measures as crazy as trying to squeeze blood from turnips and far more inhumane since they in fact oppress human beings, usually men, on the grounds of their poverty.

The best Father’s Day present we can give to America’s struggling dads is to end our modern day debtor’s prison as it applies to those who are legitimately unable to meet their court-ordered child support payments.

Teacher Gets Six Years in Jail for Sex With Five Teen Boys

The story reports she was originally facing 60 years in jail total, but the judge reduced it to six (of course).

One comment:

"Typical. If a man had raped 5 teenage girls he would have been sentenced for much, much longer. But a woman raping young boys does not receive the same level of attention or reprimand. She is a sexual deviant and justice has again been denied."

Video report here.

Liberties of Female Violence

Liberties of Female Violence
Link to article

Excerpt below:

The hypocrisy at work here would be hilarious if it wasn't so real. Code Pink is not only a feminine anti-war protest group, but also a group that supports a woman's right to an abortion. Just as recently as last month, members of Code Pink joined other women's rights organizations in our nation's capital to celebrate and defend a woman's right to kill her unborn fetus.

I find it amazing how Berkeley, feminist, women, and society in general view female violence upon innocent lives differently from that of similar male violence. Men's wars are viewed as testosterone driven violence, foolish in its ideology, in its conception, in its implementation, and appalling in its consequences. The innocent lives lost in these wars are labeled terrible tragedies. However, men's wars cannot begin to equal the body count per year of the innocent, defenseless lives lost through the estrogen driven "liberty" of abortion.

Since the Iraq war began, it is estimated that 1.7 million people have lost their lives. This includes coalition forces and civilians (And I'm even being really nice here because I used stats from an anti-war organization - giving the advantage to the anti-war protesters). However, in that same time period, the estrogen fueled abortion machine killed almost 7 million innocent lives - in the U.S. alone!

So where is the outrage in Berkeley and elsewhere over the tragic lose of these innocent lives? There are a handful of abortion clinics in and around Berkeley, but not one city council member body is sticking his or her neck out to give anti-abortion protesters free parking spaces, permits, and other beneficial protesting tools to eradicate the senseless killing of these helpless lives. And how does Code Pink get away with such hypocrisy?

Boycott Valentines Day

An excerpt from Compelled to Give:

"It's February again. This can mean only one thing: the dreaded, compulsory Valentine's Day is just around the corner. If you forgot, fear not: the onslaught of TV and radio commercials will remind you and remind you and remind you. There is no escaping them, and they all share a common theme: women are entitled to receive; men are compelled to give. Nothing quite captures the essence of love like female entitlement.

Ask the typical woman to define romance. I'll lay odds that she'll describe a man buying and/or doing something for her, without a word about spoiling him. Why such narcissism? Simple. Most women are raised to be self-absorbed takers, and insecure men continue to tolerate and enable them.

Are men worthless? Only if they never demand fairness and reciprocity from women — and many men don't. Valentine's Day, and all of its pathetic rituals, represents the failure of men to stand up to women — who, ironically, don't respect these eunuchs and don't sexually crave them, either."

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Write for William Heatherton: Still Jailed

By Denise Noe - Link here

Michigan resident William J. Hetherington has been imprisoned for more than 20 years on evidence that was weak and questionable. Two police officers testified that they saw tape marks on the face of Linda Hetherington that appeared to support her story that she was bound by him. However, photographs taken of Linda Hetherington after the alleged attack were not disclosed to William’s attorneys. A decade after his conviction, a lawyer was able to obtain them through the Freedom of Information Act. These photographs were analyzed by John Valor, a forensic photographer who testified against Ted Bundy. Valor wrote about the pictures of Linda Hetherington that he could “not find anything unusual in the skin tones of these photos.”

Prior to William’s trial, the prosecution was offered a plea deal that would have allowed him to be released with the time served in jail constituting his sentence. He refused the deal because he insisted that he was innocent. However, it is obvious that the prosecutors would not – or certainly should not – have made this offer if they felt that he was a danger to the public.

William J. Hetherington had no criminal record. The judge disregarded the sentencing guidelines to throw the book at this defendant for no other reason that that the jurist found something “disturb[ing]” about him.

His was the first spousal rape case prosecuted in Genesee County and the prosecutor and judge may have been grandstanding to make an example out of him – perhaps a scapegoat! – to prove that spousal rape will be severely punished in that county.

Anyone who examines the facts set out in my previous blog and in articles linked in it ought to conclude that he might well have been innocent. He indisputably received a sentence vastly disproportionate to what the sentencing guidelines say he should have received.

For over two decades, William J. Hetherington has suffered the deprivations and degradations of prison life. He is aging and in ill health. It is too late for justice for him. All he can hope for is the relief of being finally granted his freedom.

