Hate Male Post

--- 1 Down, 49 to Go!

2011-09-17T09:00:00.001-07:00

Via Paul Elam at AVfM

AUSTIN, Texas (AVfM) Legislators have changed a law that prevented victims of paternity fraud from challenging child support obligations. The landmark legislation took six years and three congressional sessions to complete.

According to the old Texas law, a man is legally a father if any child is born during his marriage, regardless of whether he is or isn’t the biological father. This resulted in many men paying child support after a divorce for children that were a product of their wife’s infidelity.

No genetic test was required to establish paternity. If fact, paternity tests proving no biological connection between the legal father and the child were considered irrelevant to the issue of child support.

Under the old Texas law, he was forced to support that child financially, and had no course of action to terminate the parent-child relationship even though he was a proven victim of paternity fraud.

The new law changes all this. It allows men to use the results of a genetic test to prove they are not fathers, and to petition Texas courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and child support. Courts will now be mandated to terminate child support orders and end legal sanctions against the victims of paternity fraud.

The law includes a grace period until September of 2012 for men who were victims of paternity fraud to make their cases before the court. Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud after September 1, 2012 will have one year from the time of discovery to petition the courts.

The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.

NICE! Only 49 more states to go! Of course, my cynical side says; "Let;s wait and see if it is upholded AND ENFORCED. Then I'll do the crabby dance!

TMOTS

--- Mary kellett Saga Continues

2011-08-21T05:20:00.001-07:00

August 20, 2011
Paul Elam
Action Updates, Featured

Kellett steps in it, big time

As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.

A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.

But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.

Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.

Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.

This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:

“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.

The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.

“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.

Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.

Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.

Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.

The time for action is now.

On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.

I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.

I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.

Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, and I mean NOW.

Contact Maine’s State Attorney General

Contact Governor Paul LePage

Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano

Reprinted with permission from Paul Elam of A Voice for Men

TMOTS

--- Letter to a Friend at War

2011-08-09T05:50:00.000-07:00

August 9, 2011
Manuel Dexter Via A Voice for Men

Letter to a Friend at War

This is a letter written for a personal friend of Manuel Dexter. The man to whom this is written is presently entangled in what is turning out to be a nasty divorce. He is a decent, honest man who unfortunately has not yet taken what we call in the MRM world, “the red pill.” As the author of this piece I have replaced personal references with nonspecific place holders for two reasons; to protect the identity of my friend, and so that others still living in a blue pill reality may hopefully benefit from the story.

Read the rest here.

TMOTS

--- Justice for once!

2011-07-26T04:58:00.001-07:00

Well daym! It would apper that there is at least one female in a position of power that will admit to a knee-jerk reactionary wrong and correct it! AVfM Radio is back.

Personally I would like to thank Miss Shannon Dingee-Kramer for working this out with Paul and giving a sincere apology for her actions. Thank you Miss Dingee-Kramer.

Here is Paul explaining it all;

Well gents and ladies, it has been a most interesting evening. Grab yourself a cuppa and listen to what you, MRM loyalists, did.

Just about two hours ago I got off the phone with Shannon Dingee-Kramer, the director of customer relations and operations for BlogTalk Radio.

The short version of that talk is that we are back in business at BTR, with an apology for the interruption but the details of the conversation are what you will find most interesting.

The program was interrupted by a complaint about something I said on the air on 6/28/11, in the episode entitled FTSU Big Time. I said, and the quote is approximate, regarding the debut of register-her.com, “Now, if Mary Jane Rottencrotch decides to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence in order to get the upper hand in a divorce, we can publish all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number…even her routes to and from work.”

This remark elicited a complaint to BTR, from an unnamed individual. I asked if it was Jessica Valenti and was told by Dingee-Kramer that she did not know.

I asked because it was immediately after that broadcast that Valenti was caught tweeting her followers, looking for advice on how to erase her existence off the internet.

Apparently the tough as milquetoast creator of Friday Feminist Fuck You is just a scared little girl when someone fights back.

In the next part of the conversation we covered what should have been obvious from the outset. I was making a rhetorical, hypothetical remark about the possibilities of what we could do, using a fictitious character in the process.

Dingee-Kramer’s reaction to the complaint was impulsive and thoughtless for sure.

I threatened no one, speaking only in the realm of possibilities, and the reaction should never have happened. And as anyone visiting register-her.com can see, there is no personal address of anyone listed on that site, much less their routes to and from employment or anywhere else.

No one named Rottencrotch either.

To her credit, that was precisely Dingee-Kramer’s after-the-fact assessment of her own decision, and why she offered what appeared to be a sincere apology.

She also reinstated AVfM Radio while we were on the phone together.

Her explanation of what happened centered around her assertion that they were very short staffed when the complaint came in and that she made a decision spontaneously, without diligent investigation.

All because someone complained about what I said, alleging it was a real threat against an actual human being.

In short, just another feminist telling a lie. And someone else who bought into it without thinking.

Truth tell, I liked speaking with Dingee-Kramer. She was personable, accountable and shared with me that she visited register-her.com and is “100% supportive” of what we are doing there, also relating her feeling that women in this culture can “fall into a bucket of poop and come out of it smelling like a rose.”

It appears she is familiar with the pussy pass.

Jared White recently posted an excellent article on this site, “And then they fight us…”

Of course the partial quote is from Ghandi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

And now, gents and ladies, they are fighting us. And we are winning.

Dingee-Kramer also shared with me that they had been getting a high volume of “hate mail” from fans of AVfM Radio.

People, that was not hate; that was your VOICE. And the world is starting to listen to it. I have absolutely no doubt – NONE - that you broadcasting your righteous outrage crushed the feminist lie and set us back on course.

BTR listened to you.

Oh, and so did Mary Kellett and the Ultimate Men’s Summit and the Bangor Daily News.

And you can bet your ass that no matter how silent they are around AVfM Radio, the feminist hate mongers are listening to you as well.

And it is eating them alive. Too bad for them it only gets worse from there.

Let me tell you what the net result was of a feminist lodging that false complaint against us. We got an apology and a high ranking staff member of BTR that is going to screen future complaints (and they will get them) a lot more carefully and thoughtfully.

We got Bob O’Hara, a respected and competent MRA to volunteer to be the first AVfM News Director. We got yet another technical expert who will be working henceforth with JtO on register-her.com.

We now have Nergal as our new volunteer coordinator to help us organize talent and resources that we can use to keep upping the ante.

We got some badly needed donations that will now allow us acquire VPS services for AVfM for at least the next year AND a damn good start on what I need to build or buy the serious hardware I need to take this to the next level.

All these things became a part of the chain of events because one feminist told a lie and the real MRA’s, all of you, decided they were not going to take it laying down.

Then they fight you, then you win.

Then. you. win.

So to Valenti, or whoever the feminist bonehead was who tried to take us down with one of your filthy lies, THANKS! Please listen to the newly invigorated AVfM Radio more in the future. Contact BTR with phony complaints as often as possible (and for you that is very, very often). We will be back on the air with a Jessica Valenti Special on August 2, 2o11.

Another dozen false allegations and AVfM will get a 50,000 watt radio station.

But seriously, to readers and listeners of AVfM, take a moment after reading this and consider you just dealt a significant blow to the hateful ideologues that want to continue their war on men and boys with your complicit silence.

Look back on the things that have happened just at this website in the past year, from the New York Times to launching our own radio program, to BENEFITTING from the attacks on us.

And then imagine where we will be and what we will be doing a year from now.

These people are not invincible. They are vulnerable, simple minded bigots, and we are going to take them all down.

Again, thanks Miss Miss Dingee-Kramer, and thank you all for what I would gather was a rather large amount of angry emails. You done good!

TMOTS

--- AVfM Falls, Feminists Cream Pants

2011-07-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

Well folks, personally I can't say I am all too shocked. After some 16 weeks, A Voice for Men Radio seems to have been killed. Speculations abound but, in all honesty, we in the MRM know all too well as to the whos and whys... Don't we.

In Paul Elam's own words;

I suppose it actually was inevitable.

I just received an email from an AVfM Radio listener informing me that the show has disappeared from the BlogTalk Radio website. Sure enough, an attempt on my part to log on just produced a message that my account there has been disabled.

And of course I found out in the predictable way. No notification, no warnings, no nothing. Just zap, you’re gone.

Typical of the times. Typical of corporate scumbags.

I wonder if they think this is going to shut us up?

Take heart, friends, we are temporarily down but hardly out.

I actually figured out after starting the broadcast out of BTR that there are much more cost effective options out there that do not put me at the mercy of pro feminist corporate forces.

We will be back on the air the MRA way. On our own.

It will take a little time. I need to press BTR for the refund and then sort through the equipment and learning curve for the new set up.

My genuine impression of all this?

Fuck ‘em. There will be much more powerful entities than BTR that will try to shut me down before this is over with. Fuck them, too.

Recently our friend Harry posted that there was a need for a certain amount of MRA’s that were willing to be somewhat vicious in order to push for changes. I could not agree more, and I will add one to that.

Some of us are willing to be more than that.

There are only two circumstances that can possibly result in my being silenced.

Justice or death.

Anyone thinks I am kidding is a fool.

Now, I have an article to finish that I started before this minor inconvenience happened.

Effing pathetic eh?

Don't worry folks, AVfM may be silent for a few, but not permanently! Paul and crew (all those involved in the show in some form or other - including folks who donated) will be back... Even Stronger!

Here is Uncle Bern showing his indignation on this.

TMOTS

--- MSM wont, so AVfM will!

2011-06-29T07:09:00.000-07:00

Since the lame stream media sees fit to never mention when a female of the species does anything wrong... or if on the off chance one does ... excuses abound with the icing being a penis to blame somehow - One of the premier Men's Rights websites, A Voice for Men has decided that it is time to rectify this 'policy'.

--How's THAT for a 'sentence' eh?--

Anyhow, this new site, called REGISTER-HER.COM, while having some slight overlap with such great sites like The False Rape Society, will cover an abundence of female perps. From rapists to peados, False acusers to murderers... REGISTER-HER.COM will have it all.

Check it out. And don't forget, as Brother Paul says, take the red pill!

TMOTS

Tom Ball

2011-06-18T13:01:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I have posted. Indeed, lives of productive people become full and time short. But we do not forget what we have learned. We do not cease to contribute to the good fight when we can.

And we all stand by to jump into the fight in form of a full on assault when the moment is right. The mainstream media will not announce the moment for us. We do not have a general to call us to action. But we will know.

Along the way, there are moments and actions that remind us that the fight is still there, is still worth facing, and that our moment of truth and action will come.

Tom Bell reminds us. I am compelled to post in honor of Tom Ball. He fought the good fight. His actions were in the end extreme but he harmed no one. His analysis of the system that destroyed him is accurate. He has left behind a testament to the beast created within our legal institutions.

To read of his actions, go here: http://www.thedailyholden.com/Articles-c-2011-06-17-78443.113122-Holden-man-sets-himself-ablaze-in-front-of-New-Hampshire-Courthouse.html

To read his testament, go here: http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html#

I look forward to the day when we no longer need people like Tom Ball on the front lines of this fight.

--- A call for support!

2010-09-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, I am sorry for the lack of content as of late. Life once again gets in the way of these things.

And although life is still getting in the way, I felt it prudent to take a few moments to post - for no other reason but to prompt like-minded folks about an idea from a gent that a good many of you are well aware of already. Our own Bernard Chapin, of Chapin’s Inferno.

“Uncle Bern” has put the word out - about a new Facebook group (I know, I know, I hate that damned thing too but...) called The Men's Voting block.

The goals of this new group are simple and outlined as four “planks”. But, instead of attempting to explain them here, I’ll let “Uncle Bern” do it though his YouTube video located here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ1W8qcMs5c&feature=channel

We need unity men. We need to get behind someone - or at least behind an idea from someone - that will ensure our voices are heard. I think that Bernard’s attempt here is as good as any place to start.

So, let’s get to it men! Get on your face book accounts and join in! Bernard’s goal is to get 10,000 members. Sounds daunting at first, but I think it is quite possible when you think about how many MRA/FRA’s are out there. Even if you are not an MRA/FRA but agree with the premise that men are being marginalized by today’s socialistic climate, then join in!

Here is the link to the Facebook group;

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mens-Voting-Block/152293551470077?v=wall&ref=ts

You have your orders men!

TMOTS

---‘Classical Liberal’ Alex Knepper Fights the Power!

2010-05-01T05:17:00.000-07:00

‘Classical Liberal’ Alex Knepper Fights the Power!

A little old but still relevant.

American University, Washington D.C. –An opinion piece on Campus censorship in the campus rag The Eagle has turned into a full blown media circus. The Washington City Paper was first to pick up the firestorm, with FOX, NBC, and now CBS’s The Early Show climbing onboard.What’s the entire hubbub about? What’s the big deal about some college kid writing an article for the University’s paper you ask? By now, you have undoubtedly heard of Alex Knepper. If not, read further.

In his initial piece titled Dealing with AU’s Anti-sex Brigade, Alex commented on how “Jeremiah Headen likely lost the vice presidency of the Student Government over a hyperbolic Facebook note.” The comment? An all-caps final sentence “call to raid booty and women from neighboring villages”.

Alex couldn’t see what the issue was. In his opinion, it was most assuredly a “silly” comment, but it really had nothing to do with the content of the total writing.

In his own words, Alex states:

“The comments on The Eagle’s Web site, mostly by Gay Party activists and feminists, condemned Headen for being an “anti-queer misogynist” and for undermining American University’s commitment to being “safe space” for the “gay community.” He was also rebuked for using the term “hermaphrodite” instead of “intersex.”

What a sniveling bunch of emotional cripples! I have never encountered a more insular, solipsistic view of human sexuality than at this college. The rigidity of Pat Robertson has nothing on feminism.”

Knepper further opines on the feminist dogma of “social construct” and the religious like fanaticism with such gems as “Sex isn’t about contract-signing. It’s about spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender). Feminism envisions a bedroom scene in which two amorphous, gender-neutral blobs ask each other “Is this OK with you?” before daring to move their lips any lower on the other’s body.”.

As with anyone that challenges feminism or gays, Alex states that “For my pro-sex views, I am variously called a misogynist, a rape apologist and — my personal favorite — a “pro-date rape protofascist.””

Knepper’s words hit a feverous pitch with his opinion on the feminist Holy Grail, rape. In an attempt to put his prose into prospective, he states;

“Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!”

One would expect that with his creative words to define feminists and feminist ideology with lines like “Put down the Andrea Dworkin and embrace the fires of sexuality!” he would garner a few dissenting tongue lashings in the comment section, but you would be wrong.

At last view, over seven hundred comments to date is a telling indicator of the can of worms Knepper has opened. At one point, the comments section was closed (somewhere around six hundred) due to issues with “personal attacks” and “threats”. Considering that Knepper was attacked and labeled a ‘rape apologist”, conservative, and in need of psychiatric help, all in the second comment alone, it is no wonder that Alex responded in the third and fourth comment stating;

“Believe it or not, this column went through about five edits to remove remarks deemed too inflammatory.” And “Also, I am not a “conservative” and do not want my viewpoints associated with it.”

Reading further, Knepper is additionally labeled with such shaming words as misogynist, woman hater, metapod, a-hole, insensitive, and the coup de gras, he has ugly cats.

On April 1st 2010, Alex responded to his critics via opt-ed in the Newsbusters titled “Sex, Lies, and Media Bias: A Chronicle of Censorship in Campus”. No, he did not offer up an apology. Nor did he retract his statements. He merely, as with any good journalist, fledgling or not, offered up an explanation, within a chronology of sorts.

The first indication that Knepper had opened the preverbal can of worms was a call on Monday afternoon by Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper. Hess was calling to inquire as to Knepper’s feelings on the fact that hard copies of The Eagle had been gathered up, replaced with signs stating "NO ROOM FOR RAPE APOLOGISTS" and thrown back at the main office of The Eagle.

Upon further investigation, Knepper discovered that members of the cultural-Marxist campus "social justice" organization called Community Action and Social Justice (CASJ) and Women's Initiative were responsible.

Knepper finds this both confusing and humorous. For removing information from public consumption that one doesn’t like is exactly what he was initially speaking of – censorship.

Described as a “classical liberal”, Alex states that the article was “designed to elicit strong responses and spur a spirited debate. But the reaction from the campus left, and feminist groups in particular, has been simply beyond the pale of reasoned debate and does a supreme disservice to the notion of a liberal education. It is an attempt at de facto censorship.”

That evening the CASJ held a special meeting to discuss the “Alex Knepper Question”. Knepper felt that it would be prudent for him to attend along with the thirty or so people – to hear what they had to say and even to answer questions.

Immediately upon arrival, an organizer approached Knepper and asked him to leave for “safety reasons” Alex responded, “Do you think I'm going to hurt someone?” To which she responded: "I think you've hurt enough people already." An attendee, Knepper claims is a feminist, identified herself as a rape victim and asked him to look her in the eyes and tell her that she deserved to be raped. Knepper writes, “Almost in disbelief I told her calmly that this of course was not the case.”

As the meeting progressed, Knepper discovered just how adamant the feminist and CASJ members were about this being a political “talking point” and that someone had to pay, specifically Alex Knepper. Ideological political pressure was abounding.The meeting was filled with questions as to how the editors (women) could allow such a ‘pro-rape’ column to be published, what they had to say to all rape victims, and whether or not Knepper was to be fired.

Within the next 24-hours, the attendees had constructed a list of demands which consisted of firing Alex, print the Sexual Harassment code in the next publication, apologize for the column, removal of the column from the archives, and the resignation of the Editor-in-Chief. Additionally what Knepper found to be odd was that many of the students that under normal circumstances could care less about the paper were also rallying to “take it back”. Admittedly, Knepper doesn’t expound on what “take it back” actually refers to.

In true fashion, Knepper was asked to resign his position. He responded; “I'd sooner be fired than send the message that CASJ has a free-reigning veto over the rest of the campus' behavior.”

In the end – of this chapter anyhow, Knepper has agreed to finish out the semester with The Eagle and to not apply for the columnist position next semester. An agreement he willingly accepted since he was told that new editorial policies would be put in place to “weed out provocative columns”. Again, censorship, the point of Alex Knepper’s articles all along. And something that Alex could not sanction. At the time of this article, The Eagle has suspended all opinion pieces and issued an apology which can be read here.

Knepper cannot decide if the main stream media is indeed bias or stupid but it would appear that the coverage of his statements is out of context. His interviews with NBC, CBS, and ABC have all been shot and he has seemingly seen the to-be-aired version and he claims that they edited the interviews in such a manor that alters the context of what he actually stated.

IF anything comes from this Alex admits that “the fight against campus Stalinism will proceed -- and as more and more media pick up on this, the more we can expose what's happening on college campuses all over America.”

Sources:

Alex’s Original Article:

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/

Follow-up Article:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-knepper/2010/04/01/sex-lies-and-media-bias-chronicle-censorship-campus

The "Apology" from the Eagle:

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/a-message-from-the-eagle/

TMOTS

--- The Reason is Worth the ‘Weight’

2010-03-30T06:07:00.000-07:00

Racine County – March 9, 2010 – Each day, for a few hours of business as usual at the Racine County Courthouse, a lone man walks slowly, painfully, taking periodic breaks during his four block route only to reposition the heavy weight he bears upon his shoulders.

Ricardo Martinez is a father. Not unlike many fathers in the 21st century, he is divorced and a father who relishes what little time he is allowed to spend with his children, yet he aches for more.

Although the court has given Martinez ‘joint custody’ of his six and seven-year-old sons, that doesn’t mean he actually gets them fifty-percent of the time. What it really means is that he sees his boys Wednesdays and the occasional weekends, an amount of time he says is not nearly enough.

Martinez adds, “I'd rather be at home with my sons enjoying them," he said. "I've already missed ... years of their lives." That's why he walks; bearing a 12-foot wooden cross - Similarly to that of Jesus Christ of the Christian faith.

Martinez claims that he is carrying the cross to call attention to the plight of fathers that deserve to see their children but are vilified in family court. An apparently religious man, Martinez uses the cross to symbolizing his plight: He states; “As people hurt Christ he too has been hurt and as Christ died for his children Martinez too would do anything for his”.

To exemplify his religious and paternal convictions, he also wears a sign which states, "The question isn't what will he do for his children.” “The question is what wouldn't he do for his children."

Admittedly unemployed, Martinez states that while many show support for his cause, there are those that are insensitive and cruel stating he should get a job or a life. One man stopped and shared his similar plight of child custody while others have stated they are glad that he is standing up for his children.

Ricardo Martinez is an activist of sorts; he is and will always be, a father first. While Martinez is well aware that his activism will most certainly not change his case, he walks to create awareness of future fathers and children.

Source

TMOTS

--- Meet Your Oppressors

2010-02-19T05:30:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while, someone, somewhere does something that makes you just say... WOW!

You want activism? You want to get involved? You wanna blame feminism? All feminists? Just some? Why not blame the feminists (or supporters) that feed bogus information to those that make policy and law? Well, here is your chance.

Welmer over at The Spearhead gives you a great place to start! Here is THE list of all lists!

This list contains most, if not all of the femikook and mangina types that are making men's lives miserable via policy and/or law.

Get them damned pens (keys) ah movin! Share this list! Share it far and wide! if anything, share The Spearhead URL with other MRA/FRA's!

____________________________________________
Meet Your Oppressors
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/02/18/meet-your-oppressors/

Are you one of the millions of men who has seen his life crumble under the treads of the family law system? Did you ever wonder why hatred and abuse directed toward men was so prevalent in school? Maybe you’re an employer who got screwed in a sexual harassment lawsuit, or an employee who was falsely accused.

Perhaps you are the victim of an ex parte TRO (temporary restraining order), and were summarily evicted from your own house and your children’s lives. You might have tried to fight for custody of your children, only to find the deck stacked so high against you that you had no choice but to give up.

Maybe your wife had an affair, then received your house plus a hefty alimony judgment and now lives there with her new boyfriend.

After facing terrible injustice, you can’t imagine who would ever create this monstrous, oppressive system that has driven you to ruin and despair. You look around, but you have no idea who is to blame.

Look no more, because The Spearhead has come upon a neatly compiled list of people who are directly responsible for your pain and suffering. Yes, the people listed below are proud to be the source of your affliction, and broadcast their efforts to ruin the lives of more men from their lecterns in our nation’s institutes of higher learning. They write law, indoctrinate students, influence judges, serve as legal advisors to organizations such as NOW, and generally put a great deal of effort into beating down men with the law.

Of course, the following list is not comprehensive, but it’s a good start. It shows where they work, and has links to CVs that detail their experience and affiliations. Those who are interested in activism can use the info to protest the nearest school, or if they are alumni to demand an explanation for why the school is promoting sexist, misandrist female supremacists.

These lists are golden for political purposes, as cross-referencing can easily identify associations that are dedicated to feminism, allowing us to identify enemies and their allies as well as their opponents. They should be widely distributed so that plenty of people can use them.

