Equal but Different

Sexism and Hypocrisy

2011-10-28T02:20:00.004-06:00

I've sent the following in as an article submission to Cafemom's The Stir.

I would like to pitch the following;

Husband Cuts Out Vagina and Chucks it in the River

A revision on a piece of misandric garbage by Kim

A 29-year-old Vietnamese man, only identified by his surname, Pan, was sick and tired of his wife's philandering ways and her physical abuse. So he did what any scorned, crazed man would do: He waited until she was passed out from drugs and sleeping pills and cut our her vagina -- with a kitchen knife. Then he threw the removed genitalia in a Taiwanese river like it ain't no thang.

Afterward, he turned himself into police and allegedly told them that he felt no regret for what he did to his unemployed, drugged-out bitch of a wife. Bad. Ass.

Although I consider myself to be somewhat of a pacifist, I must admit, I've always admired a man who has the cojones to cut out a woman's vajayjay. Lord knows I wouldn't be able to go through with it. No matter how much the bitch deserved it. Cutting out a woman's private parts -- with a kitchen knife (a kitchen knife!) no less -- would probably be more punishment for me than the woman itself. Shudder! Blech! Ick!

Then again, I've never been pushed to such a point in my life. I imagine men who are actually ready to go through with ... the deed have reached a place where they literally have nowhere else to go. They've been abused -- physically, sexually, and emotionally -- for far too long, and cutting out the thing that essentially gives women their power must seem like the best only possible option to them.

Pan, who worked at a local karaoke shop to support his family, has been taken into custody on charges of assault. And you know what? I bet he couldn't care less. He probably feels pretty damn good right now."

I'll assume it's obvious at this juncture that this is not a genuine pitch but an attempt to convey how thoroughly heinous the article recently posted by Nicole Fabian-Weber is. Read through it and then tell me you would post it, because if you wouldn't....and we both know that you wouldn't...I'm going to have to call sexism.

I could accept that 'the powers that be' were unaware of just how offensive Ms. Fabian-Weber's article was but, as it is still posted on your site in all it's vile glory, and, as I know you've received correspondence asking for it's removal, ignorance is
no longer an excuse.

However, if you are going to stand on the usual disclaimer, i.e. 'the views and opinions stated on this website do not necessarily reflect'...then I will respect that stance, but I will also be finding a true life story of some man who decided to take matters into his own hands when dealing with his bad wife and responded in a manner comparable to Ms. Weber's heroine. I will expect that article to also be posted because anything else would be blatant sexism and hypocrisy.

Sincerely,

Kim

I would encourage everyone to contact the administration over at 'The Stir' demanding that Ms. Fabian-Weber's article be removed.

Misandrist Bigots

2011-10-26T13:35:00.005-06:00

Paul Elam on 'A Voice for Men' has identified Nicole Fabian-Weber, blogger from 'The Stir' as a bigot and place her on the offenders list at 'Register-her.com' for her misandrist comments.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/nicole-fabian-weber-placed-on-offenders-registry/

Ms. Fabian Weber has written an opinion piece applauding the actions of a 29-year-old Vietnamese woman who severed her husband's penis with a pair of scissors and then threw it in the Taiwanese River "like it ain't no thang". Ms. Fabian-Weber describes the mutilation as "Bad. Ass." and proclaims that she has "always admired a woman who has the cojones to cut off a man's weenus".

I left the following comment,

The author, and everyone on here who has commented agreeing with her sentiments, is a misandrist hypocrite. Unless, of course, you're all willing and ready to advocate men who have been victims of abusive, philandering wives cutting out the genitals of their wives as retaliation? I didn't think so.

I have a male friend whose wife is a drug addict and a thoroughly unimpressive specimen of humanity. She has cheated on him on countless occasions. She treats their children like the unfortunate family gerbil who's left forgotten in his cage, only to be brought out on occasion to entertain company or what not. She is abusive and she is cruel. She is also a product of her addiction. Addiction changes people and destroys the lives of all around them. Personally, I think he should take the children and leave her. She has done far too much harm already and he needs to put the welfare of the children first. I have not, however, recommended him taking a kitchen knife and, upon finding her in her latest drug induced stupor, cutting out her vagina and throwing it down the trash compactor. I can't even write that without getting the chills and feeling nauseous. Yet, look how cavalierly Ms. Fabian-Weber along with a multitude of other like minded individuals in society, discuss the similar mutilation of a man.

Not only do women justify the irreparable mutilation of men...they applaud it; they laugh and make jokes about it; they call it empowering and herald each new horrific incident as an act of heroic justice. Frankly, I find it all very chilling. We are, after all, talking about actual human beings. Men are not merely symbols of female victimization, to be discarded and used as we see fit in order to further 'the female cause'.

I would encourage everyone to go over to The Stir and express their disgust with Ms. Fabian-Weber and her comments.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/127533/wife_cuts_off_husbands_penis?result=comment_added&comment_state=member&success=1#comments

Slutwalk NYC

2011-10-05T01:31:00.009-06:00

I hate to beat a dead horse, particularly one so ridiculous and crass...but why oh why can't the Slutwalk die? I realize some may suggest that stupid bloggers like Kim giving it continued attention may be part of the problem but, sadly, with or without my commentary, it continues to thrive. Some feminists are heralding Slutwalk as the best and biggest thing to happen in feminism in some time, "The future of feminism....A rebellion against sexual standards!" A pathetic and ridiculous display of privileged entitled women with too much time and not enough sense! O.K., I admit....that last bit was mine.

I was of the opinion and hope that Slutwalk, overwhelmed by a wave of ridicule, mockery and scorn, would be quickly swept under the rug and recognized as the embarrassment that it is. Instead, it seems that feminists have finally found a way to connect with the new tide of young women. I guess, in retrospect, I'm not all that surprised by the "movements" popularity. They've also found a way to capture the media and the general public's attention. It's like the Jerry Springer of protests...absolutely appalling and pathetic....but you just can't help but watch.

Of course, feminists view the whole thing in their typical myopic fashion.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/12040/slutwalk_nyc_an_important_success_corsets_and_all

"I did see a few women wearing corsets at SlutWalk. They were easy to find—you just had to look for the camera crews—but there weren’t many. More women went topless. This, I soon realized, was brilliant; the press cameras had to stay away from them. The men on the sidewalk were less inhibited; they gathered on stoops, at intersections, or in their fire escapes, holding out phone cameras, rapt with predatory fascination."

Oy vey. So women are strolling down public streets TOPLESS but it's the men who are uninhibited? What the heck were those disgusting leering men thinking? They should have locked themselves away in closets or something so they wouldn't have been able to see the women. If they had any decency at all they would have gouged out their very eyes instead of accosting these poor women with their stares. Women have every right to parade topless through downtown New York City in the middle of the day but how dare men be there and look!

That Slutwalk has been called the "next global feminist movement" should clue feminists in to just how ridiculous their movement has become. I've watched feminism becoming increasingly desperate in it's bid to maintain a semblance of legitimacy for some time now...and here we are. Feminists are overjoyed that they're getting so much attention and completely clueless as to how stupid they look. Not that this should come as a surprise (see Vagina Monologues...another fine example of feminist protest).

Honestly, as one who quantifies herself as anti feminist, I suppose I should cheer on the Slutwalkers. I say "should" because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. I would much prefer to see feminism die out because a majority of women stood up and denounced it for the hate movement that it is. Instead, feminists themselves have made it almost unnecessary to undermine feminism...as they're doing such a bang up job all on their own. Every overblown, ridiculous claim they make concerning rape, abuse, the oppression of women...does more to invalidate their movement then any anti feminist such as myself could ever do. They've made themselves ridiculous and are well on their way to losing all legitimacy. Of course, as I've stated before, the problem anymore isn't so much feminism...as we see from our Slutwalkers, it's becoming little more than a crude and tasteless joke. The problem is the mess it's left in it's wake.

Taking Back Slut

2011-05-10T17:45:00.006-06:00

Perhaps you’ve heard about the latest angry women protests dubbed “slutwalks”. In response to Toronto Policeman, Michael Sanguinetti’s advice that, in order to avoid victimization, women should refrain from dressing like “sluts”, women are taking to the streets clad in slutgear to protest.

Granted, Mr. Sanguinetti could have chosen his words a bit more carefully, but, let’s face it…. the advice, while a touch unrefined, is basically sound. It’s similar to advice my mother gave me and that I would pass along to my own daughter. Unsurprisingly, feminists are blowing his remark out proportion, automatically equating victimization with rape, alleging that Mr. Sanguinetti, instead of stating simple truths, is telling women that if they dress provocatively they deserve to be raped.

In these slutwalks, women are gearing up in bikinis and lingerie and scrawling the word “slut” upon their bare skin in an effort to “take back” the word slut. From the SlutwalkToronto.com, “And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.”

Why is that feminists are always taking back things that no sane, logical person would want in the first place?

Generally when a group of individuals unite and rally to take something back….it’s something you actually want; something good that has been wrongfully maligned. All I ever see feminists taking back are things I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Instead of taking back 'bitch' or 'slut'; how about we try taking back wife, mother or femininity. Instead of re-appropriating slut, how about reclaiming honesty, virtue and integrity? But I guess we wouldn’t see feminists marching to take back those things…as they are the ones who have fought voraciously to malign and destroy them.

I suppose this is why I identify so much more with the men’s movement than with feminism. I can rally behind men taking back “father”, “masculinity”, “man”….because they are good things that have been wrongfully vilified. They are worth fighting for; worth taking back. Conversely, I will forever stand at odds with feminists because I have absolutely no interest in fighting for their causes. They are the antithesis of everything I stand for....forever fighting for all the wrong things.

There Are No Vampires

2011-02-09T16:20:00.003-07:00

Any one remotely observant has heard about or had opportunity to notice the ‘Twilight’ phenomena. Women young and old are veritably obsessed with the series. It may come as a surprise to some, but I actually understand this. I understand losing oneself in the fictional worlds encased within the pages of books. Throughout my life, I’ve spent countless hours in the imaginary worlds of Orson Scott Card, C.S. Lewis, Richard Adams, J.R.R. Tolkien....among many others. As a child, my parents would punish me by not allowing me to sit in my room and read because, given my choice, that’s where I would be.

There did however, come a point where I realized that I was trading in experiences and opportunities in the real world for those in my fictional ones. My fictional worlds were an escape; places that were exciting and adventurous but, always, much, much safer and insular for a shy and insecure child than the real world.

As a teenager, I learned to reach outside my shell. I continued to enjoy books, but forced myself to take an active part in the world around me. What a plethora of opportunities there are to engage in and to grow from in the world. There is a wealth of knowledge to be found in books, but that knowledge cannot take the place of the kind of learning that comes from life experience. One cannot truly experience life, its highs or its lows, through the pages of a book and it is only through truly experiencing life that one hones character and is able to develop empathy and integrity. We can learn about the kind of person we’d like to become in a book, but we can never develop great qualities without first living and experiencing them.

Let’s return to ‘Twilight’ for a moment...women are obsessed with vampires because they are the ultimate dark knight. They come, not only to sweep you off your feet and take you away from the mundane trivialities of day to day life, but from life itself and all the pesky little inconveniences that mortality entails.

The tragedy is that women spend their time daydreaming about being rescued from life instead of grabbing onto it, immersing themselves in it and living it. Life is messy. It isn’t the picture perfect experience found in romance books. No matter how brave or handsome the knight in shining armor, at the end of the day, there will still be a house to clean, jobs to do, kids to feed, noses to wipe....this is just life. Instead of cherishing the moments of it, regardless how seemingly small and inconsequential, women abnegate and renounce it. They mourn and revile their common, mundane existences while missing irreplaceable and integral opportunities for growth.

Ultimately, there never was a perfect knight in shining armor...not really, because at the end of the day, our knight was just a man; a human being, equipped with the prerequisite agglomeration of human faults and weaknesses. He never could have saved us because he would have had to save us from ourselves and from inescapable aspects of human existence. Thus, women have abandoned their human knights for mythical, immortal beings.

But there are no vampires. There is only this one life that we have and all the messy inconveniences that come with it...because life is messy. It’s messy and difficult but it’s also wonderful and beautiful. We can waste life pining for things we’ll never have; things that never have, can or will exist, or we can jump head first into it and make the most of it....the most of ourselves.

What a shallow and ego-centric notion this whole knight/vampire business is to begin with; imagine wasting life wishing for someone to save you; to take responsibility for your happiness, when you could actually be out there doing something for someone else. You could be doing your best to help others instead of fruitlessly pining for something that will never happen. It is no one’s responsibility to take upon them the insurmountable task of saving us from ourselves. Happiness and contentment are things that are found within and not something that we can gain from others.

Once again, no matter how dashing, brave, noble and wonderful, the knight in shining armor will always fall short. This is how entitled; how detached from logic and reality women have become. If our knight in shining armor can no longer make the cut, what chance does the average, decent guy stand? Women are so immersed in what they want; the guaranteed perfect happy ending they are convinced they are owed, but they place no focus on what they are bringing to the table....which increasingly is little more than a myriad of impossible expectations.

As much as I love my fictional, literary worlds where I engage in epic battles against the powers of darkness, overcome incredible odds and have assisted in saving the world on several occasions....in real life, I can actually make a difference. I can fight against evils in the world, by speaking out against them, by choosing and defending right and by living a good and moral existence. I may never be a heroine that saves the world, but I can strive to be a great wife and mother, devoting my time to my family and in seeking to aid and uplift those around me. I may not be able to defeat terrible villains but I can do my small bit to defeat hunger, sadness and hopelessness in the downtrodden, defeated and destitute that I come in contact with. And, while I will never be spirited away by a dark and handsome vampire and imbued with immortality and eternal youth, I can have a real relationship with a decent man who I can love and who loves me back. While it may not be the great and fantastic voyage found within the fictional worlds of books…it is real; it is the voyage of life and it is infinitely more rewarding than any that can be found in a book.

I Have Been Declared An Enemy

2010-10-25T12:02:00.004-06:00

Well, it's official...I've been placed upon the "Enemies List" (guffaw, chuckle) of Mr. David Furtrelle on his 'Man boobz' blog. Of course, if I'm an enemy, I can only imagine what qualifies one as a friend....that old adage springs to mind concerning the company one keeps....ahem.

Anyhow....let's do a quick evaluation of me to more clearly elucidate someone who Mr. Furtrelle has declared his "enemy".

I am a rather uncompromising individual who believes that nothing is of greater importance than truth and right. I am a proponent of honesty, integrity and virtue and a strident advocate for the necessity of being held accountable for one's choices and actions.

I abhor convenient morality and flexible value systems.

I believe in treating others with kindness and respect and in the value of selfless charity. I condemn behaviors that ignore and would seek to undermine the rights of others. I denounce selfishness, shallowness, puerility, lasciviousness and ego-centrism.

My enemies are nihilism, dishonesty, hypocrisy, narcissism, and the blatant disregard for the lives of others.

On my blog, I seek to promote that which is of worth. I encourage women to embrace values of substance and to disavow selfish, childish behaviors and convenient morality. I condemn misandry in society and promote such ignored, belittled and antiquated notions as the importance of fathers, the necessity of families and the undeniable value of honing one's character and leading a life ruled by honesty and integrity.

One must ask, Mr. Furtrelle, if I am your enemy...what does that say about you?

Why I Do What I Do

2010-09-12T23:36:00.007-06:00

FEMINISM-Encompasses a mantra of absolute freedom of choice for women, i.e. the ability to behave in any chosen manner, freed from expectations and responsibilities; embraces immorality and promiscuity while refusing to recognize absolutes concerning right and wrong, thus promoting convenient and flexible morality; maligns marriage, parenthood and all forms of social expectations and accountability; encourages shallow, narcissistic behavior; forwards an agenda of socialism, encouraging big government and dependency upon the state; promotes the interests of women at the expense of men, encouraging the intentional denigration of men, masculinity and fatherhood.

This is what I fight against.

When I started blogging, I'd never heard of the MRM or MRA's. I'd never read an anti-feminist blog or been on a men's rights forum. I started blogging because I saw something I found destructive and reprehensible and decided I needed to do SOMETHING, regardless how small, about it.

This is how I deal with that which I find abhorrent. When I realized how many animals were neglected, abused and abandoned, I joined animal rescue and started fostering, rehabilitating and re-homing dogs. When I recognized the abuse of children, I started working with children. When I realized the neglect of U.S. veterans, I started donating to our local veterans and going to visit those that are left old and forgotten in care facilities. When I realized the amount of homeless and hungry, I joined local groups to help feed, shelter and clothe the homeless.

Now, I'm not setting myself up as some kind of saint. This is what I have to do in order to exist in a world where there is so much I find abhorrent. I've found that if I am doing what I can to make a difference, I don't become overwhelmed by that which I find unacceptable.

The same thing goes for the rights of men, fathers and the state of womanhood. I am horrified by what has been done to fathers. I am saddened by what women have allowed themselves to become. I am angry at what has been done to the family and to the bonds between husband and wife; parent and child.

I do what I do because I cannot do otherwise, not because I am indelibly stuck in the middle of 'all this'....quite the contrary. I am fairly lucky. Unlike the scores of men who have no choice but to deal with the ravages of feminism, whose lives have been destroyed by the family court system, by specious allegations of harassment or by false allegations of rape....none of 'this' significantly effects my life. I live in a rather isolated area, comfortably surrounded by people who share my views, values and standards. My family and I spend much of our spare time in the mountains, blissfully removed from the ailments of modern civilization.

Still...despite the ease with which I could distance myself from that which I find deplorable, I don't. I don't, because I believe that once a wrong has been recognized, a person should be honor bound to do what they can to fight against that wrong.

I would issue a challenge to everyone who recognizes wrongs....especially to those women who recognize them but opt to remain still and silent because they, like I, are relatively sheltered from the evils in their nice, safe, little worlds. Stand for something. Stand for right and stand against wrong. I know it is a familiar mantra here on my blog, but it is one that cannot be repeated enough.

My children questioned me once about what they felt was excessive and unnecessary repetition at church. I believe their exact complaint was that they "repeat the same stuff over and over again". My response to them was, "So are you doing everything right, yet?"

I will continue to repeat my call, "over and over again" for people to stand up for what is right as long as so many voices remain silent. Feminism, the hate movement, is led by the loud and vicious minority...one whose voices could be countered and drowned out if more people would simply stand up and speak out. Speak out for little boys who are being ignored in order to champion their female counterparts, speak out for the young men who are taught that they are dangerous and violent; something that women and children need to be protected from....something to be feared. Speak out for the fathers who have been labeled "unnecessary"; for scores of men who suffer in silence in a society that screams, "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU" in it's every effort, action and piece of legislation. Speak out for the number of men who will quietly end their lives, not even leaving a note because they assume that nobody really cares.

I will end this post by linking to The False Rape Society, simply because there are few better examples of the evils that need combating then the Hofstra false rape case. This is what I am fighting for....the lives of men.

Hofstra False Rape Case

The True Nature of Feminism

2010-08-29T16:51:00.005-06:00

Anyone familiar with my blog is fairly familiar with my take on feminism. My assertions are often countered by women proclaiming that feminism isn’t really bad; that the things I relate are only representative of a small, extreme, fringe element, are taken out of context or, the ultimate denial, that they are simply not a part of feminism. I addressed this contention in my post The Truth About Feminism. Despite the plethora of supporting evidence to my position presented in this post, I continue to receive comments from self-proclaimed feminists denying the dark and insidious nature of feminism.

I’m often astounded by how little these women actually know and understand about the movement they support. I can’t imagine choosing to label myself something without an extensive knowledge and understanding of that label, yet, women continue to label themselves feminists while refusing to accept or believe what feminism really is.

There seems to be a perpetual attempt to reinvent and reclaim feminism….something tantamount to trying to reinvent and reclaim Nazism in my eyes. It doesn’t matter how you repackage or try to sell it…it’s never going to be anything more than a hate movement. Anything built upon a foundation of hate and lies will always eventually fall back to the invidious roots that support it.

Feminism was never a peaceful, loving movement interested only in equal treatment and opportunity for all. Even with today’s attempt to package it up to appear more palatable, feminists still fail to make even the merest pretense of caring about the rights or concerns of anyone besides women. When was the last time you saw a feminist say, “Holy crap! Women are falsely accusing men of rape right and left….we need to do something about this!”? How many feminists have you heard express concern for the disproportionate number of men committing suicide or sitting in jail? How many feminists concern themselves with the rights of men to have access to their children?

Feminists go so far as to justify and even celebrate injustices and misfortunes that befall men if they believe those miseries will somehow benefit women. It’s “good” for a man to be raped because then he will have more empathy for the plight of female rape victims. It’s acceptable for innocent men to sit in jail, wrongly accused and convicted, if it means eliminating the odd chance that an actual rapists goes free.

Feminists could care less about men, families, children, society….unless it somehow directly affects or benefits women. They could care less about any injustices suffered by men…because feminism is built on a foundation of hatred and lies; hatred for the natural differences of and the bonds between men and women; lies that women have been perpetually abused and oppressed by men.

Feminists have no concern for men because they believe that men deserve any injustices that befall them. They want men to pay and to suffer for abuses allegedly perpetrated against women. At heart, they are destructively jealous of masculinity and loathing of femininity.

Feminism refuses to acknowledge or recognize the sacrifices of men. Women were not oppressed by men. They were cared for, loved and sheltered by men. Men fought, bled and died for their wives and children. The greatest love of all is to lay down one’s life for another…and this is what feminists have dubbed “oppression”….effectively twisting and vilifying tremendous love and sacrifice.

Feminism is not and never was a movement for the majority of women. It was engendered by a small subset of women, predominantly lesbian, who truly sought and desired for the sexes to be separate. The average woman’s idea of Utopia is in no way parallel to that inspired by feminism. A world where the bonds between men and women have been broken is not a world that most women want. Women have allowed feminists, a group that in no way represents their interests or desires....to represent their interests and desires.

So feminists, please, spare me the rhetoric about the "true nature" of feminism. I know, far better apparently then you do, the true nature of feminism. Feminism is a hate movement. It is only concerned with expanding it's own perverse and fallacious concept of the interests of women....expanding them at the expense of everyone and everything else. I'm not interested in trying to distort the truth in order to make it more palatable. Feminism is the rattle snake on the mountain....I know what it is and I'm not interested in picking it up.

I'm Not A Spoiled Brat!

2010-08-27T16:55:00.003-06:00

I'm was driving through town today, navigating the hustle and bustle that predictably accompanies this time of year with everyone getting their kids ready to go back to school. As I was sitting at an intersection waiting for the light to turn, I noticed the personalized license plate frame on the Audi in front of me. It read, "I'm not a spoiled brat....I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!"

Now, I could understand this slogan being emblazoned on the t-shirt of a precocious toddler but the car in question was being driven by a woman who appeared to be in her mid-thirties. A mom, with children of her own, who had chosen to proudly proclaim herself a spoiled brat.

I remember as a small child being admonished to not behave like a spoiled brat. Being labeled thus was embarrassing and humiliating. It was definitely not a badge of honor or something to boast about as we see from the woman in question. I would like to suggest that this woman is a rarity or an aberration but that simply isn't the case. The attitude conveyed by that ridiculous license plate frame sums up much of what is wrong with modern women who choose to proudly display their immaturity, selfishness and disregard for others. They revel in their ability to abjure personal responsibility and brag about being able to get away with behaving like spoiled children.

I happen to feel intensely sorry for this woman's husband, along with all husbands who are married to women like her, who, instead of a partner and help meet, are burdened with an additional child to raise....a child that they cannot ground, punish or restrict....a child with the ability to take from them everything they hold dear should she not get her own way.

A marriage is supposed to be a collaboration of adults...two people joined and working together....fully committed to the best interests of their marriage and family. It is not supposed to be a man shouldering all responsibility, not only for the children he sires, but also for the adult he's married to.

Children should have the benefit of being raised by adults...mature individuals who are able to teach them fundamental lessons on behavior and accountability. How can we possibly expect children to understand the value of personal responsibility when they are being raised by women who flaunt their ability to avoid such responsibiliy? How is a young girl going to understand the value she should bring as a wife and mother if she is raised by a woman who ignores her obligations in exchange for the ability to behave as a spoiled child.

As a wife and mother, I tend not to think in terms of me or what I want. I think about my family; what is best for my marriage and how I can best serve the interests of my children because that is my responsibility....the obligation I accepted when I chose to get married and to have children. There is no room as a wife and mother for behaving like a spoiled, selfish, immature child. It is a mother's job to teach her children not to behave thus, teaching first and foremost through her own example.

Because We Can

2010-08-13T13:14:00.006-06:00

During a press conference for her new movie, Jennifer Aniston announced,

“Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have that child,”

Hate to break it to her...but women have realized this for some time now...hence the plethora of children currently being raised by single moms in western society.

Now, it may come as a surprise, but I don't intend to spend the majority of this post decrying feminism's destructive attack upon fathers and the nuclear family....destructive as it's been. Nor am I going to spend very much time detailing the appalling manner in which Ms. Aniston has relegated the bearing and nurturing of children to the status of some mundane and inconsequential endeavor ("just to have that child"). Stepping aside from this and Ms. Aniston's despicable, yet entirely too predictable, 'father's are unnecessary' rhetoric, I would like to specifically address her emphasis on what women 'can' do.

Today, women have limitless options of what they 'can' do...which feminists aggressively wield as symbols of female strength and empowerment.