Some of those reading may not think much of me. You may think I am crazy, stupid, and a total waste of humanity. I ask that you lay those feelings aside and consider only the plight of William J. Hetherington. He needs your help! Write on his behalf to both the parole board and to the Michigan Governor. Your letters should be respectful and include mention of his prison number, 186155.

The parole board can be contacted at the following address.
Michigan Parole Board
c/o Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Mr. Hetherington has asked that those who write to the parole board mail a copy of their letters to him. His address follows.

William J. Hetherington #186155
1790 E. Parnall Rd.
Jackson, MI 49201-7139

Information about contacting the Michigan Governor to request a commutation or pardon for Mr. Hetherington can be found at http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995—,00.html.

Please write today. Every day that passes is a day of horror for William J Hetherington.

1. donnieboy57 said,

   i live in genesee county and can tell you that in this liberal infested, anti-male environment, he is but a footnote in history. the gov. is a liberal female who just elected to a second term (highest unemployment in the country) WITHOUT the male vote. hello! he has a better chance presenting his case to lorena bobbit. sad sad state of affairs. stay single, don't commingle your funds and never put yourself in a situation that could result in a women holding you accountable with out proof. hard to do, i understand but what choice do we have?

   February 7, 2008 at 9:31 am

2. M. Kemp said,

   Denise,

   Thanks for this excellent post. And don't be so down on yourself. I think a great deal of you, and am disappointed to hear that some think that you're "crazy, stupid, and a total waste of humanity." The more fool them. Anyway, it's nice to see that you're asking people to put whatever they feel about you to one side, so as to help out Mr. Hetherington, who really needs help.

   February 7, 2008 at 11:42 am

3. fourthwire said,

   Please note that the following comment pertains to Denise's PREVIOUS blog on the William Hetherington rape case, not the current blog under which this comment appears.

   I was unfortunately out of contact when Denise posted that first blog, but out of fairness to her, want my appreciation to her communicated to the MND readers.

   Later today or tomorrow I will comment on Denise's more current blog about the William Hetherington case.

   Last night I posted the following comment under her first William Hetherington blog:

   Belatedly, I read your blog on William Hetherington's case, Denise. Sorry to have been out of contact for so long.

   Even taking my own interest in this case aside, I am impressed with the quality of your writing, your articulation of the information available, and your interest in delving into almost every man's nightmare.

   Much is written about how actual rape hurts and scars women, but you have now delved into how rape accusations can destroy a man's life.

   I know that I have written harshly, even impolitely in reply to some of your earlier blogs.

   But through this particular blog, I am privy to some of the best writing that I have had the pleasure to read on a topic that is near and dear to my heart.

   As you know, I am already fairly well-versed on many of the aspects of this particular case and you managed to cover quite well many of the salient details of which I am aware.

   I do not know if your investigations to date have uncovered information about a letter supposedly written by the Hetheringtons' babysitter that was declared inadmissible as evidence, since it was forthcoming some time after William Hetherington's conviction.

   That letter supposedly stated that Linda Hetherington lied about the so-called rape incident since she was having an affair, and wanted her husband safely out of the way, unable to claim custody of their children, much less their house and other assets.

   If this alleged letter actually was written, it would have provided a motive for Linda Hetherington's deranged or malicious rape accusation against William Hetherington.

   That being written, your blog has shown me that facet of a compassionate, intelligent, loving credit to American womanhood that apparently our friend amfortas perceived some time ago.

   In writing this blog, you have demonstrated your compassion for men's plight - how rape accusations can be used to separate a man from his career, his children, his home, his assets, his right to an attorney, and his freedom, for a woman's personal convenience, or simply so that radical feminists can demonstrate their hatred for men, not to mention their political power.

   My own crude investigations into this case shows that it's very likely that William Hetherington was purposely denied due justice, due to political pressure to make a man “an example”, at Michigan feminists’ bidding.

   He was almost certainly railroaded into a prison cell for his wife's convenience, and so that Michigan's feminists could continue inciting women to male-hatred, and men to learn to fear their own wives' whims.

   If the Duke lacrosse team defendants had not had considerable funding available to hire attorneys, perhaps they would have fared no better than Mr. Hetherington.

   Keith McKay, if you read this message, please convey my own email address to Mr. Hetherington: beltfed.weapon@hotmail.com

   Denise, you have my admiration and respect for doing the right thing, through writing about Mr. Hetherington's case as eloquently as you have.

   I truly hope that the state of Michigan that incarcerated him sees fit to pardon him, wipe his record clean and restore a measure of justice for him.

   This miscarriage of justice could have happened to me, Denise.