Albany Law School
Alicia Ouellette
Laurie Shanks

American University Washington College of Law
Ann Shalleck
Anthony Varona
Billie Jo Kaufman
Christine Haight Farley
Mary Clark
Nancy D. Polikoff
Pamela Bridgewater
Victoria Phillips

Boston University School of Law
Katharine Silbaugh
Linda McClain
Wendy Gordon

Brigham Young University School of Law
Cheryl Preston

Bristol Law School
Rachel Fenton

Brooklyn Law School
Anita Bernstein
Liz Schneider
Minna Kotkin

California Western School of Law
Nancy Kim

Chapman University School of Law
Francine J. Lipman

City University of New York
Caitlin Borgmann
Deborah Zalesne
Jenny Rivera
Julie Goldscheid
Michelle Anderson
Penelope Andrews
Rebecca M. Bratspies
Richard Storrow
Ruthann Robson

Cleveland State University College of Law
Lolita Buckner Inniss

Columbia Law School
Ariela Dubler
Carol Sanger
Caroline Bettinger-Lopez
Elizabeth Emens
Elizabeth Scott
Jane Spinak
Katherine Franke
Kendall Thomas
Patricia Williams
Susan Sturm
Suzanne Goldberg

Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
Marcia L. McCormick

Drexel University College of Law
Anil Kalhan
David S. Cohen

Duke University School of Law
Kimberly Krawiec

Elon University School of Law
Eric M. Fink

Emory University School of Law
Martha Fineman

Florida Coastal School of Law
Nareissa Smith

Florida International University College of Law
Cyra Akila Choudhury
David D. Walter

Florida State University College of Law
Faye E. Jones
Lesley Wexler

Fordham Law School
Sonia Katyal

George Washington University Law School
Alexa Freeman
Joan Meier
Naomi Cahn
Neil Buchanan
Phyllis Goldfarb

Georgetown University Law Center
Nan Hunter
Rebecca Tushnet

Golden Gate University School of Law
Leslie Rose

Gonzaga University School of Law
Mary Pat Treuthart

Hamline University School of Law
Marie A. Failinger
Sharon Sandeen
Tom I. Romero

Harvard Law School
Elizabeth Bartholet

Hofstra University School of Law
Barbara Lukeman
Elizabeth M. Glazer

Humbolt University Berlin Law Faculty
Susanne Baer

Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law
Felice Batlan

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Susan H. Williams

Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis
Jennifer A. Drobac
Shawn Boyne

John Marshall Law School
Colin Miller
Doris Long
Susan L. Brody

Lewis & Clark Law School
Kathy Hessler

Louisiana State University Law Center
Christine Corcos

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
M. Isabel Medina

Marquette University Law School
Andrea K. Schneider
Jessica E. Price
Lisa Mazzie Hatlen
Rebecca Blemberg

McGill University
Kim Brooks

Michigan State University College of Law
Catherine Grosso
Cynthia Lee Starnes
Joan Howarth
Kristi L. Bowman
Melanie B. Jacobs

New York Law School
Ann F. Thomas
Carlin Meyer
William P. LaPiana

New York University School of Law
Amy Adler
Meg Satterthwaite
Sylvia Law

Northwestern University School of Law
Elizabeth L. Inglehart
Kimberly Yuracko

Ohio State University College of Law
Marc Spindelman

Pace Law School
Adele Bernhard
Alexander K.A. Greenawalt
Andrew C.W. Lund
Audrey Rogers
Barbara Atwell
Bennett Gershman
Bridget Crawford
Darren Rosenblum
David Cassuto
David Dorfman
Don Doernberg
Emily Gold Waldman
Horace Anderson
Janet A. Johnson
Jeffrey Miller
Jill Gross
John Humbach
Leslie Yalof Garfield
Linda Fentiman
Margaret M. Flint
Marie Stefanini Newman
Michael Mushlin
Michelle Simon
Noa Ben-Asher
Ralph Stein
Vanessa Merton

Pennsylvania State University
Eileen Kane

Princeton University
Imani Perry

Rutgers University School of Law – Camden
Imani Perry
Sarah Ricks

Rutgers University School of Law – Newark
Suzanne A. Kim

Santa Clara University School of Law
Margaret M. Russell
Michelle Oberman
Stephanie M. Wildman

Seattle University School of Law
Julie Shapiro
Lily Kahng
Margaret Chon

Seton Hall University School of Law
Rachel D. Godsil

South Texas College of Law
Kathleen Bergin

Southern Methodist University School of Law
Rose Cuison Villazor
Susan Scafidi

Southwestern Law School
Angela Riley
Danni Hart
Gowri Ramachandran
Judy Sloan
KC Sheehan
Myrna Raeder
Sung Hui Kim

St. Thomas University School of Law
Lauren Gilbert

Stanford Law School
Deborah Rhode

State University of New York at Buffalo
Athena D. Mutua
Martha McCluskey

Stetson University College of Law
Ellen Podgor
Marleen O’Connor

Suffolk University Law School
Frank Rudy Cooper
Jessica Silbey
Kate Nace Day
Marie Ashe

Syracuse University College of Law
Kevin Noble Maillard
Leslie Bender

Technorati
Technorati

Temple University School of Law
JoAnne Epps
Kathryn Stanchi
Marina Angel

Texas Southern University School of Law
Deana Pollard Sacks

Texas Tech University School of Law
Jennifer S. Bard

The University of Chicago
Mary Anne Case

Thomas Cooley Law School
Kimberly O’Leary

Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Marjorie Cohn

Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Deseriee Kennedy
Meredith R. Miller
Tracy L. McGaugh

Tulane University Law School
Elizabeth Nowicki

Umeå University
Åsa Gunnarsson

University of Alabama School of Law
Kimberly Ann Bart
Meredith Render
Montré D. Carodine

University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law
Theresa M. Beiner

University of Baltimore School of Law
Leigh Goodmark
Margaret Johnson
Wendy Gerzog

University of British Columbia Faculty of Law
Claire Young
Susan B. Boyd

University of California at Irvine School of Law
Dan L. Burk

University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall
Melissa Murray

University of California Davis School of Law
Courtney Joslin
Dennis Ventry
Lisa R. Pruitt
Madhavi Sunder

University of California Hastings College of Law
Kelly Weisberg

University of Cincinnati College of Law
Barbara Black
Kristen Kalsem
Margaret Drew
Verna Williams

University of Colorado School of Law
Carolyn Ramsey
Clare Huntington
Laura Spitz
Marianne Wesson
Scott Moss

University of Dayton School of Law
Pamela Laufer-Ukeles
Vernellia R. Randall

University of Denver College of Law
Ann Scales
Kristian Miccio

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Bonita Gardner
Bret Boyce
David Koelsch
Jennifer Henderson
Julia Belian
Julie St. John

University of Florida College of Law
Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol
Nancy Dowd

University of Houston Law Center
Nancy B. Rapoport

University of Idaho College of Law
Elizabeth B. Brandt
Maureen Laflin

University of Illinois College of Law
Beth Burkstrand-Reid
Christine Hurt
Sara R. Benson

University of Kansas School of Law
Stacy Leeds

University of Kentucky School of Law
Lori Ringhand
Sarah N. Welling

University of Louisville School of Law
Jim Chen

University of Manitoba Faculty of Law
Debra Parkes
Jennifer L. Schulz
Karen Busby

University of Maryland School of Law
Danielle Citron
Karen Czapanskiy
Martha M. Ertman

University of Miami School of Law
Caroline Mala Corbin
Donna Coker
Mary Coombs
Zanita Fenton

University of Michigan Law School
Jessica Litman

University of Minnesota Law School
Dan L. Burk
Heidi Kitrosser
Mary Louise Fellows

University of Missouri-Kansas City
June Carbone
Nancy Levit

University of Nebraska College of Law
Colleen Medill
Eric Berger
Sandi Zellmer

University of Nevada Las Vegas
Ann McGinley
Jean Whitney
Kay Kindred
Lynne Henderson
Rachel Anderson

University of New Mexico School of Law
Margaret E. Montoya
Marsha Baum

University of North Carolina School of Law
Tamar Birckhead

University of Oregon School of Law
Caroline Forell

University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
Ian Kerr

University of Pennsylvania Law School
Anita L. Allen-Castellitto
Anne E. Kringel
Regina Austin

University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Anthony Infanti

University of San Diego School of Law
Orly Lobel

University of San Francisco School of Law
Maya Manian
Rhonda Magee

University of South Carolina School of Law
Ann Bartow
Danielle R. Holley-Walker
Jacquline Fox
Kim Diana Connolly
Susan Kuo

University of Southern California Law School
Mary L. Dudziak

University of Tennessee College of Law
Becky L. Jacobs
Fran Ansley
Jennifer Hendricks
Joan MacLeod Heminway
Mae Quinn

University of the Pacific School of Law
Miriam A. Cherry
Ruth Jones

University of Toledo College of Law
Llewellyn Gibbons

University of Victoria Faculty of Law
Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey
Gillian Calder
Maneesha Deckha
Maureen Maloney

University of Virginia School of Law
Kerry Abrams

Vanderbilt University Law School
Beverly I. Moran

Vermont Law School
Joan Vogel
Stephanie Farrior

Villanova University School of Law
Michelle Madden Dempsey
Penny Pether

Wake Forest University School of Law
Jennifer Collins
Margaret H. Taylor

Washington & Lee University School of Law
Joan Shaughnessy
Susan D Franck

Washington University in St. Louis
Laura Rosenbury

Wayne State University Law School
Linda M. Beale

Western New England College Law School
Erin Buzuvis
Giovanna Shay
Sudha Setty

Willamette University College of Law
Laura Appleman
Susan Smith

William and Mary Law School
Rebecca Hulse
Susan Grover

William Mitchell College of Law
Sarah Deer

Again, I take zero credit, none, nunka for this great list. All kudos go to Welmer over at The Spearhead.

And the 64K question of the day is...

Notice anything odd about this list? Anyone? Beauller?

TMOTS

--- Paul Elam of MND Call For Action

2010-02-06T06:52:00.000-08:00

From HERE!

MRA John Dias of Misandryreview.com has put together a sterling collection of animated banners to get the word out all over the blogosphere about the upcoming Symposium on Male Studies.

Choose one or two of these banners an place them on your home page. Write other MRM bloggers and ask them to join you.

Do the same with other blogs that are political in nature, or educational, or religious. They need not be MRA oriented to understand the value of the OSI objective.

In an act as simple as putting a banner on a website, you can help spread this critical message across the MRA world and beyond in these last 8 weeks before the conference. Oh, and once you have the banner installed on your site, go ahead and click through and register for the online stream of the conference. It will be the best $15.00 you spend this year.

After two weeks have passed, if you see a men’s rights website or blog that does not have one of these banners, please write them respectfully and ask them why they aren’t supporting the greatest opportunity in forty years to further the cause of men and boys.

And if your next move is not to grab a banner and the URL from this page, the allow me to ask respectfully:

What are you waiting for?

Just click through any of the four images located HERE to see the full animated version and to download. Be sure to direct them only to:

http://www.malestudies.org/

Thank you in advance for getting on board to make this a success.

TMOTS Says: Ditto!

TMOTS

---"Sexist" or not, I'm posting it!

2010-01-27T06:40:00.001-08:00

Normally when I see something like this on fool tube, I just snicker to myself and move along. Not this time. With all the 'real' commercials that are out there today that do nothing but make men look like abusive idiotic bafoons, this is a real breath of fresh air!

Enjoy!

And if you are a femikook and naturally find this offensive, s'matter, can't take a joke?

TMOTS

---Domestic Violence? Really?

2010-01-22T05:37:00.000-08:00

If there was ever any doubt that no matter what a man does in anger, it's domestic violence...

Here's proof...

BRADENTON, Fla., Jan. 7 (UPI) -- Authorities in Florida said a man was arrested for allegedly smearing meatloaf in his wife's face while they were discussing a separation.

The Manatee County Sheriff's Office said Lance David Ziegler, 39, allegedly picked the meatloaf up off his kitchen table and smeared it into his wife's face Wednesday after she announced her intention to leave him, the Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune reported Thursday.

Deputies said they arrived at the home at about 7:45 p.m. and found the woman's face was slightly red and slathered with small amount of residual sauce.

Ziegler, who told deputies he had not hit his wife, was arrested and charged with domestic battery.

Now consider this when thinking about the actions of Mary Winkler, Mary J Blige, Elin Woods and so many many other independent and strong women...

TMOTS

---A Beacon of Hope for men - part deux

2010-01-14T07:53:00.000-08:00

You know your orders brothers!

(Note: When downloading - if the file extension is missing, add the .pdf extension to correct.)
MRm! - Issue 2

TMOTS

---Merry CHRISTmas!

2009-12-26T07:02:00.001-08:00

There, I said it. Don't like it? Tough shit!

TMOTS

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger, you are an enabler

2009-12-11T19:12:00.000-08:00

So, riddle me this Batman.

You hear a car crash late at night outside your house. Ignore that you know who may have been in the car.

You go out the front door to see what is going on.

Do you take

A) a cell phone to call 911?
B) a first aid kit to render assistance?
C) a golf club to, uh, hit something with?

Yeah, you answered C didn't you. You are as smart as Tiger's wife, and probably care as much.

The Geezer has spaketh.

--- A Beacon of Hope for men

2009-10-17T06:29:00.000-07:00

A new milestone in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has been reached, the launch of a new magazine entitled MRm!

This edition was produced by Factory (Editor and Creative Director), with contributing writers Amfortas, Fidelbogen, Paul Elam, and Angry Harry. Great job, guys! Give it a look-over, and feel free to send them your feedback.

E-mail the editor at mrm.magazine@gmail.com.
MRm! - Issue 1

Read it! Download it! Email it! Pass it on!

You have your orders!

TMOTS

Best to Treat Seattle Women Like Children

2009-04-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

"Disappointment, defined as the gap between expectation and reality, is an immutable part of life. True adults — those who are mentally and emotionally mature — accept, manage, and move past disappointments, and they don't expect others to prevent them.

Children, on the other hand, whether 5 or 35, do not and cannot deal with disappointment. Despite all the talk about feminism and equality, Americans, via outmoded chivalry and unconstitutional reproduction, child-custody, rape, and domestic-violence laws, keep women in perpetual childhood. Yes, American women have grown accustomed to being spared risk, pain, and disappointment."

Read more of this excellent piece by Marc H. Rudov.

SnoCo DV shelter changes name, but not tactics

2008-10-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

Now calling themselves Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County (Everett, WA), instead of the Center for BATTERED WOMEN, becuase they want to serve men they say. Yeah, right sayeth the Geezer.

Note this from the business pages. Operative part below:

"Cost is $15 plus an unwrapped gift or gift card for a mother or child"

Guess the men and their children they now serve get bupkis.

Geezer OUT!!!!

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20081027/BIZ/710279956&SearchID=73334242920869

Special eventsHelp the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce take a bite out of domestic violence with a lunch donated by Outback Steakhouse, from noon to 2 p.m. Nov. 19, at 10121 Evergreen Way, No. 15, Everett. Proceeds benefit Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County. Cost is $15 plus an unwrapped gift or gift card for a mother or child. For information, call Julie Martin or Vicci Hilty at 425-259-2827. For information about Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, go to www.dvs-snoco.org.

--- Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti

2008-10-18T07:16:00.000-07:00

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti

Bare with me folks. This gets lengthy, but I will promise you, it is well worth the trip. Well, for some of you anyhow…

Well now, I am not one to point fingers at those that expect everyone else to follow a rigid set of rules, designed by them of course, but practice another…

Aww, who the hell am I kidding. I love pointing it out! Case in point. As the Gonzman would say, those hippy chicks at feministing… or in this case specifically, one Jessica Valenti, is at it again.

This time its sexist adverts depicting women in demeaning ways like…. Gawd! Doing… Laundry! Oh, did I mention that it was a retro-commercial? You know back in the day when a woman was in the home and a man was out in the fields/factory/office? Ah, no matter. Here is the ad first, then her comments:

Jessica states; "Clorox does end up unintentionally showing how women have been doing household grunt work for generations. The worst line in the commercial says that 'even a man or two' has done the laundry. As if all the women watching are supposed to have some little laugh to ourselves about the inequitable division of labor. 'I do shit work for free, tee hee!'"

“Unintentionally”? I think not. I am sure that the advertisers knew exactly what they were implying. The poor woman/evil lazy man theme is living strong and well in advertising and marketing la-la-land… trust me.

As a matter of fact, what’s this so called, “Shit work”? Seems to me that if clothes require washing someone needs to do them. Back when women ‘ran the house’ it was the woman’s job. Oh boo hoo. Furthermore just where in the hell does she get this “free” shit from? If she is “running the house” and he is FINANCING the household with his labor, then it is what we in the real world like to call, a partnership. His supporting of her, as in a roof over her head, food on the table, and the oh-so-wonderful MALE invention called a washing machine, are all considered as ‘payment’ for her SHARE of the workload.

Even by today’s standards, if he is working 60 hours and she is working 20 or even 40, just who has the time to be doing said washings? Certainly the person that has more time to burn. If that is the woman, which it is most of the time, Ooo-la-la! Logic!

Back when my children were young, their mother worked. I did also, but from the home. I have always had the comfort of working from the home. Now mind you, I worked just as many hours as she did, and sometimes even more. But you know what? I was here. It just made sense for ME to throw a load or two in during the day… to have dinner on the table, to take care of the soccer practices, recitals, and doctors’ appointments. I was the one that had the luxury of flexibility in my work. You know that thing that many employers afford to most women with children, but not to very many men? Yea, that flexibility. So I guess I am the “once in a while a man” they reference in the commercial eh Jessica?

Now lest I get on a tangent, not uncommon for me, this article is not about the commercials specifically. It is about the hypocrisy of a self proclaimed ‘predominant’ feminist blogger(s). But to do that I have to show where the hypocrisy begins; let’s continue shall we? In another similar entry (aren’t they all?), Jessica goes gaga over yet another advert. This time it is Tom Ford’s perfume for men ad. Here is the advertisement as well as her post on the advertisement:

Tom Ford wants everyone to know about his big, thick, hard...perfume bottle"
(Jessica Valenti)

Jessica says, “Just in case you didn't get the oh-so-subtle hint the first time around, Tom Ford wants to make sure that you know he has the most cock-like cologne around.”

Admittedly, I kind of agree with ole Jessie as far as the “WTF” factor. I just don’t get the ad. Why is it necessary to put his bottle on the crotch of a woman’s obviously shaven beaver? I really don’t get it. BUT! ….. BUT! All things being equal, advertisers do things like this for shock value - amongst other things. The point is to get you to remember. And it does, does it not? Think of Tag spray for men for starters. Or better yet, have a gander at this!

FORD’S COMMENTS:
"It was meant to be a play on the new [fragrance] campaign," Ford says—ads are running in magazines on newsstands now that show a bottle of his juice strategically placed in front of a woman's crotch, barely obscuring the holiest of holies. "But there's a double standard with featuring female nudity and featuring male nudity," Ford adds. "When people say to me, 'Well, you objectify women,' [I say] I'm an equal opportunity objectifier. We had a lot of magazines reject the female version [of the campaign], so the male version is going to get rejected even more."

Interesting how THAT little tidbit (pardon…) of information/imagery never entered her nice little buttoned-up ideology, eh?

As for her reference to an “oh-so-subtle hint the first time around”, she is referring to an initial post on her site pertaining to an advertisement similar in nature, below:

And if that isn’t enough to show her disdain for the evils that are male, have a look at this short post:

“Oh. My. God.”

“This may be one of the most heinous (and most ridiculous) displays of dismembered women's body parts I've ever seen. The question is, is it more disturbing to dismember with functionality like a sink, or just straight up for display?“

“The fact that this product in particular is being used as a substitute for a dead animal makes it a wee more heinous for me, but it's a toss-up."

Hmmmm… “Dismembered”? And what my dear would you call a ‘dildo’? You know, those “personal care items” you so pleasingly and enthusiastically promote?

To whit;

“In a campaign to expand the range of their products, Amazon.com has recently started selling sex toys. Awesome.

It’s actually a shitload (around 37,000) of sex products, ranging from condoms and lubricants to dildos and vibrators, located in the Health and Personal Care section. Condoms and lubes have been the top sellers of the products, reaching the top 100 best sellers on the site.

So kudos to Amazon for expanding the personal care of their customers! Click here to check out the products o’ pleasure. After all, who can resist when the vibrators are decorated with daisies.”

Oh, I forgot. That’s differennntttttttttttt……

Anyhow. Moving on…

Sexist? Sure…I guess you could say that. Poor taste? Most certainly. stupid? Indeed. I also find the singing fish of similar form to be stupid as well. “Heinous”? WOW! I donno. Maybe, but not without admitting that many, many advertisements use men in similar manor if not worse. For instance:

The All Men Are Bastards Knife Blocks

The advert (left) claims, “If you've got some aggression to get out and need a place to store your kitchen knives, this is the product for you. It comes with five stainless steel knives--a paring knife, bread knife, carving knife, and large and small chopping knives. The blades are protected in the rear by a clear plastic sleeve.”

Or how about this image of a TV advert:

Trojans ad tells men (and women) that you (men) are pigs unless you use their product…so to speak. Funny how a product that is *supposed* to be for men or at least instill ‘sexual responsibility’ in men demeans them by calling them pigs if they don’t. BUT HEYYYYYYYY! Suck it up! Take it like a man! You know the drill. Shrill and shame…. Shrill and shame.

And not to be outdone by one-offs (or even two-offs) here is yet another one….

Oh the hilarity! Isn’t that just a hoot? Of course ole Jessie and her cohorts have no issue with this bit of ‘humor’. Narre a peep. After all, “It’s just a joke!” Right?

Now, least I be accused of being one-sided…Here is the ‘female version’ of above said pen holder…

But that is where the similarities end…. Ole’ Jesse is upset about the FEMALE VERSION, but says nothing about the male version. Stating;

“Apparently there's more than one woman-hating pencil product out there. First there was the headless doggie-style sharpener, and now Shakes shows us this: Lusty Linda the pen holder.”

You'll note from the packaging that Lusty Linda can utter "8 lusty sayings," which fall into one of two categories”, "good mood" or "bad mood," controlled by the click of a switch. Says one site (screen cap) that sells Lusty Linda, "too bad all women did not have such a switch." Ho ho ho!

Her "bad mood" sayings include "Ow," "Help, Help!" and "Get out you, you dirty old man." You know, because rape is hilarious. “

Indeed Jesse. Rape is hilarious…But only when it’s a man that is… Or should it just be ignored, like you did/do?

Furthermore, one could say that the male version wasn’t present when she did her ‘article’ about the evil, vile, and misogynistic female version. One would be wrong. You see, they ARE BOTH on the same page of the seller that she got her information and image from! Not only that, the male version IS FIRST ON THE PAGE! So, we can surmise that she did indeed see the male version, but chose, in true feminist fashion, to ignore it. Also note that the URL is: http://www.prankplace.com/penman.htm, whereas the name of the page is…PENMAN…

ahem… But I digress... Yet again.

And to add more hypocrisy to her never-ending level of ridiculousness, she calls out Glenn Sacks on his article on such objects, stating;

“Recently "men's rights activists" scoffed at the idea that we were offended by the pencil sharpener, which blogger Glenn Sacks wrote "depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy." (What woman enjoys fucking without her head, I don't know.) I wonder if they'll find more excuses as to how "Help!" and "Ow!" are actually cries of unabashed pleasure.”

Hmmm, how blind can she be? The male version ALSO says similar things when the pen is inserted into his ass. Well, almost. There are no ‘approving indicators’ or ‘good mood’ categories. Only cries of pain…humorous as they are!

Of course, one of her cohorts just has to add her supporting diatribe. You know, to hit the point home;

“Cara puts it well:

This promotes rape. If you buy one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you laugh at one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you don’t laugh but still think that it’s a harmless joke, you are promoting rape. If one of your friends has one, or thinks it’s funny, and you don’t say anything about it, you are promoting rape. (Note: Bold hers)

How many more times do we have to say it? Rape is not funny.”

How exactly did we get from a tasteless and admittedly stupid pen holder to promoting rape? Only in a feminist mind I guess. But wait! Isn’t the male version promoting rape as well?

Of course not! That’s different! It’s funny! Can’t you take a joke? Gesh TMOTS! Get with the program! When it is perceived as derogatory towards women, it is derogatory towards women, period. When it is perceived as derogatory towards men… we men need to get a sense of humor.

Uhuh, we have heard it all.

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

Frankly, using sex to sell is a tried (or is that tired?) and true method of advertisers. Using violence and insults is not…. Well, that is unless the recipient of the violence is male that is. America’s Funniest Home Videos anyone? You cannot watch that show without seeing no less than two males getting it in the nads. Funny effin shit eh?

Now, I have just spent a significant amount of your time showing how Jessica Valenti; the feminist, has a real issue with sexism. Logically, you would guess that the crux of the issue is actually the objectification of women as sex toys, sexual play things, Using their bodies to sell, degrading them, etc…etc… ad nausea.

Please allow me to submit Exhibit A. This is Jessica at a gathering with other ‘like-minded’ individuals. Or so……she would have you believe….

Notice anything interesting about the image? Here, let me help you less piggy type readers of mine, or the blatantly stupid folks; her gal-pal is grabbing her breast. Now, from her own admission, she is heterosexual. So, the begging question is, WTF?

This is what ‘respectable professional feminist type women’ acts like? Better yet, at a quasi-public gathering? Isn’t this ‘sexual harassment”? Isn’t this an example of disgusting sexual behavior? Sexual harassment?

Would she smile so matter-of-factly if it were a male doing the titillating (pardon…)? Is this just one of those ‘girl thangs’? If so, then how can you be against evil vile men using women as sexual toys, sexual harassment, and allow this to happen to yourself… let alone be photographed? Furthermore, allow it to be published publically on the internet?

Oh, I answered my own question… Silly me. It is only when MEN do it or even thinks about it… THEN! It’s actually bad….

Oh! Wait! I got it! Did she ply you with alcohol? That’s it isn’t it? RAPIST!

Oh wait, silly me, yet again. If that is rape, then it must be a ‘good rape’.

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

And before any of you claim that I am just a MANster of photo-chopping. This is a real photo. Furthermore, don’t even go to the “well she was drunk and it was this one time….at band camp” crap.

For if it were, just once…at band camp, Exhibit B would not exist right? To whit:

Well, well well… Another titty grab! At a wedding yet! Not sure if it is the bride doing the grabbing, but WTF? Sure looks like it eh? Oh.. And by the way, should she be wearing white? I doubt it. Now that I think of it, where is the man-boy? How does he feel about his future wife acting like this at their wedding? Oh, I forgot (yet again). The wedding is HER day…Only about HER… Only her dreams, desires, and wants… not him. What he thinks or looks like with this sort of sexist activity is of no consequence… She is empowered! She is “OK with her sexuality!” And he damn well better be too! Or else!

SHIT! Wait a minute! A feminist? At a wedding? The imperial venue of the Patriarchy? The patriarchy’s tool of female oppression!? NO! It cannot be! Something is amiss!

In the ever popular style of Rod Serling; “Imagine if you will.. A man, about to be wed, grabs one of his patron pals in the jewels for a photo-op. The Wife to be…. Happy as a lark, giggling like a child with these interesting and empowering images burned into her and her parents’ heads…”

Yea… rightttttttttttt!

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

But wait! There’s more! Have a gander at this next action-packed image!

Huh!? Isn’t that …uhm….shit! That’s her sister, Vanessa! WOW! Mom and Dad must be oh-so-proud! So not only does ole Jessie have different male/female standards for public displays of ‘affection’, she also apparently thinks that lesbian incest is fine too! As does Vanessa as well I guess.

You go girllllllllz!

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

TMOTS

Like, Um, Brilliant

2008-09-01T14:08:00.001-07:00

The Democratic national convention began with sadness as I saw the hope I had invested in the blank slate of Obama evaporate after his choice of Joe Biden. Not even that well crafted documentary prior to Obama’s speech by the creator of An Inconvenient Truth who almost sold me on Al Gore as something more than he is (though not on global warming) could bring me back.

Of course, most guys who began that week still drawing pictures in erasable ink on the whiteboard of Obama probably continue to do so. There are not many who have bothered to research the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), of which Biden was the chief architect, and understand that it is essentially now a political crime to have a Y chromosome. But Biden is a non-starter for anyone that has.

Then, last week began with confusion. There was “wrinkly white-haired guy” with Pay-who?

I thought this guy McCain, who normally puts me to sleep, had finally made one of those crazy, unpredictable moves the press keeps claiming he is prone to. You know, Sen. “Maverick” and so on. I thought he’d done something stupid. I thought he was out of and Obama was sure to win. I was pretty sure the small number of guys like me that actually dig deep into policy issues, constitutional law, and know something about gender feminism would suffer 4 years of Biden that would only be slightly less palatable than a President Hillary Rodham.