We got it...women can do anything they want.

We can dress in next to nothing and parade ourselves through the streets if we want, we can sleep with as many men as we can fit into a day if we want, we can abort our children or choose to keep them and sue for child support if we want, we can walk out on our marriages if we want, we can have children and condemn them to a life without ever knowing a father if we want...all free from censure because woe unto anyone who dares question, judge or condemn us for our actions.

What a disturbing and shallow thing our empowered, modern day women have become....so consumed with proving what they can do that they've lost all sense of what they should do.

Growing up, even as a small child, I understood that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should and that to act to the detriment of others was wrong. It's time that women, instead of triumphing over our ability to do anything we want because we can, regardless of its affect upon others, society our even our own souls....start focusing on whether or not we should. It's time to start asking the morally relevant questions....in fact, it's long past time.

The very best possible scenario is for children to be born to parents who want and love them and to be raised with both a mother and a father in the home. A woman should never plan to have children without a father who is actively involved in his/her life because children need a father.

According to the logic of Aniston and her ilk, if a woman wants a baby she is simply entitled to have one. What is intrinsically wrong with this thinking is that it's egocentric and rooted in selfishness....and parenthood, when done correctly, is the single most selfless endeavor a human being can undertake. There is no room for puerile, narcissistic whim when it comes to the caring for and bringing forth of life.

I'm weary of hearing about what women want and what they can do when we should be focusing on what's right, what is best for the whole and for the betterment of society. What does it matter what I want or what I can do if it comes at the detriment of others? Why should an innocent child be forced to pay for the entitlement of women? Why should anyone? Why should marriage and families be destroyed and society subsequently fail all so women are able to prove that they can do what they want?

Feminists Celebrating Abortion

2010-08-07T17:46:00.007-06:00

Anti-life feminists are ecstatically heralding a recent episode of 'Friday Night Lights' for it's "bravery" in the way it has handled a situation of teenage pregnancy. As for the details, I'll have to take their word on it because I don't watch the show, but, apparently, the feminist glee revolves around the decision of 15 year old Becky Sproles to have an abortion.

http://community-classic.feministing.com/2010/07/im-rooting-for-an-abortion-thi.html

One article on feministing.com was entitled, 'I'm rooting for an abortion this Friday night'. Does that seem odd to you for those who purport to defend choice? It's the reason I choose to call those who are pro-abortion 'anti-life' instead of the more PC 'pro-choice'. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed 'pro-choicer' celebrate when a women chooses not to abort a child. It's only when an unplanned pregnancy ends in abortion that feminist's start celebrating it and call it "pro-female", as a subsequent feministing.com article praised the 'Friday Night Lights' episode for being.

http://feministing.com/2010/08/06/dont-mess-with-tami/

Apparently, getting pregnant and choosing to have the baby is anti-female and anti-choice. The only choice that is acceptable and brave by feminist standards is the one that ends in choosing to kill your unborn child. Making the truly laudable decisions, such as altering your life for the life of another and taking responsibility for your actions, is deemed unworthy of commendation. Wholly unsurprising, I suppose, for a movement that promotes selfishness and a lack of accountability in women.

In the Washington Post, Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, similarly praises this episode of 'Friday Night Lights'. Ms. Feldt, in her promotion of abortion, proclaims,

Even before Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973, abortion was common. Most everyone knew of someone who had died from a back-alley abortion, or a child who had been orphaned by one. The abortion rights movement was, as a result, intimately connected to the larger women's rights movement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072302432.html

Really? I was born shortly after Roe v. Wade, but, for the sake of understanding, I've asked my mom, grandmas, aunts....not one of them ever knew anyone, or even knew someone who knew someone, who had died in a back-alley abortion. They knew that such a thing occasionally happened, but it was far from the common occurrence Ms. Feldt would like her readers to believe it to have been. Women were not dying in droves in American back-alleys pre-1973. The vast, vast majority of women who became pregnant did what women have been doing since humans first walked the Earth...they had babies.

1972 was the last full year before Roe vs. Wade. For that year, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. Now, I'm not one to make little of the deaths of 39 women, but it's an exchange I'd be willing to make for the MILLION or so babies that are aborted annually in the U.S. And, please, spare me the poor women who are victims of rape and incest angle...don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone who is a victim of rape or incest should be forced to bear the child, but a 2000 study in the U.S. showed the percentage of pregnancies aborted because of incest or rape as a whopping 1%. Yep, you read that correctly, 1%. The top three reasons a woman has an abortion?

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy

Abortions due to risk to maternal health? 2.8%

Overwhelmingly, the reasons women choose to abort their children have nothing to do with life threatening conditions, rape or incest. Of course, our abortion applauding feminists are fully aware of and quite comfortable with this fact.

Make no mistake, feminists consider each every baby aborted a victory for 'the cause'.

Standing Up For Right

2010-06-25T17:56:00.007-06:00

Hi Kim;

I'm sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help me.

I have spent the last year or so studying feminism and the harm it has brought society. I don't know how long you have been involved in anti-feminism/men's rights, but I have the impression it has been a while. Would you mind recommending a site that is woman friendly? Are there any? Every one I have seen and joined as of yet (and it's been a fair few) have been more anti-woman than pro-men. I frequently find myself feeling less than sympathetic,and indeed sometimes hostile, towards these men - not at all what I want to achieve!

I want to learn more, become involved, and support men's rights but I am extremely uncomfortable doing so with all of the sites I have found so far. I come to you as a concerned wife and mother. Thank you.

What you see above is a message sent to me by a woman. I've received more than one such message. Invariably, they come from women who are opposed to the rampant misandry they see in society, who reject (or are at least starting to reject) feminism but are uncomfortable at MRA sites and forums because of the anti-women sentiments they perceive there.

While I responded to the above message individually, I would like to respond to the rest collectively.

First of all, I think it bears mentioning that men have been on the receiving end of a concerted effort to extirpate them. The very law that purports to protect us has conspired to destroy the lives of men. They have been vilified; their goodness and generosity maligned and used against them. They have been betrayed by those whom they have loved, cared for and sought to protect.

Yes, there are angry, sad, disillusioned, disappointed and disgusted men.

I would even submit that men aren't nearly as angry as they have every right to be under the circumstances considering that many of them have had their lives decimated....everything they have worked for and cared about ripped away from them. And, while there may be a few voices that are hostile toward women...that is NOTHING compared to an entire society and legal system that is geared toward the decimation of men.

That said, the reason to oppose misandry in society and feminism is because they are wrong. It isn't to fit in, to join a group or to expand one's social horizons. Who cares if you are unwelcome or uncomfortable at a men's forum? The entire online community could hate you and it should have zero effect on what you do because you shouldn't be doing it in order to gain approval. If you want fanfare and pats on the back, then adhere to and promulgate the oh-so-popular feminist ideologies....stand upon a platform of hatred and anti-male bias if you're looking for acceptance, praise and adulation. For me....I would rather do what is right.

You don't even have to be part of an online forum (although I do recommend taking the time to read the articles and further educate yourself) in order to fight misandry. Start your own site, or your own blog, and wage your own war. Fight feminism in the home, at work, on the streets and amongst your peers. Speak out against hatred. Speak out each and every time you hear the common, readily accepted biases and slurs against men. Stand up in defense of such "antiquated notions" as honesty, virtue, marital fidelity, integrity, kindness and compassion. Condemn the feminist culture that encourages promiscuity, lasciviousness, cruelty, selfishness and a lack of accountability in women. Denounce double standards and biases in society and within our legal system. Stand up in support of a father's right to parent his children and censure those who would suggest a father is anything less than integral in the lives of his children. Deprecate each and every incidence of violence, dishonesty, cruelty and evil on the part of women and demand that they be held accountable for their actions.

What difference does it make if you don't like someone on a forum? You shouldn't be doing this for them...at least not on an individual level. You should be doing it for your fathers and for their fathers...for the countless, nameless, forgotten men upon whose backs our society was built. You should be doing it for your brothers and your husbands whom you love and for your sons whose job it is for you to protect. You should be doing it for society and humanity and you should even be doing it for yourself because, as bad as it is to live in a world decayed by a corrupting evil....to live in such a world and have done NOTHING is inexcusable.

Ultimately, the reason to do what is right is simply because it is the right thing to do.

You may not be able to change the world, but you can make a difference in the lives of those around you. There are so many ways to help. A few additional things that I do and recommend;

-Organize a coat drive in your area and collect coats for the homeless (the vast majority of which are men).
-Suggest doing an "angel tree" at your work or church for the local VA Homes and hospitals (for anyone who is unfamiliar with angel trees, they are Christmas trees whose sole ornaments are comprised of paper angels with a 'wish list' for different individuals. People can pick an angel off the tree and purchase the things on the list. I've done this for veterans, elderly in retirement homes, the homeless and impoverished children, and it is always my family's favorite part of Christmas).
-Find like minded individuals and together start a letter writing campaign protesting misandry in our media and legal system.

This is what integrity is. It is deciding what is right and standing up for it no matter what.

*I started this post about a month ago (it's been sitting with plenty of company in the dusty archives of Kim's uncompleted posts) and was reminded of it when I read Hestia's recent blog post 'The Place Women for in the MRM'. I would recommend reading it as she adds additional insight and ideas on activism.

Happy Father's Day!

2010-06-20T23:05:00.002-06:00

I apologize that this is a little late....I've been busy celebrating all the wonderful fathers in my own life. I'd be remiss though, if I didn't take a moment to say happy Father's Day to fathers everywhere.

A child needs a father like a fish needs water....we all need our fathers.

A few of my favorite quotes on fathers.

He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it. -Clarence Budington Kelland

My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, "You're tearing up the grass." "We're not raising grass," Dad would reply. "We're raising boys." -Harmon Killebrew

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years. -Mark Twain

Workplace Illogic

2010-06-17T17:55:00.003-06:00

My husband related an incident to me recently. I'm sure similar scenarios are played out in workplaces across America on a daily basis. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be able to think of an almost mirror occurrence they've seen, experienced or heard about.

A woman at his work has a penchant for wearing low, cleavage revealing tops and short, tight skirts. She makes a habit of leaning forward while wearing said shirts to give her audience (when male and attractive) a full display of her assets.

Some men at his workplace take full advantage of this show (and why not....if she's putting it out there for everyone to see). Other men (especially those in management positions, like my husband) work really hard to avoid looking at her at all....as, instead of female assets, all they tend to see is sexual harassment suits on the horizon.

All of management is made to tiptoe around her....because you can't ever say anything about a woman's right to flaunt her sexuality. Of course, smelly guy gets told (as nicely as possible) that he needs to bath more frequently, and the the man who likes to take his shoes off is asked to keep then on while at work because it's inappropriate and unhygienic......

Recently, the young woman in question came to human resources with (surprise, surprise) a complaint of sexual harassment. Allegedly, she was walking by one of the men that work there and he bent down to get a better view of what she was displaying in her miniskirt (according to the guy, he was bending down to pick up something he dropped and didn't even realize she was there).

Now, I don't know if the man was guilty of intentional ogling. Even if he was....can we really blame him? As I told my husband, her problem wasn't that she was being ogled (that was her intention) it was who was doing the ogling. HE wasn't the kind of guy she wanted noticing her barely concealed assets. Now, the three or four guys she finds attractive that convene around her desk daily for their own little work time show....she has no problem with. In fact, she revels in their attention. The poor man she finds unworthy of her immodest display...he's some creepy guy that "really made her uncomfortable" and makes her feel like she's working in a "hostile environment".

In a more logical world, human resources would have been able to laugh away her allegations, citing cause and effect. They would have been able to point out the obvious....that if you're going to put it all out there on display....don't be offended when people notice. In today's world of illogic and double standards, the man was given an official warning and put on probation. Incidentally, the woman in question, despite feeling so uncomfortable and violated, continues to dress exactly as she did before.

False Rape Strike Force

2010-06-17T17:40:00.005-06:00

My attention has been called to a blog formed from a collaboration of admirable and prominent voices within the MRM....Archivist, Dr. Snark, Fidelbogen and E. Steven Berkimer. Please check in frequently at their False Rape Strike Force blog, keeping an eye out for activism opportunities on the horizon.

http://littlewhiterapelies.blogspot.com/

Mary Winkler....Survivor and Heroine

2010-06-14T19:21:00.007-06:00

Kim Essex from Waff News has taken the time to update us on the latest in Mary Winkler's life. In case you've somehow remained unaware of the despicable exploits of Ms. Winkler or simply need a refresher, see here;

http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2008/08/mary-winkler-gets-custody.html

Some highlights from the Waff article;

The Tennessee woman convicted of killing her minister husband with a shotgun blast to the back is speaking about her new life and raising her girls.

Mary Winkler has come a long way from being the frail and timid preacher's wife who took the stand in her own defense.

Please note the shameful attempt to turn Ms. Winkler into both victim and heroine.

Ms. Winkler's come a long way.
'
Having overcome horrific abuse at the hands of her husband (like being asked to wear red, high heels during sex...the horror! the horror!), she's no longer the oppressed, "frail", "timid" woman she once was....now she's strong and empowered.

Having successfully gotten away with murder....she's an inspiration to us all.

The jury found Mary Winkler guilty of voluntary manslaughter for the shooting death. She's served her time and successfully won back custody of her three daughters from her dead husband's parents.

Served her time? Well, yes, I suppose if five months in county jail and two months in a mental health facility qualifies as "time served" for the crime of cold-blooded murder....

Now she's revealing a new secret about her life. It's a whole different world these days for Mary Winkler.

She's renting a home in Smithville, Tennessee and raising her three daughters.

"This is wonderful, just having the land. And the girls will get out in there and will run and they enjoy that," said Winkler of her daughters, Patricia, Ally, and Brianna.

Winkler says they're always looking to pitch in around the house.

"They understand they need to do a little bit more around the house, they need to help out and they've done a great job," said Winkler.

How wonderful for Ms. Winkler...how sweet and precious this description of motherhood, family and domestic bliss. Are we expected to forget that the reason the girls need to "do a little bit more around the house" is because she shot their father in the back and left him there to die? Does she forget? Is she even cognizant of how disturbing her lack of remorse or recognition of her crimes is?

Yes, how wonderful, Ms. Winkler, that you are able to enjoy your life with your daughters. Too bad their father lies rotting in the ground where you put him. How do you explain that to your daughters? Oh, yes, I forgot...you're the victim. He was abusive. He got mad when you financially ruined the family by getting involved in 'The Nigerian Scam' money swindle...and, of course, we can't forget those red high heels. Surely, he deserved to die.

Winkler says she needs that help now that she is dealing with a new obstacle in her life. She's been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. "It was such a scary time. At one point we thought I had a stroke just because the disabilities were on the right side of my body," she explained.

The diagnosis threw Winkler for a loop just when she thought her life was beginning to settle down.

If there is any karmic justice in this life or the next...MS will be among the least of Ms. Winkler's concerns.

Winkler served less than 300 days behind bars and she also had to get mental health treatment.

With that past her, she focused on making a better life for her girls, going back to school and getting a job.

She says that goal seems much harder to reach now that she's been diagnosed with a disease that has no known cure.

"That" past her? Oh, you mean that little incident of her murdering her husband? Well, I suppose if one considers the brevity of her sentence, it really was just a minor inconvenience....a little hiccup in the road for Ms. Winkler.

As for the shotgun blast that day in march four years ago, Mary Winkler says she hopes her actions won't affect how people treat her girls.

"Whatever reason people have any problem with me, that's fine. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but these girls are treated for who they are, not because of what their mother's done," said Winkler. "They're three very fine young ladies."

How convenient that Ms. Winkler chooses to represent the condemnation of cold-blooded murder as an "opinion". Once again, appallingly evident is that Ms. Winkler doesn't think she did anything wrong. My unmitigated horror and disgust at her actions are not a given...not a normal, expected reaction to what she's done...they're simply my "opinion".

As for her daughters....I agree. I do hope they aren't judged and made to suffer for their mother's crimes. Lord knows, they will suffer enough being raised by their sociopath mother, without the benefit of their father....whom she killed.

Here's the link to the article if you care to read it in its entirety.

http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=12548291

She's a Woman...So She Must Be the Victim

2010-06-02T13:55:00.007-06:00

Hat tip to Outdoors at Antimisandry for the following....

Mother Charged in Deaths of Two Vancouver Infants

The news article tells of Vancouver mom, 24 year old Sarah Jee-Wah Leung, who has been charged with the murders of her two infant sons. The body of one was found a year ago in a plastic bag outside of Leung's home. Leung was questioned at the time and then released....allowing her to become pregnant again. The body of this newborn son was buried in a landfill.

Now, I could spend great lengths of time discussing failures on behalf of the legal system that allowed Ms. Leung the opportunity to murder a second baby, but that isn't the intent of this post. Nor is the intent to vilify mothers everywhere because of the actions of Ms. Leung. What I do want to address is the shocking comments from some concerning this woman's actions.

A few examples from the comments section,

If you impregnate a woman that child is your responsibility. If you think there is a chance that you could have impregnated a woman it is your responsibility to determine whether or not she is really pregnant with your child. If you do otherwise you are a deadbeat that is not taking responsibility for his actions It does have to involve both parties, a baby is made up of 2 people! Unless the father was unaware that he had a child with this woman then he should be charged!! Probably not with murder but with neglient of a child, and accomplice to a crime considering he should have been around taking care of his child to have known the mother's mental state! Both parties acted in a disgusting manner!

Charged with what, pray tell? Murder? A man, merely by fathering a child, should be held culpable for the mother's actions? Unlike the innocent babies she murdered, Ms. Leung is not a child. She is solely responsible for her actions. The father(s) who may not even be in Ms. Leung's life or aware that he is a father, bears no responsibility for the actions of Ms. Leung.

I would have thought that she'd receive therapy after the first event and be under some supervision. Failing that, where were the concerns of her neighbours? This location is one of the most culturally diverse in town, take care of one another!

Please notice how this commenter refers to murdering one's child, putting his body in a plastic bag and tossing it out in the yard as "the first event". This isn't a horrific evil act...it's just some little event that took place a year ago. Of course, the real issue is that the neighbors weren't around and helping poor Ms. Leung out. Surely they bear responsibility for the repeat of that first little mishap.

Where is the man who fathered the pregnancy?
Does he know that his babies were killed?
Tow of them should be proceeded to court charges. Not the mother only.
If they didn't try to act the mating themselves in the first place, there would be no such miserable mischief taking place.
Once they had held hand in hand doing the close intimacy, started from the inception moment, they didn't take the contraceptive precaution preparation, they should know there were chances to be getting pregnancy. But, unfortunately, they had missed it out the precaution taken before enjoying their desire of copulation. They have to pay for their irresponsibility.

More trying to redirect blame to the father.

There is also the possibility that this was the result of very serious, yet undiagnosed post-partum depression.

Can't forget the usual standby....postpartum depression.

It takes two to tango. No charges for the man who impregnated this woman?
Obviously, not all the story here.

There's more....but you get the gist. A woman has done something despicable and the first response by many is to find someone else to blame....because we all know that women are incapable of horrific acts and that evil is solely the realm of men. Surely it must be the fault of the father, the system, forces beyond her control or society in general.

I left the following comment on this article and encourage others to take the time to comment as well.

*Sigh* As usual, a woman is accused of committing a horrific crime and the apologists start coming out of the woodwork. Instead of frantically seeking for somewhere else to direct the blame, it's time to start holding women accountable for their actions. Two dead infants, seemingly at their mother's hands, and all some people can do is try to find somebody else to blame. 'Where is the father'....because surely we can assign some blame to him.

I wonder where the father is as well. Very possibly, the mother doesn't even know herself who the father(s) is. Very possibly, the man or men never even knew they were a father. Also possible, some poor guy is going to find out that the child he never knew he had was murdered at the hands of his mother. It's telling when the focus of two dead babies becomes who failed the mother and how.

What is painfully clear is the desperate attempt by the morally defunct to remove all accountability from women. I've seen discussions on children who commit murder that are far less forgiving toward the perpetrators then people often are toward women who commit similar crimes. I've often opined that feminism, despite all it's squawking about empowerment and equality, has been very effective in reducing women to the status of children. I'm starting to rethink this position. Lately, I've noticed that children are often held to a higher standard of accountability than women. We must not criticize, we must not condemn, we must never question....even if we're talking about something as horrific as the murder of infants.

The feminist hierarchy is very clearly set with women firmly at the top. The focus of this tragedy should be on the lost lives of these innocent babies. Where instead does it go? Upon the woman. Dead babies are all but forgotten in the desperate bid to free the mother from bearing the responsibility for and the consequences from her actions.

Anonymity For U.K. Men Accused of Rape

2010-06-01T18:46:00.005-06:00

Apparently, there is actually the odd bout of common sense amid politicians in the U.K. The newly formed Lib/Con coalition published a government program containing a pledge that would grant men who are accused of rape the same anonymity that is allowed rape accusers in court (imagine that, innocent until proven guilty...what a novel idea).

Predictably, feminists are outraged at the concept of intrinsic human rights being extended to men as well as women, contending that such a move would A) imply that women are likely to lie about rape and B) even going so far as to suggest that victims of rape would be less likely to come forward if men were granted anonymity. How very typical of feminists to make this all about women. Why protect innocent men if there's the merest chance it may prove detrimental to the feminist agenda.

That the lives of men who are accused of rape are irrevocably damaged is a fact. Despite feminist attempts, there is no room for debate on the matter. The stigma that such an accusation carries is irrevocable. The accused will always live under a shadow of doubt. People will always wonder.....they will always suspect.

There are a myriad of tales of horror. Tales of men who lost their jobs, their families, who were savagely beaten, who were killed, who were falsely convicted and spent years in prison, who took their own lives....all due to false accusations. Unfortunately, in the public eye, any man accused of rape is guilty. There is no innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion, an accusation is the equivalent of a conviction, regardless of what the court finds....regardless of whether or not the case ever even goes to trial.

Feminists would have us believe that the court system is failing women by the low number of rape convictions (I believe 6% in the U.K.). Feminists try to use this low figure to show bias against women in the court system. However, what feminists generally fail to point out is that of the rape accusations where there is sufficient evidence and cause to go to court, there is a conviction rate of nearly 60%. Bias? Well, yes....bias is alive and well within the court system but it isn't to the detriment of women. The bias lies in the way women are allowed to get away with a crime as heinous as falsely accusing a man of rape, with little to no repercussions.

Feminists would also have us believe that false rape accusations are an anomaly...too few and infrequent to be bear relevance. While I wish this were the case, the evidence suggests otherwise.

A study of rape allegations in Indiana over a nine-year period revealed that over 40% were shown to be false — not merely unproven. According to the author, “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” ( Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

In 1985, a study of 556 rape allegations found that 27% accusers recanted when faced with a polygraph (which can be ordered in the military), and independent evaluation showed a false accusation rate of 60%. (McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.)

http://www.billoblog.com/?p=134

Of course, even without a shred of supporting evidence....I would be skeptical of feminist claims. One need merely watch the nightly news to see the disturbing trend of false rape allegations and the corresponding lack of conscience they imply.

I will hope this measure is simply the first step in a chain of such measures. I will hope that after U.K. men who have been accused of rape are granted anonymity, they will move on to measures to adequately address the growing number of false rape accusations. I will hope that we will eventually see a day where false rape accusers are given the same sentences they were willing to subject their victims to and I will hope they serve every bit as much time in jail for their despicable crimes. Additionally, I will hope that politicians in the U.S. will emulate their counterparts in the U.K., dredging up their own bit of common sense and putting an end to the atrocities currently going on in our court system.

I would encourage everyone to write your representatives in Congress, praising the combined efforts in the U.K. and demanding that we in the U.S. implement similar measures.

The False Rape Society has two posts concerning opposition to the U.K. anonymity measure.

A Call To Arms

Refutation of Motion Opposing Anonymity

Be sure to check out both links and take advantage of activism opportunities to speak out in support of anonymity for men accused of rape.

Memorial Day

2010-05-30T20:39:00.001-06:00

A Response to 'The Concerns of Women'

2010-05-28T19:19:00.005-06:00

Some of you may recall the letter I sent out to feminist.com along with a handful of other "women's sites" (I use quotation marks as I consider the "women's" part dubious....they definitely don't represent or speak for me). For anyone who missed it...here's my post,

The Concerns of Women

Well, I recently, belatedly and surprisingly did receive the following response.

Thanks for reaching out to feminist.com and forgive me if this is a duplicate response. And if not a duplicate -- apologies for responding so late.

I general I think if anyone is bringing attention to violence committed by women it's feminists. (Case in point -- see Ann Jones, When Women Kill). And while I think it's uniquely feminists is because they take women's rage seriously - most people discount violences by women precisely because they underestimate the power of women and what they are capable of. It's also feminist who are trying to understand the roots of violence, which often begins in childhood and begins with being violated in those initial years and how it manifests over time.

Good luck raising more awareness about this...but hopefully your desire to point out women as culprits won't overshadow the fact that men are more likely to be abuses. Take care Amy

Sigh...not that I expected anything more.

You'll notice that the author points out it is feminists who have pioneered addressing violent women....of course, it's also feminist who are "trying to understand the roots of violence" and how it "begins with being violated in those initial years". In other words, feminists are delving into violence committed women in order to see how it isn't their fault and how some man is ultimately to blame.