   It could have happened to most men…… to be unjustly convicted of one of the most heinous crimes, merely on a whim, for the convenience of an unscrupulous or deranged woman, backed by a judge doing the bidding of men-haters.

   Thank you for providing this articulately-, compassionately-written blog, Denise Noe.

   I hope that you will write more about the case in the future, if you have sufficient material.

   February 7, 2008 at 1:14 pm

4. steven deluca said,

   Denise,

   I hope that I never see you write about yourself in a manner that even hints at whether or not you care if others think poorly of you. Forthwire said it better than I ever could. I wish I could write as well as either of you or express my ideas as clearly.

   I have enjoyed both of your comments, very much, over time…

   Heatherington was "raped" by the courts. A man grabbing a girl scout selling cookies, or a little Catholic girl on her way home, some innocent, and then raping a child, or even any stranger, should get 20 years.

   Only in a culture that has exalted vaginas slighty about the stars, while demeaning male sexuality on a weekly bases, - men are dogs, … would think that even if a man did force his wife to have sex, 20 years is completley crazy.

   With their history, time together, personal issues, to make that a 20 years offense is a sign of how far we have gone in our male bashing culture. It's as if a monster had forced himself on a Goddess. I cant think of it as much less than that. No one knows for sure yet he gets 20 years, …just in case. Got to send a message to other men and even if it wasn't fair to him, at least other men will think twice, is that it?

   We are not responsible for men and women who marry, express love, and then hate each other and try to rip each other to shreds. IN a culture that has 2 million men in prison, and whre we need tax money for children for health and education, to spend the money to keep a man in jail for twenty years - when you now there is room for doubt, — the public is paying for this couple.

   I don't know what their personal problems were. I do know that we didn't have the money to buy the best armor for boys dying in Iraq and I resent paying our taxes so that the battle between Heatherington and his wife, used as pawns by feminist in their war against men… ended up costing what, a million or two… worst case, he was real angry and this time, instead of asking permission or going along with what she wanted and desired in the past, sex with him, dozens to hundreds of time, but this one extra time, he put his penis in her against her wishes, … 20 years for that, for something he has done many times but because he didn't have permission, because this time she didn't want it, because they couldn't keep their promises and agreements, and love turned to hate, we pay?

   And if he is innocent, what then? What if she lied and he lost twenty years of life? What would be worse.? Being raped isn't near as bad as losing two decades of your life.

   I think he is innocent from what I have heard. And if guilty, wouldn't a couple of years loss of freedom get revenge enough by an X wife?

   Thanks Denise, I was real appreciative of your article and I think you must have been having a bad day to run yourself down so much or to listen to those who don't like your style. I like your style. No body is perfect but your writing is great and I love the variety.

   SD

   February 7, 2008 at 9:01 pm

5. amfortas said,

   "Some of those reading may not think much of me. You may think I am crazy, stupid, and a total waste of humanity."

   Ooowwh, I wouldn't go that far Denise.

   Thank you for the Heatherington tale. I had heard of him some time back but you giving some adresses enables me to do something, even if just small. He shows resolve. Why should an innocent man declare that he is sorry? he needs ordinary men to recognise him.

   Keep wasting my time with your musings, analyses, crazy and occasionally only-very-slightly-stupid (well within the 'normal' range) thoughts on screen.

   If enough of us write to say hello, keep your chin up, to Mr Heatherington, he might thank you too. You will deserve it.

   You and he both deserve recognition.

   February 8, 2008 at 3:05 am

6. DrDamage said,

   Denise, you really shouldn't take the fact that we sometimes disagree with what you have said as a rejection of your character.

   You are in interesting and thoughtful writer with whom I often disagree. That makes for interesting discussion provided the participants are able to address the arguments rather than the person making them. I for one have never doubted your good faith.

   February 8, 2008 at 3:44 am

7. Denise Noe said,

   Thank you fourthwire, M Kemp, Steven Deluca, amfortas and DrDamage for your support of me. It is really appreciated.
   However, the focus of this blog is really meant to be William J. Hetherington. Have you written to the parole board? Have you written to the Governor of Michigan? It is very, very important that everyone who supports release for this man make their views heard to those who have the power to grant that release.

   February 8, 2008 at 4:39 am

8. Ouderkirk said,

   Denise,

   My first introduction to the plight of William Hetherington was made by Phyllis Schlafly about two years ago in a column she wrote. It was illuminating to say the least.

   Hetherington was railroaded into jail and denied his rights, repeatedly all for a show that spousal rape would not be tolerated and he was to be "the example".

   Hetherington made the classic mistake of thinking that a reconciliation with his estranged wife was possible. He needed to wait until he had moved back into the family home before he had sex with her. It was a trap that was set and in his desperation to save his life and family, he took the bait.