But, as the week progressed, it started to dawn on me that the guy that normally makes me drowsy after beginning a speech with “my friends” might actually be on to something. The media that is hell bent on getting Obama elected had actually allowed some video time of Governor Palin to slip through. I don’t think they’ll make that mistake often for the next 60 or so days. Or, maybe I only saw her when surfing through Fox News, which already has hottie news anchors that don’t feel upstaged easily.

In any case, McCain seemed cleverer to me as the week progressed. The larger picture began to come into view. And I began to realize that maybe even Washington State could be in play in this presidential election.

For a Washingtonian, a female on the ticket is no big deal. It seems mandatory here to have righteous gender feminist female politicians running things. And the few men in positions of power, like Mayor Nipples, pander to the gender feminist establishment.

But, Sarah Palin is hot. Even after birthing five kids. Now, that is something unusual. And she doesn’t hate men. That is even more unusual for any guy in the state of Washington beaten down by the triumvirate of Gregoire, Cantwell, and Murray.

I mean, think about it. Gregoire is the ugly witch from the West, complete with a mole on the nose and a smile which, when she forces it through her scowl, makes you think she is imaging a brutal torture she has planned for her mangina husband later that evening. Cantwell is the ice lady. She occasionally shows up at Mariners games with good-looking guys half her age, and the women of Seattle celebrate that Cantwell is “dating” younger men in a reversal of the image that makes them so angry – the older guy with younger woman. Never mind that the guy with Cantwell is just some gay political aid that she arranged to have tag along just to create the image. I don’t know if Cantwell is a lesbian, but I’m pretty sure she’s not much into men. Then there is Patty Murray. She reminds you of the unfortunate girl in high school who always seemed angry at the boys and you always knew it was because she was just ugly and it was obvious to all that, at best, her future had a short, frumpy, bald accountant in it. She apparently does have a husband, but either she hides him in the closet, or he chooses to hide himself there whenever she comes back from inside the Beltway.

Then there is Sarah Palin. She was runner up for “Miss Alaska.” When you’re thinking of politicians and sex, it’s usually either the image of Bill Clinton pushing himself on a young woman caught up in the stardom, or some cranky old gay bashing Republican hitting on guys in a stinky public toilet.

Now, come on, admit it! How refreshing is it to look at Palin and think, “Damn, I’d like to do her.” Then you stop yourself and realize that is a bit of a ridiculous thought. Then you think, “Well, at least her husband, the guy that does do her, looks like a cool guy to hang out with. I mean, he has hot-rod snowmobiles and stuff!” She’s hot. She’s smart. Her husband seems like a cool dude. And she doesn’t hate men. And she’s in politics?!

Now a thought emerges that maybe McCain is smarter than he looks. Maybe the “dumb, out-of-touch old white guy” the media has managed to massage into our collective reticular activator (watched many commercials lately?) does not apply to McCain.

Fast forward to the Vice Presidential debates. What a pickle Biden is in. The wannabe “tough” guy, the cowardly “protector of women.” The architect of VAWA. Up against an opponent that is a woman, is hot, is anything but a “victim,” and thinks his policies are stupid. Palin is no gender feminist. What on earth is Biden going to do? What a lovely picture that makes ….

One starts to realize that the Obama crazed media has it entirely wrong. Palin was not chosen to get a slice of the supposedly disenchanted women who voted for Hillary Rodham in the primaries. The women that voted for Hillary are a thin slice of American women, all from the Democratic party. These women are the activist types, the types that see misogyny in their morning coffee, the type that despise well adjusted women like Sarah Palin, who are hot, successful, adore their man, and don’t know the meaning of the word “victim.” Hillary's sisterhood were never going to vote for a Republican no matter what, much less Palin.

No. What McCain is after are working class men and women. They don’t fall into one of the special interest groups – least not those that get the attention - which make up the Democratic party. The men will see Palin as refreshing, not just because she is hot, but because she doesn’t hate them. This is an unusual thing for these men. She will not be telling them they should feel guilty just because they are guys. The women in this group, well they have kids. And they tend to like their men. They may not be hot now, but they remember a day when they could turn heads.

Dino should be begging Palin to come campaign for him.

Goodbye Obama. It was fun for a while. Hello Palin.

From Daddy Blogger--August is Child Support Awareness Month

2008-08-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

Now, we tend to think immediately of CASH, but child support is much more than that, as evidenced by this excellent note from Father of Two.

The Geez

August 08, 2008
AUGUST IS CHILD SUPPORT AWARENESS MONTH

August has been proclaimed as "Child Support Awareness Month" in Michigan and throughout the United States.

Michigan's Family Law Court System would have you continue to support the outdated, biased, and stereotyped notion that a divorced, non-custodial parent (about 85% of the time the father), is good for nothing other than paying child support dollars into the system.

This is done to maximise the federal incentive dollars awarded to the states under Title IV-D of the Social Security System, which rewards every state for forcibly removing a fit, willing, and able parent from the life of his or her children.

"Supporting" your child does not come down to a divorced parent having a large part of their paycheck taken into this system to justify financial rewards.

Reasons to Support Shared Parenting
As a father of two, the following is my take on what "child support" really is, from A to Z. I hope you take the following to heart. These are just some of what I do, as a divorced, non-custodial father, to "support" my children.

A. Show AFFECTION for your children. Give them an ALLOWANCE for doing their chores.
B. Give them a proper BREAKFAST to start the day with. Make BATH time a fun, and clean experience.
C. CHALLENGE your children to rise to new heights. Increase their CONFIDENCE.
D. Appropriately and timely DISCIPLINE your children.
E. Set the proper EXAMPLE for them to learn by. Take them on ERRANDS with you.
F. Have FUN with your children.
G. GIGGLE and laugh with your kids. "GOOD JOB"-Praise them for good effort.
H. HUG your youngsters. Provide them a proper and safe HOME.
I. Embrace their INDEPENDENCE as they grow, but always be ready to wrap them in your arms.
J. JOKE with your children. Enjoy the lighter side of things.
K. KIDS will be KIDS. Let them be the wonderful youngsters they are.
L. LOVE your children. Tell them "I love you", often, and mean it!! Give them a nutritious LUNCH.
M. Teach them the proper MANNERS-to be courteous and respectful.
N. Learn how to say "NO" when necessary. Take them to enjoy the NEON signs of a fair or circus.
O. Take the unique OPPORTUNITY to shape the lives of your youngsters.
P. PROTECT them from harm. PROPERLY PARENT them.
Q. Give them a good QUALITY of life.
R. The "THREE R'S"-Reading, writing, arithmatic. Help them with and supervise their homework.
S. SUPPER, together, every night, as a family.
T. Give them your TIME. TEACH them right from wrong.
U. UNDER the covers-safely tucked into bed every night.
V. Take them with you when you VOTE. Take your children on VACATION with you.
W. WATCH television WITH your kids. Don't use it as a baby sitter.
X. Take them for X-RAYS, if they, heaven forbid, fall out of their favorite tree.
Y. Teach them how to use a YO-YO. Simple things are often the most rewarding.
Z. Take your children on a fun day trip to a ZOO. Fun for the whole family!!

Of course, there are hundreds of ways to truly "support your children". The system just wants to garnish the non-custodial parent's paycheck.

Help us say NO to Michigan's Family Law Court System. Denying a child the love, care, guidance, and nurturing of a fit, willing, and able parent is child abuse!

A FATHER OF TWO.

--- 21st Century 'moms'

2008-06-04T06:17:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, I come across a ‘site’ that just screams “ARE YOU EFFING SERIOUS?”

Below is a perfect example of what a 'modern' and 'independant' woman sees her husband as.... a mule. And what's her job? Guess...

It's a good thing she has time to follow her 'new passion' as well, feminism...

Oh, and I refuse to give a link to this pathetic site. Suffice it to say that it is a site dedicated to, now get this.... mommies! And this was listed under the heading of “The Equality Challenge”. Yea, okayyyyy…

Her post is in italics, and my responses are not...
___________________________________________________________
On November 18th, 2007 Barbara (not verified) said:

“Hi everyone! I just have to make mention a couple of things. First is the fact that I am in my mid thirties and have found a new passion (other than my wonderful husband and just as wonderful four children). My new passion is the subject of feminism. From it's very beginning to the current issues has held my fascination for the last few months or so. This is the reason I have come across this wonderful forum.”

Mid thirties, four children….. wow! Must be chaos in your house! Especially when you add feminism to the mix.

“Second, I too have a fantastic 'partnership' for a marriage. My husband works fulltime in an extremely emotionally, physically, and psychologically difficult job, goes to school to complete his second degree, and is also "on call" 24-7.”

Well, at least she can admit that it isn’t really a partnership, albeit subconciously. Note the use of the ticks around the word ‘partnership’.

So he works his ass off, goes to school, and is on call 24/7, and is supportive of you. And what exactly do you do to support him?

“With all this being said, he is the most supportive man I have ever been lucky enough to have met. He went from a single man to marrying me- a single mom of two with an abusive ex-husband. (whom is still extremely mentally and psychologically abusive) Duane (my wonderful husband) has taken the challenge of parenthood to the absolute extreme.”

Oh, that’s right, you gave him a ready made family and just for good measure, you added a couple more. What a woman.

And of course, just to add a little icing to the top of the cake, the tried and true “I have an abusive ex….blah blah”…. Got it. Thanks. And what exactly does that have to do with the price of freaking tea in China?

“Not only is he an active parent of my first two children, but in 2004, we were blessed with a set of girl/boy twins. My wonderful husband was never asked to change diapers because he was always headed that way before I got a chance to. He changed diapers, did dishes, had "binky patrol", got up almost every single night each and every time it was feeding time, etc., etc., etc. He did this even when he went back to work after taking a six-week FMLA.”

Well, isn’t that special. He got to take ‘family leave’ (without pay I am sure) so that you could… uhm… what….. sit on your fat ass and watch him do everything? How very…. Uhm… 21st century woman and supportive of you. Were you sick? Is there a reason for you not to do anything and he does everything (by her own admission)?

So he is an “active parent”. Gesh, then what does that make you? I would really hate to see what an “inactive parent” looks like. Oh wait….

“Now fast forward three + years and he continues to take on any chore that is necessary to maintain our household. This includes, but is not lmited to, dishes, cleaning bathrooms, planning AND cooking meals, vacuuming, windows, grocery shopping, potty-training assistance, laundry, etc. The list goes on. The really neat thing about this - I have never had to ask him to do these things. He does these things on his own!!! How cool is that? Oh, I must also mention that I am a stay-at-home-mom.”

Hmmm… The kids appear to be of school age now… At least two are and the other two are most likely in kindergarden. What is it exactly do you do all day again? Oh that’s right, you’re a stay-at-home-mom! That’s what! Oh wait! “potty Training assistance” so that must mean you at least do part of that…..

WHEW! Take a break! Must be very tiring! Would you like some bonbons with your oprah Madam? I am sure if you call your man-slave at work, he can stop by the store and get you another box!

Curious though, does he ever ask you to do anything? Do you ever ‘just do it’ because it needs to be done so that after a nice easy day at work he doesn’t have to come home and do it? Nawwww that would never enter into your selfish little mind now would it. Why would you? You can just sit around feeling lucky and ‘allow’ him to do it all and you so that you can follow your new passion, feminism! You go Grrrlll!

“So for all those who have lost hope as I had once done, every now and again there is a man (many more perhaps) that actually know how difficult running a household fulltime is. He walks in the door, takes off his uniform, rolls up his sleeves, and gets busy. This absolutely includes the fun "hi-yaaa!!!" (say it like you are doing a karate-chop). There is even bathtimes, story-times, and snuggles to be had!”

Lost hope in what? Having a personal slave that not only does everything traditionally his, but all of your traditional stuff as well? WHOOT! Man! What a lucky son-of-a-bitch he is! Or should I say husband-of-a-bitch….Seems more apropoe. All is well though. You found your gold ring! You can have time for your new passion and just wait a few years for him to croak! Then, it’ll all be yours!!!!!!!

“Knows how difficult running a household fulltime is”.

Really? How the hell would you know? You, by your own admission, haven’t a clue as to what it takes. Oh, wait, I take that back. You do know what needs to be done, you just don’t do any of it. You just gloat on a femikook site about ‘how lucky you are’.

Oh, you are lucky all right. No man in his right fucking mind would put up with this shit. You are a stay-at-home-mom but you don’t do any 'mom' stuff! Well, except the stay at home part that is. Personally, the word leach comes to mind.

“I still am very interested in becoming active in the feminism works of current events. Please give me some ideas that I can do to begin this challenge.”

Well for starters, how about getting your ass out of the house and work, you lazy bitch. Secondly, according to feminism, equality and sharing the workload is the order of the day. So you best be getting your ass off the couch and start doing some chores around the house. Maybe a nice dinner from the microwave once a month for starters. Wouldn’t want you to get overwhelmed now would we… Maybe you should go on holiday or something… you know, some ‘me time’. You sure could use it.

“I thank you all for your time.”

No problem. Not like you have any time to spare, so what else is a slav….err man who has plenty to spare to do?

“Sincerely, Barbara”

Oh, I don’t doubt that you have some redeaming qualities, I am just not sure what they are. I am sure though, that sincerity isn’t one of them you pathetic meatbag!

SOOOOOoooooo… Let's recap, shall we?

He works 6 days a week in a physically, emotionally, and psychologically challenging job.

He is ALSO attending college to get his SECOND degree.

He comes home and immediately "rolls up his sleeves and gets to work" by cooking dinner, doing baths, cleaning, laundry, etc etc.... all the while continuing to do traditional male things like house/yard/car maintenance stuff.

And what does she do? Well, she is a 'stay-at-home-mom'. Uhuh. Good to see that she understands what a stay-at-home-PARENT really does…

In closing, I am not condemning all stay-at-home-moms. It’s just that this woman is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that they (some) are so full of shit. In her warped little mind, this is what a husband ‘helping out’ is all about. Well, I don’t consider this a partnership at all. This man is on a one way trip to his grave.

If a woman wants the traditional role (staying at home mommy) then she should be doing the traditional STAY AT HOME stuff! Pretty simple actually. When I was a WORK-at-home-dad, I did most of the traditional mom stuff as well as my own dad stuff. Why? It made sense, I was home! She was out working her ass off, keeping us covered medically! It was the right thing to do! I had the flexability, and the time, I used it wisely. Something that the modern day stay-at-home-moms seem to have conveniently forgotten about.

TMOTS

P is for Prostate Cancer.

2008-05-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

Click here and sign the petition.

More info HERE.

King County (Seattle) Sheriff Sue Rahr wants to hear from the sheeples, unless it is about DV

2008-05-07T19:11:00.001-07:00

There was an article on Monday, in the Seattle P-I fishwrapper, about finding missing persons using cell phone records. Sorry, the on-line version was cut down and doesn’t have the quote about "we don't want to assist perps in finding their DV victims".

Now the story had nothing to do with DV, she inserted that little bait.

So, having a "relationship" with her Spinmeister, Sgt. John Urquhart, I wrote him a note, and copied her (text below) on what I thought of that.

I thought the note was fairly complimentary, but not the evil Sheriff Susan Rahr, who is in bed with the DV Divas, and their FLEAS© (That is Family Law Elitist Attorneys).

Bottom line, she thought she was replying to Herr Urquhart, but instead, sent it to the Geezer.

Now we know what the pols think of us, when we take the time to write at their invitation, and tell them what we think.

Oh, and that is really her desk phone number in her signature line.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rahr, Susan
To: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: Two things, two emails, this is the first

Who is this jerk?

Sue Rahr, King County Sheriff
516 3rd Ave.
Seattle, Wa. 98104
206-296-4155

From: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:49 AM
To: Urquhart, John
Subject: Two things, two emails, this is the first

Your boss did a nice job with the press on the cell phone tracking article this morning. No doubt due to your working with her, to give her just the right words.

You can tell her that I said so.

And I don't say nice things about her that often.

However, (a good friend told me to always ignore everything before the words however or but) her dragging the canard DV into it really detracted from the piece......from memory.....'we don't want to reunite an abuser with his victim'.......

So, I can make a public records request, or you can just tell me. How may times, over what time frame (last year or last two years) have there been requests that you determined were an abuser chasing down the victim of DV requesting you track them down via cell records??

Yeah, that is what I thought.

The Geez

FLEAS © Lisa Scott

---The Ignored (or is that Hidden) Truth

2008-04-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

You know, every time I see a pink ribbon campaign I get pissed off. Oh sure, some would say; “if you knew someone that survived or even died from breast cancer, you’d think differently.” Well, I have, I do, and I still feel the same thank you very much.

Recently, I was ‘discussing’ yet again, the disparity in research, care, and funding for men’s health issues. And of course, the subject of breast cancer being the #2 killer of all female creatures on the planet, whereas #1 being the patriarchy itself…

Tired of the bullshit ‘facts’ thrown around, I decided to waste some of my time researching the actual FACTS from two major sources, that of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NCI (National Cancer Institute).

Oh sure, I already knew that there was a significant disparity, but I wanted ALL THE FACTS. The how many’s and how muches, so to speak.

As with any “official statistical gathering”, there is always missing years. Why? I haven’t a clue. We are in 2008, yet there is very little concrete numbers more current than 2006/07.

Anyhow, without further ado, here is what I have found. By the way, I took the time to find this information, if you want to argue it, feel free, but look it up yourself. I aint your research bitch.

ACTUAL AND REAL NUMBERS on the disparity in research, education and treatment of two prevalent gender specific cancers; Prostate Cancer and (Female) Breast Cancer specifically.

Information from the 2006 NCI (National Cancer Institute) Fact Book:

Total budgeted dollars spent from 2002 - 2006 overall:

Male – 1.4 Billion
Female – 2.78 Billion - Almost twice the amount.

**Research dollars spent in 2006 alone on two gender specific cancers:

Male Prostate Cancer – 293.2 Million
Female (only) Breast Cancer – 584.7 Million - Again, almost twice the amount.

Estimated Incident rates of cancers for all races for 2007:

Male – 766,860
Female – 678,060 - Over 100,000 more cases in males versus females estimated

FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Incident rate was 2.3M/1.7M Male/female – a difference of 600K more men.

Estimated Mortality Rate for all races 2007:

Male – 289,550
Female – 270,100 - Over 10,000 more male deaths estimated

FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Mortality rate was 1.2M/807K Male/ female – a difference of about 400K more men.

** In most of their data sheets, 2006 was the latest numbers.

And for those that do not like to read, here is a cute little graph from the CDC showing the top 10 cancers - incident rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):

And here is the top 10 cancer mortality rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):

Please note the CDC’s reason for 2004 being the latest information:

“Previous versions of United States Cancer Statistics have been updated with 1999–2004 cancer cases as reported to CDC as of January 2007, and as reported to NCI as of November 2006, and made available through the SEER Program public use file.”

Notice that although not the #1 killer, prostate still KILLS MORE MEN OVER ALL RACES than breast cancer kills women... yet where is the research? Where is the $$? Where are the walkathons, the cans in the 7-11, the ribbons, and the stamps?! Where? Shit, even testicular cancer gets more media attention... and that is only because recently, a few public figures (Lance Armstrong for example) have MADE IT A MEDIA ISSUE. And that isn’t even in the top 10 cancers with just over 7 thousand new cases and 380 deaths in 2007.

Cute little tid-bits of info:

In 2006 alone, our government “granted” (gave) foreign countries: 28.16 Million dollars for cancer research. No stipulations or explanations as to where it actually went. Nice to know we have that sort of cash to just give away for…well… who knows?

In 2005, an additional $2.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.

In 2006, an additional $6.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.

So let us summarize:

Although the prostate is the #1 cancer site, we as a country spend almost double the amount of money on research, care, education and program moneys (USPS Stamps) on breast cancer (specifically women’s breast cancer – yes girls and boys, men can and do get it too).

Although prostate cancer is the #2 overall cancer killer of humans (sorry girls you are not the primary victims this time), breast cancer gets more media attention, funding, donations, educational programs, and of course donations.

Although prostate cancer doesn't differentiate between common men and political leaders, there have been recent politicians that have had a battle with prostate cancer... Yet, they continue to perpetuate this financial discrimination, I call it 'gray discrimination', upon all men. why?

Tell me again why we need a Federally Funded Women’s Health Commission as well as an International Women’s Health Commission (read – our tax dollars) whereas none exists for men?

FOR the people, OF the people, and BY the people.. eh?

TMOTS

Poor, Poor White Women

2008-04-10T16:23:00.001-07:00

Isn’t it amazing how white middle aged women can find victimhood in an embarrassment of riches? Well, Joni Balter of the Seattle Times can.

You see, Joni and her poor white women friends need to go around whispering that, instead of towing the sisterhood’s line and going rabid for Hillary, they are Obama supporters. This is particularly funny, because white middle aged women in Seattle have a pecking order of political correctness for "identity groups" and, clearly, Obama the African American is not far from the top. Maybe a gay man who is part of a “committed” gay relationship, that also has adopted kids, would rank above Obama as a statement of righteousness. Ditto for a lesbian under similar circumstances. But not much else.

There is this hilarious blog called Stuff White People Like that seems to be the basis for most of Joni’s opinions. Another really, really fun blog is White Women Suck. In fact, these blogs describe Seattle to a tee, even though they do not directly target our silly town. You will find the spirit of Joni Balter and most of Seattle's population in these blogs.

Poor Joni. She laments:

The most conflicted group of voters this year is women of a certain age [definition: over 40, over weight, frumpy, grumpy, divorced or never married, likely no kids but have a dog they treat as a child, and in need of a good lay] and political striping who have been told it is almost treasonous to support Obama because finally, at long last, a woman has a shot at the White House.

This is the worst part of gender politics, this notion that women should support women because of the double-X bond.

Why is that? Because it feeeeels bad? Upsets you? Maybe there should be a law the prohibits black men from running against white women for political office. Really, though, are you even sure Obama vs. Hillary is such a bad thing? I mean, Joni, the old gal, has found a way to appeal to the victim impulse of the majority of gender obsessed Seattle white women.

Actually, the worst part of gender politics is not that women should feel compelled to support women. It’s the victimhood claimed by one of the most spoiled populations on the planet. It’s this, the climate and political apparatus that promotes this, and this.

In any case, check out the blogs mentioned above. You’ll swear they are based exclusively on Seattle. And, you will get a good laugh in the process.

Did he really wear this shirt to a Child Support Workgroup Meeting?

2008-03-08T21:18:00.000-08:00

Here's a pic of one of the guys who is very supportive of children as well as supporting changes in the Washington Child Support guidelines and custody arrangements in Washington state. Not quite wearing a billboard in public, but close to it.

Who is he anyway? Looks kinda like that Geezer guy that occasionally posts here.

---Here's my letter - How about yours?

2008-02-18T08:02:00.000-08:00

Honorable Michigan State Parole Board,

I am writing to you in the hopes that you will revisit your recent decision to deny parole for William J. Hetherington. Also, I apologize if I may in advance for my rather lengthy letter.

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for over 20 years for the alleged crime of ‘spousal rape’. Coincidently, in 1986, he became the first man “convicted” under this new law. A law that was created, in my opinion, for no other reason than to vilify men in a court of law with no hope of fair and equal treatment under said laws. But that is not really at issue here. And even now, 20 years later, he is still incarcerated well beyond that of a ‘normal’ rapist all based upon the “he said – she said” model that has been proven time and time again to be the case when a divorce is in process.

In reviewing the parole hearing notes, your notes, it is clearly evident that William does not accept guilt for a crime that he believes he did not commit. Furthermore, it is quite clear that based upon your own notations, he does not propose a threat upon society, has bettered himself in many ways, has medical issues that require a specialty physician, and has been virtually a model prisoner. Under normal circumstances, these points alone would garner a pedophile or dare I say murderer, a chance to continue on with his life outside of a cell…

Yet you continue to deny this man parole. The question remains, why? For what reason are you denying this man his right to reasonable due process? Incarceration is supposedly used for two reasons, punishment and rehabilitation. Reverting back to your notations once again, it is apparent that the sole reason is that the "prisoner denies the offense".

Rehabilitation can only beget in the event of acceptance of guilt, for which William categorically denies to this day, over 20 years later. Since when is release from incarceration upon completing the ‘required’ amount of time dependent upon ones admission of guilt?

Punishment on the other hand should fit the crime should it not? If not, it should at least fit the guidelines set forth by the law in and of itself, should it not? The state of Michigan stipulates that the sentence for ‘spousal rape” is to be set at 1 to 10 years incarceration. Yet, without showing just cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years which is more than twice that of the average convicted rapist in Michigan.

As for the case itself, there are so many discrepancies; it boggles the mind when attempting to understand how this man was found guilty. I would dare to imply that it is that of made-for-TV movie on Lifetime. I would like to highlight a few indicators that I believe had merit alone to question the validity of this case and apparent gross miscarriage of justice. To whit;

Hetherington, a Vietnam Veteran, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial? Rhetorical, of course.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.

This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.
At sentencing, the prosecutor, one Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and maliciously accused William of beating Linda with no evidence to support his wildly false accusation. Coincidently yet again, Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists and gender-baiters.
Additionally, this particular point has all the components and indicators of William being ‘Nifonged’. A reference to the railroading of three innocent boys at Duke University by a rogue DA and a stripper and drug addict; Ms. Chrystal Gail Mangum.
For more than 12 years, the court has refused to provide William with court transcripts. Of course, without funds, he was unable to purchase one. Thus, he was effectively denied his right of appeal, an inalienable right supposedly granted to all accused. And to this day, no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.

No physical evidence, a Judges gross misconduct and political motivations, no legal representation, denied due process, denial of appeal, false testimonies, and blatant lies have kept this man in prison for over 20 years. All the while his estranged wife Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets. This achingly rings true to many men that find themselves in a bitter divorce and custody battle today.