The best part, though, comes at the end, where I am reminded that any horrific actions or behaviors on the part of women are really insignificant because "men are more likely to be abuse(r)s". And that....is feminism in a nutshell....avoidance and denial of anything remotely negative about women and an immediate redirection of focus to those horrible, evil men. Why concern ourselves with children being abused and murdered by their mothers or by women showing a complete disregard for the value of life as they lodge false rape accusations at innocent men. What could these things matter as long as there are men out there hurting women. Apparently, nothing is of as great of importance as the welfare of women...not even the lives of children.

The state of womanhood will continue it's stark decline until the time comes that those who purport to speak in their behalf start addressing the issues that really effect women. While we can't control the actions of others the one thing we have complete autonomy over is our own actions. Apparently it's better to be hapless victims then to take responsibility for one's own life....but wait....I thought women were strong and empowered....ah yes, just one more feminist contradiction.

Mother Returns Adopted Son To Russia

2010-04-13T00:30:00.007-06:00

Sad, disturbing story that's causing quite a bit of controversy.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/09/russia-adoption-tennessee.html

In short, a mother in the U.S. adopts a 7 year old boy from Russia. After having him in her home for some months, she sticks a note on him that she's changed her mind because he's violent and disturbed and has her mother drive him to the airport where he's put on a plane and returned to the Russia.

This is the comment I left on this article,

It's unsurprising if this little boy had emotional and behavioral problems. Such things should be anticipated in these types of situations. Sadly, I've no doubt that whatever emotional issues he may have had at the onset of this adoption have been significantly compounded. He needed love and care. He needed to know that there were people who would be there for him no matter what.

Once you legally adopt a child, the life and care of that child is your responsiblity until he/she is an adult. This is no different than a woman giving birth and then, following a trial period, sending the child back in a cab to the hospital with a note that she'd changed her mind.

The care and raising of a child is an enormous responsiblity. To wipe one's hands of their obligations where another life is involved.....especially when the life is that of an innocent child, is unconscionable.

I know people who adopted a little boy from an orphanage (Vietnamese, I believe). He was in the orphanage from birth and was never held, rocked or shown affection of any kind. He had a plethora of behavioral issues. They stood by him and did their best for him, and no, it was never easy....but that is what they obligated to do when they made the commitment to raise and care for him.

I will hope that there is someone who will see and care about the needs of this little boy. I hope that the damage that has been done by his adoptive family can be countered and that someone can show him his worth and that he deserves to be loved.

As I said in my quote, I appreciate that an unloved, unwanted child who's been raised in a Russian orphanage could have some pretty hefty baggage to deal with. I appreciate that the woman who adopted him could have been unprepared for this baggage and felt very much in over her head. Regardless....he's a little boy. He's not a pair of shoes that you can just package up and send off with a note that they didn't fit.

I've been involved in animal rescue and fostering for some time. There are some pretty strong feelings (all negative) amongst those of us in the rescue world for people who adopt dogs, decide they can't handle them and then abandon or turn them over to the pound. We understand that people don't always realize how much time, effort and commitment are involved in responsible dog ownership, we understand that sometimes people bite off more than they can chew...but that doesn't excuse abandoning one's commitment to a life you have obligated to care for.....and these are dogs.

We're talking about a little boy; a seven year old little boy. Let me put seven years old into perspective for you. Your average seven year old in the U.S. has probably been tying his shoes for a year now and is finally getting pretty good at. He MAY have lost his first tooth and is really excited about getting money from the tooth fairy. He's recently started going to elementary school.

This seven year old thought he had a home and a family and, instead, was taken to the airport and put on a plane to Russia by himself. I can't even imagine how confused and scared he must have been.

I don't care if the adoption agency did misrepresent the situation. This child deserved much better than to be taught, yet again, that he is unloved, unwanted and uncared for. I've seen many "you should walk a mile in the mother's shoes" type comments about this situation and I have to say...some things are simply and inexcusably wrong. If I were to walk a mile in this woman's shoes and emulate her actions, then I would simply and inexcusably be wrong.

It's Only Right When It Benefits Women

2010-04-10T14:46:00.010-06:00

This was written in 2006 but it's a mindset that needs addressing.

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1154011687.83/archive

Women Gain When Men Wrongly Accused of Rape Are Freed

Run Date: 07/27/06
By Maddy deLone
WeNews commentator
The Innocence Project often opens the prison gates for men falsely accused of sex assault. Its staff is often asked whether its work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. Commentator Maddy deLone says the answers are yes and yes.

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's eNews.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Earlier this month, Alan Newton walked out of a Bronx courtroom a free man. Twenty-two years after he was convicted for a brutal rape that he didn't commit, he was finally exonerated. For the first time since 1984, he decided what he would wear and what he would do.

One of the first things he did was approach several dozen reporters to talk about the rape survivor who mistakenly identified him as the perpetrator, leading to his conviction. Before addressing his own wrongful conviction and his new freedom, he said his thoughts were with the rape survivor. His voice chocked with emotion, he expressed compassion and sympathy for her.

To date, 182 people nationwide have been exonerated with DNA testing. The Innocence Project represented many of them, just as we represented Alan Newton. Because we only take cases where DNA can yield conclusive proof of innocence, many of our clients are men who were wrongly convicted of sexual assault. Ninety percent of the 182 exonerations involved sexual assault (sometimes in combination with murder and other crimes). While the criminal justice system began using DNA testing two decades ago to help identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent, it has become more prevalent and more sophisticated in recent years.

Since our clients are primarily men convicted of heinous crimes against women, some people wonder whether our work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. I strongly believe that it does in very specific, individual ways, and also more broadly and profoundly.

When No Justice Is Served
When the wrong man is convicted of assaulting a woman, nobody sees justice. The true perpetrator can remain at large, unpunished for a horrible crime and able to rape again. In one-third of the 182 DNA exonerations, we haven't just proved someone's innocence; the DNA has been used to help identify the true perpetrator.

As Alan Newton recognized earlier this month, wrongful convictions--once they're finally overturned--reopen crime victims' wounds and prevent them from moving forward, often decades after a crime. Once DNA proves that the wrong man was convicted, rape survivors are often brought right back to the night of the crime. Many are left questioning how they identified the wrong man, and wondering whether they will have to endure another trial, years later. The pain survivors experience at such times could be avoided if wrongful convictions were prevented in the first place.

Beyond the substantial consequences for the wrongly accused and individual rape survivors, wrongful convictions concern many of us because people of color and poor people are disproportionately targeted by our criminal justice system. That's troubling enough, but when it's done in the name of protecting the public and punishing violence against women, we cannot stand by.

More Men of Color Convicted
Among the 182 exoneration cases, where the race of wrongly convicted people is known, nearly 75 percent are men of color. No two cases are alike, but in many of them, police focused on an African American man immediately and ignored information that might have led to other suspects. In some of them, police coerced confessions, prosecutors concealed evidence and defense attorneys for poor defendants failed to challenge faulty evidence and law enforcement tactics.

The leading cause of wrongful convictions--playing a factor in about 75 percent of the exoneration cases--is eyewitness misidentification. The day after Alan Newton was exonerated in the Bronx, a member of a "men's advocacy" group called our office. He wasn't calling to help Newton find a job or offering other support to him, as many others have. He wanted to know why the Innocence Project doesn't pursue perjury charges against rape survivors who identify the wrong man.

Aside from the patently offensive notion of putting rape survivors on trial, the truth is that eyewitness misidentification is often the result of flawed law enforcement techniques that lead crime victims to identify a suspect who police already presume is guilty. The Innocence Project pursues policy reforms to improve identification techniques nationwide so crime victims aren't led to misidentify innocent people. These include specific changes to police lineup procedures, which have already been adopted by a number of cities, states and counties.

Women Who Help Our Work
A number of rape survivors and crime victims work with the Innocence Project to remedy the deeply embedded problems in our criminal justice system that cause wrongful convictions in the first place. They are all incredibly strong, powerful and amazing women. A particularly inspiring partner in our work is Christy Sheppard of Oklahoma.

Her cousin, Debra Sue Carter, was brutally raped and murdered in 1982. Six years later, Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were convicted; Fritz was sentenced to life in prison, while Williamson received the death penalty and came within five days of being executed. In 1999, both men were exonerated with DNA testing, which indicated that the state's main witness against them was actually the perpetrator.

In the years since, Christy Sheppard has pressed for state legislation to create an Innocence Commission that would study wrongful convictions in the state and identify steps to avoid future wrongful convictions. She says this advocacy is her way of fighting for real justice for her cousin, and for countless other women.

In very different ways, Christy Sheppard and Alan Newton remind us why working to free the wrongly convicted and prevent wrongful convictions is critical for everyone involved. They show us not just what's at stake, but that all of us can--and must--do our part to correct injustice.

Let me preface this by saying that I have an enormous amount of respect for the efforts of The Innocence Project. Those involved devote their time to freeing individuals who have been wrongly convicted and it is through their efforts that many men who have been falsely accused of rape and other crimes have been freed.

For this, I applaud them.

That said....the premise of this article is to convince people that it is beneficial to women if innocent men who are wrongly convicted of rape are freed from jail.

WHO CARES?

What bearing should it have upon the righting of a heinous wrong if it serves the interests of women? It is done because it is right; it is done because anything less should be unthinkable.

Unquestionably, we all benefit and the greater good is served when right and justice prevail but even if this were not the case; even if it could be indisputably proven that women were negatively effected by innocent men being released from jail....WHO CARES?

It's a telling commentary that this issue is even addressed....that even for one minute, when discussing the wrongful imprisonment of innocent men, there should be a need to expound upon it's mutual benefits to women.

Is this how we now define justice? Is right now determined by whether or not something benefits women? Do we need to convince the masses that something will ultimately serve the best interest of women in order for it to be deemed worthy of action?

An innocent man should not have to sit one day behind bars. An innocent man should not have to have his life destroyed for something he never did. An innocent man should be set free from jail because he is innocent. Whether or not such an action is beneficial to women is immaterial. It is an offense to justice, truth and right that this question was ever asked. Above all, it is an offense to the innocent men whose lives have been wasted behind bars for crimes they didn’t commit.

Poor Sue Norton

2010-03-27T15:49:00.004-06:00

Thanks to Welmer at 'The Spearhead' for the following:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1260412/How-does-wife-cope-husband-terribly-injured-war-Sue--walked-away.html

Long story short....Sue Norton tells of how hard it was on her to have her husband, Capt. Peter Norman, lose an arm and a leg and the overwhelming experience of being expected to help and care for him...so overwhelming that she decided to leave him because of it.

I had planned on writing at length about this article, but, due to my usual time constraints and plethora of other obligations, I will, instead, post the comment I left at The Spearhead, responding to the following,

Both men and women do terrible things to each other. They betray, abandon,neglect and abuse. Honestly, I don’t think either sex beats the other when it comes to treating spouses like garbage. However, when men do something horrible, they are usually contrite. Often, they take the blame. In fact, in many cases men will take the blame even when they weren’t at fault.

It would have been preferable if Sue Norton had simply not taken blame in this situation. Instead, she made an unconscionable and flagrant attempt to garner sympathy for herself at the expense of her husband. How nice it must be for Mr. Norton to have it aired to the world what a horrific and trying ordeal it was for his wife to have to care for him. I wonder if Sue Norton bothered to think of that. Oh well, the man’s already lost an arm and a leg….what’s a bit more of his pride.

I find the comments applauding Ms. Norton for her honesty particularly offensive. While I am a huge proponant of honesty….it is commendable when it denotes bravery or integrity. Sue Norton’s selfish bid for sympathy has nothing to do with bravery or integrity.

Sympathy? I have it in truckloads for her husband and those two little boys. As for Sue Norton….had she stood by her husband, been his support and emotional rock in what must have been the most devastating experience of his life, had she done everything in her power to hold her family together….she would have my respect and admiration. Even then, that is simply what she should have done.

I also left a comment on the Dailymail article....it has yet to appear. Although, I do wonder whether they don't post comments over the weekend. That said, I encourage everyone to take the time to post on this article. It would be particularly nice to see some support of Pete Norton, someone who deserves, not only our compassion, but our admiration.

Amy Bishop

2010-03-03T14:47:00.004-07:00

Things just get more and more disturbing in the case of Amy Bishop. For anyone who isn't up to speed....Amy Bishop is the 44 year old college professor who, while attending a Biology Dept. meeting, pulled out a 9 millimeter handgun and began shooting those closest to her. She shot a total of six colleagues, 3 of whom died.

Now it's come to light that Dr. Bishop fatally shot her 18 year old brother some years ago. The shooting was ruled an accident. Here are details of events following the shooting,

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232944

A former auto-body worker claims Amy Bishop put a gun to his chest and demanded a getaway car just minutes after she shot her brother to death 24 years ago in a controversial case that is now being reviewed.
Tom Pettigrew, 45, told the Herald he was working at the Dave Dinger Ford auto repair shop in South Braintree, near the former Bishop home, when he saw the gun-wielding woman run into the dealership with what he thought was a BB gun.
Pettigrew, of Quincy, who was 22 at the time, recalled telling his co-oworkers: “I’m like, ‘Did I just see what I just saw?’ ”
Pettigrew said he heard noise coming from where car keys are stored, so he went to investigate.
“I go over to the door and I can sense that she’s right near the door,” Pettigrew said. “I’m thinking it’s a BB gun. I open the door and she’s right there and we basically bumped into each other and I got a shotgun right in my chest!”
“And she’s like, ‘Hands up!’ and I’m like, ‘Yes ma’am’ ”
Bishop appeared agitated and nervous, Pettigrew said. The University of Alabama professor now accused of killing three colleagues Friday said she needed a car because, “I got into a fight with my husband and he’s going to kill me,” the worker recalled.
Pettigrew then watched as Bishop walked through the dealership looking at cars, all the while grasping the gun.
By then, police arrived and swarmed the parking lot. One armed officer climbed up on a nearby roof, Pettigrew said, and could have taken her out.
Instead, they arrested her. Braintree police Chief Paul Frazier has said officers on duty claim they were forced by retired former Chief John Polio to let Bishop, whose mother was a member of the police personnel board, go. Polio denies that and said then-District Attorney William Delahunt investigated the case and ruled it an accident.
Pettigrew said police questioned him after the incident but he never heard from them again.

Michelle Malkin documents additional details of disturbing, aggressive and erratic behavior by Ms. Bishop,

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/17/i-am-dr-amy-bishop/

The woman was out of control. Law enforcement officers knew it. Her family knew it. Academia must have known it. How many more incidents like this will be disclosed before we stop the charade of plausible deniability? And how did she continue to get pass after pass? Who vouched for her? Who will take responsibility?
Via the Boston Globe:
Amy Bishop was charged with assault in 2002 IHOP dispute
In March, 2002, Bishop walked into an International House of Pancakes in Peabody
with her family, asked for a booster seat for one of her children, and learned the last seat had gone to another mother.
Bishop, according to a police report, strode over to the other woman, demanded the seat and launched into a profanity-laced rant.

When the woman would not give the seat up, Bishop punched her in the head, all the while yelling “I am Dr. Amy Bishop.”
***
Thanks to commenters below, here are links to the latest
stories showing that students and professors knew Amy Bishop was a dangerous
loon:

Professor Had Raised Concerns About Accused Shooter’s Mental Health
Her colleagues agree that she could be unusual. William Setzer, chairman of the chemistry department, recalls that she would interrupt meetings with bizarre tangents, “left field kind of stuff.” Robert O. Lawton, a biology professor who was in the room during the shooting but escaped unscathed, also thought she could be strange, but said she wasn’t the strangest academic he’d run across in his long career.
Another professor, however, has long been wary of Ms. Bishop. He asked The Chronicle not to use his name because, considering recent events, he is worried about his own safety. The professor, who was a member of Ms. Bishop’s tenure-review committee, said he first became concerned about Ms. Bishop’s mental health “about five minutes after I met her.”
The professor said that during a meeting of the tenure-review committee, he expressed his opinion that Ms. Bishop was “crazy.” Word of what he said made it back to Ms. Bishop. In September, after her tenure denial, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging gender discrimination. The professor’s remark was going to be used as possible evidence in that case.
And students complained:

Students said they signed a petition and complained to no avail about the classroom conduct of an Alabama professor accused of killing three colleagues and wounding three others in a shooting rampage at a faculty meeting.

The students upset with biology professor Amy Bishop told The Associated Press they went to University of Alabama in Huntsville administrators at least three times a year ago, complaining that she was ineffective in the classroom and had odd, unsettling ways.
The students said Bishop never made eye contact during conversations, taught by reading out of a textbook and made frequent references to Harvard University, her beloved alma mater.
“We could tell something was off, that she was not like other teachers,” said nursing
student Caitlin Phillips.

Despite the myriad of disturbing incidences and events, Amy Bishop was still allowed to go blithely about her life. One would question why Ms. Bishop was even free to commit her most recent murders after the death of her brother....a case that appears to have been grossly mishandled.

Along with additional accounts of alarming behavior by Ms. Bishop, 'The New York Times' documents details about the (mis)handling of the shooting of Amy Bishop's brother, Seth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html?pagewanted=3

Police officers began to question Amy, but her mother arrived and told her not to answer any more questions. Paul Frazier, the current police chief of Braintree, said that Amy Bishop’s release “did not sit well with these officers,” and that the lieutenant in charge of booking that night told him a higher-up had given instructions to stop the booking process.
In an interview Wednesday, the area’s current prosecutor, William R. Keating, district attorney of Norfolk County, was highly critical of the handling of the shooting 24 years ago, particularly because it appears that Amy Bishop’s actions after her brother’s shooting — demanding a car at gunpoint and refusing an officer’s orders to drop the gun — were not conveyed to state authorities who investigated the case.

“It’s not a minor thing that would be omitted,” Mr. Keating said. Mr. Keating said Amy Bishop could have been charged with weapons and assault felonies, which would probably have prompted a psychiatric evaluation. Had such a charge, or any of the others that followed, been on her record, it could have changed the course of Dr. Bishop’s career, and the fate of those who died in Huntsville.

Instead, the investigation was stopped.

Did someone intervene to save Amy Bishop from prosecution? Her mother served on the town committee, an elected legislative panel of 240 members that set the town’s
spending. Or was Amy’s release merely a town’s way of caring for its own, the
way small towns do?

That night, after the gory mess in the kitchen had been cleaned up by helpful neighbors, one of the investigating officers, Billy Finn, stopped by to see if the family needed food.

“You cannot imagine how kind the Braintree police were to us,” Judy Bishop told The Braintree Forum and Observer a week later.
Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has ordered the State Police to review its role in the case, and the district attorney is also conducting an inquiry.

If Ms. Bishop's actions are recieved in a manner similar to those of Marc Lepine (shooter in the Montreal Massacre), we should expect to see this incident used as a platform to address violence perpetrated by women. We should expect to see a movement formed to counter the death, terror and brutality inflicted upon the innocent masses by evil, violent women.

More likely, we'll see the question posed over and over....How did society fail Amy Bishop? What outside influences pushed her to commit such horrific atrocities?

Society did indeed fail. It failed 18 year old Seth Bishop whose death no one even bothered to investigate. It failed the untold number of individuals Ms. Bishop was allowed to terrorize over the years with her violent, erratic behavior. It failed the three people she fatally shot and the other three she wounded. Had, at any point, Ms. Bishop been held accountable for her actions, 3 people would probably still be alive.

The Concerns of Women

2010-02-15T00:41:00.007-07:00

I visited the website feminist.com today. The site is fairly extensive, covering all the usual "women's issues" and providing quite a bit of information and resources. While there, I noticed, unsurprisingly, that everything that fell under the mantle of "women's concerns" mimicked the typical 'women are victims/men are evil/down with the patriarchy' mantra.

There were, of course, multiple links on violence and a section entitled, 'Facts about Violence'. In any legitimate section entitled 'Facts about Violence', we would expect to see a comprehensive list of actual facts about violence. Instead, I was met with the usual skewed, distorted feminist version of "facts" about violence; focusing solely on violence committed by men against women.

I wasn't surprised, but I was a bit angry and frustrated. Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing those who profess to speak in behalf of women completely neglect some of the most important issues facing women. I'm sick of the utter disregard of integral values for women....for the state of the female conscience and soul. If they want to discuss the concerns of women; if they actually care about women, then they should start addressing those issues that are really hurting and negatively affecting women.

I composed the following letter to feminist.com and I intend to send it to NOW as well. I doubt I'll receive a response but I'm sending it anyways. If they want to address helping women, then they should stop refusing to acknowledge some of the greatest of problems that women face today.

To Whom It May Concern:

As I was perusing your website, I took the time to check out the numerous resources on violence and other issues impacting women.

I noticed that, while every aspect of violence perpetrated against women by men was amply covered, I found nothing pertaining to violence committed by women.

The majority of child abuse with parents as perpetrators is committed by mothers(61.2% of cases involved the mother as opposed to 35.6% that involved the father). Mothers are also significantly more likely to kill their children (52.7% of fatalities involve mothers, while 35.3% involve fathers). Additionally, spousal abuse committed by women, while largely under reported, is hardly an unknown occurrence.

I would think that a comprehensive discussion of violence in regards to women would touch upon such statistics, yet, nowhere in your “Facts about Violence” did I see such statistics mentioned.

For clarification, I am a woman, and, as a woman, I am concerned with issues that affect the lives of women. How can we pretend to be concerned with the state and health of women if we completely ignore the fact that there is a real problem when it comes to women being violent?

While I appreciate that it’s much easier, not to mention infinitely more popular, to portray women as the innocent victims, and focus all negative energies upon the bad behaviors committed by a minority of men, I fail to see how this, in any way, is constructive or beneficial for women. Conversely, it is damaging. Damaging to men, to women, to children and to society as a whole.

As a woman, I am concerned that mothers are abusing and murdering their children. I am concerned that women are increasingly violent at home and in public. I am concerned that I can’t listen to the news without hearing of yet another incident of an adult woman in a situation of authority taking advantage of and sexually abusing a minor that has been entrusted to her care. I am especially concerned that those who purport to speak in behalf of women, who claim to further the causes and concerns of women, continue to completely ignore these issues.

Some of the gravest issues facing women do not come from their husbands, boyfriends, or strangers on the street, but from themselves. If you want to help women, why not attempt to help them better themselves.

Why not address the myriad of false rape allegations being made by women? Shouldn't we be discussing this disturbing trend and the appalling lack of moral integrity it implies?

How about we address that, in order to feel “empowered”, our young women are walking around looking and behaving in manners frequently attributed to those employed in prostitution?

THESE are issues that concern women. There is a plethora of information, laws and resources that address any evil done to women by men, but what about the evil women do? Is this not a concern of women….should this not be among our greatest concerns? It is impossible to truly address the concerns of women while blithely ignoring such issues. If we would begin to address these issues instead of simply disregarding them, we might truly begin to help women.

Yours truly,

24 Years In Prison

2010-01-31T19:59:00.002-07:00

To introduce this post, I'm going to revisit a post I did two years ago.

20 Years and Still No Parole

The following is a post from Percy at antimisandry.com.

Help Bill

I put this up in the Activism section in support of Denise
Noe's call for some MRA activism. (Denise is a member here, very occasionally
and a columnist on MND, from where the quote comes.)She brings the case of
William Hetherington who has been in jail now for 20 years. His crime? He was
accused by his wife of spousal rape. He refused to plead guilty. The parole
Board refuses to parole him unless he admits guilt. He insists he is
innocent.There is a terrible injustice here. Denise gives adresses to make
complaints to and Bill's address. This man needs our support.

Quote:
1) Mary Winkler, who shot her sleeping husband in the back, convicted only
of voluntary manslaughter and released after about a year in custody.
2)
Melissa Drexler, the infamous prom mom, who gave birth in a restroom stall,
strangled her newborn, pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter, and was paroled
after three years in prison.
3) Gertrude Baniszewski committed what might be
the worst torture-slaying ever perpetrated against a single victim. In 1965, she
starved, beat, scalded, and burned 16-year-old Sylvia Likens. I wrote an article
about the barbarism Baniszewski visited on her teen victim and that story can be
found athttp://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/likens/1.html.
Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree murder and paroled after twenty years
in prison.

In the above cases, the victims were killed and killed not by
accident but on purpose. In the third case, the victim was murdered with
extraordinary and protracted cruelty.By contrast, the supposed victim of Mr.
Hetherington was left very much alive. Yet he has been subjected to the horrors
of prison life for over two decades. It is a blight on American justice that he
is still behind bars.

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 30003Lansing, 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. His address follows:

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

Denise gives you some ammunition and the adresses.All you need to do is
spend ten minutes composing a letter to the Board and to Bill, and pay for a
couple of stamps.

I can not stress strongly enough the need for action over this injustice. Twenty years behind bars for spousal rape while murders are walking away serving a mere handful of years for their crimes is ridiculous. Below is the letter I'll be sending to the parole board and I urge others to do so as well.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you in regard to William J. Hetherington #186155. It recently came to my attention that Mr. Hetherington has been incarcerated for 20 years having been convicted of spousal rape. It’s also been brought to my attention that Mr. Hetherington has been up for parole on more than one occasion during the two decades he’s been imprisoned and has been denied parole each time because he refuses to admit guilt for the crime he’s convicted of. Now, I’m not going to traverse the muddy waters of spousal rape. I’ll not go into the near impossibility of proving rape or consent without the benefit of witnesses. I won't submit examples of how the merits of this case and subsequent conviction are questionable, at best. Nor will I delve into the possibility that a man’s opting to remain incarcerated for two decades as a matter of principal before he’ll admit to committing what he’s been accused of could perhaps be a reflection of his innocence.