   I do not know if Will Hetherington will ever get out of jail alive. He continues to refuse to admit that he did anything wrong, which is what the parole board wants. And he did do something wrong… he believed an unfaithful wife and it has cost him his life in a figurative sense. When he leaves jail at the conclusion of his 30 year sentence he will literally have nothing.

   Keep up the good work.

   Consider for a moment

   Persident Hillary
   Speaker Pelosi
   Majority Leader Feinstein.

   The vaginocracy that will institute a new Jim Crow against men….

Why Republicans Will Loose in 2008

Why Republicans Will Loose in 2008

by David Usher

G.O.P party-line bombast has failed to generate the level of buzz needed to effectively counter the looming Democrat invasion on the Presidency and Congress. I do admit it is a tall order overcoming an irrelevant American Idol side-show addicted to whether a black or woman might become the first to attain the Presidency. Republicans would not be playing third fiddle to a freak show if they had anything of substance for voters to chew on.

Even Drudge has been headlining Democratic races with only cursory attention paid to Republicans. If Republicans had individuals running on truly visionary policies energizing the Republican base, Drudge would not have had to assume the visage of CNN in order to stay on top of the ratings game.

Primary results to date strongly indicate that former Republican voters are disaffected or are changing parties. For example, in the bell-weather state of Missouri 808,461 votes were cast for a Democratic presidential candidate, against slightly over 550,000 votes for a Republican candidate. That Ann Coulter is ready to vote for Hillary warns of the three-alarm fire burning for years that RNC firefighters still refuse to respond to.

The relatively-even numbers between McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are not a reflection of the strength of the three candidates. None is clearly a strong candidate the base is inured to. The base is going elsewhere, voting Democrat or watching the real American Idol because this election is quickly becoming too painful to watch.

Republicans will lose in 2008 predominantly because they have no social policy agenda to run on (opposing same-sex marriage and abortion does not count as social policy because neither impacts the exploding trends of illegitimacy and non-marriage). The conservative base knows this, expects better, and hasn’t heard word one from any Republican candidate yet.

Mike Huckabee is the only candidate doing more than mouthing the oft-recited generalization about the “importance of marriage”. At a whistle stop on Monday he commented, “A government ought to undergird a family… and not undermine a mother and father’s rights to raise their own kids.” It seems that Mr. Huckabee is warming up to the political advantages of seizing social issues from the Democrats — but missed a golden opportunity to call out a federal policy change to effect this truth.

Imagine this: What would voters think if Republicans talked incessantly about the “importance of stopping terrorism” and then did nothing to stop terrorism? They would be laughed out of Washington. Voters have been laughing Republicans out of office since 1996 for failure to deal with core kitchen-table social issues that voters are extremely interested in.

I have been sending Mr. Huckabee much information on pro-marriage policy for months, with some very positive feedback from a few individuals on his staff. Since I have not heard from his new campaign management team leadership, and Mike has not been running on a “Marriage Values” or “Marriage Economy” policy slate, it appears he might not be getting what he needs to win from his campaign team.

I attempted to provide the same information to all presidential candidates. McCain and his team simply walked away from me without even accepting a paper on it at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last spring. Calls and emails to the Romney and Ron Paul campaigns went unanswered. Thompson had no contact information and was unreachable.

Since Democrats are presenting Obama as a reincarnation of John F. Kennedy [snicker], Republicans think resurrecting Reagan will win them the Presidency. This will fly like a granite blimp on crack. The American Conservative Union will go ballistic if McCain tries to play this card at their convention [another snicker]. At least the ACU knows a joke when somebody tells one.

None of the Republican candidates are nearly Reaganesque, and it would not win the presidency if they were. From a knowledgeable view, Reagan was as dead wrong on social policy as Democrats and Republicans (then and now). Trickle-down spending combined with burgeoning welfare expenditures left America with tremendous national deficits that took years to pay down after he left office. This occurred again during the Bush years, and Republican’s don’t want to take responsibility for their mistake.

Republicans still do not understand that neither social or economic conservatives cant get what they want unless we apply trickle-down economic theory to the marriage market. A “Marriage Economy” campaign slate requires a marriage of economic and social conservatives (who for differing but parallel reasons) can collectively change America for the better via a concerted team policy effort spanning social and economic policies. When we bootstrap the marriage market and the economy simultaneously, everyone will get what the want and need, and federal spending needs will decline substantially.