For example, a few years later, a letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had babysitter for Linda. Suchy stated that Linda told her she made up the whole story about rape because she was pregnant from her boyfriend. And of course in true ‘victim speak’, she claimed that her boyfriend had pushed her to press rape charges, saying that “he wouldn't take care of the baby” if she didn’t "get rid of Hetherington."

Or course, Suchy's letter is justifiably considered hearsay, but it has the ring of truth considering the atmosphere created by the Domestic Violence and Divorce Industries. Yes, they are indeed part of an industry… A billion dollar industry.

It is my opinion that a good man's life has been sacrificed for no other reason but to show the women of Michigan that the new law is “tough on rape and DV”, nothing more. It mattered not if he was innocent or guilty. It matters not that his punishment has already exceeded that of a ‘real rapist’, threefold. The system must protect its own. And most certainly it must never-ever-ever admit its errors, let alone correct them.

Three innocent children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists and their lackeys who have lobbied for such slight-of-hand laws that punish GOOD MEN for such ‘gray-area-rape’ similarly to that of a rape or murder committed by a stranger. In creating this law, GOOD MEN are denied the right to cross-examine his accuser and have solidified a system that states a woman never lies, must always be believed, contrary to evidence and similar serial accusations… And the man… well the man is always guilty, isn’t he.

Coming full circle, let me just state that regardless of his guilt or innocence, the constitutionality of his case is sorely lacking and errs on the side of false imprisonment without due process; a human rights issues if I ever saw one.

In closing, I urge you to take a serious look at William J. Hetherington’s case. More importantly, I urge you to re-evaluate your decision to deny bail yet again.

If you believe he is guilty, then he has completed his time. And if you believe that there are too many discrepancies to ignore this man’s plight, please do what is right and release him. Give him a chance to have a life; a chance to be a father, a chance for his children to know this man. At least as their father if not moreso, an innocent man.

Supplimental Information:

I again urge my readers to write to the Michigan Parole Board at the following address.

Michigan Parole Board
C/o Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Letters should mention Mr. Hetherington's name and his inmate number of 186155.

Mr. Hetherington likes copies of letters sent to the parole board to be mailed to him as well. His address follows:

William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.

Remember, this could happen to you!

M is for Moms

2008-02-01T14:27:00.000-08:00

They can cook kids in ovens
They can drown them in lakes
They can chop off their limbs
They can burn them at stakes

They can smother them
Bleed them
Dismember them all
They stash their sad bodies
In closets, behind walls...

...In suitcases grim, beneath flower beds;
They begged for their lives;
And now they are dead

Their killers? -Their mothers;
Who beat, drown, and hack;
When it comes to child-murder,
The mom is no slack.

But when it comes to the court
And the newsreel we find
That men are the villains;
They think all moms are kind

They little consider
The statistics which tell
That families-sans-fathers
Are our children's worst hell

So pray for our children
And pray for the State
Which finds women all saintly
And men, reprobate.

Perhaps some day soon
We'll treat women like men
And not coddle those
Who kill most
Who cause Woe to Men.

MBTYIYS:
M

---Redefining and redirecting... A feminist Mantra

2008-01-14T07:06:00.001-08:00

So, once again the femikooks are all in a tither over what is or is not rape. I submit to you, a new term - "gray rape". Funny how I, an MRA/FRA have never heard of this term until a feminist mentioned it....

Supposedly, "gray rape" is like not 'real' rape, but rape none-the-less. Like when a guy and a girl start going at it and then she all of a sudden decides, for whatever reason, to withdraw consent. To me, this IS a gray area. If two people are already in the throws of intercourse, as in he has penetrated her, or in the supposed case below, oral sex has begun, and she wants it to stop, and he doesn't well... by definition, it is rape. But is certainly is a little gray wouldn't you say?

Read the alleged "rape" story:

The young woman calls what happened to her something akin to “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan written by Washington Post journalist Laura Sessions Stepp. Hunter admits she initiated the encounter. But she eventually withdrew her consent, she says. “The whole thing was very confusing to me, and I didn’t know what to do about it for such a long time,” she says.

His mattress was on the floor pushed up against a wall, she says. “I’m sitting up against the wall on his mattress, and he’s standing over me,” she continues.

“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head.… I started gagging and choking, and I couldn’t really breathe.”...She says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”

Now, I ain't no rocket scientist, but since when is giving a blow job called "it started to happen"? He is standing over her, she is performing oral sex on him. That much is very clear. So instead of stating that SHE was performing orally on him, the story teller (or the writer herself) chose to minimize her part in this "ordeal" by using cutsie worlds like "it started to happen"... Can't make "the victim" look like she was somehow responsible - at ANY level... right?

So if you femikooks have issues with terms like "gray rape", why is it that you have no issue with a woman sucking a cock and defining it as "it started happening"? What if HE used that term? "Your honor, I don't know what happened... I was standing over her with my cock out, and "it started happening". Uhuh... Thought so.

Getting back to the alleged "rape", he started acting like an ass by grabbing her hair & head (most women don't like that BTW pal) and shoving his penis deeper into her mouth. So far that she was having problems breathing. She got scared (understandably IMO) and tried to push him away...This is disgusting and pathetic, yes. But "rape"? Honestly, I am not sure.

Now, notice that the story doesn't go any further. Did "the deed" stop there? Did actual intercourse happen? Who knows. What we see is an example of an asshole, no doubt. But I would have a serious problem with trying this as a "rape" case. Especially if we find out that intercourse did actually happened AFTER the BJ. But I will err on the side of caution and assume that it went no further than this act.

So what do we have here then? We have an allegedly consenting adult woman blowing an allegedly adult male, he becomes crude and forceful and now he is a rapist? I think not. Again, an asshole? You betcha! But a rapist. No.

This IMO, IS an example of an asshole. And if there is such a thing as "gray rape" by definition, then this "COULD" be considered it; I am just not sure.

But let's go one step further just for the hell of it. Let's say that intercourse happened AFTER the blow job. Is this still rape? Is it a "gray rape"? Not at all in my opinion. Nothing more than a bad sexual experience... no more, no less.

Now let's look at a feminist's view on this:

"Rape can be confusing, it doesn't make it "gray." Feminists have long fought to dispel the myth that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you. In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Notice? Anyone? Can you see the ever so slight twists and turns? Here, let me help you...

First we have this nice little example of redirection....

"...that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you."

Notice the implication that he somehow did 'something else'. It's not just the BJ that happened according to this femikook. Or maybe it's that there IS IN FACT more to this story, but she chose to omit it... nawwwwwww... nice empowered, educated, and strong women don't do that sort of thing right?

Was she there? Does she know what this supposed "victim" consented to? I mean really! She is sucking his wee wee! Obviously she was at least consenting to that particular part of this so-called intimacy! DUH!

Follow me here....

The femi goes on to say;

"...In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker..."

First, we have the typical knee-jerk conviction. "Eventual-attacker"... WTF is that shit? It was inevitable that he was going to "rape" her? Is that what she is implying? I guess so, since he does in fact have the patriarchy patented tool that is called the penis!

Then she goes even further in her redefinition of the supposed event(s). To whit;

"...when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Uhm.... "He forced her"? Is she reading the same thing I am? According to the alleged victim, "it started happening". Remember? There appears to be no actual responsibility on either party according to her account...

"It started happening"... You know, like rain and snow. A force of nature 'en all.

Pathetic. Feminists always appear to be right on top of these sort of things (pardon the pun) but in reality they are only on top of it long enough to redefine and redirect responsibility.

I would gather that if women like this femikook had their way, any and all actual ejaculation would be considered rape. Pull out and spooge on her? RAPIST! Spooge into the condom when she "is not ready"? RAPIST! Oh! And if you dare to spooge IN HER MOUTH when she said that she didn't want you to... that is the new and improved UBER RAPIST!

Ever wonder why men are getting more and more tired of this sort of crap? Constantly redefining terms and words to fit their dementia...er I mean ideologies... Constantly redirecting responsibility so that it is ALWAYS the man's fault... Think about it ladies.. and I use that label lightly, one plus one actually does equal two. Not sometimes three, or in a leap year, five.....

This is a clear case (based on the small amount of information given - intentionally I am sure) of a sexual encounter with a creep. Yes, I said it. He was a creep. He was so into his own personal pleasure that for some ungodly reason, he 'forgot' that if you clog the throat of someone, they just might have a problem breathing. He was so into what he was doing that he made crude comments (at least to her) like "Yea, that's right, choke on it!". Asshole? You-betcha!

But "rape" it is not.

...and there ain't no gray here either....

TMOTS

We Are Woman?

2008-01-04T14:41:00.001-08:00

So much for the “monolithic women vote.” Hillary Rodham counted on it. And, since it does not exist, it did not come through for her in Iowa.

In fact, it appears that both John Edwards and Barrack Obama outpolled the nation’s leading gender feminist among Democratic women in Iowa. And these were DEMOCRATS. Translate that result to an entire country that includes a majority of independents and Republicans, and the outlook for the “we are women” strategy of Hillary Rodham is looking rather bleak. That won't stop Hillary's pals in the media, though, as they try to soil Obama any way they can.

A change in strategy is surely in the works. But maybe the pungent smell of victim oriented gender feminism will stick to Hillary no matter how hard she tries to morph into something she is not. Certainly, enough grown men realize that she is poison for men and fathers. And my guess is that there are plenty of mothers of sons out there who are appalled by the messages their little boys are getting in their public schools. They know where this misandrist philosophy comes from and who supports it.

So, the self-anointed heir apparent to the Democratic nomination – probably the White House in her own mind – must be loosing something of her sense of entitlement. Don’t count on it just yet though. The true nature of a candidate can often be seen in how they accept loss. Hillary’s speeches after getting trounced in Iowa not only did not concede defeat but sounded as if she had won. But I think New Hampshire will have a different view on the matter.

Truly, I am astounded. Over the years, I have found politics to be increasingly dismal. Particularly the entire election process for President. A long, drawn out 2 years of non-stop pundits and spin from the candidates in the rigged two party system, leading to an absurd “primary” season that keeps most of the country out of the process of choosing the ONLY two candidates, and finally the Presidential election with its virtually scripted debates. All that hot air when we may as well just auction off the White House since money raised is the best predictor of success.

My cynical view, indeed the view of anyone that has watched this process for at least a couple of decades, would be that Hillary Rodham pretty much had the entire thing wrapped up. Obviously not because she is the best person for the job, but because of the massive money supporting her, a husband who is arguably the best natural politician of the unfortunate (for us) baby boom generation, and just her sheer will to conform to the political winds and say pretty much anything in order to win at any cost. (Of course, what she says and what she would do in office are two completely different concepts). I pretty much expected Democrats to be brainwashed into mumbling “Hillary, Hillary” by now and robotically voting for her. Not so.

The corollary, of course, has Romney and his enormous chest of money winning as well. Huckabee – an honest guy with a positive outlook and a winning personality – proved that wrong. Meanwhile, while McCain is a big yawn, there is always Ron Paul to keep things interesting, especially in New Hampshire. Obama is well funded, but the money does not appear to be winning in, surprisingly, the party of money, the Republicans.

Could it be that people are actually thinking again? Could it be that someone as vile and full of hate as Hillary Rodham is not able to hide her true ugly nature despite the heroic status the mainstream media gives her?

Could be. In the meantime, it’s time to think about what to do in the Washington Primaries. Since the two party duopoly has rigged the system so that you must select a party in the primary vote (which leaves alternatives out of the picture), we should turn their system on its head and vote in a way that has the most impact. That means, of course, that you should vote within the party that you do not support and against the most vile, in your own view, of their candidates. Of course, what this means is that I will be voting among the Democrats and voting against Hillary Rodham and for Obama (who I kind of like anyway).

If you are a Republican and feel remiss about not voting for your candidate, think of it this way: your candidate will not win the Presidential election popular vote in the State of Washingon in November. Voting for a Republican in this state is a waste of time and a waste of your vote. My suggestion to all Republicans in the state is to vote in the primary election as a democrat and vote against Mrs. Entitlement. That will get the gender feminist dominated Democrats of this state all worked up and, hey, that is always a fun thing to do!

---Ah yes...Only men are pigs

2007-12-19T08:45:00.000-08:00

Here's one for the records....

Tue Dec 18, 4:05 PM ET

DANBURY, Conn. - Santa Claus says that a woman who sat on his lap was naughty, not nice. A Santa at the Danbury Fair mall said the woman groped him. "The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted," police Detective Lt. Thomas Michael said of the weekend complaint.

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, was charged with sexual assault and breach of peace. She was released on a promise to appear in court on Jan. 3.

Police quickly found and identified Lamy because the woman was described as being on crutches, said Capt. Bob Myles.

A call seeking comment from Lamy was answered by a recording Tuesday morning. A woman later called back and said: "It's a false report and I don't have any idea."

Police did not give the name of the disconcerted Santa, but they said he is 65 and felt badly because children were waiting to see him. "He was apparently shocked and embarrassed by the whole incident," Myles said.

A man who teaches hundreds of prospective Santas a year — "Santa Tim" Connaghan, president of RealSantas.com — said he's never heard of a similar incident, though it's not unusual for adults to want to pose with Santa.

"I've had some very nice ladies sit on my lap," said Connaghan, who did not train the Danbury Fair Santa. "Once in a while they'll say 'I hope Mrs. Claus isn't going to be upset.' You have to be discreet and kind and say 'Oh no, she'll be OK. You can sit here, but only for one photo.'"

A spokeswoman for Cherry Hill Photo, the company that coordinates Santas for Danbury Fair, declined to comment Tuesday.

Imagine if the roles were reversed? Imagine the public outcry! Imagine all the little chillens that would need years of therapy!

TMOTS

Now, when this is the selection criteria

2007-11-14T17:42:00.000-08:00

How much sympathy should we have if things go bad?

Is it asking too much to expect personal responsibility for personal decisions?

And how many do you know that use this schema as a selection criteria?

Sometimes the Geez just sees stuff that look familiar to him, and this is one.

Umm .. Wake Up

2007-09-06T23:35:00.001-07:00

What I find interesting about the King County Councilmember Jane Hague incident is that nobody seems to make the connection between this woman's behavior towards police and what her behavior is likely like within her own family.

As the Seattle Times quoted:

The arresting officers "did not deserve the rude and abusive behavior. I was very angry that night," said Hague. "I was angry at myself, I was angry at the situation and I took it out on them. There is no excuse for that."

It makes one wonder how at least half of domestic violence incedents start. The language used by Hague was psychologically abussive and demeaning. Even the Eastside Domestic Violence Divas classify psychological abuse as domestic violence.

I doubt the connection will ever be made, but it would be nice if people would wake up and get this topic out of the gender polical realm.

First Annual Charity Golf Tournament

2007-09-05T20:48:00.000-07:00

Join us for a day of golf, friendship and whole lot of fun as we support a great cause - keeping family relationships together.

The Other Parent is a non-profit organization that works to ensure children in separated families are able to rely on and benefit from the regular involvement of both parents in their lives.

Special guests include popular KISW radio personalities BJ Shea and Double R, who will be on hand to get the event started. Double R will also be showing his renowned golf skill as he vies for the tournament crown.

We’ll end the day with a great dinner, silent auction and closing comments by Double R and our other special guest, Seattle broadcasting icon Tony Ventrella.

WHAT’S THAT? You say you want to be on Double R’s ringer team and claim the top spot? You’re in luck, as we’ll auction off 2 spots to play with Double R. The lucky spots will go to the two highest individual combined bidders or the single highest bid by any twosome, whichever total is greatest.

The auction will be held on air by BJ Shea on KISW 99.9FM as the tournament date draws near. We’ll send out the date for the auction to all registrants in advance so those wanting to get hooked up with the legend that is DOUBLE R will have their opportunity.

SIGN UP NOW TO SECURE YOUR SPOT!

www.golf-events.com/top

Player Information:

The cost for this fun event is just $125/player and includes golf, riding carts, tournament gifts, dinner, awards and prizes.
Sponsorship Information:
Great sponsorship opportunities are available to show your company supports keeping children and their families together.
Sponsorships start at just $250 per hole and include player positions.

The Other Parent is a 501(c)3 charitable organization. Your participation is tax deductible within IRS allowances. For more information on our organization, visit www.TOPRights.org
Maplewood Golf Course
Friday, October 12 12:30
Shotgun Start Registration starts at 11:00

Event Directions:
From I-405 N & S take exit # 4 to Highway 169 Southbound.
Travel south for 1.7 miles to the golf course on your left hand side.
Google Map

Was Jesus With Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) at the Lincoln Memorial?

2007-08-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

Ray Blumhorst checks in with this brilliant analysis.

Now, don't tune out because it says Jesus, as there is no bible-thumpin' here, just a historical comparison.

Ray bloviates thusly:

When confronting difficult circumstances in their daily lives, it appears many Christians have found it spiritually edifying to ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” According to the theological reasoning, the answer to that question is revealed, situation by situation, as each Christian lives their life following the life of Jesus Christ.

A few days ago, Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) scaled the statue of Abraham Lincoln, residing inside the Lincoln memorial in Washington, D.C. While some in the Christian community have apparently questioned and criticized the actions of Fathers 4 Justice, I think Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) committed a brilliantly Christian act. Scaling the statue of Lincoln, inside the memorial, to protest corruption in America's family law system reminds me of examples of Jesus' behavior in His earthly lifetime.

When Jesus cleansed the Temple in His time, Jerusalem was on heightened alert for possible "trouble." Insurrectionists were violently confronting Roman authority throughout the region, yet Jesus staged His protest, none-the-less. Considering the actions of F4J, the life of Jesus Christ, and the fact that Lincoln died a Christian, I suspect Jesus was right there with those Fathers from F4J, beginning the cleansing of “the temple of corrupt family law.”

In the Lincoln memorial, above the statue of Lincoln and carved on the back wall, are these words:

"In this temple as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever."

Perhaps the single clearest memory of Abraham Lincoln is that of the great emancipator. Abraham Lincoln is remembered largely for issuing the emancipation proclamation and thereby freeing the slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EmancipationProclamation.jpg

To freedom loving men and women around the world, the memory of Abraham Lincoln has become a symbol of freedom over slavery, and justice over cruel tyranny. Given the vast destruction of families taking place in corrupt family law courts today, where children are routinely denied equal access to one of their loving parents, one can only wonder, "What would President Lincoln do if he were alive today?" Would Lincoln de-incentivise the predominant rewarding of custody to Mothers over Fathers and thereby enrich children with equal access to both parents? Would President Lincoln put an end to the governmental harvesting of Fathers for governmental financial gain and thereby work to end the alienation of so many parents from their emotionally impoverished children? Would Lincoln de-incentivise the predominant rewarding of custody to Mothers over Fathers and thereby abolish the harsh financial slavery that Fathers are predominantly under?

In His earthly time, according to the New Testament, Jesus is credited with boldly going into the Temple of His local theocratic government and cleansing it of money changers who placed exorbitant financial burdens on the people of His time. However, Jesus was not so mild mannered and peaceful as F4J. Jesus grabbed a whip and put it to the corrupt money changers, and others, who onerously exploited the good, decent people.

No doubt some will say I'm mixing theology with secular politics, but I disagree. Under the Roman rule of Jesus' time the local management of the people was handled in large part by the religious leaders in Jesus' community. Jesus was taking direct action to confront the corruption of those leaders and their underlings. It is truly sad, in my opinion, that many "leaders" of Jesus’ Church today lack so much clarity, conviction and integrity that they misandristly address the marriage crisis in their Churches, but ignore the bigger problem of blatant corruption in America‘s family law system.

To try to stigmatize Fathers 4 Justice as anything less than loving, caring, devoted Fathers (trying to work peacefully to change a corrupt family law system) is despicable, in my opinion, and lacking in good sense. To try to stigmatize F4J as anything less than the societal change agents for good they are striving to be, is vicious and un-Christian, in my opinion.

Regardless of critics, self-aggrandizing interests, the lack of main stream media news coverage, and the ongoing obstinance of government saying, “Don’t give them any attention,” it very much appears that the righteous cleansing of the corrupt family law legal system (temple) has begun in America - with significant action by Fathers 4 Justice. What will you now do?

Republished with permission.

Where Would You Hide...The TRUTH!

2007-08-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Not sure if any of you check out YouTube, read my blogs, SYG, or even know who I am but...

A while back the MSPCC (Massachusetts Society for the something or other) put out an very defaming PSA about fathers and child abuse. This ad, brought to the attention of many readers by Glenn Sacks and MND, essentially implied, once again, through MISinformation, that all fathers are brutish abusers; specifically that of children.

Note that Glenn & Co. called for the removal and he and a few other men of noteworthiness through their own channels were able to get the PSA removed from the television. I comment him for his victory for lack of a better word.

BUT! The damage is done…

And, of course this garbage is still prevalent on the internet.....

Furthermore, Glenn called for us MRAs NOT to bombard them with emails etc because they "had done the right thing" by removing the ad.

Maybe so, but let’s say a person drove over your favorite pet, caused by their own stupidity or recklessness and not just an honest accident. They, “doing the right thing” paid the costs ensued and even went as far as to purchase you a NEW pet…

Would you be all cuddly and palsy-walsy with them now? Of course not. You would still have anger, sadness, and feel angst towards them at some level. In other words, the images of your pet being killed at the hands of a reckless act (such as the likes of MISinformation) is STILL embedded in your mind. The feelings are still in your heart. The pain and anger is still there. Sure, time will heal but…. The image(s) are now there…true or not.

The damage is done…..

By the way, did you notice how I used non-gender specifics above? See? It is actually quite easy to do!

Back to my tirade. I for one disagree with Glenn. Respectfully of course, but none-the-less disagree still. If just one person saw that ad, believed the bull, and now views all fathers as the prevailing child abusers in the home, then the ad did what it was supposed to do and we are once again evil monsters. And I truly believe that this WAS what the intention of the PSA all along.

Sure, one could say that the ad was really about child abuse as a whole. But when the gender of the perp is specifically a male actor, specifically labeled a “father” or “dad”. You get the message. It would have been very easy for them to just use the word “parent” and still get the message out. Yes, this message needs to get out, I do not argue that point what-so-ever. But they chose agenda over the children, per se instead.

The damage is done….

Arguably, this PSA was geared specifically towards Massachusetts. The numbers, albeit slightly correct (for that year), were seriously lacking and MISguiding. As we all say, ‘cherry picking’ to prove your point painfully to an agenda. And taking that side intentionally to MISlead when the overall facts are COMPLETELY different is dishonest in the least. To ignore the real facts, because they support the opposite of your agenda, in the least should be criminal. How many ways can I say it…

When I see media like this, I battle within myself as to what I should do about it. I want to be active because I care; and yes, sometimes, angry about it. But I also have very little time to pee, let alone do these videos that I must confess, are a tad cumbersome to produce. It’s the researching part that gets to me. I get so downtrodden when I read, re-read, and yet read again how fathers are monsters and mothers are better than sliced bread! It gets to me. I get angry, depressed, and then angry again…. Vicious cycle. A cycle that I place myself within time and time again because I feel that if one doesn’t do SOMETHING, then they have no real basis to piss-n-moan.

Anyhow, this one was just a days (ok evenings) work and I believe well worth the effort. I already had the REAL facts, all I needed to do was recreate the “slides” and do a little remove/insert action. Adjust the timing, add a few additional CORRECT facts, tape myself playing twinkle twinkle on my keyboards, compile it and viola! Remember, this was an easy one!

Legally, I am probably wrong by using THEIR PSA with my CORRECT and easily locatable data. But sometimes, ya just gottah say fuck it. They need to be called upon their lies. Sure, it was removed from the Television, but it is still all over the net…. And folks are touting this as fact with epic proportions! BULLSHIT I SAY!

So that is my tangent. Here is my response video to the Massholes, and to those on YouTube that tout this garbage as fact…. Enjoy.

TMOTS

Gender Politics Do NoT Help Children

2007-08-02T09:29:00.001-07:00

Another glaring example of DSHS’s horribly misguided approach to protecting children has woken me from my summer slumber. The Seattle Times describes how CPS repeatedly returned a young boy to the home of his step-grandmother and grandfather. He was relegated to living in a trailer behind the house. And CPS signed off on it. Twice!

Worse, the boy was continually and severally beaten, choked, and burned by his step-grandmother.

Detectives now believe the suspected abuse — mostly by Loni Venegas — included beatings with a bamboo stick, choking and scalding.

Pierce county deputies had already removed the boy from his “home” in June suspecting that his step-grandmother was abusing him. CPS promptly returned him to his “home.” The Pierce County sheriff’s department finally took action again, removed the boy from his torture chamber, and indicted this horrible woman on seven counts of assault. The Pierce County Sheriff must have finally decided that with CPS around the only way to protect the child was to make sure Loni Venegas is in jail. Evident from the quotes in the article, the Pierce County sheriff’s department is extremely frustrated with CPS. All of us should be.

The Times barely mentions the fact that the boy's “grandparents” won custody in a bitter custody dispute after his mother was tragically killed in car accident in 2001. But there is no mention of just who was on the other side of the custody dispute. Was it his father? Or perhaps the parents of his father? Wouldn’t a balanced article have sought comment from them? How, in fact, did this boy end up in the hands of his violent step-grandmother instead of in the home of his father? Since fathers are considered unimportant or even innately dangerous, the Times reporter did not investigate the larger picture.

The Secretary of DSHS, Robin Arnold-Williams, has taken a stand. She has proclaimed that everyone is going to work together to fix this problem. Yeah, right. The problem IS Arnold-Williams and her bureaucracy of gender feminist ideologues that run DSHS. They are blind to the reality that women commit the vast majority of child abuse. In the mind of gender feminists like Arnold-Williams, when women are violent, it is the fault of another, usually a man. And of course due to the "patriarchal control and oppression" that supposedly characterizes our society. Just like family courts in the State of Washington, CPS is obsessive about putting children into the “care” of a woman, regardless of the actual circumstances.