What I will address is that Mr. Hetherington has been incarcerated for longer than many murderers. Mary Winkler served a mere year in jail for shooting her husband in the back. A mother, (Denise Solero), received nothing more than 5 years probation for colluding with her boyfriend in the murder of her young daughter. Day in and day out we hear of parents who receive what amounts to little more than a slap on the hand for unthinkable abuses of their children. I could give accounts of case upon case of convicted murderers being paroled after having served less than ten years of their sentences. Yet, here we have Mr. Hetherington, whose wife, to my knowledge, remained very much healthy and alive following their encounter, who’s been sitting behind bars for 20 years. If you can possibly justify to me a reason to have kept Mr. Hetherington behind bars for 20 years, I would love to hear it. Regardless of whether or not he'll admit guilt, after 20 years behind bars, Mr. Hetherington has MORE THAN paid for any crime he may have committed.

I would like to say please parole Mr. Hetherington before a severe injustice has occurred, but I’m afraid it’s too late for that. Instead, I’ll say, please parole Mr Hetherington before this severe injustice is furthered.

Now, in case any of you are experiences a crisis of conscience at the thought of sticking up for a convicted rapist, let me give you a few details of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hetherington_case

William and Linda Hetherington married in 1971; the marriage was an unhappy one and between 1978 and 1985 William sought divorce, then the couple reconciled, and finally divorce was sought again.[1] During this period, Linda brought, then withdrew, charges of spousal rape more than once, with one such incident described in the media as "the first of several times that Linda would accuse her husband of raping her, at times when bringing charges was to her advantage".[1]

In May 1985 following Linda's travelling without notice to another state, divorce was filed.[1] It was expected that Hetherington would win custody due to Linda's history of abandonment of the children and family, for a period of more than two months.[citation needed] In August, Linda claimed he had raped her a month earlier and he was imprisoned briefly.[1] Although released shortly afterwards, the timing caused custody to be given to Linda, with the judge commenting that custody would have gone to William had he not been incarcerated at the time of the hearing, but that he could apply later for custody instead.[1]

A month later, after William was released, he applied for custody. A hearing was set for October 7, but before this could take place, Linda again accused him of rape, claiming he had taped and tied her up, threatened that she was about to "meet her maker", abducted her by car, cut her clothing off, and raped her.[1] According to William she invited sexual intercourse at her mother's home where she was staying, then began demanding money she believed he had. After some confusion, according to "several witnesses", Linda's mother insisted charges were pressed.

The evidence in the case has been criticized. A pelvic examination of Linda 3 hours after the alleged incident showed no evidence of forcible injury, described as "very unusual" in a rape case by the doctor.[1] Although police officers stated that possible adhesive tape traces were visible on her face, doctors examining her found that no traces of that kind existed, and the scissors alleged to be used to cut the tape showed no adhesive traces either.[1] Other evidence - the tape, gloves and underwear - was said by Linda to have been flushed down the toilet by her assailant.[1] A neighbor, Reinhardt, added further evidence that contradicted the story - that William's car had been at the location Linda alleged she was abducted and therefore she had known he was there (she claimed she had not known), and that during the alleged rape she had left the house to get something from the car, then returned to the house to talk further.[1] Sperm was found in Linda's clothing; however William had previously had a vasectomy, a form of sterilization which makes a man incapable of emitting sperm.[citation needed]

The court-appointed psychiatrist was supportive of William's case. Lacking prior record, sentencing guidelines at the time were 6 to 10 years (average time served by a convicted rapist in Michigan is 5 years[2]), and this was reinforced by a "highly favorable" report that concluded William's personality seemed to "substantiate his explanation of what has occurred", and that "this is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual.... He does not appear to be an individual who is dangerous for society." [1]

There was also strong suspicion that the prosecution was motivated by other factors. Weiss, who was running for the Michigan Supreme Court at the time, was claimed to be "grandstanding for the feminist vote":[citation needed]

"In the midst of running for the Michigan Supreme Court, Weiss made a dramatic statement in which he asserted that 'murder may have been less harmful' than William's acts. He also painted a picture of a grislier crime than the one in question: 'He raped her four times at a minimum, on a single day ... every opening of her body, every cavity, had been invaded violently.' (The charges involved one act of forced oral sex and one act of vaginal penetration, with no allegations of anal intercourse.) Urging the court to 'Let the women of this world know this is not tolerated,' he asked for a sentence of 30 to 60 years." [1]
Likewise the judge, Thomas Yeotis, discredited the psychiatrists view on the grounds that "you make a nice appearance, and yet, there's something about you that disturbs me." The psychiatrist was one whose opinion the judge is said to have "relied on" for 20 years before, and continued to do so after.[1]

If you need further convincing,
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../06-02-08.html

The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.

For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.

At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists.

Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.

Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of 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, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.

The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.

Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.

Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.

Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."

Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.

Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted, unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.

A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty.

I don't think any of us in good conscience can sit idly by, doing and saying nothing about this disgusting betrayal of justice. Please join me in voicing your disapproval. Even if nothing comes of it, at least Mr. Hetherington knows that he is not alone and not forgotten.

A bit more history.....following this post, I proceeded to contact every news and radio station in and around Carson City, Michigan. I actually found a news station that was interested in doing a story about Mr. Hetherington. I gave the news station the names and contact information of several people to interview. The only problem was that, in order to cover the story, they wanted someone who lived in the area, who was currently involved in fighting in Hetherington's behalf, for an interview. As all those involved in the case at that time were out of state, they didn't end up running the story.

William Hetherington was finally granted parole on October 27, 2009.

This is hardly a happy ending, however.

24 years in jail.

24 years, not because this was a sentence befitting the crime he was convicted of (wrongly or otherwise), 24 years because he wouldn't admit that he was guilty.

The 8th amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual includes torture or degradation or punishment too severe for the crime. Not only was Mr. Hetherington, in my opinion, denied due process applicable to his defense, denied the ability to mount an appeal....but he was also made to endure cruel and unusual punishment for the crime he was convicted of.

Mr. Hetherington may be out of jail now, fighting to cobble together some semblance of a life from the fragments he is left with (after 24 years, I imagine there is very little left), but we shouldn't forget his story. We shouldn't forget the grave injustice and the blatant lassitude and disregard for a man's life.

Those in power over Mr. Hetherington wanted to make an example out of him, and they were willing to ignore justice, truth and the very law in order to do so.

Ed Freeman

2010-01-11T20:32:00.010-07:00

This is from an email I recieved.

You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on 11-14-1965, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.

Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again.

As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then- over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!

You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.

Ed Freeman is coming for you..!!

He's not a Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.

He's coming anyway!

And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board..

Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses.

And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!!

He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out.

Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died in August of 2008 at the age of 80 in Boise, ID

May God Rest His Soul..

Medal of Honor Winner
Ed Freeman!

Here is Freeman's official medal of honor citation.

"Captain Ed W. Freeman, United States Army, distinguished himself by numerous acts of conspicuous gallantry and extraordinary intrepidity on 14 November 1965 while serving with Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). As a flight leader and second in command of a 16-helicopter lift unit, he supported a heavily engaged American infantry battalion at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone due to intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his own life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights had a direct impact on the battle's outcome by providing the engaged units with timely supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, without which they would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life. After medical evacuation helicopters refused to fly into the area due to intense enemy fire, Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing life-saving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers -- some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman's selfless acts of great valor, extraordinary perseverance and intrepidity were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."

"What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal."
Albert Pike

Rest in peace Ed Freeman.

My Musings

2010-01-04T18:47:00.004-07:00

Warning: Politically incorrect religious reference ahead ;-)

Last week I was preparing a lesson to give to the children of my church on Sunday. Part of the lesson had to do with teaching the kids that they are children of God, and that God is the Father of their spirits. In order to explain this to the children in a manner they could identify with and relate to, I asked them ‘Do fathers love their children? Do fathers care for and want what’s best for their children?’ The point being that, just as our fathers here on Earth love and care for us, our father in Heaven loves and cares for us.

It struck me as I was preparing this lesson, that there are very few venues in which I could give this lesson and safely assume that the children knew the word ‘father’ was synonymous with love, kindness and caring. These children all knew without question that fathers love their children; that fathers are good and kind and want the very best for you.

How refreshing and how sadly uncommon to see fatherhood understood and appreciated for what it is…..and how thankful I am that in a world that discounts and undermines everything good and important, such as fathers, marriage and families, there are at least small bastions where the measure of such things is still appreciated and understood.

As I considered all this, I also realized that among these 80 some odd children I would be giving this lesson to, not one of them comes from a broken family. Each and every child lives in a home where their parents are married to each other and where they have continual access to both their father and mother.

While I tend to take this for granted, I do realize how very rare it is. In a typical gathering of 80 children, these children would be in the minority. I mourn this. I mourn that the majority of children will never have what these children have, and, despite what society dictates, what they have is priceless and of infinite worth.

As a committee member, I attended a cub scout training meeting recently where they explained that the entire scout program was changing. Previously, many of the things the boys needed to pass off were things they would do at home, presumably with the help of their fathers. So many boys come from homes now where there is nobody who is willing or able to assist them in passing off these items that the Cub Scout program has needed to be revamped. Now, most everything will be done as a pack and the scout leaders will take the responsibilities that were traditionally delegated to the parents.

I appreciate why the scouting program has opted to do this. I imagine I would also grow weary of seeing young boys being unable to accomplish the goals assigned to them because there was no one to help them do so. In changing the program, they are allowing more boys the opportunity to learn, grow and succeed, but how very tragic that this is where we’re at. How very sad that the norm is no longer a boy working side by side with his father to build a bird house or Pinewood Derby car. How sad that even more of the responsibilities of parents have to be delegated to others because parents either can’t or aren’t living up to those responsibilities.

We are abandoning everything that really matters. Society has undermined fathers to the point that their role is largely looked upon simply as superfluous. We have destroyed our families and homes and devalued our marriages. For most people, there are no more safe harbors. Overwhelmingly, there are no more givens or generally accepted truths about fathers or families, and those that do exist are far from positive. So many children do not know that a father is something safe and wonderful and far too any boys will never work side by side with their fathers building a bird house; learning and growing…..and the world is far, far worse because of it.

Suicide Among Men and Boys

2009-12-14T18:30:00.005-07:00

A 17 year old boy from my area went up into the woods a couple of days ago with three guns. The search party found his frozen body the next day. He didn't die from exposure but bled to death from a self-inflicted gun shot wound.

Several months ago, a neighbor's son, also 17 years old, got into a fight with his older brother, went downstairs and shot himself in the head in his closet.

About a year and a half ago, another neighbor's son got in a fight with his parents and jumped out of the car as it was still in motion. The car wasn't going very fast, but his foot got caught and he was dragged across the pavement. Those few seconds from the time he jumped and his parents were able to stop the car cost him his life.

A man I knew, a really good, nice man, a kind and devoted father, son and husband, hung himself some months back when his business failed.

And a very, very dear friend of mine, despaired by hurts and losses he could no longer stand to bear, tried to kill himself recently.

Everywhere I look I see the deaths and blood of men.....the tragic and untimely demises of beautiful, precious lives.

Incidentally, I don't live in some poverty stricken area where hopelessness and despair are so thick that they hang palpable in the air. I live in a conservative, religious, small town, middle class America, where all our kids know they can look forward to going to college should they choose, where we still eat dinners as a family at night and we know each and every one of our neighbors and their children by name.

Yet, even here, we can't stop our boys from dying tragic, unnecessary deaths. We can't infuse them with the same hope and self-worth that we've managed to instill in our daughters. Our daughters aren't dying. Our daughters aren't going out into the woods and putting guns to their heads.

No matter how much love and support we give our boys, we can't stand as a barrier and protect them from the constant barrage of negative, anti-male stereotypes. We can't protect their hearts and minds from the pain and disillusionment they're sure to find in a world that simply doesn't care about them any further than as a means to an ends; a way to move forth industry, bodies to send to war to further political causes, or, should they fail to prove constructive, to fill our jails.

From ages 10 to 14, the rate of suicide among boys is twice as high as among girls. From ages 15 to 19, four times as high and from ages 20 to 24, six times as high.

Where are our emergency measures to combat this crisis? Where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern?

William S. Pollack, the director of the Centers for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School has noted, "There’s no doubt that in relation to suicide, boys and young men are in a crisis," said Pollack. "And almost nothing has been done to remediate it from the gender perspective."

So while we spend millions on programs empowering and furthering the interests of women and girls, hardly a finger has been raised or a dime spent to help boys and men that are in crisis. Instead, we devote our time and resources to telling boys that they are all potential abusers, rapists and murderers......frightening, violent things that women and children need to be protected from.

In 2005, in the U.S., 25,907 men killed themselves. For perspective, that is roughly 21 times the number of women who were killed by intimate partners in the U.S. in the same year.

Because of the 1200 or so women who are killed by their partners each year, we have massive campaigns addressing violence against women.

What do we have to address the 25,907 lives of men that were ended needlessly? Again I ask, where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern?

Why do we stand idly by while our boys and men flounder in emotional pain, despair and hopelessness?

Life is precious and I am heartbroken and angry for the loss of these lives. I am angry that nothing has been done to address this crisis. I am angry for the growing number of lives that will be lost because they won't be deemed important enough to do anything about.

Why don't we do anything?

Because to do something would mean admitting we've been wrong. It would mean taking a long, painfully honest look at the hatred and disdain that we have so willingly and thoughtlessly infused into our society. It would mean addressing the horrible, destructive neglect and damage that has been wrought upon boys, men, fathers and husbands.....apparently, it's simply easier just to look away.

This time of the year can be especially hard for men who are alone; who have been alienated from the lives of their families and children. We need to remember the worth and value of the lives of men; to remember the little boys and young men who need nurturing, care, kindness and understanding; to remember that the lives of these men and boys are invaluable and irreplacable, Remember how important it is to show that they matter....especially in a world that doesn't.

Veteran's Day

2009-11-11T01:11:00.010-07:00

Iraq-4,682 coalition deaths

Afghanistan-1,505 coalition deaths

Vietnam War-58,209 Killed in action, 1,948 Missing in action

Korean War-778,053 Allied forces deaths

WWII-Approximately 17 million allied forces deaths

WWI-5.7 million allied forces casualties

LEST WE FORGET.....

A Miscarriage of Justice

2009-10-12T21:13:00.008-06:00

Time to send some e-mails, folks (hat tip to Rohara on Antimisandry.com).

We have another miscarriage of justice in the making. Of course, I err by saying 'in the making', as great injustice has already occurred. A man's life has already been ruined based upon nothing more than an allegation....an allegation that has, should the facts be examined, already been proven highly questionable.....at best.

Click on the link below to read the disturbing details of a man's life being destroyed.

http://usobserver.com/archive/sept-09/driscoll-september.htm

Here is a link to a blog that features some of the video evidence,

http://bendobserver.com/

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time Prosecutor Jody Vaughn has been accused of ignoring evidence in order to unjustly imprison an innocent man.

http://proliberty.com/observer/19981203.htm

While I lack the ability to validate or deny the claims of innocence regarding T.J. Burris, I find the accusations of duplicity compelling enough to lend further credence to Mr. Driscoll's case.

As always, one has to ask why, in a court system where we trumpet the mantra "innocent until proven guilty", is Mr. Driscoll a guilty man in the public eye? He's lost his job and been scorned and alienated by his peers.....all further evidence of why the accused should NOT be publicly named in such cases, because any man accused of a sex crime is assumed guilty and tends to remain guilty, even if proven innocent.

Whether he's proven innocent or guilty, Mr. Driscoll will always be a monster and his accuser, Melissa Leahy-Rossow, a "victim".

Please take the time to speak out in support of Kevin Driscoll.

Nicole Moye
News Director
newsdirector@kohd.com

NewsFor story
tips or comments
email news@kohd.com

District Attorney
Mike Dugan:
miked@co.deschutes.or.us

KTVZ 21 News :
ktvz@ktvz.com
and
stories@ktvz.com

The Statesman Journal
newsroom@StatesmanJournal.com

The Truth About Feminism

2009-09-24T13:37:00.012-06:00

I often hear feminists refute anti-feminism with claims of the 'true' equitable, just and innocuous nature of feminism. Feminism is merely women looking out for the welfare, health and interests of women......It does not embrace hatred and discrimination or encourage anti-marriage, anti-heterosexuality, anti-male philosophies....

Read on.......

"Feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men." -- Catharine MacKinnon

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" (quoted again in People Magazine) "All men are rapists and that's all they are ..." --Feminist Marilyn French, People Magazine (Percent of reported rape or near-rape incidents = .07% [The FBI's Uniform Crime Report lists for the year 1996])

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR" [emphasis added] -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin.

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks." Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..

"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman," Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible." Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

"In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them."--Gloria Steinem

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
(p. 86)

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." -- Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" -- Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia -- Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996

Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991) [a legal treatise comparing and contrasting feminism with COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM]

"It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught."

"If sexuality is central to women's definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women's social condition."

"Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent., Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual."

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129..

"[Acquaintance rape] is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks." Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (in the feminist attempt to build a case that "one in four" women have been raped in America.)

"[R]ape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture." Prof. Mary Koss of Kent State University (1982)

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..

As cited in Andrea Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women" "...I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape." -- Alice Walker in "Embracing the Dark and the Light," Essence, July 1982. (Feminists believe that marriage = ownership).

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

A young woman at the University of Pennsylvania who wore a short skirt complained of a "mini-rape" because a young man walked past her and said, "Nice legs." (Camille Paglia and Christine Hoff Sommers, "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Produced by New River Media, Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.)

"Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women's erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices... Those definitions... are about the oppression and exploitation of women [by men]." Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 ( Freedom: Crossing Press,1992) p.132

And finally, a very disturbing account of the lengths feminists are allowed to go to in our educational institutions in order to vilify and demonize young men.

At the University of Maryland, some female students posted the names of male students selected at random, young men about whom they knew nothing, under the heading "Potential Rapists." The message was that all men are potential rapists, though the men actually named probably did not find much comfort in that... (John Leo, "De-escalating the gender war" U.S. News and World Report, April 18,1994, p.24.)

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6

Motherhood

2009-08-31T12:42:00.004-06:00

Yesterday, I was perusing the web in search of a prenatal book I'd once read to recommend to a newly pregnant friend of mine. In my search, I stumbled across a blog entitled, "What To Expect When You're Aborting"......a 'clever' word play on the popular prenatal guide, 'What To Expect When You're Expecting'. The blog went through and documented the 23 year old author's experience of getting pregnant and having an abortion. You might expect accounts of anguish and fears, indecision, remorse and guilt.....not so. The author named the baby growing inside her "Tumor". On the day of her abortion she asked to see the sonogram that had been taken of her baby and related,

"This was not my Juno moment, where all of a sudden I bit my lower lip and recognized the “life” inside of me. If I could have I would have ripped the ******* thing out with my bear hands on the spot. It just freaked me out that it had a definitive shape. That maybe its size would make it harder to yank out. Or that my beautifully circular womb would get banged up in the process."

On the way into the abortion clinic she encountered pro-life demonstrators and related how,

"A carbuncular high school girl kept my pace and told me “her group” had the funds to support my baby. I wanted to tell her that I hoped it was twins so I could doubly break her blessed heart."

It was a sick and ugly experience, reading through that blog. One that left me feeling dirty and contaminated. What was so appalling was the complete lack of humanity and sanctity for life.

While I oppose abortion, and consider it to be a great and telling evil of our times, I can still find it in my heart to empathize with the young woman who feels she has no other choice and is devastated by her decision. I want to hold her hand and tell her that it isn't that bad, that she has no idea of the miracle of seeing a new life born, the joy she'll experience, the way that life will utterly and completely change her....into someone better than she was before......or at least help her to understand the value of life, to appreciate the gift she'd be giving to somebody else by allowing them to adopt her child; somebody who appreciated and understood the value of that life.

With this woman.....I have nothing to say. I'm only left to bear witness to the damage that has been done in society by feminism. The destruction that has been wrought upon the female conscience and soul.

I don't care if there are women who choose not to be mothers. What I do care about is the destruction of motherhood. I care about the way the creation of life has been devalued to the point of apathy, contempt, disdain and even mockery. Regardless of whether or not a woman chooses to take upon herself the mantle of motherhood, it should always be treated as it is.......a great privilege and a sacred responsibility.

Something intrinsic has been broken inside many women today. The disturbing look into the mind of a woman preparing to end the life of her child is only one aspect of the damage of which I speak. Looking beyond the selfish and unconscionable disregard for the sanctity of life, we see this destruction of womanhood extending into motherhood, where women frequently sacrifice their children on the altar of their own selfish and deceitful interests.

Motherhood has always been a generally selfless calling, one in which the needs of her children are placed above her own, where the welfare of her children supercedes her own welfare. We seldom see this selflessness in our family court systems today, where children are used as pawns to exact revenge and maintain control over ex-husbands, nor is it in evidence when women break apart their marriages and families because they aren't happy, fulfilled or living the fairy tale existence they'd imagined.

Motherhood stands right in line with today's other casualities; fatherhood, families, honesty, integrity, selflessness.....everything valuable and of worth in exchange for that which is corrupt, vile and worthless.

With that said, I add to Integrity and Honesty, the value of Motherhood to my Code For Women. There is nothing greater that a woman can be than a good mother. No matter what aspirations she has or what heights she attains outside of it, there is nowhere a woman can do more good (or damage) than in the lives of her children and within her own home.

House Bill 252, Father's Rights Regarding Abortion

2009-07-20T18:08:00.004-06:00

http://www.lifenews.com/state4302.html

Ohio Representative, John Adams, is making a second valiant attempt to promote the rights of fathers in regard to the lives of their unborn children. He has introduced a bill which would require the father's written consent before an abortion could be performed and provides criminal penalties for women who get an abortion without first obtaining consent.

"Providing a false biological father would be a first-degree misdemeanor the first time, which means not more than six months and jail, and a maximum $1,000 fine," Adams said. "And on the second occasion, providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony."

The bill does make allowances in instances of incest, rape or where the mother's life is at risk.

Rep. Adams first introduced this bill in 2007, where it was, predictably, met with much scorn and outrage from pro-choicers.

Out of curiosity I decided to hop over to feministing.com to see if they'd gotten wind of this latest heinous attempt to treat men as actual human beings. They had. They're currently rallying the troops and encouraging them to send angry letters to Rep. Adams expressing their outrage.

I'll be sending Rep. Adams communication as well, expressing my support of these measures. I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

John Adams,
Minority Whip
State Representative (R)

Address: 77 S. High St14th Floor
Columbus, OH
43215-6111

Phone: (614) 466-1507
Fax: (614) 719-3978
Email: district78@ohr.state.oh.us

Free Abortion Day At Philidelphia Clinic

2009-06-19T19:25:00.003-06:00

Having taken the time to educate myself upon some of the uglier, more despicable aspects of our society, I often consider myself beyond being surprised by anything. However, regardless of how much vileness I witness, I still manage to occasionally be surprised. Today was one of those days.

As a tribute to the late Dr. George Tiller (recently murdered physician known for performing late term and partial birth abortions) The Philadelphia's Women's Center gave away free abortions on Tuesday. Any pregnant woman who visited their facility from the time it opened until late afternoon got treated to a complimentary abortion in honor of Dr. Tiller.

Disturbing, horrific....but also very, very fitting. What more appropriate tribute could there be to a man who dedicated much of his medical profession to the aborting of late term babies than to offer up the termination of the unborn for free? Very, very fitting.

Now, I'm not interested in debating pro-life or pro-choice here and regardless of where you stand on Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, ANYONE should find it horrific to see life treated in such a cold and callous fashion. It's a little hard to empathize with the pro-choice arguments about 'poor women, all alone, devastated by the horrific choices they have to make.....' when the Philly clinic is giving abortions away like door prizes to the first lucky customers of the day.

Here's an article on the matter.....hat tip to Elusive Wapiti and his Friday Roundup.

ARTICLE

Don't Call Me Ma'am

2009-06-19T17:34:00.002-06:00

I imagine many of us are aware that it's military protocol to address men as "Sir" and women as "ma'am". Even if we weren't aware of such conventions, we still would never consider taking offense of the use of such a formal and respectful manner of address. Not so for Barbara Boxer, Democratic senator for California.

Bear in mind that Ms. Boxer has been cited as being "perhaps the personification of the feminist left" by the Almanac of American Politics.

All I have to say concerning Ms. Boxer's rudeness toward the Brigadier General she was questioning is, "Learn some respect, MA'AM".

Reproductive Choice and Gender Disparity

2009-06-18T13:16:00.003-06:00

Glenn Sacks has a great article in the Huffington Post (of all places). In it, he addresses claims made by Peggy Drexler in her Huffington Post column.....claims that assert, among other things, that

"[Abortion is] gender's judicial flashpoint. If men got pregnant, reproductive choice would be in the Bill of Rights - if not a sacrament. Yet, we were are a vote or two shy of limiting or denying that choice. Women will see that threat as no man possibly can."

Mr. Sacks does an admirable job disproving Ms. Drexler's allegation that, if it were men, the powers that be would be jumping through hoops to guarantee them the right to terminate their pregnancies and shows it for what it is.....another feminist assertion predicated upon mendacities.