Marriage is a “living” market, like any other market. The federal government spends hundreds of billions annually destroying families under a variety of programs modeled after the Carter-Mondale Act of 1974. This prototypical bill combined a program investigating how much child abuse was out there with a program entitling the finding of child abuse under every rock. It turned into a monster. The McMartin, Little Rascals, and Fells Acres false child-abuse debacles came about because of Carter-Mondale.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1990’s descendant of Carter-Mondale, but far more dangerous, because it does not involve programming a child. All one needs is an allegation or a statement of fear to send government machinery into warp drive. The Duke Rape Case scandal is just one of perhaps millions similar faceless cases that go one every day in family and criminal courts. Allegations and fear now runs family and criminal law and public policy in the United States, with the full endorsement of the American Bar Association Board of Governors. This has filled our prisons to the point that we have more people in prison, as a percent of population, than any other nation including Russia – an additional drag on the economy coinciding with parallel decreases in productivity.

Child support reforms are required at the federal level: billions are spent entitling states to set child support with no checks, balances, or caps on what states can order. Child support orders are out of control. In fact, even Hillary Clinton took this up in her campaign, as reported by Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick in their articles “Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads” and “Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda Will Help Low-Income Fathers”.

Unfortunately, Hillary’s plans would not restore marriage: her goal is to restore the previous welfare state directly funded by the American public – bringing in many more billions to directly destroy a free marriage market. But Hillary is pandering to the male vote, and the poor single-mother vote, hoping they won’t see the difference between permanent entitlement of non-marriage and letting the marriage market build a nation of strong families raising children naturally, ready to go to school, prepared for adulthood, energized to work hard, succeed, and make America a much more competitive player in the future order of the world.

The economic successes of Japan in the latter half of the 20^th century, Korea in the 1990’s, and now China occurred because these countries refuse to socialize the marriage market. These countries achieved dominance de-socializing business, harnessing the extant human-power of their strong marriage markets, and become very strong competitors in world markets. They have a decisive advantage because corporate revenues and government resources can be nearly fully reinvested in infrastructure, education, and R&D; while America is saddled with high taxes and social expenditures that do nothing but create more social problems and attempt to cover them up.

Both Hillary and Obama have many messages on social issues. Republicans have none. On this wide scope of important voter kitchen issues, Republicans are the clear losers.

I have long recommended the Republican party apply frontal “Marriage Values” and “Marriage Economy” policy-based campaign agenda – which will unquestionably bring about another Republican Revolution — powered by the same voter concerns that brought about the Republican “family values” revolution in the early 1990’s.

I am pleased to say that leadership at Heritage and Family Research Council is listening, and has recently changed their positions on some important perspectives. Perhaps in another four to eight years conservatives will finally be ready to work together completing the two most important parts of welfare reform not handled in the 1996 welfare reforms: reducing out-of-wedlock births and improving marriage rates and retention.

Until then, the Republican Party, having become a homunculus of itself, will continue shrinking until it walks away from its self-imposed deaf-and-dumb censorship of social issues. This classic Abilene paradox cost Republicans their majorities in the House and Senate. It will cost them the Presidency and additional Congressional seats in 2008. When the GOP is sick and tired of losing and is ready to listen to the answers, we will be ready to re-engage.

Until then, the GOP might as well go fishing for voters. Those who would vote Republican are not excited about sending in third-rate candidates to not fix world-class problems. Give us first-rate candidates ready to do the job and voters will back them to the hilt.

Where Have all the Men Gone

Sooner or later we all end up dining at a table laden with the consequences of our actions

Anyone can turn to an old film and see a glimpse into an idealized world in which much of what is reflected has to resonate with the rest of the world.

The modern idea that the past is bad, rather than the old idea of the ‘good ole days’, has finally caught up to modern women, and of course they are now angry (again).

What pray tells is the problem this time? Well, they proceeded as a group to unilaterally decide what was good, what was bad, what laws should be made, what every woman should do, and on and on the list went (often very contradictory).

What they never understood, wanted to understand, cared to inquire, was what would happen tomorrow. They knew all the answers and no one could tell them anything! What would happen tomorrow once they got what they wanted today?

There were plenty of examples in history, but they denied history, as His Story, not her story. So somehow doing the same thing was going to be different. There were even intelligent people trying to help them, but they were men, and men couldn’t teach them anything.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

While Einstein’s missive was intended to the individual, it’s also quite right historically. Different economic systems suffer different ends since the problems within different systems impose structure and then impose limits to outcomes.

America was a country of ideas, not ideologies, and so was not limited as others were, that sadly is not true, since the women have insured that we have been following a socialist communist ideology – both antitheses to the very heart of freedom.

Did any one of us ever really think that one day the bill would be torn up and the consequences of the changes women have made would all end up fulfilling the reality for which they totally ignored, to design their vanity ideology?