This is just the latest in a string of CPS failures involving violent, alcoholic, or drug addicted women abusing children. This problem cannot be fixed until people like Robin Arnold-Williams, who have a gender political axe to grind, are removed from DSHS. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, DSHS needs to be refocused from a revenue generating machine for the state (through federal matching of child support collections) to an apolitical organization with the sole purpose and objective of helping people, families, and children.

Lest we forget!

2007-07-16T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Duke University List of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" Professors...

One down, many, many more to go! Well, at a minimum, 87 more. Remember them. Repeat their names. Remind everyone you know that this is what true bigotry looks like…

Just look at their “titles”. WTF is a professor of “Romance Studies”??? “Dance Program”??? Are you kidding me? Is this what passes as a “Professor” these days? God save our children!

Abe, Stan (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Albers, Benjamin (University Writing Program)
Allison, Anne (Cultural Anthropology)
Aravamudan, Srinivas (English)
Baker, Houston (English and AAAS)
Baker, Lee (Cultural Anthropology)
Beckwith, Sarah (English)
Berliner, Paul (Music)
Christina Beaule (University Writing Program)
Blackmore, Connie (AAAS)
Jessica Boa (Religion & University Writing Program)
Boatwright, Mary T. (Classical Studies)
Boero, Silvia (Romance Studies)
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (Sociology)
Brim, Matthew (University Writing Program)
Chafe, William (History)
Ching, Leo (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Coles, Rom (Political Science)
Cooke, Miriam (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Crichlow, Michaeline (AAAS)
Curtis, Kim (Political Science)
Damasceno, Leslie (Romance Studies)
Davidson, Cathy (English)
Deutsch, Sally (History)
Dorfman, Ariel (Literature & Latin American Stds.)
Edwards, Laura (History)
Farred, Grant (Literature)
Fellini, Luciana (Romance Studies)
Fulkerson, Mary McClintock (Divinity School)
Gabara, Esther (Romance Studies)
Gavins, Raymond (History)
Greer, Meg (Romance Studies)
Glymph, Thavolia (History)
Hardt, Michael (Literature)
Harris, Joseph (University Writing Program)
Holloway, Karla (English)
Holsey, Bayo (AAAS)
Hovsepian, Mary (Sociology)
James, Sherman (Public Policy)
Kaplan, Alice (Literature)
Khalsa, Keval Kaur (Dance Program)
Khanna, Ranjana (English)
King, Ashley (Romance Studies)
Koonz, Claudia (History)
Lasch, Peter (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies & Latino/a Studies)
Lee, Dan A. (Math)
Leighten, Pat (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Lentricchia, Frank (Literature)
Light, Caroline (Inst. for Crit. U.S. Stds.)
Litle, Marcy (Comparative Area Studies)
Litzinger, Ralph (Cultural Anthropology)
Longino, Michele (Romance Studies)
Lubiano, Wahneema (AAAS and Literature)
Maffitt, Kenneth(History)
Mahn, Jason (University Writing Program)
Makhulu, Anne-Maria (AAAS)
Mason, Lisa (Surgical Unit-2100)
McClain, Paula (Political Science)
Meintjes, Louise (Music)
Mignolo, Walter (Literature and Romance Studies)
Moreiras, Alberto (Romance Studies)
Neal, Mark Anthony (AAAS)
Nelson, Diane (Cultural Anthropology)
Olcott, Jolie (History)
Parades, Liliana (Romance Studies)
Payne, Charles (AAAS and History)
Pierce-Baker, Charlotte (Women's Studies)
Pebles-Wilkins, Wilma
Petters, Arlie (Math)
Plesser, Ronen (Physics)
Radway, Jan (Literature)
Rankin, Tom (Center for Documentary Studies)
Rego, Marcia (University Writing Program)
Reisinger, Deborah S. (Romance Studies)
Rosenberg, Alex (Philosophy)
Rudy, Kathy (Women's Studies)
Schachter, Marc (English)
Shannon, Laurie (English)
Sigal, Pete (History)
Silverblatt, Irene (Cultural Anthropology)
Somerset, Fiona (English)
Stein, Rebecca (Cultural Anthropology)
Thorne, Susan (History)
Viego, Antonio (Literature)
Vilaros, Teresa (Romance Studies)
Wald, Priscilla (English)
Wallace, Maurice (English and AAAS)
Wong, David (Philosophy)

TMOTS

Some things never change--Wrap that rascal!!!

2007-07-08T20:33:00.000-07:00

M is for Monday

2007-06-11T05:54:00.000-07:00

It's Monday and I'm off again,
On my long daily commute for my job.
The job I must have so as to pay alimony and child support to my wealthy ex-wife.
The commute means that when I do have my children, I see little of them. Arriving in time to tuck them in - if I am lucky.

I could get a job close to home, but I would earn a lot less, and my ex isn't interested in compromise. Alimony and Child Support are impossible to reduce, regardless of circumstance.

I must travel when I don't want to, and work at what I would not choose, so that my ex can live richly.

If I lose my job, I will still have to pay the same amount. If I fall behind on my payments while unemployed, I can still be arrested, and thrown in jail without trial.

In any hearing the burden of proof rests upon me: I am presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Because I am male, I get to pay my ex's legal fees too, irregardless of my or her employment status.

When the court bankrupts me, no civil or pro-bono defender is appointed, no one will touch my case.

I belong to a sex which exists to work, and provide for women. Even questioning this destiny is looked upon with derison - I will be labeled 'deadbeat', 'useless', 'lazy'.

If I have money, and date a woman for even a couple months, she may take me to court, claiming I made promises to her about caring for her forever, and not only will she win compensation and alimony, I will be forced to pay her legal bills.

If my girlfriend gets pregnant, she can kill the fetus, give it up for adoption, drop it off at any hospital without responsibility, or keep it without any input from me. I may never see the child, and may or may not have agreed to have a child. But if my girlfriend chooses, lies about sterility or birth control, or engineers an 'accident', I will find myself paying her child support, and probably alimony for 18 years, and possibly college expenses, healthcare, and a chunk of my retirement savings, and part of my assets.

Men work longer hours, at harder, more hazardous jobs, and die early, with a massive suicide rate, all to support the master race: women.

So next time you see a cute young thang showing everything she can, and wonder why, remember - she's advertising - she's hoping to flag down the ride of her life. Just try to make sure it isn't you.

And so I am off again to the salt mines. It's Monday, and I must work for my master, or be thrown in debtor's prison as a deadbeat. Look upon me and learn from my mistakes - and always remember who the masters are.

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

TALKING PREGNANT TRAILER TRASH DOLL--I think I used to date her sister!

2007-06-04T13:43:00.000-07:00

We're gonna come right out and say it... Barbie's so perfect it makes us sick. She's so pretty and so popular and so... so everything that we're not. Barbie makes us feel like pathetic losers. What we really crave is a doll that makes us feel SUPERIOR, for god's sake.
And now we've found one with this TALKING PREGNANT TRAILER TRASH DOLL
This astounding doll captures a world that Barbie has never seen. She wears a leather jacket and halter top, sports a head of bleached-blonde hair complete with curlers, and has a cigarette dangling from her mouth.
Oh, and she's pregnant, too. So even if Barbie has never met her, there's a chance that Ken did.
And she talks, too! When you press her bellybutton, the Trailer Trash Doll will say things like "Pour me a double, I'm drinkin' for two." and "Bubba Jr., get off your sister!"
She may not be well-heeled, but she's very well-made. She comes in the box as shown, and even includes a little baby doll from a previous pregnancy.
So you can join Barbie in her Dream House if you want. We'll be hanging out with the Trailer Trash on the other side of the tracks.

Success?

2007-05-25T10:35:00.000-07:00

John Morton of the Pew Charitable Trusts has found that men in their 30's are doing worse than their fathers did for the first time in American history.

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 -- their fathers' generation -- adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier.

See the full study here.

Provenge Revenge

2007-05-25T09:52:00.001-07:00

The FDA recently smacked men everywhere in the face, especially those suffering from metastasized prostate cancer. This came in the form of an obscure “request for more data” issued to a Seattle based company called Dendreon, which has developed a treatment for advanced Prostate cancer called Provenge.

To make a long story short, Dendreon has carried Provenge through Phase 2 clinical trials. In a double blind study, these trials showed men treated with Provenge lived on average 4.5 months longer than men treated with placebo. An advisory panel to the FDA voted 17-0 that Provenge was safe. Moreover, the panel recommended 13-4 that the FDA approve Provenge for treatment of prostate cancer. Of the 4 dissenters, the most vociferous was a female doctor who was primarily concerned with "procedure."

There currently are no options available to men with metastasized prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is first identified, the typical treatment is to remove the prostrate, at the risk of the patient loosing not only the ability to have an erection but also bladder control. After that all that is left to do is to pray that no cancer cells leaked into the lymphatic system and have spread. From that point forward, the typical treatment is to put these men on a regimen of estrogen treatment.

Dendreon’s Provenge promised an alternative; one that has been clearly shown to increase the lifespan of men with prostate cancer. While 4.5 months of life extension may not seem like much, it is worth life itself to men with metastasized prostrate cancer. And, remember, the men that made it into the study groups were those in the most advanced stages of the cancer. Provenge works by harnessing the body’s own immune system to attack the cancer. If men were given this treatment earlier in the cancer’s development, and prior to the cancer spreading to the extent of those men in the studies, their immune systems may have more time to fight the disease and curtail it’s spread while it is still manageable. For information on how the treatment works, consult Dendreon’s web site.

In typical oblique fashion, the FDA did not make public its reasoning for delaying availability of the drug. But, have no doubt, if a drug as promising as Provenge had reached this stage for the treatment of breast cancer the outcry from NOW and every other feminist organization would be deafening. In fact, with the NIH spending the vast majority of its cancer research funding on breast cancer (prostrate cancer is hardly on the budget), I doubt the FDA would have delayed the introduction of a treatment for breast cancer that showed the results of Provenge.

Now, instead of gearing up to provide Provenge to millions of men in need, Dendreon has been forced to lay people off in order to conserve cash. And pray that the FDA provides approval before they run out of cash and the treatment is lost to the world.

Once again, we see that men have no advocates in government. Isn't it interesting that while Dendreon is a Seattle based company, and the state's governor has proclaimed that the State of Washington will be a center of bio-medical research and development, our two women Senators - Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray - have uttered not a peep. Because the NIH pays little attention to any cancer other than breast cancer, men must rely on the private market to respond to our need for effective prostrate treatment. Instead of helping, the FDA has become a roadblock. Companies like Dendreon cannot sustain losses in perpetuity while trying to meet all of the FDA’s sometimes ridiculous and often inconsistent requirements.

The FDA should have followed it’s own expert panel's recommendations. In the meantime, millions of men who could be receiving the treatment are left taking estrogen while watching their cancer advance and counting down the days to their death. And, with prostate cancer, which spreads to the bones, death is extremely painful.

The FDA should hear your complaints about their insensitivity. They should hear the stories of your friends with prostrate cancer, or your own story if you have the disease. They should hear that it is not acceptable to delay Provenge just so they can have procedural perfection when the treatment has clearly shown efficacy after Phase 2 testing.

Go here to file your complaint with the FDA.

And, while you are at it, go the the US Senate web site and complain to Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray for their silence on this matter. Remind them that they are supposed to be representing both "genders" of the State of Washington while in the city of Washington as well as Washington State based companies, such as Dendreon.

Hats off to W. Smith

2007-05-18T20:41:00.000-07:00

For his new movie The Pursuit of Happiness

Seems the Geez outed some judges

2007-05-13T15:51:00.000-07:00

Seems the Geez outed some judges, below:

READ THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE EVERETT HERALD HERE

Stinky things been doin' in Snohomish County Courts.

Records kept in the Administrator of Courts, not in Clerks office.
Records deemed to be "administrative" and kept only 6 months, instead of six years
Records charged for as "real" court records, even though they claimed them to be administrative. They should have been charged for at "public records" rates, of a buck or two, not $25 each.
Records anointed as "not to be used as court records", yet the same court accepted them as court records.
Money for payment of copies (CD's) not receipted with numbered receipts--violation of state audit rules, and only cash taken
Handwritten petty cash fund checks written for "picnics", "camp fees", and "Nike athletic shoes", none of which is a legitimate expenditure of your hard earned tax dollars.
A commissioner's wife is the Court's public disclosure officer, and custodian of the CDs. No appearance of conflict of interest there, nosireebob.

Their response:

Ok, you caught us, we will move them back to the Clerks office and keep for six years.
No, we are not going to turn ourselves in for destroying court records without permission, and prematurely, tough.
We changed them back to be "real" court records.
We went neener-neener, and turned off the recording devices in the Commissioner's Courts, just for spite. No public policy reason, or no reason at all, or rationale, was given for letting the expensive recording equipment gather dust, instead of recording the public's business.
We have no concern about the appearance of conflict of interest in having the commissioner's wife be the public records office, and keeper of the CDs.
Important to note that they DO record Juvenile and Mental Health proceedings in front of Commissioners, but NOT family court.

Save for traffic tickets, the majority of Joe and Sally Sixpack's doings in the court are in family court. Yet your elected politicians will not engage with the great unwashed masses (me) in dialogue about their court administration, but instead send me to their patronage appointee who is the Court Administrator. He is accomplished at shoulder shrugging, and throwing his predecessor under the bus, but fairly worthless as to answering questions otherwise.

Do we not expect our friggin' JUDGES to follow the law? And to be accountable for their actions, and protect the public interest, by recording their courtrooms like thirty-seven out of the thirty-nine counties do?

I guess that is too much to ask.

Full letter to the editor published in the Everett Herald today, reproduced below.

The Geezer

Proceedings are no longer recorded

Jim Haley's excellent article on the issues in South County courts is only a part of the problem with Snohomish County courts. (Wednesday, "Court workers make discontent public.")

The same attitude is found at the Superior Courts, too. The Washington Civil Rights Council noticed that Commissioners Courts records were not being kept by the county clerk and were being destroyed after six months instead of six years, as required by law.

Several years ago, over Judge Wynne's signature, the court recordings were removed from the custody of the clerk to the court administrator's office, and deemed by fiat "administrative records" instead of the court records that they rightfully are.

When the Civil Rights Council brought this to their attention, the judges rightfully turned them over to the county clerk and pledged to keep them for the mandated six years.

The last few years of records were destroyed, contrary to state law, but the court is not concerned with this, according to a conversation we had with court administrator Bob Terwilliger.

In what appears to be retaliation, Judge Wynne turned off the recording machinery in the Commissioners Courts last month, leaving the good people of Snohomish County severely restricted in their ability to appeal the decisions made in Commissioners Courts. Upon inquiring of the judge why he did this, he did not have the courtesy to admit to receiving our communication.

Their hubris and lack of respect for folks who put these politicians in office, and their desire to keep their rulings in the dark and unavailable to the citizens, is repugnant and indefensible.

When added to their failure to issue numbered receipts when taking cash, as required by law, and their payment of public funds for disallowed uses such as picnics and athletic shoes, we also have serious doubt as to how these courts are run.

The Geezer

Director, Public Policy

Washington Civil Rights Council

Everett

Everett Herald lies about gender pay differences, AGAIN

2007-05-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

So, a year or so ago, the Everett Herald spins that tired old story about wimmin' being paid less than men.

I went after them, they finally tell me that since it was a Job Fair section, it was advertising, not news, and that the content was written by Everett Community College.

Sheesh. So, they blow the Geez off, fine.

Now again, they see the AAUW report in the link above, and start salivating all over again.

Editorial opinion is opinion, fine, but I do expect those folks who buy ink by the barrel to do some research before forming their opinion.

So, the Geez takes electrons on fingertips, and writes some eloquent sheyt, as he is prone to do from time to time, to smack them down.

The editorial editor says, no, Geez, we have very important op-ed pieces coming up, and so you have to write a 300 word letter.

Their very important op-ed pieces included a verbatim Governatrix press release, which is spun daily and available on the Guv's website and a breast-beating puff piece by the Prez. of the Edmonds Community College. Either he is an illegitimate son of someone down at the Herald, or has some mighty fine pix of their dalliances, because he sure gets his oar in the water with his self-serving crap.

So, I write the publisher, who doesn't even give the courtesy of a reply. Just get a reply from the editorial editor that says you were way over in words.

Well, hell.

So, I thought you may enjoy that note to the publisher, which is below.

Enjoy,

The Geezer

Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:16 PM
To: Allen Funk
Cc: Bob Bolerjack; Carol MacPherson; Elisa Teague-Cooper
Subject: Editorial policy at the Herald

Hello, Allen--

First, my bonafides.

I have been reading the Herald since there were block letters on top of the building, no Sunday paper and a row of VW Beetles out in front. Cruise the hallways, and you will see the picture still hanging in your building.

Second, you should know that I have been certified as a political gadfly by the King Co. Sheriff's Dept.

Occasionally I have a lucent and cogent thought.

The other day, after reading your editorial about women making 75 cents to a man's dollar came out was one of those times.

I fired off a smarmy letter, as is my habit, to Mr. Bolerjack, who, apparently in need of a round of verbal sparring, was considerate enough to ring me up.

As is my style, I suggested that his, and yours, by extension, analysis of the AAUW report was wrong, misleading and downright the result of drinking too much Kool-Aid from the misandric and hate-filled Wimmin's Industries.

I offered to write an op-ed, and was told, no, no, booked far in advance with too many very important articles for that. He did invite me to write a letter, which is very constricted to try and develop the issue. Nonetheless, I enlisted my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council, Elisa Teague-Cooper, and we knocked one out. It was not published.

I noticed over the next week that those very important pieces he had scheduled included a darn near verbatim press release from the Governatrix (new press photo here), which is available daily on the Governor's website and another breast-beating puff piece from Jack Oharah, who must be a stepson of someone down there, or if not, I want to see those pictures he must have of someone in your company!

Not what I would consider urgent issues of the day.

This is the second time the Herald has printed that (un)factoid. The first time was in a Job Fair supplement shortly after Ms. Iverson came on board, and when I tried to track that one down, the ad department didn't want to respond, and when they did, through Ms. Iverson's assistance, the deferred responsibility because that article was written by ECC folks. Of course, no where in the tab was there a disclaimer that it was a production of the ad, rather than news department.

So, turning smarmy mode off for a moment, hoping you are still reading, and understanding my warped sense of humor, let’s analyze that AAUW article that was used as the basis of your corporate opinion.

First, let’s apply Mark's acid test, shall we? If true, that you can pay a woman 75 cents to get the same work product you would pay a man to do, why hasn't an entrepreneur fired all the men, hired only women, and by the labor savings kicked the competition's ass?

Because, it 'taint true, Mr. Funk!

Now, running down the article, I offer the following, some of which I stole from those more articulate than I.

Equal Pay Day has become one of our annual rites of spring. This year the gender victimologists came armed with a new report from the American Association of University Women, Behind the Pay Gap, which purports to show that one year after graduation, women are paid 80% of what men earn.

The AAUW’s press release featured this startling statement: "Women earn less even when working in the same career field, likely due to sex discrimination." So no surprise, you trumpeted the 80% figure like it was revealed truth.

But women who are familiar with the AAUW’s long-standing gender agenda began to question the study.

Mary Kay Ham sardonically wondered why she, as a highly-educated columnist, should be paid less than a dime-a-dozen brain surgeon. To settle the issue, I suggest you download the report and see for yourself. I quickly noticed that the 80% figure is deceptive because it doesn’t take into account differences in work hours, occupational choices, commutes, danger (hence pay) of the job and other key variables.

When you do that, the wage gap shrinks dramatically. As the AAUW report finally admits on page 39: "The regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation for the combined sample of women and men shows a gender pay difference of 5 percent, controlling for educational and occupational choices as well as demographic and personal characteristics."

But it turns out the AAUW study omitted a number of important factors in its analysis, so even the 5% figure is exaggerated.

For example, many men coming out of high school enter the military and later go to college. These men command a bigger paycheck upon graduation. Likewise, men tend to accept big-city jobs with longer commute times. But the AAUW glossed over those facts.

Of greater concern is how the AAUW shoe-horned the many thousands of jobs into 11 broad occupational categories.

For just one example, take the medical profession which is evenly divided between the sexes, compared to nursing which is overwhelmingly female. The AAUW lumped all doctors and nurses into the same "medical professions" group. So you guessed it -- doctors are paid more than nurses, and that’s discrimination!

And women who major in business administration gravitate to HR, while men often specialize in finance. Employees who manage a corporation’s financial lifeblood tend to be paid well. But the AAUW put both groups into the "business and management" category. Yikes, more discrimination!

This isn’t the first time the American Association of University Women resorted to smoke-and-mirrors research to further its political agenda.

Back in 1992 the AAUW published the report, How Schools Shortchange Girls. The report purported to show that American schoolgirls were being kept down by the ever-present patriarchy. Man, they make those guys sound so powerful, I want to go to their meetings, and join up, but I just can't find them anywhere.

Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education, took issue with that conclusion, saying flatly, "The AAUW report was just completely wrong. What was so bizarre is that it came out right at the time that girls had just overtaken boys in almost every area."

To redeem itself, the AAUW finally came out with a second report. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children had to admit that "National data indicate that girls consistently earn either equivalent or higher grades than boys in all subjects at all points in their academic careers."

But that oops-I-goofed document could not reverse the hysteria generated by the first report, which fueled the passage of the Gender Equity in Education Act in 1994, a law that contributes to the boy crisis I first saw near the end of my 13 year service as a school board member, and that we’re now seeing fully developed in education.

Again, this pay gap myth is perpetuated by your editorial, as it was with the Job Fair insert. You demonstrated the same tactic that the misandric and hateful Women's Industry always uses, repeat the same lie, over and over, and eventually it becomes accepted as the truth.

See: Superbowl Sunday, Rule of Thumb, Hospital Emergency room admissions, the whole Title IX issue, and the like.

Is it too much to ask that you take more care in analysis and conclusions in your editorial positions?

And I know you buy the ink, not me, but is it unreasonable to expect that when a local boy has facts and figures that shine some light on the darkness of your conclusions that you do not print even a letter to the editor? A letter signed by me and my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council?

Thanks for listening.

VAWA casts a long shadow over the Duke fiasco

2007-04-27T17:41:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts
April 26, 2007

Was prosecutor Michael Nifong simply an over-rated ambulance chaser who rose to his level of incompetence? Was he a scheming opportunist who needed to boost his flagging re-election chances? Or did his dogged prosecution of the Duke Three reflect a deeper, more systemic problem in our criminal justice system?

Here's the dirty little secret of D.A.s who prosecute sexual assault and domestic violence cases: many of the claims they pursue are as flaky as a pie crust and their chances of winning a jury conviction are slim. So why do they bother to go after the case?

Because — get ready for this — they believe "we are encouraging abused women to come forward and confront their oppressors."

So according to that neo-Marxist logic, if we want to get really tough on say, bank robbers, what we need to do is randomly accuse innocent persons of burglary and then parade them through the streets, denouncing them for a crime they did not commit.

Of course, rape is a terrible crime. Equally terrible are false allegations of rape.

According to Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

But sadly, many innocent men have been wrongfully put behind bars. Just this week Jerry Miller of Chicago was exonerated after serving 24 years for a rape he didn't commit. His release helped inspire a national campaign dubbed "200 Exonerated, Too Many Wrongfully Convicted," an effort designed to spur state reforms of the criminal justice system. [www.innocenceproject.org/200/report.html]

Many persons have heard of the Violence Against Women Act — VAWA for short. But most are unaware of the extent to which VAWA-mandated programs have biased our judiciary and chipped away at the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

VAWA's tentacles reach deep and wide, reshaping our nation's laws on immigration, welfare, and public housing. The Act defines domestic violence broadly, so sexual assault and rape fall within its purview. VAWA authorizes $50 million each year for its Sexual Assault Services Program, which contributed to the Duke fiasco in many ways.

First, VAWA pays the legal bills of alleged victims of sexual assault. Want to guess how much money goes to help men accused of rape? Nada.

That sets the stage for a prosecutorial shake-down that works like this: Find a guy who can't afford a million-dollar legal defense team. Smear his good name with an accusation of rape. Then settle for a plea bargain conviction on a lesser count of sexual assault. The attorneys get their money and the D.A. can add another notch to his (or her) belt.

Second, did you wonder why Michael Nifong never required accuser Crystal Gail Mangum to take a polygraph test? Simple: the Violence Against Women Act prohibits it. Section 2013 states, "no law enforcement officer, prosecuting officer, or other government official shall ask or require an adult, youth, or child victim of an alleged sex offense ... to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth telling device."

Third, VAWA funds training programs for prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement personnel. To say the content of these programs lacks a scientific basis is generous.

This past November the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence sponsored a conference. First one of the speakers made light of a Florida incident in which a young man was sexually assaulted by a female teacher. The presenter then turned around and used the terms "scum bag" and "douche bag" to refer to men accused of abuse.

At an earlier New Jersey training session, one presenter openly encouraged judges to ignore due process protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya' around.'"

Fourth, VAWA's overly-aggressive prosecution measures have been found to be flatly ineffective in stopping abuse. Still, these measures have instilled a legal of climate of "every man is a potential rapist" — ignoring the equally ridiculous corollary that "every woman is a potential false accuser."

Fifth, VAWA's unstated belief that women can only be victims dissuades prosecutors from going after false accusers. As Massachusetts district attorney David Angier once argued, "If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

And failing to prosecute women who make malicious accusations only means that men will continue to be falsely accused, charged, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and jailed.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2007 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070426

Lynch mob fever at Duke University

2007-04-20T16:20:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts
April 18, 2007

"Outrageous" is the word that comes to mind that describes what happened to the Duke Three, accused of gang-raping Crystal Gail Mangum during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006.

Our country was founded on the principles of rule of law and the presumption of innocence. But what we witnessed in Durham, North Carolina over the last year had little to do with the even-handed pursuit of justice. Except for the absence of ropes and gasoline, it resembled a small-town lynch mob.