Mr. Sacks states,

"Drexler may be correct that Sotomayor will help broaden the Court's perspective and make it more solicitous of women's concerns. Her view that society would be more solicitous of men's reproductive rights than women's is common in the pro-choice movement. However, if men could get pregnant, would abortion really be legal? Based on the relevant family law rulings and related legislation, the answer is probably "no."

Though abortion is controversial, few believe that women should be compelled to bear and be responsible for children who were conceived as a result of a criminal act, such as a sexual assault. Yet numerous courts have ruled that boys must be held responsible for the children they involuntarily fathered in their early teens as a result of a criminal act--statutory rape by an adult woman.

For example, in 2004 a Michigan appeals court ruled that a man who had conceived a child with an adult when he was 14 must pay her child support. Though the court acknowledged that the sex act which produced the child would have been a crime under state law, they decided that the case should be resolved "without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

Most people sympathize with women who have decided to terminate their pregnancies because they conceived as a result of being deceived into believing that their partners had vasectomies or were sterile. By contrast, courts have consistently failed to extend any consideration to men who have been deceived.

For example, in 2005 an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which a Chicago physician alleged that his ex-girlfriend had secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. The court stated that if the doctor's story is true, his ex-girlfriend "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy." Yet it hung the responsibility for the child on the doctor anyway, employing the pretzel logic that "when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift...There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

Fetal protection laws also demonstrate courts' and lawmakers' concern for women's reproductive rights and disregard for men's; if mom doesn't want to be a parent, the unborn child is a meaningless fetus, yet if it is dad who doesn't want to be a parent, the fetus is considered a living human being. This double-standard was highlighted in 2005 in a case involving a Texas high school couple.

Erica Basoria testified that when she was four months into her twin pregnancy she regretted not getting an abortion, and asked Gerardo Flores, her boyfriend, to help her terminate it. Basoria then punched herself in the stomach while Flores stepped on her stomach, inducing a miscarriage.

Though both Flores and Basoria had committed exactly the same act for exactly the same reasons, Flores is now serving life in prison for murder. Basoria, who stood by Flores and cried when he was sentenced, could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to an abortion.

A million and a half American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by abortion, adoption, or abandonment. In more than 40 states, a mother can terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few days or weeks of birth. Similarly, women can give their babies up for adoption, generally with few legal complications.

By contrast, courts and laws refuse to recognize reproductive prerogatives for men, forbidding them to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy in even the most extreme circumstances. If men got pregnant, would they have abortion rights? There's little reason to think so."

Article

Well said, Mr. Sacks.

Only Women Can Be Abused

2009-06-17T02:05:00.004-06:00

A week or so ago, I sank down on the couch and flipped on the T.V. to relax for a minute before finishing up a few work related items on the computer. I surfed through the channels a bit and ended up watching a television show called "Here Come the Newlyweds". It's something of a reality/game show where newlywed couples team up and compete to win a pot of money they've all contributed to week to week by winning various tasks aimed at showing team work, communication, etc.

My dubious choice of viewing material aside.....allow me to relate the following,

Dr. Ruth (psychosexual therapist extraordinaire) was a visitor on the show, there to advise the couples in matters of intimacy and answer any questions they may have. One of the husbands, a Mr. Huffman, knowing Mrs. Huffman was a bit uncomfortable discussing matters of a sexual nature in public, as a joke, pretended his wife wanted to ask a question. Once it had been cleared up that she didn't, the camera showed Mrs. Huffman berating her husband under her breath and telling him that she was going to punch him "in the nuts" later on.

In the couple's rooms, cameras are placed to capture their conversations before going to bed. Clips are shown from all the couple's bedrooms. When it's time to check in on the Huffmans, we see the couple on the bed together and then Mrs. Huffman reaches over and, with closed fist, hits her husband in his genitals. Needless to say, he doubles up, says "Ow"....goes through the normal and expected stages of pain. While he's recovering from the blow, his wife is saying, "I told you! I told you!"....expressing that he knew this was coming and was well deserved for his actions. He,in an obviously hurt and injured tone, said something along the lines of "we're not going to be able to have kids if you keep doing this,".....leaving one to wonder how common this form of retaliation is in their marriage.

Needless to say, I was appalled by his wife's behavior....appalled and disgusted. I was also a bit bothered that Mr. Huffman would sit there and allow himself to be treated in such a fashion. Incidentally, the scene ended with her "kind of" forgiving him and allowing a good night peck.

Now, let's go back and imagine the exact same scenario in reverse. Imagine had Mrs. Huffman played a little joke on her husband and he'd muttered under his breath that when they got back to the room he was going to punch her in her genitals. Imagine that, when they got back to the room, Mr. Huffman did indeed punch his wife in the genitals (all caught on camera, of course), telling her as she cringed in pain "I told you! I told you!"

Would Mr. and Mrs. Huffman still be on their little reality show competing with couples? Or would cops have busted into their room that very night and dragged Mr. Huffman away? Instead of trying to win cute little competitions with his wife, Mr. Huffman would be sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial for domestic violence. His picture would be on every paper and his name on every news station where the clip documenting the unthinkable, horrific abuse of his wife would be played every hour on the hour. The general shock and outrage would be palpable.

Would be.

Had it been Mrs. Huffman who was assaulted thus.

However, it was only Mr. Huffman. So there are no cops, no arrests, no court trials, charges of assault, news headlines or angry feminists using the incident to prove the great and hideous evil that is man. Instead, I imagine the incident will be considered entertaining and amusing and our newlyweds are going forward as if nothing happened, ....after all, according to most, because it happened to Mr. Huffman....nothing did.

The Family Terrorist

2009-06-08T17:26:00.003-06:00

Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christian J have been very busy and have produced another outstanding video. I sincerely thank them for their efforts.....not to mention for providing me with something of such great quality to post on my blog when I've been a bit remiss in posting myself. I apologize to everyone for my recent low post count. Hopefully things will settle down a bit and I'll have more time to devote to my blog.

That said....this new video is titled 'The Family Terrorist' (or, 'If Momma Ain't Happy') and takes a look at some ugly truths about behaviors of women within their families; behaviors that are appallingly common, generally excused and even laughed away by society.

One excellent quote within the video by Erin Pizzey concerning mothers who emotionally terrorize their families is,

Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil this terrorist may drive other family members to alcoholism to drug addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members therefore are often misperceived as the family problem, and the hidden terrorist seen as the saintly woman who puts up with it.

The Family Terrorist

The Wages of Spin

2009-06-03T23:39:00.003-06:00

I present for your viewing pleasure a fine collaborative effort from Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christian J. The video succinctly debunks the wage gap myth while shedding light upon the realities of the much touted "glass ceiling".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbYU0aeaX1o

H.R. 2115

2009-05-25T01:28:00.006-06:00

Thanks to M.M. at Antimisandry who has brought the following bill to my attention.

Men and Families Health Care Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 2115 IH
111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2115
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an Office of Men's Health.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 27, 2009

Mr. HILL (for himself and Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an Office of Men's Health.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Men and Families Health Care Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Risks to the health and well-being of the Nation's men (and our families) are on the rise due to a lack of education, awareness, and pursuit of preventative screening and care--

(A) men are leading in 9 out of the top 10 causes of death;

(B) 1 in 2 men versus 1 in 3 women in their lifetime will be diagnosed with cancer;

(C) the life expectancy gap between men and women has increased from one year in 1920 to 5.2 years in 2005; and

(D) studies show that women are 100 percent more likely than men to visit a doctor, have regular physician check-ups, and obtain preventive screening tests for serious diseases.

(2) While this health crisis is of particular concern to men, it is also a concern for women regarding their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers.

(3) According to the Census Bureau, by the time men and women reach age 65, the ratio of men to women reduces to 85 to 100. The growing disparity in this statistic suggests that among other factors, the declining health of men increases the risk of women entering retirement age as widows.

(4) According to the Administration on Aging, more than half of elderly widows now living in poverty were not poor before the death of their husbands.

(5) Men's health is a concern to Federal and State governments which absorb the enormous costs of premature death and disability, including the costs of caring for dependents left behind.

(6) Educating men, their families, and health care providers about the importance of early detection of male health issues (i.e. cardiovascular, mental, prostate health, cancer (lung, prostate, skin, colorectal, testicular, and more), HIV/AIDS, osteoporosis, and other pertinent health issues) can result in reducing rates of mortality for male-specific diseases, as well as improve the health of the Nation's men and its overall economic well-being.

(7) Of concern is the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of our military men (and women) returning from war zones and our veterans. We must pay attention to their needs and the needs of their families.

(8) Recent scientific studies have shown that regular medical exams, preventive screenings, regular exercise, and healthy eating habits can help save lives.

(9) Appropriate use of tests such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) exams and blood pressure, blood sugar, lipid panel, and colorectal screenings in conjunction with clinical exams or self-testing, can result in the early detection of many problems and in increased survival rates.

(10) Men's health is a concern for employers who pay the costs of medical care and lose productive employees.

(11) Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in the United States among men, accounting for 25 percent of all cancer cases--

(A) over 185,000 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer this year alone, and almost 29,000 will die;

(B) costs associated with prostate cancer detection and treatments exceed $8 billion annually and represent 8 percent of cancer and 0.4 percent of all health-related expenditures in the United States;

(C) prostate cancer rates increase sharply with age, and more than 2/3 of such cases are diagnosed in men age 65 and older;

(D) 2/3 of annual prostate cancer expenditures in the United States are paid for by Medicare; and

(E) the incidence of prostate cancer and the resulting mortality rate in African-American men is twice that of all other men.

(12) It is estimated that in 2008, approximately 115,000 men were diagnosed with lung cancer, and almost 91,000 of the Nation's men died from lung cancer.

(13) It is estimated that in 2008, approximately 54,000 men were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and over 24,000 of the Nation's men died from colorectal cancer.

(14) Men make up over half of the diabetes patients aged 20 and over in the United States (10.9 million men total) and nearly 1/3 of them do not know it--

(A) whereas approximately 21,000,000 Americans are living with diabetes, men are 30 percent more likely to die from the disease;

(B) 54 million American people have pre-diabetes and 1.5 million new cases of diabetes were diagnosed in 2005; and

(C) people with diagnosed diabetes have medical expenditures that are 2 to 3 times higher than patients without diabetes and the estimated cost of diabetes in 2007 was $174,000,000, including $116,000,000 in excess medical expenditures and $58,000,000 in reduced national productivity.

(15) Over 8,000 men, ages 15 to 40, will be diagnosed this year with testicular cancer, and 380 of these men will die of this disease in 2008. A common reason for delay in treatment of this disease is a delay in seeking medical attention after discovering a testicular mass.

(16) Men over the past decade have shown poorer health outcomes than women across all racial and ethnic groups as well as socioeconomic status.

(17) Establishing an Office of Men's Health is needed to investigate these findings and take further actions to promote awareness of men's health needs.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH.

Title XVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 1711. OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish within the Department of Health and Human Services an office to be known as the Office of Men's Health. The Secretary shall appoint a director as head of the office.
`(b) Activities- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office of Men's Health, shall--

`(1) conduct, support, coordinate, and promote programs and activities to improve the state of men's health in the United States, including by working with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan; and

`(2) provide for consultation among offices and agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services for the purposes of--

`(A) coordinating public awareness, education, and screening programs and activities relating to men's health;

`(B) coordinating programs and activities under title XVIII of the Social Security Act relating to men's health, including prostate cancer, diabetes, colorectal cancer, cholesterol, and mental health screening programs;

`(C) coordinating public awareness programs and activities, including prostate cancer, diabetes, colorectal cancer, cholesterol, and mental health screening programs, for men identified at being at increased risk of these diseases;

`(D) coordinating prostate-specific antigen (PSA), diabetes, cholesterol, and colorectal cancer screening programs and activities relating to men's prostate health, cardiovascular health, and mental health in order to conduct a comparative effectiveness review; and

`(E) establishing a clinical registries database to assess and measure quality improvement of programs and activities relating to men's health.
`(c) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office of Men's Health, shall submit to the Congress a report describing the activities of such Office, including findings by the Director regarding men's health.'.

Please keep in mind that H.R. 2115 is in the very early stages, having been introduced and referred to committee. The majority of bills and resolutions never move beyond this phase of the legislative process. NOW is the time to speak out and show our support.

H.R. 2115 has been assigned to the House Energy and Congress Committee. The committee is composed of 59 members, all of which are named below. I've included a link for each member where you can obtain their contact information.

Please take the time to contact each member expressing your support of this measure. Additionally, please send this information to everyone you know and encourage them to contact the Representatives. Our efforts could make the difference between the bill passing on to the next phase of legislation or remaining stuck in committee.

Chair

Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Ranking Member

Rep. Joe Barton [R-TX6]

Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]

Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2]

Rep. John Barrow [D-GA12]

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]

Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO7]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45]

Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]

Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA1]

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]

Rep. George Butterfield [D-NC1]

Rep. Stephen Buyer [R-IN4]

Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA23]

Rep. Kathy Castor [D-FL11]

Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA9]

Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO1]

Rep. John Dingell [D-MI15]

Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA14]

Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY17]

Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]

Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA11]

Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX20]

Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN6]

Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX29]

Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX4]

Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA36]

Rep. Baron Hill [D-IN9]

Rep. Jay Inslee [D-WA1]

Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA7]

Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT2]

Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA5]

Rep. Jerry McNerney [D-CA11]

Rep. Charles Melancon [D-LA3]

Rep. Christopher Murphy [D-CT5]

Rep. Tim Murphy [R-PA18]

Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9]

Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ6]

Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]

Rep. George Radanovich [R-CA19]

Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI8]

Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR4]

Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL1]

Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD3]

Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1]

Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]

Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ3]

Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL19]

Rep. Zachary Space [D-OH18]

Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL6]

Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI1]

Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK1]

Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH13]

Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE2]

Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI6]

Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR2]

Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]

Rep. Peter Welch [D-VT]

Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]

More Podcasts

2009-05-15T15:59:00.003-06:00

Amfortas and Christian J have recently released three new podcasts. I have had the opportunity to listen to them and read the transcripts and can firmly attest that they are excellent. The three part series addresses domestic violence statistics and the unethical methods and blantant lies used in obtaining and promoting the much touted 1 in 4 statistics. The first podcast is something of a laying the groundwork and setting the stage, the next two are an absolutely amazing work of effectively breaking apart the lies and establishing truth.

The podcasts can be found here,

http://whatmenaresaying.blogspot.com/2009/05/mp3s-by-amfortas-and-christian-j-lying.html

and, if you'd prefer to read through them, full transcripts can be found here,

http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/three-new-podcasts-20135.html

Children Need A Pattern

2009-05-14T12:25:00.004-06:00

I heard an analogy told by a woman once about making a shirt without a pattern. The woman held up a shirt and said that she had decided to go home and try to make that shirt without a pattern. She showed her resulting product and, while it was undoubtedly a shirt, it varied quite a bit from the original and had numerous problems and flaws. She then took the flawed shirt and tried to use it as a pattern for another shirt. Once she'd finished the new shirt, she'd used it as a pattern for the next shirt. With each new attempt, the flaws became even more pronounced and noticeable. Several shirts down the line and you could hardly distinguish the garment as a shirt any longer. What she had was a flawed travesty of the original; retaining virtually no resemblance to the original shirt that she'd attempted to emulate without the benefit of a pattern.

Children today are being raised without the benefit of a proper pattern, the result being significant damage and flaws such as were seen in the shirt above.

Women have abandoned most desirable traits in exchange for empty, valueless ones. How can we expect young women to grow into something wholesome and good if they were never shown such a pattern? Never having been taught behaviors of real value and integrity, it's unsurprising that few girls grow up to be women who encompass such traits. Girls have no understanding of what brings happiness and contentment, what makes a person whole, because they've been fed the modern feminist version of happiness.....the lie.....which only leads to frustration and misery.

Girls are destined to become unsatisfied and unhappy women; spoon fed from birth a bevy of impossible, fairytale dreams that no man, marriage or life will ever be able to match up with. Girls are generally taught only of shallow, self-serving narcissism and nothing of true worth, condemning them to unfulfilling lives and empty existences.

Boys are also being raised without a pattern. Too many single mothers has created a legacy of young men without the knowledge of how to be fathers as fathers are increasingly pushed out of their homes and from the lives of their children. Even the young fathers who are present often have little knowledge of fathering, having been denied the benefit of a father themselves. Women cannot teach boys how to be men because they do not have faintest notion of what it means to be a man. They teach them the "safe" version of manhood promoted and sold by feminism; poisoning little boys with the belief that many of their natural masculine qualities are wrong and need to be suppressed. They teach their boys to be their version of the perfect man, a version concocted to satisfy a false reality, to appease the feminist lies....and, ultimately, a version that women don't even really want themselves.

There is an epidemic of young boys being taught without a pattern, by someone with no true notion of manhood. They are taught that if they manage to personify this feminized version of manhood, they may be lucky enough to receive the affections of a young woman; a young woman that they are taught ridiculously romanticized versions about......only to find that once they have managed to catch the interest of a woman, what they have is something very different from what they expected. This beautiful, wonderful creature they've desired and were taught to emulate is selfish and impossible to satisfy; she doesn't understand what she wants but expects him to and no matter how much he does, how hard her tries or how much he gives.....it is never enough, it will never be enough.

Children need a proper pattern.

In order to grow up to be people of worth, they need to be taught values of worth.

Instead of raising young girls on a continuous diet of empowerment and self-promotion, they need to be taught about honesty, kindness, generosity and integrity. In order to grow into good women, they need to be taught by good women how to be good women.

Young boys need to be taught by good men how to be good men. They need their fathers actively in their lives showing them the way and the path....providing for them the pattern.

The solution is simple and obvious....although I imagine if society figures it out it will be with many studies and declarations, proclaiming what a few of us already know and what our forefathers always understood....rather akin to a dramatic reinvention of the wheel. Of course, the tragedy will lie in how much destruction has been done in order to come to the realization of some rather obvious truths.

Podcasts

2009-04-25T21:20:00.002-06:00

Amfortas and Christian J. have collaborated to put together a series of podcasts. They've done an excellent job and I would recommend everyone taking the time to go and listen to what they've put together....having listened to all three, I can personally testify that it's well worth the time.

They currently have the following podcasts available at the link below with more planned to come.

Stolen Generation, Parts 1 and 2
Give a Dog a Bad Name, Parts 1 and 2
Feminism is Not Good for Women, Parts 1 and 2

http://whatmenaresaying.blogspot.com/

Raise Your Voices

2009-04-09T23:38:00.011-06:00

A trial date has been set for activist Simon Anderton, member of the Real Fathers for Justice, for his Tyne Bridge protest in June of 2008. Details of the protest from U.K.'s Chronicle are listed below.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/06/16/campaigner-continues-tyne-bridge-protest-72703-21082346/

A CAMPAIGNER is today spending his second day perched on the top of the Tyne Bridge to highlight the plight of dads denied access to their children.

Activist Simon Anderton, a member of Real Fathers for Justice, climbed 193ft to the top of the famous landmark just after 5am yesterday.

The 44-year-old unfurled a Happy Father’s Day banner and dangled a dummy of a hanged man under the arch, which is said to symbolise the many men who commit suicide as a result of being denied access to their children and prolonged family court proceedings.

A spokesman for the group said Mr Anderton, from Heaton, Newcastle, had enough supplies for a number of days and did not intend to come down.

Mike Kelly defended Mr Anderton’s actions and denied it was a tasteless stunt. “A lot of people who haven’t had the misfortunes of going through the family courts might think that,” he said. “The sad thing is that when you get married and you have children nobody expects that one day you are going to be denied contact with them. But the reality is that if your marriage or relationship goes wrong you might never ever see your children again.”

Mr. Anderton's trial will be at 10am on Monday, April 27, 2009 at Newcastle Quayside Crown Court and I would encourage everyone to rally in support of Mr. Anderton and his attempts to bring the plight of fathers who have been alienated from their children to light. A great and prevalent evil is being committed in divorce and family courts. The disregard for the integral role of fathers and the resulting alienation of men from their children bear the blame for the destruction and loss of many lives.

Apparently, some have called Mr. Anderson's tactics of dangling a dummy from a noose 'offensive'......when what they really should have found offensive was what that dummy represents. We should all be offended by the crimes being committed against fathers. We should all be offended in behalf of the untold number of men who are routinely denied access to their children and whose lives are subsequently destroyed in the family court system.

The following is an excerpt from an article by Joel Lyndan from Israel News Agency,

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/fatherschildcustodylawsisraelsuicide6550418.html

According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Fathers' Resource Center, eighty-six percent of men have at least one child during their lifetimes. Using the 50% divorce rate figure, and knowing that fathers lose custody of their children about 80% of the time, it can be calculated that about 34% of American, English and Israel men will experience the loss of child custody sometime during their lives.
It is well-known that noncustodial fathers often experience high levels of psychological distress. Social scientists have made observations such as the following. Wallerstein noted that post divorce visits with children "can lead to depression and sorrow in men who love their children". Ross observed that many divorced fathers are "overwhelmed by feelings of failure and self-hatred," and as a result are "disengaging from a family that is no longer really theirs".
Umberson and Williams highlighted the sense of failure that these fathers experience. As a result, these men "exhibit substantially higher rates of psychological distress and alcohol consumption than do married men." Blankenhorn described non-custodial fathers in this way: "These men are very angry. Indeed, their white-hot sense of injustice can sometimes produce in them the phenomenon of pressured speech, in which emotional intensity derails normal conversational rhythms."

So given the frequency and gravity of the problem, it is not surprising that numerous anecdotes have appeared in the popular press detailing non-custodial fathers who have resorted to killing themselves. One very cruel irony - over the past 20 years, society has admonished fathers to become more attentive to their families. As more wives entered the workforce, this relieved some of the financial pressure on men, and has allowed fathers to devote more time to their children. And during that same period of time, a series of laws have been enacted that have enabled wives to obtain court orders to exclude fathers from the household, in the name of preventing domestic violence.

Once a precedent of paternal separation has been established, child custody is almost always awarded to the mother. Hence, these domestic violence edicts have made it more difficult for fathers to maintain meaningful involvement with their children. In some cases, their own children have come to view their loving fathers with suspicion and distrust. So noncustodial fathers have become increasingly frustrated and angered by the mixed messages that they are receiving. They find it incomprehensible that their basic human right to be a parent is being curtailed by a legal system that they perceive to be expensive, cloaked in secrecy, and unfair. Is it any wonder that some fathers crack under the pressure?

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, a BC father, Mark Edward Dexel, 42, took the only exit fathers are left with when dealing with the most corrupt justice system ever known in the history of Canada, he committed suicide. This latest tragedy has shocked many non-custodial parents among the local support group Parents of Broken Families and other non-custodial parents groups across the nation. It was a grim reminder of the same tragedy that led Darren White, another member a similar group, to take his own life back in early 2000.
A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.

Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade - as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II. America, the UK and Israel are in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents.

Many recognize that the US is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered. Who is committing suicide? For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group. There are many risk factors for suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the loss of a job, and after a divorce.

Because our society strongly defines manhood as the ability to work and provide for one's loved ones, unemployed men often see themselves as failures and as burdens to their families. Thus it is not surprising that while there is no difference in the suicide rate of employed and unemployed women, the suicide rate of unemployed men is twice that of employed men. It is for this reason that economic crises generally lead to male suicide epidemics.

During the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, for example, the suicide rate of male farmers tripled. A sharp increase in male suicide occurred after the destruction of Flint, Michigan's 70 year-old auto industry, as documented in the disturbing 1989 film "Roger and Me." Some suicide experts fear a rise in suicide related to our current economic downturn. The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.

According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts."

According to Sociology Professor Augustine Kposow of the University of California at Riverside, "The link between men and their children is often severed because the woman is usually awarded custody. A man may not get to see his children , even with visitation rights. As far as the man is concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead to depression and suicide."

There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations , committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.

Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father."
Fathers' rights groups contend court bias plays a direct role. One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men.

"None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions - a certain percentage are going to crack."
Women's groups and government officials doubt that courtroom bias is the cause for most of these destructive outbursts; some experts say divorced men simply experience more isolation after divorce than women. But Jaks is convinced of his position. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem."
Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California-Riverside, has conducted studies concluding that suicide rates among divorced men are much higher than for divorced women or married men. He attributes the difference to what happens in family courts. "Decades ago, the pendulum swung in favor of the men, but clearly in the past two decades the system is stacking up against men," Kposowa said in a telephone interview. "The man loses his marriage, then he loses a second time when child custody is granted to the woman," he said. "Unless something is done, by examining family laws and having new policies to aid men, the situation is bound to get worse."

Extrapolating from Kposowa's research, fathers' rights activist David Roberts contends that child-support orders - part of what he calls "the war on fathers" - contribute to the suicides of more than 5,000 divorced fathers each year. Roberts, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, concedes that his estimate is un-provable and that suicides often may stem more from personality factors than legal bias. But he is bitter at what he perceives as unwillingness by politicians and most academics to take the suicide and violence phenomenon seriously.

Outside the fathers' rights ranks, government officials and leaders of women's groups acknowledge that divorce and custody procedures are often imperfect. Joey Binard of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges said states are shifting away from the traditional presumption that mothers should get post-divorce custody of children. Many states now say preference should go to the parent most involved with the children, she said, "but that still leaves men on the short end of the stick, because most are not primary caretakers."
Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, stressed repeatedly in an interview that divorced men who commit violence are "the rare exception." However, Horn said men commonly experience depression or other mental health problems after a divorce. And he suggested that some family courts may still give "subtle preference" to mothers in custodial hearings. "Even if, objectively, there is no bias, if the man perceives it as such, it's a source of stress," Horn said.