Now today the eggs of the chickens have hatched and the consequences are flying home to roost. Our ancestors were not as dumb as the modern person who plucked truths out of the air, ignored merit, thought all before her was stupid, changed the dials haphazardly, and so on.

Its time to pay the piper for the dance…

However one glance at the article below and one can clearly see that they haven’t learned much other than how to blame the wrong party. That they will have to experience monumental and uncorrectable pain that only life can dish out. No man ever wanted that for his charges.

here are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”

The leaders are in trouble, since they were the ‘experts’, the guys had little to do with it, since they were kept out of it. Yet, the first thing out of their minds is to blame the men again, but this time, they haven’t figured it out from the title. You can’t blame what isn’t there. We didn’t abdicate out places, we were kicked out. To blame us for not being there is not our problem. Now today, women can’t find any decent men to marry. How’s that? Did they look in a mirror and ask any questions? Doubtful.

This is called making your bed and what comes after is that one usually gets to lie in it.

Where have all the men gone? Instead, we have an overload of man-boys – which leaves a generation of single, thirtysomething women who are their natural mates bewildered. I am one of those women.

Well, it takes men to make men, not women who redefine man to mean something else, and then expect the men to be what? That to vilify men’s qualities is to blame the knife edge for not cutting one way only.

It stems from the Cassandra syndrome. Now when it’s later, and things are beyond repair, and ALL these women are going to suffer, their family lines will die out for eternity, and so forth…

They will now blame the men for doing what they wanted them to do, not doing what patriarchal men in the past did, which was do what’s right!

Here is the only thing I can say… Good luck ladies! You made a bunch of bets that were wrong, and steamrolled them forward and now there isn’t anything we can do.

We can’t even go back since they thought the moral momentum was something else, and so thought that the good that we had were the new good, not the old good. Now they know it’s the old good, and they are all gone.

The information that the boomers dropped from their parents, and then their children dropped, are all gone… we never wrote it down, we never studied it. Feminists wanted to erase it, other than the parts they painted black and perverted.

No way to go back. The women burned the ships like Cortez. They all went out to work en masse, and so now they get to have their ‘women’s work’ taxed! Which was the part that they were missing working for themselves and each other from home! The real difference between men’s work outside the home and women’s work in the home was that men had to work harder than they needed to pay the state.

The state now has their lives and they are ‘means of production’ for the state, and the state will now never let them go back to work for themselves. The state needs the money they make for more socialist programs for women!

Its humorous, they won’t stop till it all collapses, and now it’s too late. Like now. and yet when the real signs of what they did are seen, they cant see the implication for the whole of us, no, they can still only see how they got cheated, and then figure a way to blame men for not ordering them controlling them and all the things they complained before.

To go into the world and make your way and change it is to do so with RESPONSIBILITY.

Its time to pay the piper, the men didnt call the tune, the men didnt dance by choice, and those who are not there, don't have to pay. So now the burden falls on the people who desired to hear the piper play what they wanted.

Where have all the men gone?
British women in their thirties want mates. They can’t find any. Why? Because most eligible males are selfish, mixed-up man-boys chasing no-strings sex, says our correspondent

Men are like eggs. They must hatch or go bad. I came to this conclusion after seeing in the new year with a gang of university friends and hearing one of them, a single guy of 35 called Jamie, declare with complete sincerity that his resolution for 2008 was not to get a girlfriend.

I groaned. His vow struck me as odd, not just because Jamie is a remarkably warm, kind and entertaining individual rather than some ropey Lothario, but because I knew him ten years ago when he was mustard keen to marry his then girlfriend. And when I thought harder about it, I realised that over the past decade Jamie has effectively been degenerating from the man he was at 25 years old to the boy he is today.

The person who fell in love and believed that when you found a great girl you counted your blessings and married her has morphed into someone in search of nothing more than a bit of fun, who views any relationship that he can’t get out of at the ping of a text message with genuine unease.

Where have all the men gone? Instead, we have an overload of man-boys – which leaves a generation of single, thirtysomething women who are their natural mates bewildered. I am one of those women.

I am often told that our problem boils down to bad timing. In our early twenties (the age at which our parents tended to meet and marry), we, arguably the first generation of properly educated and professionally ambitious women, were not ready to settle down and start having babies.

By our late twenties many of us did end up reconnecting with our first loves, or met men of a similar age who were still young enough to want to match and hatch. But for those who didn’t, life is increasingly complicated – and infuriating.

The assumption seems to be that it is our fault that we can’t find “him”. I have lost count of the number of articles by female columnists that I’ve read, urging “career women” like me to get pregnant before it is too late. I want to point out that I work to eat, and that earning a salary funds the social life needed to meet new people.