Shame on Michael Nifong who, lacking eyewitness accounts, forensic proof, or DNA evidence, violated a long list of due process procedures. Nifong botched the photo line-up, turned his back on a disconfirming report of the examining nurse, ignored the fact that the accuser repeatedly changed her story, downplayed Mangum's unsavory occupational activities, prejudiced the jury pool by publicly referring to the players as a "bunch of hooligans," pandered to voters to secure his November re-election, and intentionally withheld exculpatory DNA evidence from a key report — and that's only a partial listing.

When the books are closed on this case, history will recount the role played by Duke University president Richard Brodhead. It was Brodhead who incoherently remarked, "if they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough," and fueled the hysteria by canceling the rest of the team's season and suspending two of the players from the university.

People will long wonder why the "Group of 88" professors printed a defamatory letter on April 6 proclaiming that certain unnamed students "know themselves to be the objects of racism and sexism ...regardless of the results of the police investigation."

Regrettable, too, were the actions of Duke professor Houston Baker, who openly indulged in sexism and racism, denouncing the "drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us" and calling the players "scummy white males."

And hopefully one day we can forget the specter of the Take Back the Night mobs who chanted death threats, eventually forcing one of the defendants to move out of his home.

Jesse Jackson also ended up on the wrong side of the issue. It was Jackson, of course, who shortly after DNA tests failed to match any evidence taken from the accuser, offered to pay Mangum's college tuition so she would never again "have to stoop that low to survive."

And let's not forget Al Sharpton, notorious enabler of false rape accuser Tawana Brawley, who resorted to his usual grievance-mongering.

One day, perhaps USA Today will explain why it opened its pages on March 30, 2006 to malicious rants, one writer claiming the players belong to a "culture of rape" and "exercise their privilege on the bodies and minds of those of us in their environment."

With luck we won't be hearing again from Wendy Murphy, adjunct professor at the New England School of Law, who made television appearances to comment on the Duke case, repeatedly deriding the notion of the presumption of innocence. During one discussion on MSNBC Murphy claimed, "I have never, ever met a false rape claim."

More deplorable was Wheelock College professor Gail Dines who, after the rape charges had been dropped in December, wrote an on-line article stating she was angry "at the way the media humanized these men as victims."

A pox on New York Times columnist Harvey Araton who ridiculed the members of the Duke women's lacrosse team after they wore sweatbands inscribed with the word "innocent" for a Final Four game in Boston.

Most of all, shame on serial rape accuser Crystal Gail Mangum. She filed a complaint in 1996 that she had been raped, but didn't get around to filing the police report until years later. Mangum was willing to see the lives of the three accused men destroyed, millions of dollars in legal bills expended, and the male gender vilified, in order that she could indulge in her monstrous rape fantasy.

Yes, there are heroes in this sordid tale.

The North Carolina State Bar deserves credit for filing ethics charges against Michael Nifong. Attorney general Roy Cooper was courageous in his decision to exonerate the three players and blunt in scolding Nifong for his "tragic rush to accuse."

Columnists Michael Gaynor and Wendy McElroy kept the public apprised of the unfolding scandal. Ed Bradley's 60 Minutes expose on October 15 was a turning point. And throughout, the three accused players conducted themselves with all-star dignity.

The Duke lacrosse team is back on the field and rated in the top five nationally. The azaleas and daffodils are braving a mid-April cold snap. And students stroll to class toting their backpacks and iPods.

But for three former Duke students falsely accused of rape, their lives will never be the same.

Let me understand this

2007-04-20T08:07:00.000-07:00

Woman kills her preacher husband, with pre-planning for her escape, by shooting him in the back. Gets three years in the slammer.

Navy officer (who I have no truck with pedophiles, but nonetheless) agrees to sex with a cop, not a little girl. ATTEMPTED rape. Gets seven years in the slammer.

AOL poll shows that manslaughter charge and three years is "about right".

Well, your pussy pass don't get you a ride on the Geezer's train.

He is disgusted with both.

The Geez

Lets you and them DUKE it out…

2007-04-12T07:29:00.000-07:00

So some 390 plus days later, the AG of Durham NC states what this man, as well as many thousands of other already knew:

“The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges, today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges. We believe these cases were a result of a tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies in the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”

Funny how the MSM is now showing Crystal Gail Magnum (or is it Mangum?) for the liar she is. Furthermore, they… well most of the MSM, are actually posting her image and name! Finally!

The sad point is that the AG will not charge her, the FALSELY ACCUSED will not (at least at this time) be suing her or anyone else for that matter. So nothing really is going to happen to a woman that has cost the families over 3 million dollars, the county or Durham at least that much, and the reputations of these young men. Where are the pot-bangers, the women holding signs calling for the castration of these boys? Where is the Duke 88? The Mangina of a campus prez? Huh? What’s that? I cannot hear you!

Once again, the message is loud and clear, that women can make FALSE ACCUSATIONS with impunity. Once again, the system has shown that a man is cannon fodder: unimportant.

During the press conference, Seligmann stated that the entire experience was a "dark cloud of justice," saying, "Today marks the end of a yearlong nightmare that has been emotionally devastating for all of our families."

Ehhhh. So what… You are just a bunch of privileged white boys… Right? What about the lying hooker…err I mean victim? What about poor widow Cwistow Gaiwl Mangum? What about the ka-bazillion women raped every single nano-second of the day that will now be shamed into not coming forward? Oh? What is that? You mean that is not a true statistic. Really? What?! Approximately 50% of the rape accusations are proven unfounded or completely false. No way! Women do not lie. Especially about such an ‘orible thing like rape!

Seligmann further states; "The Duke lacrosse case shows has shown society has lost sight of the most fundamental principles of our justice system." Gee, what ever could he be alluding to? That annoying innocent until proven guilty thing again?
He also tongue-lashed the media for the "hurtful words" and "outrageous lies” perpetuated against them. Oh, but they are protected as well, by “freedom of speech” don’t-cha-know.

"Truth is the best vindication against slander," Seligmann said, quoting Abraham Lincoln.

That may be a real nice touchy-feely retort there buddy, but it still does not get you a job in the real world now does it. It will not put all those asshats like Katie C, Wendy Mac, Vanessa V, Amada Marcrotch-rot, and their ilk in their rightful places, now will it? Funny how all these femikooks are now more quiet that the crickets. Not even will they try to justify this travesty in justice, let alone attempt to defend their previous comments.

Sue them all guys. Make a nice living suing every single fucking person that ever made a slanderous comment or implied your guilt without a single legal grain of evidence. You are “well off” now, just think how “well off” you could become if you held these folks accountable for their words. Do the names Rush Limbaugh or Don Imus ring a bell? They were crucified for saying hateful and bigoted things, and rightly so. What is the difference? Because the “victim” is a black person? Or is it because she is a woman? Or is it both. I call shenanigans…

Evans even went so far as to address MSM’s comparing the lacrosse players to Hitler, an analogy he said was one of many made in the days after the allegations surfaced, as reported on Fox News website.

"My family and I can sleep at night knowing I did everything I was supposed to do. I never lied … and I can walk with my head held high and I can sleep at night knowing I couldn't have done anything else to prove my innocence."

Yes, and it is a good thing you had the money to defend yourselves. As one of the boys stated, this would have never ended this way if they had not had the resources to combat against the charges. All is very telling indeed. This is what is really irks the likes of the femikooks. This is why they are so silent now. The femi-regime had a calculated plan. Chrystal was their savior. Their reason for pushing for such ridiculous laws like VAWA, the new and improved I-VAWA, and the DV industry as a whole. They needed a new poster child to show the Patriarchy’s™ stronghold on the world. The evils that are male must be put in check and in the least shamed into submission.

ABC’s website stated, "Fresh eyes would have ended this case before it began," said Larry Pozner, a defense attorney for 33 years and former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This is a travesty. This is a tragedy for the woman and the team and the individual defendants."

And thereeeeeeesssssss your sign. Notice how even in the eyes of legalese, a lying stripper, twice over is still the victim. Oh the tragedy. This poor woman. HUH? Excuse me? The only place this skank was being portrayed for what she really is, a lying skank hooker, was the internet. Even then, the sites that willfully stated her name under the guise of fair and equal justice were far and few. This Man On The Street, or course, being one of them.

The family members of Mangum told FOX News that she is "almost relieved" the case is over. Family members had earlier told FOX News that she has wanted the case to end for some time, especially since she expected charges to be lessened — if not dropped completely — since Nifong removed himself from the case.”

Well shit me a brick! Of course she did! Because the lie was falling apart right before her eyes. She knew what she had done, and now that the rest of the world was beginning to see what was so painfully fucking obvious from the start, she made it all up. The reason? Who the fuck cares! No excuses skanky nappy headed hoe! Yes, I said it. Got a fucking problem with that? Tough shit! I am free to say what I want and no Sharpton-esque assclown is going to silence me.

The family also said, “That they're poor and black, whereas the players and their families are "rich and white," and that the attorney general's office has looked upon the players as "golden boys”, according to Fox News.

Oh, it most certainly was about race. However, not the way you perpetual victims want it to be. It was about misandry, misandrist laws, and racial peddlers. Comments like “dead man walking” spoken by one of the New Black Panthers towards Evans, ON the DIKE errr DUKE CAMPUS, are nothing more than HATE SPEECH. Why is this acceptable? Why was this threat ignored? If I were Evans, that son-of-bitch would have been charged immediately! Come and say that to me Mr. toughie-tough “gangsta”. I will blow your fucking head off before the rest of your nappy-headed wanna-be-cops pals can say “black power”. You and your ilk are nothing but thugs. And thugs belong six feet under.

In addition, before any of you pussy-whipped liberal pansies call me on my language or my “racial remarks”, remember this, I have just as much right as you to say what I want, when I want. If you do not like it, practice what you preach. When you retract your garbage against my sex and my heritage, then, and only then will I give a fuck what you think or say.

The Man On The Street

Woozles in the name of protecting women?

2007-03-14T13:28:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts
March 12, 2007

The Gender Warriors have discovered the perfect wedge issue, one that carries raw, visceral appeal with liberals and conservatives alike, and to a large swath of the American electorate.

But there's a catch: For this issue to work, the truth must purged from general awareness. Researchers have to be re-educated, or if need be, cowed into silence. And the media must be goaded to cooperate.

The issue is domestic violence.

This area has become so strewn with Urban Legends that researchers have dubbed them the "woozle effect." Remember when Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet went hunting and almost caught a woozle?

Dr. Richard Gelles of the University of Pennsylvania is one of the best-known researchers in this field. Gelles recently published an article in Family Court Review that exposes many of these woozles. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00127.x] Here's a sampling:

— "The Centers for Disease Control reports that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44." Interesting, but the CDC never said anything like that.

— "According to the March of Dimes, battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects." That factoid certainly came as a surprise to the March of Dimes.

— "Female perpetrators of partner homicide serve longer jail sentences than males" Here's the truth: the average prison sentence for male offenders is 17 years, and for female murderers is 6 years.

The woozles continue.

This past November the Washington Times ran a front-page story that claimed, "A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70% of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape."

The notion that 70% of Indian husbands are batterers or rapists defies reason or common sense. So on November 28 the Washington Times was compelled to admit the mistake, saying the United Nations "does not have sufficient data" to make any such claim.

Then there's the outright suppression of research findings, like one federally funded survey directed by the Kentucky Commission on Women. The interviews revealed that 38% of all violence consisted of unprovoked attacks by women on their male partners — but that key statistic was omitted from the final report. The cover-up was not discovered until other researchers obtained a copy of the raw data.

And recently the U.S. Department of Justice issued a grant solicitation that specifically prohibited any "proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of males of any age." How's that for good ol' fashioned sex bias?

But scientists arestill reluctant to kow-tow to the whims of political correctness. So extraordinary measures may become necessary.

Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz knows this from first-hand experience. Her research at the University Delaware revealed that women are as likely to resort to partner violence as men. In response, partisans launched a year-long intimidation campaign. The organizers of one conference were threatened that "if they allowed me to speak, the place would be bombed ... I also received a couple of phone calls saying it wouldn't be safe for my children to go out," Steinmetz later revealed.

Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, honored with many awards for his research on family violence, has been shunned for not toeing the ideological line. He has been threatened, heckled, and booed to the point of preventing him from speaking at several college forums.

Another target of the tyranny of ideological conformity is Erin Pizzey. Founder of the first women's shelter in England, Pizzey published a book that revealed 62% of the women at her shelter had physically attacked their male partners. The result? The police had to be summoned to escort her on the book tour, and she was once shot at. [www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430702]

All this, of course, in the name of stopping violence against women.

Some would say the distortions and the threats are justified. After all, the domestic violence industry has succeeded in leveraging persons' fears into a $1 billion-a-year campaign devoted to protecting women from abuse. Why take issue with that?

But what if the truth came out that our country's War on Domestic Abuse was flatly ineffective in reducing violence, that it ignored the wishes of victims, and that it sometimes placed women at greater risk of abuse? [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Has-It-Delivered-on-Its-Promises-to-Women.pdf]

And what if it became known that our nation's domestic violence laws were violating the civil rights of millions and were needlessly breaking up families, forcing children to grow up in single-parent households? [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf]

What would we do then?

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2007 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070312

Breaking The Lies 3 - Feminists is jes Qwazzzy!

2007-03-05T17:13:00.000-08:00

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This was just so damned easy, I let my dog edit and compile it!

TMOTS

Tennis Anyone?

2007-02-26T10:23:00.000-08:00

Yet another example of Gender equality....Femikook style...

This weekend, I was discussing this Wimbledon crap with a female friend of mine. A real friend, mind you. I was somewhat surprised to see that she believed that the so-called "equal pay" plan now in place was equitable the right thing. I argued the simple point (as we all know) that women play almost 50% less time than the men and thus, should not be getting the same payout for less work.

Her argument, although she is most certainly NOT a femikook, was that it is economics. Women’s tennis brings in the same amount of revenue that the men’s do and should be paid accordingly. I disagree with that as well, but I digress. No amount of arguing was going to sway her. I was somewhat taken aback at her apparent femikook argumentative style…. I just couldn’t understand how an obviously intelligent woman couldn’t see this for what it really is. Bullshit gender politics with a dash of bullshit, mixed in a pot of misandry.

Anyhow, while traveling through the blogosphere today, I came across an individual that took the time to analyze this a little further. Interestingly enough, when you break it down to the nuts-n-bolts of it all as he did that women, in fact, are NOT paid equally; they are paid MORE THAN THE MEN for less work! Therefore, by raising their purse to the supposedly higher purse level of the men conveniently extends the already HIGHER PAY FOR WOMEN to and even HIGHER rate for less work. I know, I know; it is just so difficult to understand that three is less than five. So once again, we are using the feminists’ “new math” to remove the mythical pay disparity. Kudos to the femikooks, once again!

As for his belief that women cannot play to the level of the men or should I say Venus Williams, I call shenanigans. Women can play just as well and as long. I have seen them do it!

Anyhow, have a look (Linked to his original post above & edited for typos only.)
___________________________
So a few notable women have started bleating how its "unfair" that men are paid more than women, and the male winner's purse at Wimbledon is "£30,000 m ore" than the women's purse. Sadly, Tony Blair has now backed this.

Before everyone starts losing their heads over this feminist machine, do we care to even analyze the figures? Lets do that:

1) +Total Prize money for men = £5,197,440
+Total Prize money for women = £4,429 440

2) Male winner's takings = £655,000
Female winner's takings = £625,000

From the above figures, without any other factors, yes it looks like women are getting a bum deal, however, if we assume same number of entrants (128 men and 128 women as with this year's) and no tie-breaks are played:

3) Maximum number of sets played by men = 5
Maximum number of sets played by women = 3
Minimum number of sets played by men = 3
Minimum number of sets played by women = 2

4) Total prize money per set (male) = £1,039,488
Total prize money per set (female) = £1,476,480

Is it me, or did anyone just notice the ladies purse perset get dramatically larger (by almost £450,000) than the men's? Lets carry on.

5) Male winner's taking's per set (of 5) = £131,000
Female winner's takings per set(of 3) = £208,000
Male winner's takings per set (of 3) = £218,333
Female winner's takings per set(of 2) = £312,500

So we can clearly see, by playing fewer sets, women are in fact currently getting paid MORE to do less work. As this is these players main income, i.e. what they do for a living, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of women today currently protesting about unequal pay to male counterparts for doing the same amount of work in the same job? Let's hear what Venus Williams has to say:

(Start of Quote)
"Women and men should be treated equally. This is an amazing sport and there is as much interest in women's tennis as there is in men's. Just because we can't play five sets because of our genes, what can we do?"
(End of Quote)

So its settled then, I guess she means IF by some physical advantage (that no one has control over) men are subject to do more work, then pay is irrelevant and women should be REWARDED for their GENETIC INABILITY to do the same work, or better yet, men should be PENALISED for their UNCONTROLLABLE ABILITY to do more work, amount of time playing should not matter, and number of sets played should not matter.

I am sorry, but this sounds like the feminist machine wanting to turn a situation COMPLETELY in its favor whilst penalizing men, and at the same time, protesting in the name of "equality". Note how the "equality" angle only refers to pay, not the amount of work done to earn that pay. Seems very convenient isn't it. What do you all think?
__________________________
Welcome to the new world order of Equalllleteeeeeee! WHEW! I am just so glad that THAT injustice was corrected, aren’t you!

TMOTS

Dear Fox News

2007-02-08T08:26:00.000-08:00

Dear Fox,

First and foremost, let me state that I start my morning with a cup (or pot depending on the amount of sleep) of joe and Fox and Friends. Pssst! I miss E. D. Anyhow, I watch your program due to the "Fair and Balanced" prospective I feel is present for the most part. That is until these past few days.

Lisa Nowak is supposedly the story. The 'other woman' is supposedly the story. Why is it that when you reference this whack-job, you keep putting William Oefelein's image up? Is there some rule that says that a male has to be shown? So he was playing two women. Big whoop! SHE IS MARRIED, SHE ATTEMPTED MURDER (allegedly), and SHE is the one that supposedly did something wrong.

If anything, place the other woman's face up (whose name escapes me now - wonder why that is) as well! Oh, wait SHE is the VICTIM. Well, news flash (pun intended) so is William! HE is the victim of MSM gone awry. He has done nothing wrong. Yet anyone with two grey matter particles to rub together can easily recall his name. WHY?

What exactly did William Oefelein do? He is divorced so he was not cheating; he was seeing these two women OUTSIDE of the "office", so he was not "using his position of power to manipulate these women (a tried and true argument used against men ad nausea). He did not force her to do this (sure, MSM is doing their best to put the blame on him or her husband). Just what is the angle here? I expect this sort of anti-male bull from MSM such as ABC, CNN, CBS and their ilk. "Fair and Balanced"? I used to think so. Nevertheless, you are starting to appear like the rest of the garbage news programs that cherry-pick their tasty tid-bits based upon what some statistician or PC Police researcher claims that people want to hear, and not the facts. William has done nothing wrong. At least for now, that is. Give MSM some time to digs hard enough - deep enough - to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING and they will place the responsibility and blame where it rightly belongs, on the male. Trust me, they will.

Shame on you.

Oh, did you know that Lisa Nowak is married? Are you aware that Lisa Nowak is the one charged with attempted murder? Did I mention that the alleged fight and subsequent separation was hmmmm, how should I put this so that even your most idiotic researcher can see it, most likely caused due to HER HUSBAND DISCOVERING HER INFIDELITY? It does not take a rocket scientist (pardon the pun once again) to see that. On the other hand, maybe it does.

Maybe you need to verify your stories prior to reading them from the teleprompter. I know, I know, there is no anti-male conspiracy in MSM. Of course not.

Here is a clue, women can and are just as evil as males. I know it is hard to fathom, but it is true. If your little researchers dig hard enough, they might even find one of the more than 200 studies that say so. Put the blame and responsibility, as well as the constant barrage of imagery where it rightfully belongs, on Lisa Nowak, and Lisa Nowak ONLY!

Put the fact finders on the correct trail; looking into the why NASA allows this person to be a part of what used to be considered the most elite of the elite; the cream of the crop in military personnel.

How is it that someone that is so obviously psychologically unstable (particularly with men) is allowed to be cooped up with others in a tin can for months on end. Their psyche evals (most assuredly lowered under the guise of equaleteeee) have failed miserably. Furthermore, how is it that she is out on such a pathetic bail level for ATTEMPTED MURDER? How is it that she is able to leave the state? If she were male, honestly, do you believe that he would have been given such an obvious pass? Seriously? After more than 40 years of space travel, we have yet another "woman firster". I, as an American, am just so proud.

I could go on, but I am sure that even the most feebly minded e-mail reader on your staff could understand the points I raise. I can only hope.

The Man On The Street

It came to me in a joke list, but isn't it really reflecting reality?

2007-01-06T10:49:00.000-08:00

Subject: Whenever a Woman Lies

One day, when a seamstress was sewing while sitting close to a river, her thimble fell into the river. When she cried out, the Lord appeared and asked, "My dear child, why are you crying?"

The seamstress replied that her thimble had fallen into the water and that she needed it to help her husband in making a living for their family.

The Lord dipped His hand into the water and pulled up a golden thimble set with pearls.

"Is this your thimble?" the Lord asked. The seamstress replied, "No."

The Lord again dipped into the river. He held out a silver thimble ringed with sapphires.

"Is this your thimble?" the Lord asked. Again, the seamstress replied, "No."

The Lord reached down again and came up with a leather thimble. "Is this your thimble?" the Lord asked. The seamstress replied, "Yes."

The Lord was pleased with the woman's honesty and gave her all three thimbles to keep, and the seamstress went home happy.

Some years later, the seamstress was walking with her husband along the riverbank, and her husband fell into the river and disappeared under the water.

When she cried out, the Lord again appeared and asked her, "Why are you crying?"

"Oh Lord, my husband has fallen into the river!"

The Lord went down into the water and came up with George Clooney. "Is this your husband?" the Lord asked.

"Yes," cried the seamstress.

The Lord was furious."You lied! That is an untruth!"

The seamstress replied, "Oh, forgive me, my Lord. It is a misunderstanding. You see, if I had said 'no' to George Clooney, you would have come up with Brad Pitt. Then if I said 'no' to him, you would have come up with my husband. Had I then said 'yes,' you would have given me all three. Lord, I'm not in the best of health and would not be able to take care of all three husbands, so THAT'S why I said 'yes' to George Clooney."

And so the Lord let her keep him.

The moral of this story is: Whenever a woman lies, it's for a good and honorable reason, and in the best interest of others.

That's our story, and we're sticking to it.

Signed,
All Us Women

Gee! I wonder if she is married?

2006-12-10T06:22:00.000-08:00

From FreeRepublic.com
Little Miss Adventure: Bachelorette Gone Wild
Posted on 11/06/2006 2:04:18 AM CST by 60Gunner

Last night a "GDFD" (get drunk, fall down) was brought into the Emergency Department by aid car. She arrived, as most drunks do, bellowing obscenities and calling the staff vile names. And this young lady was also a spitter. Nice.

The law allows us to restrain a patient who poses a threat to himself or to staff, and our MD, a particularly excellent one, wasted no time in decreeing that it be made so. Security is always down there, so we summoned them to help us put the leathers and a spit sock on the young lady. We then shifted her over to our bed and unceremoniously strapped her down.

While all this was going on I was getting report from the very beleaguered-looking aid car crew. It seems that the patient was with her friends at a bachelorette party and the patient had a little more than her share of the alcoholic beverages, and when the staff decided that enough was enough about four shots of Jaegermeister ago, they cut her off. Little Miss Adventure got up to voice her dismay and wound up on her backside, having struck her head on the way down and picking up a nasty hematoma on the back of her head for a souvenir. "Thank God she's not bleeding so we don't have to sew her up," I thought.

It is interesting to note that although the young woman was maybe only 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighed perhaps a buck-five soaking wet, she fought like a wildcat in a burlap sack with a snake in it. Some people hold their liquor; with others, their liquor holds them. This lady was simply awash in the Nyquil-like stench of Jaeger.

The staff got Little Miss Adventure settled in (read: strapped down), and I obtained IV access (in this case with a big ol' 18-gauge in her antecubital fossa- that's the inner elbow for you laypersons) and drew blood for lab assays.

Oh, yeah. Little Miss Adventure was also a biter.

Now, we needed to get a urine toxicology screen as well. Since I am male, and this woman was in her twenties, obviously I was not the one to go in and do it. But I did inform her that yes, Nurse So-and-So was about to put a catheter down there.

"The ---- she is!" declared Little Miss Adventure.

Three minutes later, Nurse So-and-So walked out with a sample of urine, which she held up for me with a flourish, and I began charting.

Suddenly, someone behind me says, "230."

Then I hear, "Naw. She's tiny. 180."

Suddenly, numbers are being called out around the Nurse's desk as if it was the set of The Price is Right.

A brief explanation is called for here. Any time we get a GDFD into the Emergency Department, an informal bet about the blood alcohol content (BAC) immediately forms. It usually starts by someone saying, "249" (or 0.249). So without fail, within thirty seconds the entire front staff of the ED has a number except for me. After some prodding and some quiet consideration, I call out, "310."

"Get out!" says Nurse So-and-So. "She's maybe a hundred pounds soaking wet."

"No," says I, "I will bet you a pizza it's at least 300."

"Okay, Boy Wonder. What makes you so sure?"

"I think she's got a tolerance, that's what. Anyway, 310 is my number and I'm sticking with it."

"Have it your way," says Nurse So-and-So with a dismissive wave.

So all the while, Little Miss Adventure is screaming, kicking, spitting, and offering her pointed and graphic opinions about the lineage and sexual orientation of every staff member she who dared enter her room, even the poor little housekeeper who came in to change the linen bag. (It's a good thing she doesn't habla the Ingles, or at least much. Still, the darling woman came out of the room shaking her head and muttered, "#$%#$% drunk b----."