Horn predicted that court procedures would become more evenhanded. "There's greater recognition that it's important to keep dads actively involved in a child's life, that child support should be more than just going after dad's wallet," he said. National suicide statistics do not provide a comprehensive look at marital details -for example, whether a male suicide victim was a divorced father who lost custody of his children. However, psychiatrist David Clark, a suicide expert at RusPresbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, said fathers facing loss of custody are at above-average risk of suicide. "You go through the open-wound agony of the divorce, you go through the agony of losing day-in, day-out contact with your children - and if you add either clinical depression or increased drinking - that's a combination that gives us gray hair," Clark said.

Some very sobering statistics. I'd like to add the following closing comment from the above article,

It's time that we, as a community, speak out in support of these emotionally abused fathers and children. It's is you, the reader, who bears the blame by your silence. For if you do not act, do not expect the US Congress, the English Parliament or the Israel Knesset to shed one single tear for the next grave to be danced upon by an angry, disturbed mother.

Indeed.

That said, let us not bear the blame with our silence but, instead, let us add our voices; voices of disgust and outrage, voices that demand not only recognition and validation but action.

I'm including a list of links to U.K. newspapers and other mediums (hat tip to TFB from antimisandry for acquiring the majority of them).

ChronicleLive

Editor: Paul Robertson Tel: 0191 201 6231
News Desk: ec.news@ncjmedia.co.uk Tel: 0191 201 6446

The Journal.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/contact-subscribe/

Sunday Sun.

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/contact-us/

Metro. This one is the local free paper which is part of a national chain. The group seems to be run centrally from London where most of the contact details direct to. Below is the only local link I could find.

news.northeast@ukmetro.co.uk

But this page contains a list of general contacts based in London.

http://www.metro.co.uk/contact

BBC Look North. The local BBC news channel. It invites us to “Tell us what you want to see on the programme ”, here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthnecumbria/content/articles/2007/10/09/ln_contact_form.shtml

I'm asking everyone to contact as many news mediums as possible, encouraging them to cover the trial along with the reason Mr. Anderton felt compelled to climb that bridge in the first place; the tragic loss of life that occurs as a result of men being forced out of their homes and kept away from their children.

I'm posting the following excellent letter that Percy from Antimisandry has sent to the BBC to serve as an example,

Mr. Simon Anderton will go to trial on April 27th in Newcastle. He spent 63 hours on the Tyne Bridge with little shelter on a fathers day protest in June last year, to highlight the suicides caused by broken Contact Orders.

He protested for every child deliberately and callously denied access to and losing a Father.

His action was selfless and courageous and in the Best interests of Children and their Fathers everywhere.

Over a hundred men die annually from suicide due to Family Court Injustices. It is equal to the famous feminist claim that 2 women die each week from domestic violence. This DV claim has been highlighted by the BBC in the past.

Simon’s ‘crime’ was to draw men's devastation to public attention.

Now he faces the fury of the Law. Why should the Law be used against a fine man doing the difficult task of bringing awareness of the manifest Injustice of the Family Courts?

His prosecutors ought to be named and shamed.

I am hopeful that the BBC will cover this Trial free from misandry.

It would be encouraging to Truth if you took a pro-father stance on this issue. It would certainly be a change.

Yours Sincerely

Protecting the Rights of Parents

2009-03-30T14:24:00.004-06:00

Thanks to Garak on Antimisandry for bringing this to my attention.

From World Net Daily....the bolding is mine, and I would recommend visiting the website to view the full article which includes a short clip along with various other links to additional information.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93333

ON CAPITOL HILL
Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?
Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 29, 2009
6:52 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."

"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."

Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."

Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.

Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.

As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:

"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.

"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."

He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing......

Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.

Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.

Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."

Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.

DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.

To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Once again, we see government pushing people to relinquish their rights as parents, handing all authority and decision making powers over to the state.....all in the best interests of the children....of course.

Take special note of the following,

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.

If the U.S. were to ratify the UNCRC (and let's keep in mind that the Clinton administration was in favor of doing so....any guesses where the current administration is likely to stand on the subject?) the ability of parents to raise their children would cease to exist. Your child could reasonably take you to court for teaching them any beliefs they didn't agree with under the pretense that it was in violation of their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The state could charge you for violating your child's rights by teaching them your religion and values.

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the family....one more attempt to break essential familial ties and cede all authority over to the government. Undoubtedly, those in support of UNCRC will argue it's a good thing....after all, what kind of person doesn't want to protect innocent children from hideous abuses. THIS is a tactic used to play upon our emotions, all while disguising the true agenda.....expansion of government and consequential loss of God given rights.

Garak has provided the number for the Congressman's Washington D.C. office, (202) 225-4401, so people can call him and express their support for an amendment to protect parental rights. I would also encourage everyone to contact your state's congressional representatives, as their votes that will determine whether or not this amendment will pass.

A Code For Women Part II

2009-03-20T02:24:00.003-06:00

"In all this world there is no substitute for personal integrity. It includes honor. It includes performance. It includes keeping one's word. It includes doing what is right regardless of the circumstances" -Gordon B. Hinckley

I’ve chosen to focus on Integrity next for a couple of reasons, one being that it is what I consider to be an attribute above all else….the mother of all values, if you will. It is also an attribute that is severely lacking in today’s society. Doing what’s right is seldom given much fanfare…especially when it’s done for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do….but ultimately, this is the only reason to do what’s right.

Integrity denotes an adherence to an uncompromising moral code and it walks hand in hand with honesty, along with every other virtue I plan on addressing here. It is defining for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and then refusing to sway from those convictions. Without integrity any concept of a code of behavior is lost because it becomes merely words without meaning or corresponding actions.

We’re often presented with the image of women as whimsical creatures who are apt (and entitled) to changing their minds at the drop of the hat. This characteristic is portrayed as somewhat cute and endearing. I suppose if we’re talking about a penchant for rearranging the furniture this might hold true but it tends to extend into all aspects of our lives to the extent of frequently compromising our integrity and calling into question our ability to commit and be trusted.

Women tend to expect to be excluded from honoring their commitments and obligations because, as women, they reserve the right to change their mind. How many men are given the unattested option to change their mind to the detriment on others? Can they walk away from the wives they marry, the children they help create, the obligations they’ve taken on free from judgment or negative consequences simply because they’ve changed their minds?

Of course not, and they shouldn’t be able to either….but neither should we. Personally, I would rather die than compromise my integrity. There’s only so much that I have sole ownership of and complete control over. My integrity is one of these things. It is what defines me and I refuse to ever give that up.

That being said, how do we wish to define ourselves? Do we want to be fickle in nature? Do we surrender our integrity for the ability to avoid being someone who can be depended on simply to reserve the right to change our minds?

Growing up, I was often told the story of a young man who went in his father’s stead to conduct a business transaction. When the discussion came to matters of payment, he was told not to worry, for it was well known that his father’s word was as good as his bond. This is who we should be. This above all is what is important….that we be the kind of people who encompass trustworthiness, honesty and accountability.

A quote I’m quite fond of is “Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching”. When we have integrity we do what is right simply because it’s who we are and how we choose to define ourselves. We desire to do what’s right and we don’t accept anything less from ourselves, regardless of the circumstances. We don’t fall into the trap that we as women have made for ourselves….our selective morality where we’re able to rationalize away responsibility for our commitments. We stand up and say this is who we are, this is who we’ve decided to be….women of integrity and, as such, we cannot be anything less.

A Code for Women

2009-02-28T01:03:00.010-07:00

The truth is the only thing worth having, and, in a civilized life, like ours, where so many risks are removed, facing it is almost the only courageous thing left to do. ~E.V. Lucas

I recently witnessed a conversation between men concerning a code for men; a standard of values and behavior that they believed were worth following and adhering to. Of course, we're all familiar with the traditional code of chivalry, but these men were looking to define something far different than gallant behavior towards women. They wanted to outline a code of honorable behavior among men for themselves.....for their own growth and personal betterment. It was mentioned in the course of this discussion that I should consider writing about a code for women.

Now, before anyone asks who put me in charge to dictate the behavior of women everywhere, I must submit that truths are universal. Regardless of how we choose to live our lives, right and wrong remain fairly static. Additionally, I firmly believe that religion has no claim or monopoly upon morality. Any human being is capable of honing a conscience, regardless of that person's beliefs.

That said, I decided to ponder the concept of a code for women. While, in the past, there never was a named code with specific, written rules, there were generally accepted standards of behavior. Of course, these standards have all been labeled misogyny and oppression under feminism so any semblance of a code that women may have traditionally adhered to has since fallen by the wayside.

To begin with, I decided to look at women in modern society and determine if a code did, indeed, already exist to any significant degree and if so, what it was. To do so, I needed to look at the behaviors which are applauded and encouraged in women and, what better way than to delve into the 'you go girl' phenomena; to determine when "you go girl" generally applies. I've found the most common instances to be when,

a. A woman is physically or verbally abusive to a man.
or
b. When a woman behaves in a ruthless or aggressive manner.

Of course, there are other occasions apparently deserving of a "you go girl" and they generally include phrases such as "it's my body" or "men have been doing it for years" and are typically followed by some form of selfish or unconscionable act.

Based upon my observations, I would suggest that a code does exist for women but it is one that encourages them to behave selfishly, coldly and immorally. It's a code that applauds narcissism, misandry, immorality and violence.

Despite a myriad of allegations to the contrary....I am a woman who happens to think women are wonderful; or at least equipped with the propensity to be wonderful. It saddens me to see women encouraged and applauded to be so very little of what they could be. Therefore, I am going to submit a code for women.

Considering what's currently encouraged in female behavior, I'm afraid this will take much longer than a single blog post, so I'll be doing this in parts. The first aspect of this code is Honesty.

Honesty is a word everyone knows but few seem to understand. Honesty goes beyond simply not committing theft or fraudulent activities. It's more than returning a wallet you find on the ground or not cheating on an exam or your taxes. While it's imperative that we be honest with others, it's of even greater importance that we are honest with ourselves.

Being honest with oneself is at the heart of integrity. It means that we make no excuses for ourselves or our behavior. It means that we don't alter our moral parameters in order to accommodate our situation or actions. Honesty is being able to admit we are wrong without making excuses for our errors. It's the willingness to take an unflinchingly clear and often painful and uncomfortable look at ourselves..

This is the type of honesty I see women struggle with the most. It's an intellectual dishonesty where they are willing to redefine morality and skew reality in order to accommodate their behaviors. This dishonesty is so prevalent that it's used in even the most abhorrent of circumstances.

Women have extended this dishonesty beyond themselves to encompass the whole. Even when women commit the most unthinkable and vilest of acts, there is an obscene attempt to soften our view of those women. Murder, abuse, infanticide, infidelity......regardless of how evil the act, an effort is generally made to alter morality and make excuses for the women who commit them. This dishonesty is then compounded when, instead of being labeled the atrocious falsehood that it is, it is called kindness and empathy.

I chose honesty first because it is a fundamental aspect of a person's positive progression. Without honesty, it is impossible to further our personal growth or our development of character. While not always easy, it is imperative that we learn to be uncompromisingly honest with ourselves. It is through such honesty that we are able to change and grow, without this ability, we are suspended in a childlike state where there can be no improvement or progression.

More on Obama and Feminism

2009-02-06T20:33:00.004-07:00

Pursuant to my previous post (take special note of the bolded text).....

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=42881

Obama Is First Feminist President, Panelists Say
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Panelists at a feminist conference have made it clear that they believe Barack Obama is the first feminist president.

“We’ve been locked out of the White House for eight years,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. She was among those taking part in a panel discussion at George Washington University on Monday.

Smeal passed out the special inaugural issue of her organization’s Ms. magazine, the cover of which features Obama ripping off his shirt and tie to reveal a T-shirt reading, “This is What a Feminist Looks Like.”

Smeal wrote that Ms. “wanted to capture both the national and feminist mood of high expectations and hope as the 44th president of the United States takes the oath of office.”

She said when she met Obama, “He immediately offered, ‘I am a feminist.’”

The mood was buoyant at the conference, dubbed Fem2.0: Society’s Issues and Women’s Voices.

Panelists and participants expressed the belief that Obama will advance their agenda -- introducing the Freedom of Choice Act; increasing funding for family planning around the world, including abortions; ending funding for abstinence-only sex education ; and making access to contraceptives available to all women.

“Week One of Obama’s administration, we thought maybe we should start packing our things, because our whole agenda is going to get done by the end of the month,” said Christina Page, conference panelist and author of “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America.”

In his first week in office, Obama reversed the Mexico City Policy that was initiated by President Reagan and reinstated by George Bush after the Clinton administration lifted it. The policy barred U.S. tax dollars from funding organizations that promote or perform abortions abroad. The policy's reversal by Obama means U.S. taxpayers will now be paying for abortions abroad.

The Freedom of Choice Act would strike down virtually all state laws restricting abortion and allow federal funds to be used for abortions. The act has to be passed by Congress to become law.

The conference featured several panelists discussing how the "new media" can be used by feminists to advance their agenda of “reproductive choice and justice,” and other issues facing women, including discrimination against minority women and those who have children.

The New Face of Feminism

2009-02-04T17:57:00.007-07:00

Take a good look at feminism's new poster child.....no other than Barrack Obama, newly appointed president of the United States.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Femininst Majority Foundation and publisher of Ms. magazine relates the following,

When the chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation board, Peg Yorkin, and I met Barack Obama, he immediately offered "I am a feminist." And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women's rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform's principle author, ensured women's rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.

Get ready America.......get ready.

Silent Dissent Isn't Enough

2009-02-03T18:11:00.004-07:00

It's not unusual while pointing out the misandry promoted by radical feminists to hear women say, "I don't think like that...I don't hate men" and, quite honestly, I'd wager that many women do not hold to the hateful concepts embraced and promoted by feminism.

Most women do not hate men; most women's vision of Utopia is not a world free from men. There are even women who internally oppose most of what feminsm stands for. The question, however, must be....is that enough? Is it enough not to promote hatred of men? Is it enough not to be part of the vicious campaign created solely with the intent of villifying and maligning men?

While it is true that we don't bear responsibility for the actions of others, it is also true that we are accountable if we choose to stand silently by, allowing evil in our midst while doing nothing to counter it...especially if that evil is being committed in our name.

Feminists claim to represent the causes and concerns of all women; if women say nothing to this claim then they are consenting by their silence. Personally, I will not allow anyone to speak in my name, claiming that I support things that I don't and feminists do believe that they speak for all women.

More than once, those who allegedly speak in my behalf have declared that I am unquestionably a man because "no woman would say that". To feminists, for a woman to stand in opposition to feminism is virtually inconceivable.

It's also not uncommon to hear from women who don't support the anti-male environment that pervades our soicety, "but what can we do about it". I will tell you what you can do about it.....every time you see or hear something that promotes misandry, say something. If it's a commercial, write the company and tell them your disapproval of their ad campaign. If you hear women vocalizing the typical 'all men are pigs' rhetoric, voice your feelings on the matter. There's no need to be confrontational....a polite, "There are many, many wonderful men and, personally, I'm very thankful for the great men I've had in my life" will more than suffice.

Much of misandry exists simply because it's been allowed to...because nobody stood up and denounced it for what it was. If women started speaking out in defense of their beliefs, in the defense of their fathers, sons, husbands and brothers, it would soon become very clear that feminists do not speak for all women.

Speaking out, however, is also not enough. Women have to decide what is right and what is wrong and then maintain those values. Today, far too many women are guilty of what I like to call 'convenient morality'. If a divorce is a horrible and destructive thing, it doesn't suddenly become a good, beneficial decision simply because you decide to file for one. If it's unthinkable and cruel to alienate children from their father, it doesn't become acceptable once you're the one doing it. Engaging in or promoting misandric speech and behavior isn't suddenly o.k. because you're unhappy with the man in your life. What's wrong is wrong, and the hypocrisy far too many women are willing to embrace by excusing reprehensible behaviors in order to accommodate their own actions is very disturbing.

That said, I challenge everyone to speak out against misandry, men and women both. And, while the men's movement is unquestionably for and about men, I think women bear far greater responsibility in speaking out against feminism. Feminism is supposed to be the movement for women, it purports to represent and speak in our behalf....so let's take back our voices.

Television....an Opiate for the Masses

2009-01-31T22:32:00.001-07:00

I wrote this a while back and was reminded of it by a post of Percy's on Antimisandry.com......

My husband and I have started recording television episodes from yesteryear for our children to watch, 'Little House on the Prairie' and 'Leave It To Beaver' being among of them. It's funny how television programming has changed over the years; back during my parent's childhood they had 'Donna Reed' and 'The Mickey Mouse Club'. While I was growing up, I remember my favorite program being 'The Cosby Show'.

These programs, especially those from my parent's childhoods, presented wonderful lives. They showed decent and honest people, happy homes, loving marriages and well-behaved children. They were the ideal. Few people probably ever attained such perfection in their own lives, but they were presented with something positive and uplifting....something decent to aspire for.

Nowadays, programming typically represents the very worst of humanity. It seems geared toward making the general public feel better about their own lives, because, no matter how screwed up things are....most are still at least better than the people they see on T.V.. Instead of being presented with an ideal, we are presented with it's polar opposite.

Why such a change? In addition to being a reflection of the declining values of our society, I believe it also serves to save people from having to spend even a moment of their time feeling anything negative. Heaven forbid anyone ever feel like they're a less than admirable person (even when they are) or that they've done something wrong (even when they have).

We have no-fault divorces, because we want to divorce to be an easy, painless thing.....we wouldn't want anyone to actually feel guilt over ending their marriage. Our entire society is geared toward the avoidance of accountability, especially in the case of women, who have been applauded for deplorable behavior and made into martyrs when they sin.

Is it any wonder the condition of society when nobody is supposed to ever feel any guilt or remorse? When the entire mantra is being o.k. with who you are.....even if who you are is something you shouldn't be proud of?

Some schools in the U.S. have even decided to stop giving 'F's when a child fails a class while others have stopped using red ink to grade papers. They feel both are too negative and could have a "detrimental impact upon the student's fragile psyche".

Today's society is striving for some form of socialist utopia in the pursuit of breeding mediocrity instead of excellence. How much character is formed when a person is protected from the consequences of their actions? How much empathy can exist in those who never learn important life lessons? Where is the motivation to improve ourselves or to be better people?

Society has declared morality one of the few sins, proclaiming that people define their own morality. Right and wrong, have been called subjective and, just in case some of those nasty feelings of unhappiness or guilt start to seep in....why there are diagnoses and prescriptions aplenty to get us by until it passes (Brave New World, anyone?) or, we can just flip on the T.V. and watch a talk or reality show; observe the vulgar displays along with the utter lack of redeeming qualities, in order to feel much, much better about ourselves and own lives.

Mother Tells The World She Doesn't Love Her Daughter

2009-01-25T16:58:00.007-07:00

Shelley Price hates herself for not being able to love her daughter. She didn't love her when she was born, she didn't care about her first tooth, first words or first steps. She doesn't even really love her now, even though she's lived with and cared for her for 11 years. She does, however, love the two year old daughter she had with her current male companion.

Ms. Price is so filled with remorse for her lack of love for her daughter that she decided to go to U.K.'s Daily Mail and allow them to interview her and run an article on the subject. Now, the entire world is privy to the fact that Ms. Price does not and never has felt any love for her daughter. Just in case there was any doubts of her daughter's identity, she was kind enough to have the little girl pose for the camera so the world would know that, not only could her own mother not love her, but so they could also see her face and recognize her in public.

Ms. Price claims she decided to go public because she knew there must be others like her and she thought this would help them. Ms. Price went public because she was willing to sell her daughter for her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted attention and she wanted sympathy....sympathy for being a hideous, soulless human being.

One would like to think there isn't a place on Earth where a person could receive sympathy for her cruel, unthinkable actions, but one would be incorrect. I've read comment after comment on the web where people have felt sorry for this woman. She is not a victim. Perhaps she would deserve a modicum of understanding if she had felt this way and done everything she could to fight against it, insuring that her daughter never, ever suspected the lack of maternal bonding. The thing is, had she done this, there would have been no one to sympathize because she would have taken her secret to the grave. She would have died before she would have let her child suspect such a thing.

Ms. Price talks about how much she hates herself, but I don't meet too many narcissists with an overwhelming sense of self-hatred....and Ms. Price is a narcissist in the truest sense of the word. Like any mother who intentionally harms her child in order to garner sympathy for herself, Ms. Price has sacrificed her daughter's welfare for attention.

I also don't buy the whole, 'I was unable to love her'. Only a soulless individual could be unable to love their own child. Even if they didn't bond at birth, she's had 11 years to form a bond and to feel affection for her child. If she hasn't, it's something she's done intentionally.

I teach children at my church on Sunday. I can honestly say that I love each and every one of them. I've never held a baby, regardless of its parentage, and not considered it beautiful and special. How did Ms. Price describe the first time she held her child? "When the midwives put Catherine into my arms, I felt nothing at all. She didn't feel like my own flesh and blood. She felt dirty." Horrifying, isn't it? Infinitely more horrifying is that these words were put to print and distributed to the masses so that her daughter along with everyone her daughter knows could read all the ugly details.

Something else that should be noted is Ms. Price's reasoning for going public with the fact that she doesn't love her daughter. She wants to break the taboo; she wants other mothers to feel comfortable coming out and expressing their lack of love for their children because, heaven forbid these women should have to feel bad for not showing their children love. Most everything of value has fallen by the wayside in our shallow, selfish, narcissistic society......the love of a mother for her children is far from the exception.

Incidentally, when I googled "Shelley Price" "love her daughter", I came up with 1,160 results. This story is everywhere on the internet. I actually hate to be one more place where her daughter can read about how her own mother doesn't love her, but I just couldn't read another comment expressing sympathy for Ms. Price without saying something.

Innocent, guilty, no evidence to support it.....you're still a rapist

2009-01-10T17:25:00.004-07:00

I was watching Fox News today and they were talking about new developments in the Caylee Anthony case. If you're not familiar with the case, here's some background,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465424,00.html

Geraldo Rivera and another reporter were discussing Roy Kronk, the man who called the police and led them to finding Caylee's remains. Geraldo mentioned that some suspicion was arising about his character and that it turns out he was arrested for rape a few years back. Now, after this announcement, the other reporter asked what became of these charges. Geraldo admitted that the charges had been dropped but then added that Mr. Kronk obviously had "a checkered past".

Excuse me.....a checkered past? How so? The rape charges were dropped, meaning there was not evidence to support them. Apparently, when it comes to rape, not only are the accused guilty until proven innocent but they also remain guilty regardless of whether or not those charges are ever proven.

This type of journalism is beyond irresponsible....it is negligent. As Fox News had a daily average of 1.06 million viewers in 2008, it's safe to say that this bias has gone into the homes of over a million people and, let's face it, most people tend not to bother analyzing the merits of the information they obtain from their television sets. With those simple sentences, Roy Kronk, has become, in the hearts and minds of many, many people, a rapist; a bad guy....someone of questionable and unsavory character.

Now, I don't want any comments if, months from now, they find out that Mr. Kronk was indeed involved in the death of little Caylee saying, 'AHA, Geraldo was right'! If Mr. Kronk did have some involvement or prior knowledge (although I see no evidence to suggest or support this) that does nothing to change the fact that his character has been unfairly maligned on national television. It is very likely and very unfortunate that Mr. Kronk will come to regard calling the cops about a suspicious object, as one of the worst mistakes he ever made.

True Woman

2008-12-15T14:48:00.004-07:00

I occasionally happen across things on the web that I find rather refreshing; sometimes, even shockingly so. The following, I actually I picked up on feministing.com. Surprisingly, I've found that website to be very useful in garnering information. Of course, I work on a system of opposites.....generally everything they hate I love and vice versa. Take for instance, the 'True Woman Conference' and 'True Woman Manifesto'.

The 'True Woman' is an impressively large number of Christian women who have banded together in support of Biblical womanhood and in opposition of contemporary womanhood and feminism. Granted, their manifesto and views are not one size fits all, as they are extremely religious, but they place great emphasis on how wonderful and fulfilling it is to be a loving wife.

Their manifesto, found here, http://www.truewoman.com/assets/files/TW_Manifesto.pdf, was introduced in early October to a group of more than 6,000 women and they are currently seeking 100,000 signatures.

At their website, http://www.truewoman.com/, one can find various articles and information describing their beliefs and goals....any one of which would be sufficient to give your average feminist a coronary.

Here's a good one.....

http://www.truewoman.com/?id=361

15 Ways to Please your Husband

By Barbara Rainey

Romans 15:2-3 tells us, "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself . . ."

Who is your closest neighbor?

Your husband.

How can you edify (build, improve) your mate and thereby enhance his self-worth? By discovering—and doing—what pleases him.

If you are creative, pleasing your mate may be a natural part of your personality. But a less creative person may need some coaching in becoming a partner pleaser. And all of us need an occasional cue card to remind us to
reach out.
Here are a few ideas:

1. Write him a letter and send it to his office, or put a love note in his lunchbox or briefcase.
2. Prepare his favorite meal.
3. Arrange an evening out for just the two of you.
4. Wear his favorite dress with your hair done the way he likes it.
5. Purchase something small and frivolous for him that he won't buy himself.
6. Give him a nicely framed picture of yourself, or of you and the children, for his office.
7. Surprise him with an all-expense-paid trip to do something he likes, such as golf, fishing, or hunting trip.
8. Put the children to bed early and prepare a candlelight dinner.
9. Do something that especially pleased him when you were dating.
10. Read Scriptures and pray with him regularly.
11. Take walks together.
12. Keep your junk out of the garage.
13. Greet your husband warmly after work.
14. Wear his favorite negligee or buy a new nightgown to add sizzle to your evening attire.
15. Clean out the car for him.