What do they think we are doing? Take India Knight’s attack, in The Sunday Times, on what she called “the sweetly retro notion of mooching around pining for Mr Right as the (biological) clock ticks away”. “My advice to all my girlfriends is, just do it,” she announces. “Get pregnant. Don’t wait. Mr Right can turn into Mr Wrong overnight: there are no certainties.”

And we wonder why men are afraid to commit, when women like me are depicted as hormonally charged sperm-bandits interested in nothing beyond the urge to have a child.

Does society really want usto settle for Mr Only OK rather than the real deal? Marriage strikes me as hard enough work without saddling yourself with someone for whom you don’t quite feel all that’s necessary. And giving birth with your mother at your bedside because your child’s father isn’t that into you, or the baby, strikes me as far sadder than never getting pregnant at all.

Having lived in New York for five years, and compared notes with friends in other cities (Hong Kong, Paris and Singapore among them), I can assert that the attack on thirtysomething singletons seems to be a particularly English trait. In other cities we are left alone at worst, celebrated at best, and most people find someone at some stage, even if it is at the age of 40. In my view, London is quintessentially chauvinist, a state of affairs exacerbated by the City, the all-male drinking clubs, the pub and football culture, and the strong, albeit small, group of women who seem to treat marriage as their sole raison d’être.

But what of these Brit boys who fail to hatch by their mid-thirties? Do they really turn bad? They don’t necessarily become bad company – as long as the relationship is kept platonic. Many of my best friends are utterly charming bachelors, but they are also the first to admit that they are rubbish boyfriends. Interestingly, they also agree that this wasn’t always the case.

“Looking back, I can see a couple of girls I was ready to marry ten years ago. But I seem to have drifted farther and farther away from being ready since then,” one of them confided as his 40th birthday approached. “I felt a level of certainty about people then that I don’t feel now.”

Personally, I think an odd thing happens to man-boy brains at about the age of 30. Some neural pathway, hitherto well oiled through a diet of normal relationships and an awareness of such terms as “compromise” and “I’m sorry”, tunes in to a specific area of the brain labelled “navel gazing”. If it miraculously misses that zone, it veers into another equally exclusive area: “near-total romantic/emotional shutdown beyond the next 24/48-hour period”.

My last few years of dating reads like either a therapist’s dream or a dictionary of neuroses. On the neurotic front, one man-boy aged 32 had a panic attack at dinner, which he thought was a heart attack until we got to A&E and he was assured otherwise. Another wore a watch that monitored his sleep patterns.

More common, however, are those who insist on persuading you that they are the one you have been waiting for, only to run away the second you show signs of agreeing. One man rang me every two hours for a week to persuade me that what we had going was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, until I started to think that he might be right – at which point he told me that he was too messed up for a relationship.

Another invited me to Spain after one date, only to say at the end of it that it was “all too full-on”. Another couldn’t stop sending soppy texts, until I sent one back. All were thirtysomething, bright, successful bachelors. They had all had therapy. They all talked ad infinitum about their “ishoos”. But not one of them asked about mine. I listened, and either left, or they did.

Nobody expects these guys to settle for Ms Only OK, either, but it’s fair to say that most of them are not looking to settle for anyone – and, in fact, dating a series of Ms Only OKs fills the gap nicely.

“In theory I’d like a family,” says one. “But it doesn’t feel urgent and in the meantime I have a great life with plenty of sex – all on my own terms. Love has sort of disappeared from the menu. And yes, now I’ve learnt that I can, I mess women around in ways I’d never have done in my twenties.”

Horror stories from friends abound, too. “I spent most of last year with a guy who used to weigh me every day and refused to sleep with me if I got too heavy,” admits a colleague. “How bonkers was that? But the awful thing is that once you pass 36, you find it’s single men rather than single women who are the prize commodity.”

I don’t know of any woman my age (35) who hasn’t spent several years in love with a boyfriend, only to have to give up on the relationship after realising that children and commitment were not going to happen for ages, if at all.

Many of these guys would be living happily as husbands and fathers if they had taken the plunge. But they haven’t. So what’s the answer? Become more hard-boiled and accept that, in return for children, we will have to make do with someone Only OK? Go after men ten years younger than us? Or try bruised divorcés ten years older?

There is another option, of course. And that is that the whole generation of single man-boys start behaving like men. Meanwhile, everyone else could stop asking us why we’re not married yet, and wrongly assuming that it’s because we are so work-obsessed that we don’t want to be.

Believe us, we are not single through want of trying.

It’s a statistics thing

For every 100 females, 108 males are born in the UK. But owing to the higher mortality rates of young males, by the mid-teens the numbers have evened out. This remains the case until old age, when a surplus of women arises again.