About a half hour later, the labs came back. Yes, I was wrong. But we were all shocked. Her BAC was 0.418. What that means is that this little firecracker had herself a helluva tolerance for booze. I've seen worse, but not in a little chicky boom-boom as small as Little Miss Adventure. Her tox screen also showed THC. That's the groovy stuff found in marijuana.

Also around this time, a couple of the patient's girlfriends filtered sheepishly into the ED. They all seemed genuinely concerned, a little anxious, and shockingly underdressed for the weather. I averted my eyes, causing Nurse So-and-So to snort. At last, one of them pipes up in a nasal, whiny tone that would have been stereotypically applied to a stripper, "Can we see [the patient]?"

"And you are...?" I asked, looking over my computer screen.

"We're her friends. And we work with her. She was at my bachelorette party," says she.

"I'll tell her you're here. What's your name?"

"It's Nikki. With an I." she says, spelling her name and holding out her hand.

"Charmed," I answer, shaking her hand and stiflng the urge to guffaw. I went into Miss Adventure's room and told her she had some friends here, and asked if she would like to have them in- one at a time.

"Oh, pleeeeeeeeze?" She whined.

"Sure." I exit, motion to Nikki-with-an-I, and tell her to go in alone, to speak quietly, and that she has only five minutes.

Well, of course, the moment Nikki-with-an-I enters the room, the Boo-Hoo Fest begins. Miss Adventure escalates, Nikki-with-an-I feeds the fire, and pretty soon they're both bawling and screeching. I removed Nikki-with-an-I. Miss Adventure called me more names. Nikki-with-an-I looked a little shaken.

"Wow, she's really plowed, huh?" says Nikki-with-an-I.

"Like Farmer Brown's back forty," says Nurse So-and-So from behind me.

"How long will she be like this?"

"I dunno. Depends on her. It'll be awhile. Can't really tell you much more than that."

Well, do you think she will be able to work Monday?"

"Well, I don't know. What does she do?"

"Oh, we're both kindergarten teachers."

I have never heard the entire staff of my Emergency Department fall completely silent before. It was as if the breath had been sucked out of our lungs. But Nurse So-and-So, of course, recovered first:

"Thank God I homeschooled."

___________________________________

Now if it were me, i'd have made damn sure that somehow, someway, that little tidbit of information made it's way back to the Board of Education...

TMOTS

The GOP's betrayal of the pro-family agenda

2006-12-06T22:45:00.000-08:00

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts
December 5, 2006

I wish I had a dime in my pocket for every time I heard a Republican politician stand up and proclaim his support for "family values."

When we survey the current state of the family, we see that Americans are half as likely to wed compared to a generation ago, mostly due to a growing shortage of marriage-minded men. [www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/croberts112906.htm]

How did all this happen?

Over the past 40 years, the Sisters of Spinsterhood have cranked out the message that men are not needed or wanted. That message was eventually translated into a broad range of anti-family laws and policies.

First, Great Society programs forced poor women to choose between a husband and a handout. Then divorce courts routinely took children away from their fathers. No-fault divorce laws meant mom could dispose of dad and claim the kids as ransom money.

Next came the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that became a nightmare of false allegations and household evictions. The final blow was draconian enforcement by child support programs that began to stick low-income fathers in debtor's prisons if they couldn't pay.

The resulting marginalization of husbands and fathers lies at the root of the melt-down of the American family. No wonder that 53% of America's most eligible bachelors now say they are "not interested in getting married anytime soon," and 22% foreswear any desire to get hitched, ever. [http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]

So what has the GOP's family values agenda done to reverse the collapse of the family?

Go to the website of the Republican National Committee and look at its list of Teams. Yep, we've got outreach efforts to Blacks, entrepreneurs, the faith community, Hispanics, seniors, youth, and women. [www.gop.com/Teams]

Great, but why no Team for men?

Mr. Mehlman, this is a slap in the face. As head of the Republican National Committee, you know that it was the male electorate that handed President Bush his margin of victory in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Now let's examine the Republican Platform: www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf . But wait, there's a slight problem — the document was done in 2004. Good morning, GOP, it's now 2006. Hasn't anyone come up with any new ideas lately?

And what does the Platform say about families? Promoting marriage, responsible fatherhood, the culture of life, and more. All the right buzz-words, but let's take a closer look.

"Responsible fatherhood." Hmmm. There's an unspoken message that lurks in that phrase, as if to say, fathers are not naturally responsible.

Look at the litany of social welfare laws and programs that date from the Great Society, including no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act. All these laws removed the father as the head of the family and replaced him with a government bureaucrat.

And now you're calling fathers irresponsible?

What does "responsible fatherhood" mean in practice? The term was coined back in 2000 by President Bill Clinton who let it be known that responsible dads always make their child support payments. [www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58649]

So to the bean-counters at the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, responsible fatherhood translates into one thing: send us your child support money. We don't care if you're laid-off, injured, sick, poor, homeless, lack marketable skills, the mother refuses to let you see your child, or even if you're not the real father! We need to see that check, or else.

That's family values?

And earlier this year, the bureaucrats came out against a proposed law in North Dakota that would help divorced fathers stay involved in their children's lives. Why? Because it would cut into the state's child support reimbursements. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.52]

Shameful.

Now think hard — can you name a single Republican lawmaker who has spoken out against the reckless intrusion of government drones into private family matters? Or has taken a principled stand against the rampant violations of persons' civil rights? Or has sponsored a resolution decrying the plight of the American father?

Me either.

And what about the Federal Marriage Amendment, designed to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Despite its majority status, the Grand Old Party couldn't get the bill through the House or Senate in either 2004 or 2006.

Over the past 12 years, the Republican base rested on the dependable votes of men, conservatives, and pro-family advocates. But alas, the GOP took its base for granted, went on a taxpayer-funded spending spree, and failed miserably when it came time to deliver on its pro-family promises.

And now that electoral block, disillusioned by years of fruitless happy-talk, has decided to take its business and go elsewhere.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/061205

The silence of the wedding bells

2006-11-30T09:36:00.000-08:00

by Carey Roberts
November 28, 2006

Am I the only one who is worried about the collapse of the traditional American family right before our very eyes?

Census Bureau bureaucrats are not in the habit of making apocalyptic pronouncements, but last year Mark Mather reported that the "dramatic decline" in the married population is "one of the biggest demographic stories of the past several decades." Now, married couples now account for a minority — 49.7% to be exact — of all U.S. households.

The cause of this extraordinary demographic shift is two-fold. First, Americans are getting married only half as often as we used to. Second since 1960, the share of divorced Americans rose from 2% to 10%.

African-American communities have been especially hard-hit. In 1960 four-fifths of all Black families had fathers and mothers at home. Three decades later, that number had plummeted to 38%.

As a result of the decline of marriage, illegitimacy is on the upswing. Just last week the National Center for Health Statistics announced that almost four in 10 babies were born out-of-wedlock in 2005.

All this is very bad news for kids, since children raised only by mothers are more likely to be poor, suffer from a host of behavioral and academic problems, and get in trouble with the law.

For sure, the great majority of young women say they plan to get married and have kids some day. So why has Cosmo replaced Bride magazine in the supermarket check-out lines?

Some experts cite the "greater economic independence of women," as if a single mom scraping by on a welfare check is what female liberation is all about. Others argue that Americans are simply delaying the age of marriage, suggesting that women who are nervously watching their biological clocks just need to be a little more patient.

But there's one fact that's hard to dispute: our country faces an acute shortage of marriage-minded men.

Two years ago Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University did a national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. To everyone's shock, they found 22% of the men declared no interest in finding their One and Only. [http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm] That means two million American women will likely never see the inside of a wedding chapel.

Now, hooking-up is replacing that quaint courtship ritual that used to be known as "dating." When Norval Glenn and Elizabeth Marquardt surveyed college senior women, they found that one-third of the women had been asked on fewer than two dates.

And this past August the New York Times ran a piece on "Facing Middle Age with No Degree, and No Wife," which revealed the reluctance to wed runs especially deep in less educated men.

There is overwhelming research that shows marriage benefits both men and women in terms of their financial and emotional well-being. Plus, married folks live longer. So what do we need to do to entice men back into the courtship ritual?

The Nasty Nellies have been giving marriage a bum rap for years, so sadly there are no quick fixes. But this is what we need to do.

First, we need to dispose of the boogeyman of the patriarchal ogre lording over his beleaguered wife. If that image was ever true, it certainly doesn't apply to any couple that I know of. In fact, the reverse now seems to be more commonplace: the harried, henpecked husband who's hectored to keep his feet off the furniture during the ball game.

Second, we need to consider the effects of the 1992 Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that banned fathers from participating in decisions to keep the unborn baby, thus leaving them biologically disenfranchised.

Third, we've got to do more to help boys excel academically. Trash the Title IX quotas, provide special help for boys who are lagging, and tell teachers to stop expecting boys to act like girls.

Fourth, we need to do a major overhaul of our nation's domestic violence laws, which allow any woman to plunder her husband's assets and steal his children by merely claiming "abuse."

And fifth, reform of our divorce laws is long overdue, so fathers are encouraged to remain involved in their children's lives as parents, not every-other-weekend visitors.

Sadly in low-income Black communities, marriage is essentially a dead institution. And there are groups in our country that now want to extend their agenda of family destruction to society at large.

The family is the very building block of a civilized and prosperous society. What will it take to bring back the exuberant peal of June wedding bells?

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/061128

Breaking The Lies - Ain't It Funny? Part 1

2006-11-21T13:33:00.000-08:00

Here is another installment of Breaking the Lies. This one is titled Ain't It Funny? Part 1.

Click on the Title Link to download.

TMOTS

Breaking The Lies 1 - The Gentler Sex Offender

2006-11-03T04:57:00.000-08:00

If you have trouble reading the text, just click on the Title Link above and download it!

Thanks!

TMOTS

At James Madison, Title IX Is Satisfied, but the Students Are Not [Virginia]

2006-10-14T20:56:00.000-07:00

At James Madison, Title IX Is Satisfied, but the Students Are Not [Virginia]
The New York Times ^
October 7, 2006 By BILL PENNINGTON

HARRISONBURG, Va., Oct. 5 — The James Madison University men’s and women’s cross-country teams had run especially well against an elite field during a competition late last month in eastern Pennsylvania. Afterward, Coach Dave Rinker gathered a giddy, excited group of athletes with tears in his eyes.

Rinker’s runners noticed he was not smiling. In the middle of the meet, back here on the James Madison campus, the university had announced it was eliminating men’s cross country and track, along with eight other, mostly men’s, sports to comply with Title IX, the federal gender-equity law.

“Title IX was created in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination, and it was needed,” Jennifer Chapman, a senior on the women’s cross-country team, which is not being eliminated, said four days later as she led a protest rally of 400 students on campus. “But look what’s happening now. We rode the bus home from Pennsylvania for four hours, 14 guys and 19 girls all crying together. How is that supposed to have been Title IX’s intent?”

Across this placid campus in the Shenandoah Valley this week, the quads, walkways and classrooms have been filled with similar questions, many of them posed by a surprising number of female students denouncing Title IX.

“It was a difficult thing to do, but we were out of compliance with the law,” said James Madison’s president, Dr. Linwood Rose. “Part of our mission statement talks about a community of educated and enlightened citizens. I don’t know how you create a model for citizenship if you are blatantly in violation of the law.”

But what made the actions at James Madison stand out most in a national trend transforming men’s and women’s college sports was the sweeping and voluntary nature of the university’s decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Unisex brain a feminist myth

2006-10-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

Unisex brain a feminist myth

By Janet Albrechtsen
September 27, 2006 07:32am

ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.

Mind-blowing news, huh?

But here's the really brave bit: the unisex brain is a feminist fabrication. Louann Brizendine, an American neuropsychiatrist, has written a book debunking stubborn notions that girls are different only because society makes them so. It's much more to do with the brain, she says. The female brain, to be more precise.

Here's a snap brain quiz. Which sex uses, on average, about 20,000 words a day, in contrast to the 7000 uttered by the other sex? Who has two-and-a-half times the amount of brain space devoted to sexual drive, meaning they think about sex, on average, every 52 seconds? When their feelings are hurt by someone they love, which sex reacts by assuming the relationship is over? Who has larger sections of the brain for action and aggression? If you answered, in order, women, men, women, men, you've been watching too many Woody Allen movies. Now, science is confirming that Woody was right all along.

While more than 99 per cent of male and female genetic coding is the same, it's the less than 1 per cent of difference that packs a punch in marking out women from men. Drawing upon advances in gene technology and brain-imaging techniques that have revolutionised neuroscientific research, Brizendine presents a heady cocktail of structural, chemical, genetic, hormonal and functional differences between women and men.

These biological differences explain the most basic female behaviour. For instance, why do teenage girls endlessly talk? Science suggests that connecting through conversation triggers the pleasure centres in the brain. Talking activates what Brizendine describes as the "fluffy, purring kitty... feel-good brain chemicals" – oxytocin and dopamine – which together deliver "the biggest, fastest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm". Maybe that explains why women like to talk during sex, perhaps looking for a double dose of delight.

OK, that last bit is not in Brizendine's book, but there is plenty that will upset the old bra-burning feminists who steadfastly refuse to allow biology to get in the way of ideology. Let's start with how girls choose a mate. According to Brizendine, "our (female) brains size up a potential partner, and if he fits our ancestral wish list, we get a jolt of chemicals that dizzy us with a rush of laser-focused attention".

And that ancestral wish list has not changed much in the past 1000 years. Brizendine points to a study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing. It may not fit the picture of the modern girl fending for herself but Brizendine is concerned with evidence, and not imagery. And the evidence suggests that, for all the economic and social advances women have made, the powerful desire to have and care for children means many women are still interested in finding a provider. It's part of what Brizendine calls the "inherited architecture of the female brain's mate-choice system".

Equality feminists will be even more disturbed by science that confirms what most of us already know: women are more emotional than men. Cutting to the chase, that means girls are more prone to over-reaction than boys. Were we to map the female brain, Brizendine says the connecting routes for emotion look more like super-highways, compared with the country roads you'd find inside the male brain. In a Stanford University study, when volunteers were shown emotional images while having their brains scanned, nine different areas lit up in women. In men, two areas lit up.

The author concludes that "there's no getting around the fact that women have different emotional perceptions, realities, responses and memories than do men, and these differences – based on brain circuitry and function – are at the heart of many misunderstandings". And it's in the hard-wiring of the brain, rather than environment.

Last year, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, told an academic conference that his young daughter, when given two trucks in another effort of gender-neutral parenting, treated them like dolls, calling one "daddy truck" and the other "baby truck". Some in the audience reacted with disgust to Summers' address. A biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology walked out, later saying leaving was the only option, otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up". Another quick test: was the tetchy academic a woman or a man?

In a interview later, the biologist, Nancy Hopkins, said: "It's so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way." Summers' leadership did not last long. The uproar came when he hypothesised that genetics, more than environment, might explain the dearth of women in science and engineering. Suggesting that genes may explain why statistical distributions of men's and women's quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical, with more men coming in at the higher end of the scale, did not go down well in academe. Lawrence was eventually hounded out of Harvard.

Not everyone was hoodwinked by ideology. Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology who teaches classes on the human mind, told The Harvard Crimson: "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigour? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa... People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don't get the concept of a university or free inquiry."

Talking about genetic differences between men and women has long been taboo because, according to feminist orthodoxy, if women were different it necessarily meant they were inferior. But that competition-between-the-sexes business is so old hat these days.

Ignoring the differences, and framing public policy on a pretence that women are something they are not only ends up hurting women. For instance, in the heady days of 1970s feminism, it was assumed that universal child care would free women to achieve true equality with men. We now know that many women would prefer not to outsource the raising of their children. And so we need public policy and workplace changes that recognise that biological drive.

One reviewer suggests the book is "destined to become a classic in the field of gender studies". If Harvard is anything to go by, that will have to happen

False Child Support Case Exposes System's Failures

2006-10-10T21:40:00.000-07:00

October 10, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Trevino is a walking-talking explanation of why the family court and child welfare systems across North America are widely accused of being part of the problem, not part of the solution, in resolving custody issues and protecting children.

The Trevino case spun out in New Mexico, but there is nothing unique about the laws or procedures of that state.

Trevino's fraud began in 1999 when she and her former husband Steve Barreras divorced. Trevino claimed she had given birth to a child after the divorce and sued Barreras for child support, claiming he was the father. This fraud dissolved in 2004, when it was finally discovered that there was no such child. But Barreras, who works as a corrections officer in law enforcement, was forced to spend the ensuing years trying to make the New Mexico courts and child welfare service even look at evidence that the child for whom he was paying support did not exist.

More than $20,000 in payments later, a judge finally did the obvious. Trevino was ordered to produce the disputed child, then supposedly 5-years-old. On her way to the court appearance, Trevino snatched a 2-year-old off the street to pass off as her own daughter; the ruse collapsed when the infant's distraught grandmother trailed Trevino into the courtroom.

With such high drama, the media took notice…and politicians followed suit. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called for a full accounting. At issue: how did several government agencies act as unwitting partners in a sustained and outright fraud? Why did they resist correcting the error?

New Mexico's official response to the accounting was remarkable. In April 2005, it became state policy for child welfare workers to sign affidavits saying they had actually seen the children with whom they work. This is like asking public school teachers to sign affidavits saying they have met their students. Or doctors averring they have seen the patients for whom they submit bills.

Such affidavits are an admission of a system's failure, not a guarantee of its diligence. They are an admission that families are being processed as paperwork, not as people.

Meanwhile, as of Oct. 5, Trevino is finally in prison…not for kidnapping or any other charge related to bilking Barreras. She was sentenced to 16 months for filing a false federal income tax return in which she claimed exemptions and credits for the imaginary child. A court has also ordered Trevino to reimburse Barreras for more than $26,000 in false child support and other costs he paid.

When a case is so egregious, it is tempting to view it as "the exception" and not an indication of endemic problems. A litmus test of whether a case indicates a problem is the ease with which you can correct an obvious error. A system that works rectifies errors; a system that doesn't perpetuates them.

How did the New Mexico system address errors in the Trevino case?

On June 14, 1999, the two parties filed a divorce agreement by which Barreras paid $300 per month in spousal support. Their two children were adults and no child support was ordered. Somehow the dollar amount on the court document was altered to $800. On Aug. 26, Judge Deborah Davis-Walker reviewed the alteration but did not act on accusations that Trevino had altered the document; she merely reinstated the $300 amount.

(Trevino had a prior conviction on three counts of forgery in the same court district: case D-202-CR-7932664.)

On Dec. 3, Trevino told the court she had given birth to Barreras' daughter in early September and requested child support. Among the facts Barreras tried but failed to admit into evidence was Trevino's tubal ligation in 1978 and Barreras' vasectomy in 1998. Instead, Judge Davis-Walker ordered a paternity test.

In January 2000, the Mobile Blood Services compared a DNA sample of Barreras with one from the alleged child; the test indicated he was the father. When Barreras received a bill for the test, it stated "balance due on account of Eve Barreras" -- the name of his adult daughter -- he hired a private detective. As a matter of prudence, he also paid the court-ordered child support.

In phone calls and letters, he urged New Mexico's child support agency to verify his daughter's physical existence. A child enforcement worker replied, "your daughter does exist, as I am sure you already knew."

Eventually, it was discovered that the DNA test -- as well as a subsequent one -- was performed by a friend of the adult daughter who apparently skewed results by providing a sample of her own DNA.

Meanwhile, Trevino forged documents to produce a Social Security number, a Medicare card, birth and baptismal certificates for the non-existent child. The web of lies spun for years because several agencies -- the family court, child services, Medicare, welfare -- did not ask the obvious. They only had to listen once to Barreras' evidence-backed plea: check for a physical child.

Without Barreras' incredible persistence and the luck of media attention, Trevino may well be collecting child support today.

Paper can be processed neatly; people cannot. Any system that treats people like paperwork is part of the problem. And signing yet another piece of paper -- an affidavit that says an agent has seen a flesh-and-blood human -- does not solve the problem. It is just another piece of paper.

For those who find the Trevino case alarming, consider this. What of the cases who never receive the light of public scrutiny and, so, never become nothing more than paperwork? Who checks if they have been incorrectly folded, spindled or bent?

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Mom allegedly used baby to beat boyfriend

2006-10-09T18:09:00.000-07:00

ERIE, Pennsylvania

A woman used her 4-week-old baby as a weapon in a domestic dispute, swinging the infant through the air and striking her boyfriend with the child, authorities said.

The boy was in serious but stable condition Monday at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh, police said.

“Never, never, never. I can never remember anything like this,” District Attorney Bradley Foulk told the Erie Times-News.

Chytoria Graham, 27, of Erie, was charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and simple assault. She was held Monday in the Erie County Jail in lieu of $75,000 bail.

The infant, whose name was not released, suffered a fractured skull and some bleeding in the brain, authorities said. His head hit Graham’s boyfriend, the baby’s father, police Lt. Dan Spizarny said.

Authorities removed four other children from Graham’s home and placed them with the Erie County Office of Children and Youth, Foulk said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Right thinking Aussie Hits it on the Head

2006-09-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

Christianj, who blogs at What Men are saying about "WOMEN" write this gem, which I had to share.

Well, men aren't stupid, despite near-constant whinging to the contrary by women.

Men look at some of these women and say "Let's see: she expects me to earn more than she does, be her knight in shining armor, do the cooking, the cleaning, dress in bespoke suits and tuxes to go anywhere, listen to her constant, endless bellyaching about every little damn thing like one of her girlfriends and if I should marry her, when she gets into some midlife funk, she's going to sue for divorce and take half of my life's work and any kids we have.

"The male mind then turns the gears for a little while, netting this out on the bottom line of life:

"Nope. No sale."

All Men Are Pigs!!!

2006-09-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

Well, unless they have alleged power and can make me look good that is….

Before I could address this, I had to wait for the chaotic blog wars to die down. My reason? I like to stir shit up with the femikooks as often as I can.

So here is a tale. A tale of southern fried chicken in Harlem, ex Presidents, liberals, femikooks, alleged racism, “beautiful blue eyes”, and cat fights. So sit back, get a couple of beers and relax… this get’s long-winded….

Oops, forgot boobies! Yes, boobies!

But first, let’s set the stage a little shall we?

____________________________________
Briiinnggggggggg…..

TMOTS: “Hello?”

Caller: “Hi The Man On The Street, this is Senator Joseph Biden…”

TMOTS: “Really…”

Biden: “Yes, TMOTS.” “May I call you TMOTS?”

TMOTS: “Sure, everyone else does…”

Biden: “Let me get to the point of my call….”

TMOTS: “Please do.”

Biden: “I am having a gathering of sorts, a luncheon if you will and I would like you to be a participant.”

TMOTS: “Uhm, ok.”

Biden: “You see, I have been invited to chair a luncheon discussion group in Harlem NY…..

TMOTS: “Harlem? As in Harlem NY?”

Biden: “…er, yes. Anyhow, I was wondering if you’d be available to join our little get together on the 17th?”

TMOTS: “Why would you want me there?”

Biden: “Well, you see David Duke is setting this up…

TMOTS: “DAVID DUKE?!”

Biden: “Yes… Let me explain TMOTS.” “David would like to get a group of like minded thinkers of the blogophere to discuss….

TMOTS: “Wait!” You want me, to come to a dinner hosted by David Duke, where you are the guest of honor?”

Biden: “Yes. We would……

TMOTS: “..and you think that I am liken to you and David Duke?”

Biden: “Well, you do publish a blog that speaks from the white male point of view and we think….”

TMOTS: “Whoa! Wait a minute there Joey boy!” I do in fact speak from the white male prospective, this is true. But to insinuate that I would have any similarities to YOU or David is ridiculous!”

Biden: “I just thought…….”

TMOTS: No, you didn’t think there Joey. You see, I recall what you did to ALL MEN in 2000. I recall what you pushed through congress and the Presidency on two separate administrations…. I recall what VAWA stands for. And I am not it. As for David; Sure I do in fact believe that the EEOC and set aside laws for people of color are wrong. But I most certainly do not believe as Mr. Duke does when it comes to blacks in America.”

Biden: “But TMOTS, you are “one if us.”

TMOTS: “No, I am me. I believe in fairness for all, not just certain groups. I believe in the constitution that states fairness and equality for ALL, not just protected classes. You sir have bastardized what it means to be white and male in this country. You do not represent me, nor do you represent men or whites…. In the past, you have committed exactly what your ridiculous laws were claiming to fix. No Joey boy, you two do not think like me or most of the white males in this country. Good day sir!”
____________________________________

Now, if this were a real conversation… What?? it wasn’t? Oh wait, nope, it wasn’t. Ah well, let’s take a look anyhow ok? You see, although Mr. Biden is a powerful man, and no doubt would put me on the elite list just by being seen with him. I have my principles. I would no less sell my soul to the devil than play with a person that represents all that I fight against.

No different is the feminist writer wannabe who would sit and rub elbows with a KNOWN liar, adulterer, and sexual harasser... Just for starters. You see, supposedly feminists are against “the man”, the patriarchy ™, and the evil that men do like rape, oppression, and using ones power to get da poon tang. But I digress.

That is where the crux of this little ditty comes in. You see, Jessica over at Feministing had the “extreme pleasure” of doing just that. She sat at a luncheon with an elite few bloggers, all of the severe left of course, with none other than William Jefferson Clinton. That’s right folks! Ole Jessie-poo got to sit with Billy-bob and chit-chat about god knows what.

Actually, just what in Sam hell COULD they have talked about? Women’s rights? Nope. He has used his power to get pussy. Equality for all? Nope. Only whites were present at this little shin-dig. But wait! It was held in Harlem. You all know Harlem right? A predominantly BLACK and LATINO city in New York. Yea, THAT Harlem. Ah well, they did have fried chicken though. OOPS! That was a racial something-or-other wasn’t it. Oh well, so sue me.