Sometimes the smallest gestures can make the biggest difference in your marriage.

Pick out something you haven't tried before; don't give complacency a foothold in your marriage relationship.

Amazing.

What are these women thinking? Pleasing their husbands? Don't they know that feminism has fought long and hard for them to have the right to mock, malign, take for granted and generally mistreat their husbands?

Some other great articles to be found on their site, which are just too long to post here, include, '30 Day Husband Appreciation Challenge' (and yes, it is exactly what it says it is, a thirty day guide on how to show your husband on a daily basis how much you appreciate him and all he does). There are also articles on liberating yourself from feminism, on virtue and on femininity.......truly, a feminist's nightmare.

Now, I'm sure that feminism's outlook on these women and their movement is that they are brainwashed or in possession of poor self-esteems, masochism or a deep-rooted hatred of self.

Why, we must ask, is it never o.k. for a woman to care for a man? Men are supposed to care for women; to woo and romance them. Society says that a man's life should revolve around catering to the woman in his life, but should a woman to strive to please the man in her life.....that is oppression.

Kindness, benevolence, charity, selflessness, compassion....these are the attributes that cause a woman to want to please her husband. They are not actions of the oppressed but those of a kind, generous and loving heart.

Feminism would have us believe that by being a good person, particularly by being a good wife, women effectively shackle and enslave themselves. Feminism's goal is to divide men and women, to maintain an aura of distrust, bitterness and competiveness.

I, for one, find it very refreshing to see women who have rejected feminism speaking out and proclaiming that not only is it o.k. to be a good wife, to love and care for our husbands, but that it is a joy and a blessing to do so.

Infanticide of Male Babies in Papua New Guinea.....Men's Fault

2008-12-05T17:28:00.006-07:00

I imagine most of us are aware of the shocking and horrific actions of the women of Papua New Guinea, who have decided that their only option to fight the tide of tribal warfare is to slaughter all male babies at birth, which has apparently been taking place for the last ten years.

The following is an excerpt from a news story which can be read in it's entirety here,

Male Infanticide in Papua New Guinea

The Papua New Guinea jungle has given up one of its darkest secrets - the systematic slaughter of every male baby born in two villages to prevent future tribal clashes.
By virtually wiping out the 'male stock', tribal women hope they can avoid deadly bow-and-arrow wars between the villages in the future.
'Babies grow into men and men turn into warriors,' said Rona Luke, a village wife who is attending a special 'peace and reconciliation' meeting in the mountain village of Goroka.

Slaughter: The Papua New Guinea Eastern Highlands where it has been claimed women in two villages killed all their male children for a decade to prevent tribal warfare
'It's because of the terrible fights that have brought death and destruction to our villages for the past 20 years that all the womenfolk have agreed to have all new-born male babies killed,' said Mrs Luke.
'The women have had enough of men engaging in tribal conflicts and bringing misery to them.'
The sensational claims recall the Biblical story of the Old Testament pharaoh who ordered all midwives to kill Israelite baby boys because he wanted to ensure there were never enough young men to fight in an army against the Egyptians.
Mrs Luke said that the village women agreed that if they stopped producing males, allowing only female babies to survive, their tribe's stock of boys would go down and there would be no men in future to fight.
A resident of Agibu village, Mrs Luke said she did not know how many male babies were killed by being smothered, but it had happened to all males over a 10 year period - and she suggested it was still happening.

Needless to say, my reaction to this has been one of complete and utter horror. It's a normal response; a response that I would expect each and every one of us to have......unfortunately, that is just not the case.

Here are some comments from women who have responded to this repellent act of evil.

From the link I posted above,

*In any conflict, it's always the women and children who suffer through no doing of their own. And when everything has been ruined, and the men killed, they have to pick up the pieces and restore everything. They must have really had enough to kill their own children like that

*To feel that a group of humans had to go to these lengths is unimaginable

*It's so sad that the women from both villages had to come to this terrible arrangement. I hope peace comes to them before any more lives are lost.

*The men have a great time, it seems, being men and fighting other men most of the time. I'd bet they are as happy as Larry and feel great.
Sounds like Red Bull heaven.
As usual, the poor wives and female relatives bear the burden and aftermath of boys being boys

And, from the website, 'The Women on the Web'

*These women are losing their sons either way. In war, they raise them for many years only to see thelm slaughtered. While I don’t approve of infanticide, I can see how their desperation would make it seem as if they must shock their society with their decision to stop the suffering at birth. How else can they get the attention of their leaders and the men who insist on warfare as a way of life?

*How sad to get to a point as a society that you believe that the only way to stop the warring factions is to deprive them of the warriors. Perhaps they might want to swap the Chinese for the girls.

*Women are not perfect as we all know but war is a by product of men and their pride, testosterone, etc. I have long said if you want peace in the middle east men must be taught their place which would be to sit down, follow 3 steps behind their women and keep their big traps shut.

Two things stand out quite clearly from the comments of these women....A) It is, unsurprisingly, all the fault of men that the women of Papua New Guinea have been engaging in male infanticide for the last ten years and B) the REAL victims here are not the untold numbers of innocent baby boys who have been slaughtered, but the poor women who have apparently been forced to take such extreme measures.

I'm sickened beyond words that there are actually people who would attempt to justify such evil. There are times when I read things so horrible that I actually find myself wishing that I could somehow excise myself from humanity.....this would be one of those occassions.

The Fallacy of the Oppression of Women

2008-12-05T00:25:00.006-07:00

This may feel like I'm repeating myself.....but after spending several hours doing additional reading on genocide in Darfur, Ruanda, Sudan.....and then spending a bit of time browsing feminist websites and hearing all about the woeful plight of western women at the hands of the terrible 'patriarchy'.....I just need to vent.

It never ceases to amaze me the way feminists continue with their assertions of the oppression of women in western society. Western women are not oppressed; they are the exact opposite of oppressed. I'm sure some will take issue with this, but I submit that women are not specifically oppressed anywhere.

Now, no need to start throwing out horror stories and statistics from Islamic and third world countries, I do not suggest that there are not places in the world where women live difficult lives and are subjected to horrors that us, sheltered and pampered western women, could never dream of.....My point is that anywhere in this world where women are subjected to significant evils and cruelties, men are subjected to horrors that are AT LEAST of equal magnitude.

I know I've expressed this before, but every time we hear of the atrocities women have suffered in the midst of civil wars and conflicts; being raped, going hungry, having their children ripped from their arms, their homes and villages burned.......there's a reason these stories are always told by women and it's because they're generally the only ones left alive. Typically the only survivors to bear witness to the atrocities are women because all the men have been tortured and killed and lie rotting in a mass grave somewhere.

Any place on Earth where life is cruel, it is generally at least as cruel to men as it is to women. Men are always the ones to fight and the ones to die. I applaud anyone's efforts on the behalf of oppressed people, but I'm disgusted that the only emphasis I generally hear placed upon this suffering is on behalf of women.

The oppression of women, as something that is separate and stands out from the general human condition of that specific place or time, is a myth.....but here's what really gets me......There's veritable genocide taking place in the far away reaches of our world. Villages are being burned, all the men and boys rounded up and murdered, women raped and children dying from malnutrition.....but I'm supposed to care because a woman got called 'honey' or because road signs say 'Men At Work'?

It's an interesting observation.....generally, once the feminist arguments of oppression in western society have been disproven, feminists will turn to their base argument about the oppression of women in OTHER parts of the world. Obviously I've voiced my feelings about the oppression that allegedly only affects women, but I still have to ask.......what is your typical feminist doing for these women who really are suffering? Most feminists I know are busy worrying about glass ceilings and abortion rights and complaining about how 50 some odd years ago women were expected to (gasp) be good wives and mothers, taking care of their homes and children while their husbands went off to work.

Perhaps feminists should consider taking their collective abilities and efforts and focusing them on places where people actually ARE suffering, and, just maybe, upon doing so, they should consider placing equal emphasis upon the suffering of ALL people. I know....one can dream.

The Truth About the 'Wage Gap'

2008-12-04T23:42:00.004-07:00

Thanks to AKKUS on Antimisandry.com for this......

Be sure to read this article in it's entirety, it's well worth it......I'll just be posting a portion here.

Without further ado.....the truth behind the wage gap,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo160.html

Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
Men work more weeks per year than women.
Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

Teen Commits Suicide On Webcam

2008-11-21T13:11:00.005-07:00

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/11/21/406039.html

Florida teen commits suicide in front of webcam

Friday, November 21, 2008

By The Associated Press

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities say a South Florida teen committed suicide in front of a live online webcam audience after blogging about his plan to kill himself.
Broward County medical examiner's office investigator Wendy Crane says 19-year-old Abraham Biggs died Wednesday from a toxic combination of opiates and benzodiazepine (ben-ZOH'-die-AZ'-uh-peen), a depressant used to treat insomnia.
People were watching through a body building Web site and Crane says some were encouraging, others tried to talk him out of it, and a few were debating whether the dose he took was lethal. Crane says someone notified the moderator, who traced the teen's location and called police. Biggs was dead by the time they got there.
Crane says he was just seen lying on the bed at that point.

Needless to say, this is just unbelievably tragic and deeply disturbing.

There is no mention of the gender of those who were encouraging this young man to end his life or of those who were debating whether or not he'd be successful in his attempt, but, considering it was a body building site, I think we can safely assume that there were at least a few men involved.

I don't point this out in an attempt to villify the behavior of men....Lord knows there's no shortage of that being done in today's society. I do it to make a point about misandry. What we see from this horrific incident is that misandry is so deeply ingrained in our society as to be practiced at almost all levels and by almost all people. 'Hating men' is embraced by society at large.

Do any of us imagine for even a moment that had this had been a young woman that the reaction would have been the same? Of course it wouldn't have been, because society places value on the lives and issues of women, while the problems of men are ridiculed, mocked and scorned.

Feminism has not only brainwashed women to believe the most atrocious lies about men, but has also managed to indoctrinate men, starting from the time they are very young, convincing them to believe that the life of a man, their life, is something of very little value.

Imagine What Must It Be Like, To Be A Man

2008-11-12T16:22:00.006-07:00

Just a quick bit of history.....I wrote this back when I first started my blog as something of an introduction and an explanation as to the purpose of my blog, but I was never quite happy with it. I was doing blog housecleaning today and decided to go ahead and post it.....even though I'm still not quite happy with it.

Imagine what must it be like to be a man in today's society.

I want everyone to take the time to ponder that.

What must it be like to be a little boy? An innocent, sweet child....so full of love and joy. Of course, that love and joy must fade into insecurity and self hatred when you go to school and are treated differently because you're a boy, when you're expected to behave differently, better, toward the little girls while they're allowed to treat you any way they choose and you must simply endure it because they are girls and you are a boy.

Imagine what it must be like to be a little boy who's father, his hero, is made to leave the home when Mommy files for divorce. You know that your father is who you're most like, the person you emulate and hope to grow up to be like.....the person Mommy has renamed *sshole, screams at on the phone and says horrible things about to her family and friends.

Imagine what it must be like to be that sweet, innocent boy and to be subjected to a constant stream of negative images and portrayals of men, knowing all the while that a man is precisely what you'll grow up to be.

Imagine what it must be like to be a teenage boy. You go to high school and college and all you see and hear are rape statistics and how boys and men are dangerous predators. The father you sorely need has been alienated from you for many years. He tried and tried but Mom made things as difficult as possible and now your relationship is awkward at best.

Imagine what it must be like to be a young man. All you want is to find that special girl to fall in love with, to marry and to start a family with, but even though you are a nice guy and have always tried to be a good person, every girl you meet assumes the worst of you. You want to fall in love, but you become more and more jaded as every relationship you have is with someone who is shallow, selfish, materialistic and narcissistic.

Imagine what it must be like to be a young man. You enlisted in the military. You did your duty to your country and served with honor. You watched those with whom you served, men you'd come to view as brothers, return home in coffins and sometimes you can't sleep at night because the things you bury away during the day come back to haunt you in your sleep. For your efforts, you have health problems that nobody cares about and hear that whatever happened to you and your brothers was your own fault....because you're men and, afterall, it's violent men who are the ones who start the wars.

Imagine what it must be like to be a man. You've given up on marriage, now that you're older, even if you found someone you wanted to spend your life with, you don't dare. You realize that the family court system is stacked against you and should your marriage not work out, you'll risk losing everything. You've given up on your dream of family and children because you don't want your son to ever go through what you went through. You're not a coward, but you've decided to fore go the joys of fatherhood because you think it will be easier never knowing such love than to know it and have it ripped away from you. For your efforts of self-preservation you are called a loser, a perpetual child; there must be something wrong with you, it just isn't normal.......

Or, perhaps, you did find that special someone and you decided it was worth the risk. You got married, you had children. You worked hard to provide the very best for your children. You wanted to spend as much time as possible with your family, but work requirements kept you away from home more than you liked. You told yourself it was o.k., a sacrifice you were willing to make in order to provide for your family. You wanted to give them all the things they told you they wanted and needed.....and then one day, your wife tells you she isn't happy, you work too much, you're always gone, you're not taking care of her emotional needs. All too quickly divorce papers are filed and since, according to the judge, you were not very involved in raising the children, you are relegated to the status of non-custodial parent. You now come home to an empty apartment, no more do you hear cries of 'Daddy' when you walk through the door or get to tuck somebody in at night. You see your kids when your ex-wife allows, when it's convenient for her and as long as you remain in her good graces.

Imagine what it must be like to be a man. You walk down the street, children avoid you and women watch you warily. Although the words are not vocalized, you can see the accusation written clearly in their eyes and on their faces.....rapist, pedophile, abuser. You know that all it takes is an allegation, a few words, and your life can be ruined, simply because you are a man.

Imagine must it be like to be a man......

Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T12:56:00.003-07:00

"FREEDOM ISN'T FREE"

The following is a true story of a teacher and the valuable lesson she taught her students.

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she took all of the desks out of the classroom.
The kids came into first period, they walked in, there were no desks. They obviously looked around and said, "Ms. Cothren, where's our desks?" And she said, "You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn them."
They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior."
And she told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so they came and went in the first period, still no desks in the classroom. Second period, same thing. Third period. By early afternoon television news crews had gathered in Ms. Cothren's class to find out about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of the classroom.
The last period of the day, Martha Cothren gathered her class. They were at this time sitting on the floor around the sides of the room. And she says, "Throughout the day no one has really understood how you earn the desks that sit in this classroom ordinarily." She said, "Now I'm going to tell you."
Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it, and as she did 27 U.S. veterans , wearing their uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. And they placed those school desks in rows, and then they stood along the wall. And by the time they had finished placing those desks, those kids for the first time I think perhaps in their lives understood how they earned those desks.
Martha said, "You don't have to earn those desks. These guys did it for you. They put them out there for you, but it's up to you to sit here responsibly to learn, to be good students and good citizens, because they paid a price for you to have that desk, and don't ever forget it."

Please remember our soldiers on Veteran's Day; those who have fought before, and those who are still fighting. Please remember their sacrifice. When you look around and see all things we enjoy and often take for granted, remember that soldiers sacrificed, often with their lives, so that that you and I could enjoy these freedoms.

JUST A COMMON SOLDIER
(A Soldier Died Today)
by A. Lawrence Vaincourt

He was getting old and paunchy and his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion, telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he had fought in and the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies; they were heroes, every one.

And tho' sometimes, to his neighbors, his tales became a joke,
All his Legion buddies listened, for they knew whereof he spoke.
But we'll hear his tales no longer for old Bill has passed away,
And the world's a little poorer, for a soldier died today.

He will not be mourned by many, just his children and his wife,
For he lived an ordinary and quite uneventful life.
Held a job and raised a family, quietly going his own way,
And the world won't note his passing, though a soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth, their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing and proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell their whole life stories, from the time that they were young,
But the passing of a soldier goes unnoticed and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution to the welfare of our land
A guy who breaks his promises and cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow who, in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his Country and offers up his life?

A politician's stipend and the style in which he lives
Are sometimes disproportionate to the service that he gives.
While the ordinary soldier, who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal and perhaps, a pension small.

It's so easy to forget them for it was so long ago,
That the old Bills of our Country went to battle, but we know
It was not the politicians, with their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom that our Country now enjoys.

Should you find yourself in danger, with your enemies at hand,
Would you want a politician with his ever-shifting stand?
Or would you prefer a soldier, who has sworn to defend
His home, his kin and Country and would fight until the end?

He was just a common soldier and his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us we may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict, then we find the soldier's part
Is to clean up all the troubles that the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honour while he's here to hear the praise,
Then at least let's give him homage at the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline in a paper that would say,
Our Country is in mourning, for a soldier died today.

Wear a Blue Ribbon

2008-11-06T01:05:00.005-07:00

I have decided that I am going to wear a blue ribbon for at least a week....possibly longer, depending upon the response I get. Why? Because it is a disgracefully little known fact that a blue ribbon is the symbol for the fight against prostate cancer much in the same way that a pink ribbon symbolizes the fight against breast cancer.

There are actually quite a few similarities between breast cancer and prostate cancer. Like breast cancer, prostate cancer is a deadly disease and while more women will die of breast cancer this year, more new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in men then breast cancer in women. Ultimately, there is very little difference in the number of lives that will be detrimentally affected by these two diseases. There are, however, significant discrepancies in the attention and funding given to each.

From 'Business Week',

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070612_953676.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_science

This year 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer, and federal spending on breast cancer research outpaces prostate cancer spending by a ratio of nearly two to one.

The National Prostate Cancer Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, released the report, titled "The Prostate Cancer Gap: A Crisis in Men's Health." It examines what the group calls "glaring disparities"
in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research between prostate and breast cancer, even though prostate cancer is the second-deadliest cancer in men after lung cancer. "Year after year, the prostate cancer community has received less attention and less funding than many other diseases," says Dr. Richard Adkins, chief executive office and vice-chairman of the prostate cancer coalition.'

I see pink ribbons all the time....there's even one on the bag of biscuit dough I have in my freezer and I've no doubt there's at least a handful of other, various household products I have in my home sporting them. Every time I walk in the grocery or drug store, I see a display of products sponsoring breast cancer research.

"Hooray", I say, that we're taking such significant measures to find a cure for this deadly disease....but what of this other deadly disease, this other cancer? What of prostate cancer.....the greatest difference between it and breast cancer being that it affects and ends the lives of men instead of the lives of women? Where are the blue ribbons? Where are the campaigns, the sponsors and the media attention?

This is why I will be wearing a blue ribbon all this week. I tend to be quite conscientious of my attire, so I have no doubt that the appearance of a rather out of place blue ribbon on my jacket will arouse some curiosity, giving me the perfect opportunity to educate.

Additionally, I challenge everyone else to do the same. Pin a blue ribbon to your lapel for a week...arm yourself with a few facts and figures, not only on prostate cancer, but also on the discrepancies in funding, media attention and public concern.

Wear a blue ribbon, not only as a method of activism to spread the word, or as a show of solidarity for those who are suffering or have died from this disease, but also simply to proclaim that the lives of men do matter.

Here is a the website for 'Us Too, International Prostate Cancer Education and Support Network', (hat tip to Tyrael at Antimisandry.com) where you can find information, along with some great ideas for activism, donations and fund raising.

http://www.ustoo.org/Default.asp

I appreciate that not everyone has the money to donate and not everyone has the time to organize a fund raiser, but it takes very little time or money to simply fix a blue ribbon to your shirt every morning.

Here are a few facts on prostate cancer to keep in mind,

*Every year over 232,090 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and
about 30,350 die. If detected early, prostate cancer is often treatable
*1 in 6 men is at a lifetime risk of prostate cancer
*A man with one close relative with the disease has double the risk. With two close relatives, his risk is five-fold. With three, the chance is 97%.
*Two men every five minutes are diagnosed with prostate cancer.
*African American males have a prostate cancer incidence rate up to 60% higher than while males and double the mortality (death) rate of white males.
*Every 100 minutes an African American male dies from prostate cancer.
*Men with a body mass index over 32.5 have about a one-third greater risk of dying from prostate cancer than men who are not obese.
*Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American males today
*Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States
*Prostate cancer is mainly found in men age 55 or over with an average age of 70 at the time of diagnosis
*Majority of deaths from prostate cancer are related to advanced disease with metastases

Fox News' Red Eye

2008-10-26T01:25:00.008-06:00

Once again, I was watching Fox News' Red Eye with my husband when I happened upon something worth noting.

They were discussing the Ashley Todd hate crime hoax. For anyone who's not up-to-date on this, Ashley Todd, a volunteer for the McCain campaign, reported to police that she'd been attacked by a large, black man while withdrawing money from an ATM. She sported a black eye and alleged that the man had carved the letter "B" for 'Barrack' into her cheek (incidentally, it was scratched in backwards as though someone was looking in a mirror while doing so...ahem). After some questioning, Ms. Todd admitted to having made the whole thing up.

Greg (Red Eye host) mentioned that he believed the punishment for filing a false report for a hate crime should be equal to the punishment for actually committing a hate crime and that she should go to jail. He then proceeded to read this statement by Ethan Eilon, Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee,

"We think this girl has endured enough and that this is going to be something for her and her family to work through."

The following exchange between Greg and Remi Spencer, a female guest on Red Eye, came next.

Greg: "So suddenly, she's the victim?"

Remi: "She needs help, she needs a psychological evaluation and treatment, perhaps hospitalization."

Greg: "But if guys do this, they never say they need psychological help, it's always girls, right Harrison? Girls are always saying like, oh they've got some kind of emotional trouble, right?"

First of all, the comment by the Republican representative is just unbelievable. She's suffered enough? How so? Because she got caught in her lie? Is that sufficient reparations for making false allegations? As Greg so aptly pointed out......Now she's the victim?

Greg made several astute observations, in my opinion. First of all he made the point I've long made, that the punishment for someone purposely falsely accusing another should be equal to the punishment for the crime they're alleging was commited against them.

He also made the highly accurate point that if Ms. Todd was a man, this would be handled very, very differently. No one would be putting out statements telling us to leave the poor guy alone.....he's suffered enough. There wouldn't be any suggestions that he has emotional troubles and just needs to get some help. He would be exactly what Ms. Todd is, an unconscionable liar who was willing to make ugly, horrible accusations to meet his own ends; uncaring about the damage those allegations might cause to others.

As my husband and I were discussing these points, he told me about another exchange on a previous Red Eye episode. Thanks to DVR technology, he was able to replay this episode for me.

This time, they were discussing Mark Gardiner and Bridget Baker. Mark and Bridget had been married, once upon a time, and long since divorced. In 1995, Mark won 17 million dollars in a lottery. At some point between his winning the lottery and the present, Mark and Bridget renewed their relationship, Bridget got pregnant and they are now getting remarried.

The point was made by Bill (the show's other host) that roughly one half of the population (you guess which half) is going 'You go girl', while the other half is saying, 'You idiot'.

Greg asked Julie Banderas, Fox News Anchor and Red Eye guest, if she was saying 'you go girl'.

Here's her response,

"Yeah, what better way to get child support from the poor b*******?......If
he really is that stupid that he's going to do it without a prenuptial agreement
then she deserves it."

Very nice.

One of the things that stood out the most to me while viewing these exchanges was not the typical feminist attitudes displayed, but that they were being challenged; that I was seeing comments and ideas expressed on National television that I wouldn't have expected to find outside of a men's rights website. While I doubt Greg and Bill identify themselves as MRA's, I think it's apparent that the word is getting out, people are starting to question the lies and to recognize the disparities and bias.

He Seduced You

2008-10-15T21:37:00.004-06:00

Well, this just absolutely takes the cake.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077266/He-seduced-Married-housewife-sex-boy-14-walks-free-court-judges-extraordinary-ruling.html

'He seduced you': Married housewife who had sex with boy, 14, walks free from court after judge's extraordinary ruling

By Paul SimsLast updated at 3:43 AM on 14th October 2008

Sharon Edwards pleaded guilty to four charges of sexual activity with a child and offering to supply Class A drugs
A judge caused outrage yesterday after he refused to jail a woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy and instead told her: 'He seduced you.'
Sharon Edwards, 40, bombarded the boy with as many as 50 text messages and emails a day, offered to buy him cocaine and regularly lured him into her bed.
Yet she walked free from court yesterday after Judge Peter Fox QC said the married housewife was an unhappy woman who was unable to resist the advances of a child.
'You had been a very unhappy lady for a very considerable period of time when this 14-year-old boy seduced you, and not you him, both so far as sexual matters and drugs are concerned,' he said.
Her eight-year marriage to a luxury car sales tycoon was falling apart, she felt trapped and lonely and was flattered by the attention the boy was paying her, Teesside Crown Court heard.
But last night the boy's mother attacked the judge's decision. She said: 'He's still a child. If this had been a man he would almost certainly have been jailed but instead she gets to walk free and pick up her life.
'She still lives round here and can now do whatever she wants and go wherever she wants. It's outrageous. I can't believe what's happened.'
Edwards, a mother of two, admitted having sex with the boy on four separate occasions between September last year and January and yesterday was given a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years.
She also pleaded guilty to offering to supply the teenager a Class A drug. The boy, who cannot be named, was a pupil at the same school her two sons attend when the relationship began.
They stayed in contact through text messages and emails and on one occasion Edwards took him to her sister's empty home for a night of sex.
But in January her suspicious husband, Mark, 43, discovered scores of emails she had sent to and received from the boy.
He confronted her at their £500,000 home in Stockton, Teesside, before contacting the youngster's mother.