In some big cities, including London, there are more women than men. There is debate about the reasons for this, but it is nothing new. The thirtysomething single status is new, however – mainly because women now leave it later to marry. In their mid-thirties they find themselves in a predicament, whether they outnumber men of their age or not.

A study I carried out on lonely hearts ads indicated that, while single females typically advertise for men three to five years older than them, men advertise for women of a certain age irrespective of their own. Their preferred age is 24 to 25. So the men that the women want are looking for women, but younger ones.

So should a woman in her mid-thirties be looking for a man in his forties instead? Perhaps – but only in his late forties. I was involved in research that looked at how the sexes perceive their market value – ie, what they think their “package” is worth to the opposite sex. The results suggested that males in their early and mid-forties overestimated their standing the most. They are getting richer at this age, and become self-deluded about what they can get in return. They also want to attract a twentysomething, but are less likely to succeed than younger men. Only in their mid to late forties, when their risk of death increases (they may be rich, but they may also die), do they become more realistic.

In short, women seem to hang on to the ideal, and many get lucky. But when they start wanting to settle down, they opt for what biologists call the Hobson’s Choice Strategy. In layman’s terms, they opt for something over nothing.

— PROFESSOR ROBIN DUNBAR
Robin Dunbar is Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford

The man’s view: try this instead

Most single men want love. But they are also terrified of failure, poverty and being trapped. They are scared of turning into their dads, or, if divorced, repeating their old mistakes. They are scared that their women will make them throw out their comics, their motorbikes and their dreams of writing novels.

It doesn’t really matter which type of man you go for – younger, older, divorced. What matters is that you go for him.

Personally, I think the divorced man is more realistic. He’s not like a young man who can’t commit because he yearns for a fairytale goddess whose heart he may one day capture. The older man just wants someone who won’t shout at him. If it takes her two minutes to get into the car, she’s ideal. If she’s giving, and laughs at his jokes, he’ll love her for ever. Give those bruised men a try. Stop expecting to find The One. Find someone, and give him love recklessly.

Or you can snare one of the single man-boys, but you must be cunning. You must wait for him to call but, when he does, you must be devoted and give him glorious sex in flattering lighting.

There is only one time when a man knows, for certain, that he loves his woman and will stay with her for ever: when she has just chucked him. The rest of the time he’s not sure. I remember the first time my wife said: “Let’s have children!” I knew that this was an historic moment. I must respond like a man. So I ignored her. Men’s heads are filled with confusion, fear and football statistics. And whenever they are made an offer, they always feel the negatives first – and if they can’t express them, they clam up like oysters.

In which case, trapping them may involve trickery. After five months – preferably during a three-day trip to Paris, so he can’t get away – you must say, lightly and just before sex: “I love every part of your life. I want to see you richly succeed. But you must marry me.” Then you must change tack and become very soft. You have touched on his deepest fears. Listen. Tell him to write that novel. Tell him that you love ELO. After a two-day sulk, which will be immensely wounding for you, he will begin to express his horrid, selfish fears, and thus you will be stumbling towards your perfectly imperfect life.

Try not to worry about what happens. Remember, there are also loads of men like me: the ones who hatched, and still went bad. We wish you luck. We wish you love. We’ll see you by the swings in five years.

— ANDREW CLOVER
Andrew Clover’s Dad Rules is published by Penguin in May

In case you haven't noticed, she never looked to herself. She was, of course, perfect. That these men dont want someone with her attitude, sense of commitment, silly mental fru fru ideas in her head about life (that dont work), labilities galore, a instant group of a half dozen more of them that come along, and on and on.

She also ignored biology. Could the reason the men want younger women is that older women have many many times the level of children with genetic problems?

That perhaps they dont want to go with someone whose claim to fame in high school was being voted "most likely to be a desease vector".

the guys can give a huge list of VALID reasons…

the girls though never realzied that the guys matured because they had to, to succeed, and provide and not let his family down. technically his family has let him down before he ever got to be a part.

Who wants to be a 5th wheel to what is your family, have no rights, live under the idea of losing it all in a moment of female stupidity, and the list goes on.

Here is the truth:

The men have figured out that they dont need much. That biologically they can exist on minimums that women can't. Since they don't need to support an ungrateful person, they dont need to ahve a 80k a year job. they can get away with whatever will give them food, and a bit of electricity, and such. and each family in which a female followed the plan, starts off 10 to 20 years later, and so fails financially… and no longer has the help of grandparents.

nope… the guys have figured out that there is no way to win a marathon starting 20 years late. So there is no need to run the race at all.

Her solution though to make every man grow up so that she can have a husband shows who really needs to grow up!