And for your visual enjoyment, here is the crew in all its glorious wonderfulness! Please note that there are two pictures. And notice also, that there are subtle differences as well as similarities… But we’ll get back to that later, mmkay?

Ahhh, can you say “Photo op!? Sure, I knew you could! Who would have thought that such a wondrous collection of bloggers could be had - all in the same room! With none other than the king of hypocrisy, the mangina himself, Billy-bob Clinton! WOW! I have goose bumps! I think I might even have a hard on, but I am not sure. Can you imagine? Being in the same room with such a great sexual har… er man? Me neither! Can you see Jessica just oozing at the crotch, basking in the glory of such greatness? I think she might even be quivering at the knees too! Reminds me of the time that I met Andrea Dorkin… Nope, that was dry heaves; never mind.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry. You don’t know which one is Jessica? Take a wild guess. There ya go, I knew you could. That’s right. The one in the middle with the true blue wonder bra push-up stance that only a woman of babalicious status or a model could pull off. Can you just hear the song in your head? “I’m a model you know what I mean, when ah do mah little dance on the catwalk… yea the catwalk…” Can you hear it? Yea baby! That’s gold!

See? I told you this gets long-winded….. Stay with me though, it gets better!

So Jessica, all weak in the knees, wet in the crotch, and a twinkle in her eye comes (or is that cums) home and immediately blogs about her near miss with fame, power and status. And in true form of the feministing crew, they all gather their wagons and bask in Jessica’s greatness. Ahhh, all is right with the world. Once again, all the little people are green with envy at her obvious superiority over them. Feminists far and wide are now all singing the praises of Jessica Valenti, the EXECUTIVE EDITOR of Feministing, the owner of the prestigious Masters degree in Women and Gender Studies. WOW! Can you smell it? Can you feel it? That there is some good ole fashioned power right there!

Sorry. I got caught up in the moment for a second. So anyhow, while the minutes pass, and all the a-listers at feministing are gushing over Jessica, someone else has noticed her brush with fame. A fellow feminist! Surely she will bask in Jessica’s greatness as well, right? OOP! Guess not.

You see, over at Ann Althouse's Blog, Ann has a slightly different take on ole Jessie’s brush with fame. While everyone is touting the envy-line, Ann is strumming a different tune. You see, Ann is one of those “real feminists”. You know the ones that tow the femi-line no matter what. No matter the hypocrisy, the silliness, the blatant bigotry, or even the consequences. Ann is a true feminist. I can respect that. She sticks to her guns, elitist or not.

Ann essentially gets on her femiStep and begins to berate Jessica because she feels that Jessica is a sellout. She is in the presence of a known sexual harasser, and appears to be posing somewhat seductively or sheepishly girly (not sure), propelling her special women only card, the BOOBIES! Yes, all this fervor is about the boobies! How could a feminist allow herself to be photographed in an obviously male appealing pose? How could a feminist be so… Hmmm what’s the word I need here? Patriarchal ™! She is the only one of the group that is actually POSING in a cutesy manor. GASP! Girlishly! Naughty, naughty Jessica.

So true to form, all the manginas and femikooks comes to poor widow Jessica, the victim’s, aid. Turning what Ann was pointing out into the typical women making mean about another woman’s appearance. Nothing could be further from the truth, but in true FemiSpeak, if you can’t argue a point, change it. Ann was merely stating that Jessica is a sellout. She is not commenting on her looks per ce. Sure, she mentions the obvious push-up bra and the come hither model style stance versus everyone else in the photo.

But that isn’t her point. Even a male pig such as me could see what Ann was referring to. Look at the two pictures again. Notice the arched back, the half turn stance, the left foot in front of the right to enhance her figure. Yes Jessica that is what and why models do that. It enhances their figure and enhances their hips and curves. But of course, you know that didn’t you Jessica.

So Jessica gets wind of Ann’s comments and of course, goes right for the ‘twist it to make Ann look bad’ formula. You know it. You’ve all see it a million times. So instead of me explaining the conversation, I decided to just show it to you. Mind you, I am not going to make this already long bit even longer by posting all of it… just the juice parts… hehehehe

Jessica Feministing returns and says:
It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I "pose" for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera.

Ann States:
Provoked, I decide to actually give her a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding:

Jessica, I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....

Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica's blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they're seen on truck mudflaps). She's got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?

See? Ann clearly explains what her issue is with this image. But alas, a blog (oh, that’s a different blog, sorry) is about free exchange of ideas and discussions right? Well, only if you tow the correct party line that is, apparently. And said rules apply to movements as well I guess.

Well, if pissing off a fellow femikook isn’t enough, we have an additional spice to add to the mix; the ever-popular racial card. Yep. We all know that liberals, especially those of the feminists flavor are all about equalllleteee don’t we. Well not according to quite a few ‘progressive’ liberal bloggers such as this one (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/about-meeting-clinton.html).

It seems that a predominant liberal bloggers get-together doesn’t consist of anyone of color. Hmm, as a white male fascist pig, I even noticed that discrepancy. Now why would that be? How is it possible to invite a bunch of liberals to a pow-wow with such a great man (cough – blowjob – cough) and not have one person of color present? Are you kidding me? Sure, the managed to have a femikook or two, a couple of mangina, an aluminum hat wearer or two, and more than likely a person of choice (read gay) in the mix. But not a one Black or Latino, shoot not even someone with a mixed heritage!

As a matter of fact, now that I look again, not even an Asian! Why not add a Muslim and an illegal Mexican to the list to round it out nicely. Nope. Not a one. Ah well, I guess the Arian race is alive and well in Bill & Hitlary’s land.

Anyhow (again), There are many speculations as to why this is. There are, of course in true liberal damage control, many excuses as well. From “well, we invited one but they declined” to “this just the first of many…. Blah blah…” You know the drill. You see, liberals don’t like it when they are called on their faults. Especially when you use their own canned arguments to prove it. Maybe they just didn’t want people of color present. Maybe they thought that a black person would be insulted if they showed up and was served ‘southern fried chicken’.

Maybe they DID IN FACT invite a Black blogger or two and when they discovered that ‘southern fried chicken’ was the chow de jour, they WERE insulted. Ever think of that? Sure, in my little world, I could care less about stereotypes. I happen to like the traditional white male foods like steak & mashed potatoes. But if you’re a liberal, you cannot fight the devil and ignore the stereotypes (perceived or otherwise). So of course, the ‘southern fried chicken’ part would piss at least one Black person off. Tell me I’m wrong.

Or could it be that Hitlary has hired none other than Peter Daou. Yes, you heard correctly. THAT Peter Daou. The one that was just hired by Hitlary for god knows what... You see Peter was in charge of gathering all of these intellectually special folks.

Nope, feminists are not opportunistic… Feminists are not into power and … dare I say, selling out!

At least be consistent Jessica. Swooning over a man that has treated women the way that you claim to be fighting against, is just bad PR. Even for a feminist.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.....

TMOTS

Uppity men

2006-09-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts
September 19, 2006

Let's face it, we've been snookered.

They promised gender liberation, now we're becoming dependents of the Nanny State. They averred no fancy for special treatment, now we have affirmative action. They said they only wanted to give women a voice, now we've got speech codes. They claimed to be for gender equality, now boys are struggling just to keep up in school.

Why has it taken so long for us to catch on?

One of the tacit rules of the New Gender Order is that the opinions of men don't count. "If white men were not complaining, it would be an indication we weren't succeeding and making the inroads that we are" was the remarkable admission once made by the most influential media mogul in the country, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, owner and publisher of the New York Times.

Author Warren Farrell calls it the "lace curtain," the invisible hand of editorial censorship that throttles the First Amendment rights of half our nation's population.

It's like we claimed to be engaged in free and open debate, all the while holding one of the parties gagged, blind-folded, and hog-tied. Or if men were allowed to speak, it was made perfectly clear that they not say anything that might force the delicate gals to resort to smelling salts — remember l'affaire of Larry Summers?

But three weeks ago something snapped.

Michael Noer at Forbes.com wrote a column called "Don't Marry Career Women." It was an advice column for eligible businessmen thinking about making the plunge.

Predictably, the ladies reacted with well-rehearsed outrage, forcing Forbes to run a counterpoint by Elizabeth Corcoran, "Don't Marry a Lazy Man." [www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html]

True, some of Noer's facts could be disputed. Maybe he didn't qualify his statements enough.

But Noer's article struck a deep chord with hard-working men whose liberated wives had come to look askance at anything that might remotely be called housework. And it resonated with the average Joes who put in long hours on the factory line, only to come home and learn that he was a member of the male oppressor class.

This time there would be no "Button up that lip, little man!" Within hours the Internet was buzzing over Noer's apostasy as thousands of men spoke out at Forbes.com, FreeRepublic.com, and other sites. All of a sudden, full-throated debate became fashionable.

Remember this line? "I'm as mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" That rant won Peter Finch an Oscar for his role in the movie Network.

That pretty well sums up the attitude of many men and women who have become disgusted with feminist-driven, government-enforced intervention into the personal matters of private citizens.

For years, women like Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, and Phyllis Schlafly have been speaking out against government intrusion disguised as female emancipation. Now their protest is ringing through the land.

Take Doug Richardson of Detroit. He was forced to pay more than $80,000 in child support, even after paternity tests proved the child was not his. Now he's waging a one-man campaign to expose the swindle and bring the malefactors to justice.

In North Dakota, Mitch Sanderson got fed up with the raw deal that fathers were getting in divorce court. So he started up the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative. Then he quit his day job and combed every hamlet and town in the state to get the required 13,000 signatures to land his shared custody bill on the November ballot.

Some guys are willing to put everything on the line.

Like John Murtari of Onondaga County, NY. Murtari owes more than $60,000 in child support, an amount he couldn't pay because the figure was calculated based on an income far higher than what he now earns. On July 31 he was sentenced to jail, triggering a hunger strike that caused him to lose 29 pounds in just nine days. As of this writing his situation remains precarious.

April 19, 1775, a rag-tag group of Minutemen waited in muffled silence at the Old North Bridge in Concord, Mass. Within minutes they were engulfed in a desperate fire-fight with the British regulars.

Soon the smoke cleared. That shot heard 'round the world marked the first battle of the American Revolutionary War. It was the first hard-fought step to freedom from government oppression.

Over 230 years later, state-sponsored tyranny has re-appeared in our midst. And once again, a group of uppity men are willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the defense of justice and family.
________

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060919

The Passing of a Man’s Man and his Man

2006-09-10T16:31:00.000-07:00

The Passing of a Man’s Man and his Man
Aug-2-2006
The Man On The Street

Mickey, Mike, Velda, & Besty; if you know the names, you know who they are.

It is truly a sad day in my life. Specifically not because the man that essentially created what was once, if not still called ‘the hard-boiled mystery genre’, but because it is two weeks after his death, that I learn of his passing.

When I as younger, I penned my protagonists to the likings of Mike Hammer, Spenser, and Sam Spade. Whenever anyone reads one of my stories, they almost always say that it reads like a Hammer novel. To me, that is the best compliment I could ever receive. I have fulfilled my goal.

One of the highest points of my life was when I was able to meet Mickey, Robert Parker, and Sue Grafton at a Mystery Writers convention years ago in Boston (home of Parker and his alter ego, Spenser). To have these folk’s autographs, to me, are probably the most treasured articles that I own. Mickey signed my first printing hard cover of I, The Jury, and Parker signed my first printing hard cover of The Godwulf Manuscript, his first Spenser novel. I was not able to get Grafton’s autograph, due to lack of time. Now if only I was around to get Agatha (Christie) and Dashille’s (Hammett), I'd have the essence of who I am and whom I mimic my writing style. But, alas, I wasn’t even a twinkle in my father’s eye during their time.

Mickey was a great writer, one of a kind. Sure his stuff was very popular way before I was even born. But I was able to read his stories growing up mainly due to his character's staying power. And even though the mainstream world had pretty much blackballed him during the 70’s for his “violent and sexual content”. His primary character, Mike Hammer was revitalized once again in the 80’s. The reprinting of I, The Jury, his first Hammer novel originally written in the late 40’s, was the pinnacle rebirth of Mike Hammer. Followed by the full compliment of reprints of all the Mike Hammer novels, as well as many compilation hard covers such as Hammer Strikes Again.

Even his goofy personas in the Bud Light commercials were ladened with his tough guy – blonde bombshell – film noir feel. The ending statement of these commercials’ “Ohhhhh Mickey!” by Blondie was atypical for the likes of Mike Hammer’s creator and Mike himself. Who said there ‘aint nothing good come from the 80’s’.

Three versions of his Hammer character were made into television series, with Mickey himself staring on the first version in the 50’s. Stacey Keach took the role in the 80’s. Several TV adaptations from his best novels were also made into made-for-TV-movies. In my opinion, they never did Mickey justice. The restraints of television would never allow his (Mike) to be who he really is, as Mickey wrote him. Sadly, today, in 2006, with society the way it is with gender neutrality (read woman = invincible / man = dumbass), we will most likely never see another Mike Hammer episode again. Thus, the second reason for my sorrow. Mike hammer, by today’s ‘rules’ of gender, is a dinosaur. He would never survive, sadly.

Goodbye my mentor. Goodbye Mike. Dinosaurs or not, I shall miss both of you dearly.

TMOTS

Harassment hysteria threatens military morale

2006-09-06T16:28:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts
September 5, 2006

Last year Naval Academy instructor Lt. Bryan Black made a sexually-tinged remark to a female midshipman. It was not a case of rape or sexual assault. It was not even "I'll trade you a better grade for certain sexual favors." Rather, the comment was a vulgar remark — much like something you might hear during a Sex in the City re-run.

But Cupcake got offended and filed a complaint. The complaint eventually made its way to the Naval Academy's superintendent, Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt. All of sudden, Black found himself the target of a criminal investigation.

A criminal charge for salty language? What's going on here?

Tailhook, that's what.

In 1991 a group of Navy aviators touched down in Las Vegas for their Tailhook Convention, an annual round of carousing, imbibing, and other bacchanalian indulgences.

Gloss over the fact that most female personnel in attendance were repeat attendees who knew exactly what was coming. Ignore the libidinous ladies who lined up to engage in activities like "pleasuring the rhino." Pretend that the gals didn't engage in their own high-flying debauchery, including "package checks" of male genitalia and topless bartending.

And forget that Ensign Beth Warnick accused three male aviators of gang-raping her, only to later admit that she had lied so her boyfriend wouldn't learn the truth of her extra-curricular activities.

The fact was, after they sorted through all the tawdry tales, only three of the reported incidents of "sexual assault" could be considered criminal in nature.

No matter, the media began to compare Tailhook to the rape of Nanking. And feminists seized on the episode as proof of a warrior culture that needed to be brought to heel.

A full-throated — and well-orchestrated — hysteria over sexual harassment in the Armed Forces was about to begin. And elected officials who desired to curry favor with the feminist lobby began to call for a non-stop series of hearings, investigations, and task forces.

In 1994 the General Accounting Office did a survey on sexual harassment in the military. The GAO found that "unwanted sexual advances" ranked dead last on the list. One of the most common types of harassment, though, consisted of comments that the presence of women had lowered military standards.

That's right, men, stop griping because women can't drag a firehose across the flight deck or give the heave-ho to a 100-pound anchor. Don't you realize that such remarks are creating a hostile environment?

What has become clear from all the surveys, though, is that a crisis of false allegations now overshadows the problem of actual physical abuse.

Earlier this year the Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office (SAPRO) reported on an analysis of 848 investigations. Among those alleged sexual offenses, 641 were found to be unsubstantiated, unfounded, or involved insufficient evidence. So three-quarters of the complaints were deemed unworthy of disciplinary action.

In May the Naval Academy Board of Trustees was informed that among 40 cases of alleged sexual harassment, 72% were found to be unsubstantiated or invalid.

Last year Joseph Schmitz, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, released a report on sexual harassment at the service academies. This survey featured a new twist — it also asked about false allegations.

Among men, 72% reported that fraudulent allegations are a problem. Likewise 73% of women said false claims were cause for concern. The gals realized that frivolous allegations do nothing to enhance their standing and respect among their male peers.

So why did it take over a decade of taxpayer-funded investigations to come to that common-sense conclusion?

Recently Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness concluded, "these polls embarrass the academies, demoralize the cadets, and make the case for more lucrative contracts for 'victim advocates' . . . Feminist pork needs to be trimmed from the DoD budget, not expanded even more." [http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/ED%20Testimony%20062706.pdf]

Meanwhile back in Annapolis, last January superintendent Rempt invited the Navy cadets to attend a performance of Sex Signals. Given that the play contained far more sexual innuendo and X-rated language than Lt. Black could have indulged in with Cupcake a few months before, maybe the play should have been called "Mixed Signals."

And exactly why did Vice Adm. Rempt decide to lower the boom on Bryan Black? Because Rempt had just launched a "zero-tolerance" policy on sexual harassment.

Of course, we live in a flawed world with imperfect people. So in practice, "zero-tolerance" becomes the basis for ramping up the penalties for an offense that no one can define, and abolishing due process protections for an allegation that no person can ever hope to refute.
________

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Robertshttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060905

Double-standards cripple the fight against terrorism

2006-09-01T12:02:00.000-07:00

Carey Roberts
August 30, 2006

It is a sign of cultural confusion when the most-heralded account of individual bravery in the Iraqi war centers around a teenage girl who did nothing that could be considered heroic.

When her convoy made a wrong turn behind enemy lines, 19-year-old Jessica Lynch passed out during the ensuing ambush. For that she was rewarded with fawning media coverage, an official biography, and a made-for-TV movie.

PFC Lynch didn't thwart the enemy attack, save anyone's life, or even fire a single shot. So what amazing feat of valor qualified Lynch for the Bronze Star? Get ready for this: she fell to her knees and started to pray. And then she smiled for the camera.

The chivalrous adulation that greeted Lynch's return covered over a dirty truth: Feminist double-think permeates the military more than any other institution in our society.

It's what Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, calls DSIW: double standards involving women. That dual standard now threatens the readiness and morale of our military services which must now cope with the surging threat of Islamofascism.

Women have long played an important and indispensable role in the military. And 20 years ago, different requirements weren't a concern when women were assigned mostly to nursing and stateside desk jobs. But shortfalls in military recruitment goals and demands by Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado to assign the "real plum jobs" to the gals changed all that.

Soon women were being tapped to work as pilots, ordnance handlers, and grease monkeys — just like their daddies used to do. Everything seemed to be on track for the imminent arrival of the gender utopia.

Then the 1990 Gulf War came around and 40,000 females were ordered to report for duty. That's when the ladies began to rediscover their inner-mom. Long-barren women became rapturously pregnant, and military mothers were suddenly the reincarnation of Madonna-with-child.

Newspapers wailed because "thousands of American mothers are saying good-bye to their families to face the unknown dangers in the Gulf." Some G.I. Janes claimed their recruiters had promised they would never be sent to war.

Gender-integrated basic training, which came along three years later, proved to be an even bigger jolt. The Sergeant Furies wondered how the female trainees would be able to survive, much less pass, the hand-grenade exercise, given the fact that most women couldn't heave the thing beyond its 35-meter burst radius.

Soon the requirement was changed so just dumping the grenade over a cement wall gave you the green light. After all, grenade-throwing is simply a confidence-building exercise, and the key is to try your hardest, right?

Battle-hardened drill sergeants were ordered to remake themselves in the manner of Mister Rogers, and obstacle courses were modified to resemble a Romper Room set. Navy trainees were urged to wave a "stress card" to settle frayed nerves. And mothers were consoled with infant nursing breaks and assorted child-bonding activities.

Despite all the gender-norming and hand-holding, Stephanie Gutmann documents in The Kinder, Gentler Military that women in training suffer 2-3 times more stress fractures, back sprains, and broken ankles. And at the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Va., last year's female candidates washed out three times more often than the guys. [www.cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/ED%20Testimony%20062706.pdf]

George Orwell once wrote, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." That aphorism rings true in many of the official statements on women in the military.

"All soldiers, regardless of gender, train to a single standard, the Army standard," proclaims one regulation. "Differences in performance requirements between the sexes, such as Army physical fitness testing scoring, are based on physiological differences and apply to the entire force.

"How's that for twice-around-the-block double-talk?

Then we have those politicians who gush about "the men and women in uniform who are fighting for our country." Apparently these well-intentioned souls don't realize that a woman who slings an M-16 over her shoulder for a couple hours of guard duty does not qualify as "fighting."

And remember Lt. Kara Hultgreen? Her jet crashed and burned on the USS Abraham Lincoln because she approached the flight deck at too sharp an angle — an error she had committed twice before. Then Navy officials tried to pin Hultgreen's death on "engine failure."

Put that one in the "cover-up" category.

Six years ago Stephanie Gutmann asked, "Can America's gender-neutral fighting force still win wars?" Some found her question to be provocative; to others it was merely amusing.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it's time that we seriously ponder that question.

_______

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060830

'Take Back the Night' for Men as Well

2006-08-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

Tuesday , August 22, 2006

By Wendy McElroy

Every year, campuses and cities across North America hold "Take Back the Night" -- marches and rallies to protest violence against women. But surprising data suggests that men may need to reclaim 'the night' as urgently as women.

On Aug. 10, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the results of its first national Personal Safety Survey (PSS, 2005). It is the only national survey by a 'Western' country that analyzes a wide range of violence on the basis of a respondent's sex.

Thus, the PSS offers the best snapshot available of the comparative violence experienced by men and women in a society with laws and a culture similar to North America.

The results are remarkable. If valid, they have far-reaching implications for how issues of gender and violence should be addressed.

The current approach basically views women as victims and men as aggressors. The survey's bottom line: Australian men are twice as likely as women to become victims of physical violence or of threats thereof (11 percent of men; 5.8 percent of women). For the population between eighteen and twenty-four years of age, men were almost three times as likely (31 percent of men; 12 percent of women). But men were also three times more likely than women to be the perpetrators of violence.

Violence against men most often took the form of a brute physical attack rather than a sexual assault/threat. When perpetrated by another man, the assault occurred "at licensed premises (34 percent) or in the open (35 percent), however if the perpetrator was female then 77 percent of the physical assaults occurred in the home."

In some categories of violence, such as domestic violence and sexual assault, the PSS shows women as more vulnerable than men. For example, 1.6 percent of women as opposed to 0.6 percent of men experienced either sexual violence or threats in the year preceding the survey.

Overall, however, the PSS offers good news to women. One of its goals was to "expand on the 1996 Women's Safety Survey" and compare violence against women then to now. With one notable exception, violence declined; the perception of being in danger also declined.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported, "A decade ago, more than 21 percent of women felt unsafe compared to just over 13 percent in 2005."

Perhaps predictably, the public reaction of Julie Bishop -- a Liberal member of the Australian House of Representatives who advises the Prime Minister on women's issues -- focused on the negative news for women: violence against older women has increased since 1996. To the extent Bishop acknowledged encouraging data such as the increased reporting of crime, she credited the Women's Safety Agenda, which is tax-funded at approximately $57.5 million U.S. Bishop promised to consider the PSS's findings at an upcoming conference of Women's Ministers' from Australia and New Zealand.

Bishop may be forced to confront changing attitudes toward gender and violence. Shortly after the PSS's release, the New Zealand Herald reported on a new study. "Where only one partner in a relationship is violent, it is more likely to be the woman, University of Otago researchers have found. Researcher Kirsten Robertson, of the university's psychology department, said the finding indicated a change of thinking was required on domestic violence."

Part of that change will come from grappling with the still widely disparate views offered by studies and surveys on how many men versus women experience domestic violence. Many of the differences may be ascribed to nothing more than the methodology employed by various researchers. Despite those differences, however, both the estimates of men as victims and women as perpetrators of domestic violence seem to be rising across the board.

A new approach to gender and violence is likely to hit a brick wall of sexual politics. Much of gender policy in Australia and North America -- e.g. affirmative action, domestic violence and sexual harassment -- is rooted in ideology, in the idea that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class. But if men are twice as likely to be threatened or attacked, then the theory of women's class oppression becomes more difficult to sustain.

Even if men are more likely to be attacked by a fellow-male than a female, that does not change the fact that they are also victims of violence.

And the task of collecting quality data becomes more important because only facts stand a chance of cutting through ideology.

There is some reason to question the quality of data in the PSS.

For example, its summary states "an attempt or threat to inflict physical harm is included only if a person believes it is likely to be carried out."

This asks the 'victim' to ascribe intent to an aggressor and invites subjectivity.

Various figures are identified with "a relative standard error of 25 percent to 50 percent" or "greater than 50 percent"; this makes them unreliable. Moreover, the math in some tables does not add up; that is, when the subcategory totals are added together, the sum total is greater than the parts. (See page 5.)

Without the raw data or more methodological detail, it is not possible to tell why this occurs.

There is no reason to believe, however, that the aforementioned problems skew the data more for one sex than the other.

Other aspects of the survey, however, provide reason to suspect that violence against men could be understated or glimpsed less clearly.

Although the PSS surveyed 16,300 adults, it included 11,800 women and only 4,500 men; this means the data on women should be more reliable. Moreover, the PSS used only female interviewers; this may have encouraged women to open up but it could have inhibited men.

In short, the PSS is neither ideal nor definitive but it is probably the best current picture of gender and violence in Western society. Under that picture, the caption should read "violence is a human problem, not a gender one."

Politically correct feminists sought to define violence, within certain contexts, as a gender problem, because the perception of women as victims of men promoted their ideology that pitted men against women. This view of violence as a gender problem has been sustained because government supported the ideology and its conclusions with money and favorable law. As a result, a false view of the nature of violence and of the relationship between the sexes has been created.

Focusing on women victims is valuable for specific purposes, like counseling female rape victims, but anyone who campaigns to prevent violence against women should vigorously applaud similar efforts directed toward men.

'Take Back The Night' is for everyone.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.