Judge Fox: 'Exceptional case'
Tina Dempster, prosecuting, said the boy later broke down in tears when his mother asked him if the allegations were true. She then called the police.
'He was crying,' said Miss Dempster. 'He told her he was sorry but he did not know how to stop it. He was extremely distressed, saying that his life was over and he might as well die now.
'The next day he was interviewed by the police and he confirmed that he had had a crush on her and that they had sexual intercourse the previous night.'
Miss Dempster said that Mr Edwards first became suspicious in October last year after discovering that his wife was sending and receiving up to 50 text messages a day from the same number. Despite a blossoming property empire and a successful car sales business, their marriage was struggling to survive.
They had decided to make a go of it but by the end of October Mr Edwards was convinced his wife was having an affair. He confronted her about his suspicions but she denied it.
On January 18 he accessed his wife's MSN messaging programme and changed the settings so that all the sent messages would be saved.
'The next morning he checked the messages and he realised that the person with whom she was having a sexual relationship was the boy,' said Miss Dempster.
In one of the messages the boy asked her to buy some cocaine. She agreed and then said he would not need to pay her.
Deborah Sherwin, defending Edwards, said her client had pleaded guilty because she did not want her young victim to have to give evidence in court.
She added: 'She was a sad and lonely housewife, she was not working, her parents had moved abroad, she was stuck at home, her marriage was failing and this boy paid her attention and she was flattered by it.'
Judge Fox QC described the case as ' exceptional' before telling Edwards he would not be sending her to jail because the boy had seduced her, and not the other way round. 'Of course, you have responsibility as an adult to reject his advances in both regards,' he added.
Last night Claude Knights, director of children's charity Kidscape, said: 'This sentence sets an awful precedent. The judge seems to be suggesting that in some way this is all down to the victim.
'But how on earth can he be regarded as responsible for what happened? He is just a child. He may look mature and he may even be sexually active but he is still a child and this is still abuse.'
Diana Sutton, head of policy at the NSPCC, said: 'It is unacceptable to describe the child victim in this case as the seducer. This gives out completely the wrong message - that sex abuse is the fault of the child, when in reality it never is.'
Edwards was ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.

I am positively floored.

Imagine, for a moment, that the genders are reversed and we are dealing with a 40 year old married man and a 14 year old girl, all other conditions remaining the same. The public outrage would be deafening. The man would be a sick and vile pervert and I can guarantee you he'd be sitting in jail right now. Now, imagine, after having purchased drugs for the girl and having engaged in a sexual relationship with her, the judge told the man that it wasn't his fault, he was lonely and in an unhappy marriage.....this 14 year old girl had seduced him....she was to blame.

Can you even fathom such an event?

Of course, reverse the genders back, and not only is the woman walking away scot-free, but the judge actually has the audacity to place the blame upon the 14 year old boy. I happen to have a 14 year old son and the thought of him seducing anyone, let alone a 40 year old woman, is nothing less than laughable. This has got to be one of the most disgusting rulings yet. A 14 year old boy is now more culpable in a sexual relationship then a 40 year old woman?

I find it interesting that while feminism was supposed to empower women and help them to achieve their highest potential, all I've seen in a feminist society is the status of women becoming closer and closer to that of children. This is the pinnacle of womanhood? Our shining moment in history? When women are so egregiously unaccountable for their behavior it becomes painfully clear that, truly, the age of empowered women will be remembered as anything but our proudest moment.

Strong Women

2008-09-28T23:34:00.000-06:00

You'll have to forgive me while I wax religious on you for a moment....what can I say, it's Sunday and I spent three hours in church today.

This is a quote from a woman in my church that I recieved in a handout today.

"The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. . . . We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith."

Reading it, it got me thinking about todays call for women to be strong and empowered. It's funny how strength in a woman has become synonymous with being vicious, heartless and self-centered.

I've known many strong women in my life....I happen to come from a fairly long line of strong women.

They showed courage and fortitude, they worked alongside their husbands and did whatever was necessary to keep their families alive and together. They didn't understand words like "quit" or "give up". They had enormous integrity and a certain gentle greatness of spirit.

They were kind, charitable and humble. They were strong.

Every time I see a woman express admiration for another woman who's greatest achievement has been to prove herself capable of behaving abominably towards men and everyone else around her, I feel a little insulted on the behalf of the strong women I've known. I always ask, "Why do you admire her? She's proven that she's not a very nice person." The response is generally something along the lines of, "I know, but I just love her strength."

It doesn't take strength to follow in the ways of the world. There is no strength in abandoning one's marriage or embracing the convenient morality so prominant in today's society.

Maligning or being cruel to one's husband is not strong. Using a lot of 4 letter words, being sexually promiscuous, or mocking and villifying men are not displays of strength.

Anybody can be cruel, anybody can be dishonest, selfish, materialistic or petty. Strength is being honest even when you know that nobody else is. It's being kind and gentle in a world that encourages you to be anything but. Strength is having the courage to do what's right when the rest of the world mocks you and says it's wrong.

There's a lady I know who I admire greatly. She and her husband did an admirable job raising 9 children together. They recently celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary. Every morning I see them taking a walk together, hand in hand. When her husband had health issues, she, with the help of their nine children, nursed him back to health while running the family business together. Whenever somebody new moves into the neighborhood, she's there with a fresh baked loaf of bread welcoming them. Whenever somebody dies, she brings over meals to the bereaved family members. I've never seen her without a kind word or a smile. She makes the lives of everybody she touches a little better and everybody who knows her loves her. Most relevant of all, her husband absolutely adores her. She is a strong woman.

A Good Wife

2008-09-14T23:16:00.004-06:00

Some years ago, when my husband and I lived in California, I became acquainted with a Pakistani woman. She was my mother-in-law's neighbor. Her and her husband had two kids and she babysat a few young children in her home during the day while her husband was at work.

One day when I was visiting with her, she related to me some problems she was having with one of the children's mothers not paying her and constantly being late to pick up her child. She told me it was very important to her to take care of the situation herself and not bother her husband with the matter because she wanted him to be proud of her.

She continued on in that vein a little further, explaining that there were certain things that were her duties and she made sure that those things were always done so that her husband wasn't unnecessarily burdened with having to handle not only his duties but hers as well.

Being me, I wasn't inordinately surprised by this conversation. Although it wasn't the kind of talk one often heard, I was not a stranger to the need to be dependable. Personally, I found it rather touching and refreshing.

I think of this conversation now and imagine the reception it would get from many women. I'm sure the responses would range from outrage to disgust....she would be a victim and her husband, an evil, controlling advancer of patriarchal oppression.

The thing is, it didn't have anything to do with oppression. She wasn't scared or worried about his reaction. It wasn't about him or his demands. It was about HER and the demands that she placed upon herself; her wanting to do a good job at the duties she'd undertaken within their marriage and wanting him to be proud of the job she did.

I think it's wonderful that she should want her husband to be proud of her. Nowadays, however, the concept of a wife being someone her husband can be proud of; being a "good wife", is synonymous with male oppression.....and I'm not quite sure how that translates.

The funny thing is, nobody seems to have a problem with a wife wanting to be proud of her husband. He should aspire to be the very best husband and father he can be which, often, isn't even enough.

Why should a wife aspiring to be a good wife and a good mother equal oppression while a husband doing the same thing means 'being a man'? Why are we not allowed to expect anything from women? Any expectations placed upon women are immediately classified as oppression.

A husband who dares expect his wife to behave in any certain fashion, or accomplish any given thing is a sexist, controlling pig, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman expecting her husband to do any myriad of things from providing for the family to behaving in a precise, predetermined manner. In fact, not only is it o.k. for the woman to have such expectations, but she is often portrayed as long-suffering while doing so.

It shouldn't take much imagination to picture the poor wife, rolling her eyes and sighing while trying to transform her husband from the inadequate, overgrown child she married into the perfect man he ought to be. THAT is an image so customary and expected in today's society that most people don't even think to question it.

However, imagine the same portrayal reversed. Imagine the dignified, intelligent husband rolling his eyes and sighing while he tries to transform his thoroughly inadequate wife into what a woman should really be. HOW DARE HE!

Personally, aside from being an all around good person, there's little I desire more than to be a good wife and good mother....someone that my husband can be proud of.

Nothing Is Sacred To Feminists

2008-09-03T00:40:00.004-06:00

I was browing a feminist website the other day......I don't even recall precisely what it was I was looking for. Skimming through the articles, I noticed a comment directed toward John McCain. The comment, dripping with irreverant sarcasm, went something along the lines of, "You're a P.O.W. John??? Oh my goodness....why didn't you say so???" The author then went on to mock McCain's references to the years he spent as prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

I imagine this is the reason I can't visit a feminist site without coming away with a slightly nauseous feeling, like I've been exposed to something especially repugnant. They hold nothing sacred, not religion, not the lives of unborn children, the lives (or deaths) of men; not motherhood, fatherhood, or marriage. Not even the 5 1/2 years a man spent being tortured in a prison camp.

Overwhelmingly, odds are the woman who mocked McCain will never, EVER be in a position to make such an extraordinary sacrifice. I'll never be in such a position.....but at least I have an appreciation for the enormous amount of character it took for a man to be offered the chance to leave and refuse because other men had been there longer. That someone would mock such a man; would mock such a sacrifice is chilling. Come to think of it.....I find a lot of things chilling on feminist sites. They seem to have abandoned all positive attributes such as kindness, compassion and empathy in exchange for "empowerment". Of course, to me, empowerment looks increasingly like jaded and angry bitterness.

The more I visit feminist websites, the more convinced I become that there is only one thing they care about....the feminist agenda. They don't care about women. What's best for women, what women want.....if these things should at any time be in opposition with the feminist agenda, then they are rabidly attacked. McCain's pick for VP is a stellar example of this.

The assaults on Sarah Palin and her family have been incredibly ugly and vicious. I find it reprehensible.....unfortunately, such is the nature of American politics and I wouldn't expect it to be much different for Gov. Palin. What I do find interesting is that some of the most venomous attacks have come from feminists.

Watching the Republican National Convention tonight, I thought Sean Hannity stated it quite well. He made a comment that feminist groups don't really care about women, they only care about liberal women who promote their agenda. Very astute observation, in my opinion.

I don't know that McCain will make a great president and I would hesitate to say that his P.O.W. experience qualifies him to run a country. What I do know is that he was tested in a manner that few of us will ever be tested, and he proved himself to be a man of enormous courage and integrity......a true hero, who deserves our admiration and respect, not mockery and scorn.

And Yet Another False Rape Accusation.....

2008-09-01T14:21:00.003-06:00

Honestly, there's getting to be so many of these that I have to pick and choose which ones I'm going to post on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039281/Wicked-woman-ruined-marriage-crying-rape-jailed-months.html

'Wicked' woman who ruined a marriage by crying rape jailed for four
months

By Andy Dolan
Last updated at 1:32 AM on 29th July 2008

Posed by model: A woman who cried rape has been jailed for four
months

A woman whose false rape allegation led to the collapse of her
victim’s marriage has been jailed for four months after a judge branded her
‘wicked’.

Tracey Winfield, 21, claimed she had been held down in a park by
her former boyfriend Richard Peacock while his friend Dean Frasier raped her.

As a result of her allegations – delivered in a detailed,
seven-page statement – the men were arrested and held in police cells for 17 and
a half hours.

The pair, both innocent, were forced to undergo medical
examinations and give intimate samples before being released on bail.

Their ordeals ended only when Winfield walked into a police station
in Grantham, Lincolnshire five days later and confessed the incident never took
place.

Mr Frasier was so distraught over her claims he contemplated
suicide, Lincoln Crown Court heard.

Jailing her yesterday, Recorder Christopher Donnellan said
Winfield’s lies had damaged the chances of securing convictions in genuine rape
cases.

Simon Rowe, prosecuting, said Winfield initially phoned officers to
say she had been attacked in Wymondham Park, close to the centre of Grantham.

The men were arrested in the early hours of the morning and
interviewed twice before eventually being released.

Mr Rowe said both suffered as a result of the lie, adding that for
Mr Frasier: ‘It was the last straw in his relationship with his wife.’

He said: ‘Such was his concern that he spent money on taking a
polygraph test to try to prove his innocence.

‘He says Miss Winfield has ruined his life.’

Mr Rowe said Winfield and Mr Peacock had a troubled three-year
relationship, and she had made 14 allegations to police about him.

Most of these were not taken further - although Mr Peacock was
twice convicted of public order offences in 2006 as a result of them.

Winfield, from Grantham, admitted a charge of carrying out an act
intending to pervert the course of justice in April this year.

Gordon Aspden, defending, told the court she had been drinking when
she made the allegation and now realised it was a ‘monumental error of
judgment’.

Winfield sobbed in the dock as Mr Donnellan told her: ‘What you did
was wicked. It was not a spur-of-the-moment action that you did not go through
with.

‘Mr Frasier had his life ruined. Whatever relationship he had with
his wife may have been able to be saved, but what you did made sure it was not,’
he added.

The case came weeks after the Association of Chief Police Officers
called for the introduction of specialist squads to investigate rapes in every
UK force in a bid to drive up conviction rates.

Less than 6 per cent of reported rapes result in a conviction in
England and Wales – and just 15 per cent of victims are said to report incidents
in the first place, according to the British Crime Survey.

Mr Donnellan suggested false allegations such as Winfield’s served
only to spread even more doubt among jurors.

Earlier this month, a Royal Navy Wren was also convicted of making
a false rape claim against a former lover.

Portsmouth Crown Court heard that communications officer Erin
Casson, 27, met Petty Officer Brian Eaton for sex three months after they broke
up, but then told another man she had been raped.

A jury took less than an hour to find Casson, of Porchester,
Hampshire, guilty of perverting the course of justice.

She faces jail when she is sentenced next
month.

One of the things that bothers me the most (aside from the total lack of honesty, empathy or morals on the part of the accuser) is the 4 months jail sentence. I know, some would suggest that at least this is a step forward from the absolute lack of any form of punishment that we usually see, but, still.....4 months??

Ms. Winfield has effectively ruined lives. One of these men contemplated killing himself. If he had, Ms. Winfield would, in my opinion, be responsible for his death; a murderer, for all accounts and purposes. Is a 4 months jail sentence sufficient for attempted murder? Call me overly dramatic, but really, is that so far-fetched? She could have been responsible for a man's death; she IS responsible for irreparable damage to the lives of two men, so, once again I ask......is 4 months really adequate?

Of course, when one considers the 12 days Mary Winkler had to serve after murdering her husband.....I'm sure 4 months sounds downright cruel and unusual, but when you consider the damage done by Ms. Winfield's actions......I would have to argue that the punishment most assuredly does NOT fit the crime.

Happy Belated Birthday.....

2008-09-01T13:37:00.002-06:00

......to me! Well, not ME exactly, but my blog. I just realized that my blog was officially one year old on Aug. 5th. O.K., not a monumental achievement or anything, but the thing that really stuck out to me at the time is that Aug. 4th is my anniversary (we just celebrated 16 years) .

I honestly don't recall the series of events that transpired or the thought processes which led to me deciding to start my blog. However, as I was spurred to action the day after my anniversary, I can't help but think that there's a correlation between the two events.

I imagine that on my anniversary, a time when my husband and I celebrate our marriage and the love we have for one another, I found the ongoing attack against men in our society more offensive than usual and decided I was going to speak out against it.

I've always been something of an anti-feminist and, for several years now, I've been aware of the attack on men, fathers, families, boys and all things masculine. Of course, I've lived my life in a way that mirrored my beliefs and I've discussed with friends, family and acquaintances my feelings concerning misandry in society and the real agenda of feminism, but it was the day after my anniversary that I felt compelled to start doing something about it.

I imagine it's because of the examples of the men in our lives that women like myself feel the need to stand up against feminism. Feminism insults and maligns every man that we've ever known, be it our fathers, our brother, husbands, sons, or even strangers; unknown men who's lives have touched and bettered our own.

The first thing that opened my eyes to the reality of misandry in our society was (and I've spoken of this in past posts) a class I was taken on raising boys. The class specifically said that there was an attack on men and boys and that because of it, our boys were in serious trouble. It went on to list the ways that masculinity was being attacked, via media, by our laws and in our schools. It was a shocking moment of revelation for me, Kim, who had grown up in a conservative environment where husbands and fathers were loved and admirable, when I realized just how real the assault had become. I'd been raised that feminism was an assault on the family and that marriage and family was under attack, but this was the first time that I became aware of the way men, in particular, were being maligned and villified and I was disgusted, saddened and appalled.

All the above considered, I dedicate and attribute this blog, along with any and all activist efforts which I pursue, to my husband and to all the wonderful men I've known in my life, without whom I may never have been angered and disgusted to the point of pursuing it. I would also like to thank all of you who frequent or have even occassionally visited my blog, especially those who have added their voices....my blog has been greatly enhanced by the wisdom of many who have taken the time to comment.

Feminist Tarantulas

2008-08-25T13:00:00.005-06:00

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Fred Reed's great, anti-PC online column Fred on Everything, but I love reading his articles. I especially enjoyed the following funny, yet highly accurate, article on radical feminists; be prepared to laugh...unless you happen to be a radical feminist....

http://www.fredoneverything.net/COL1.shtml

Feminist Tarantulas

A Rural Male Reflects On Feminist Incivility, While Calculating Windage

Maybe I'm just a country boy at heart, and lack sophistication, and don't see things the way I should. But when I watch one of those radical-feminist women heave onto a podium, like the forehaunches of an under-nourished giraffe but with more hair on her lip, and start hollering and carrying on about what slugs and bandits men are, I start thinking of the curative powers of a shotgun full of rock salt.

I recommend a 12-gauge duck gun.

It's the incivility of these feminist people that gets to me. Most of them seem to have the manners of a guard dog , but without the utility. (I know, I know, I'm going to get angry letters. From guard dogs.) For pure bile, you can't beat a radical feminist. The average specimen can turn out bad temper for hours on end, like lumber from a sawmill, and any of it sounds like all the rest. The following, which gives the flavor, is from Andrea Dworkin, who I gather is a sort of museum-piece siege howitzer for feminism.

It's pretty much how they all talk. Listen:

"Men use the night to erase us...The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality, and so the night is the sacred time of male sexual celebration, because it is dark and in the dark it is easier not to see: not to see who she is. Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild, hunt down random victims, use the dark for cover, find in the dark solace, sanctuary, cover."

I do?

How does a man respond to such a broadside? The prose could use some lubrication, of course, and maybe a new set of plug wires, but I'm talking about the content. My first impulse is to reassure the poor woman: "There, there, Andrea, you're safe, nights just don't get dark enough." My second impulse is to wonder just how much radical feminists know about male sexuality, and what book they read it in.

I like to picture myself on a Saturday-night date in high school, parking on a back road.

My date: "You're driving kind of funny. I reckon it was the beer."

Me: "Why, no, Sally. I'm drunk on my intrinsic contempt for all life."

Sally: "You're so silly. Come here."

Me: "Soon...soon. Do you mind staying here by yourself for a bit?"

Sally: "Huh?"

Me: "I need to, uh, you know, run wild for a few minutes. Hunt down a few random victims. Use the dark for cover. Guy stuff."

Sally: "You nuts or something?"

Me: "It's...night, Sally...the sacred time of male sexual celebration."

Sally: "You're gonna do it out there?"

OK, I understand that the radical feminist ladies are a few french fries short of a Happy Meal. They can't help themselves. What I can't figure is why more-or-less grown-up editors publish all this clucking and scratching as if it made sense. And I also don't understand how the rules got fixed so that a Dworkin can say anything at all about men and get away with it--but men can't say anything back.

Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)

I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.

What I say is, if you have pool-hall manners, you ought to expect to play by pool-hall rules. Any guy who doesn't work for the Washington Post knows this. Go into the wrong bar, and somebody will likely hit you over the head with a pool cue. Nothing wrong with that. But the assailant will grant you the right, while questioning your ability, to smack him on the head with your cue. Symmetry. Reciprocity. Conservation of parity.

Not those feminist people. They want to swing cues. They don't want to get swung at. I say let's treat'em equal.

It'll happen. Some day before long I'll be talking about something sensible, like a '57 Chevy with Carter AFBs and a three-quarter Isky and 17 coats of hand-rubbed Orchard Mist lacquer that looks like Chinese emerald carving if they'd done it right. Sure enough, some dog-biscuit feminist is going to sniff, "Ah, yes, boys and their toys. Boys will be boys. Intrinsic contempt for...."

And I'm going to say, "Mercy, lady, mercy. Yes, we males are a sorry lot, sinners all, and neck deep in iniquity. The shame of it bores into my soul. Now you go stand in the middle of Dupont Circle at high noon, with a pair of seven-by-fifty binoculars, and look real carefully all around, and point to one thing, with a moving part, that was invented by a radical feminist."

Then I'll go for my duck gun.

The Criminalization of Men

2008-08-14T00:46:00.008-06:00

I'd like to thank a good friend, Eric, for sending me this link.

Most married men have an inkling of the obstacles they might face in the event of a divorce. Chances are they'll lose their home along with their right to see their children more than every other weekend, they'll be ordered to pay support for the children they're no longer allowed to parent or raise......thanks to new legislation, they may also be fitted with an electronic GPS tracking bracelet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72215

LAW OF THE LAND

Electronic cuffs planned for dads
'I don't see any safeguards. This presumes men guilty'

Posted: August 12, 200810:28 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Illinois has joined a growing contingent of states to adopt a law that will put electronic GPS tracking bracelets on men who have not been convicted of any crime, but might be involved in a messy divorce.

The plan, named in memory of Cindy Bischoff, who was attacked and murdered by a former boyfriend, was signed into law just days ago and is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

And while its goal of protecting women and children from out-of-control husbands and fathers is good, it goes too far and violates the civil rights of innocent fathers, according to a lawyer for a group that will challenge it.

"Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation," said attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is a nationally known fathers' rights advocate, the author of "Fathers' Rights" and "Divorce Wars" and founder of DadsRights.com. "The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of any crime."

According to a website set up in memory of Cindy Bischoff, there are about a dozen states, including Washington, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Massachusetts, that now have similar provisions. The campaign's goal is to prevent what happened to Bischof from happening to others.

But Leving said there are major constitutional issues that need to be resolved.

"The law carries a presumption of guilt," Leving said, "without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty."

He said such restraining orders are not unusual.

A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California's Family Law Section said such orders "are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." And the Illinois Bar Journal has described them as part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce.

But Leving said the full impact of Illinois' new law is that judges can order anyone – mostly men and fathers – to wear a GPS tracking device if they simply are accused of violating an order of protection, with no court conviction or adjudication required.

In fact, he said, "such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself."

Such lack of information for the men can result in unknowing violations, Leving said.

"A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and
the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her. Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier-a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation," he said.

"Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection," he said.

"Unfortunately, the rush to protect the abused is so incredibly aggressive that the rights of the accused have been violated," Leving said. "I don't see any safeguard in this law. This law basically presumes in these situations [men] are guilty."

He said his organization will work with lawmakers to make them aware of the potential pitfalls of their new law and will watch cases as they develop to
pursue a court challenge to its constitutionality.

So, if you're a man getting divorced and things get a bit messy, and, let's face it....chances are they will get messy; your soon to be ex can make an accusation and you'll be wearing a GPS tracking bracelet.

Last I checked, there was still a fair amount of debate and uproar over the concept of forcing convicted pedophiles to wear tracking bracelets due to the violation of their rights......apparently men going through divorce don't deserve quite the same level of consideration.

Honestly, I don't really know why I'm surprised, it's only a hop skip and jump from what judges are already doing with restraining orders. Already a man can be criminalized, forced out of his home and from the lives of his children on nothing more solid than an accusation.

If that wasn't bad enough, now men can be treated like criminals and required to wear tracking bracelets; no evidence needed, no burden of proof, testimony of witnesses or even a trial required.....nothing more than an accusation.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the amount of power and control a bit frightening. Women are being given the ability to do little more than point their finger and men can be treated like criminals who have relinquished their rights. Perhaps I've watched 'Gladiator' one too many times, but I get this unsettling mental image of roman emperors dealing out life and death through a simple thumbs up or down gesture. It's too much....too much power in one place with no corresponding accountability. Too many men who are being presumed guilty, their freedoms and rights being stripped away without sense, reason or even the right to due process.

Thank You Anon

2008-08-12T22:51:00.003-06:00

I just wanted to take a minute to thank a recent commenter, unsurprisingly choosing to post anonymously, for taking the time to thoroughly prove one of my points concerning feminism. Anonymous posted several comments, most rife with sarcasm, personal attacks and insults. One of Anon's comments was in response to my 'Men Are Great' post, and it is this post that I refer to.

Now, for those of you who haven't read it or who need a quick refresher, here is my 'Men Are Great' post in it's entirety.

Now I realize a lot of you are probably confused by that title. Chances are you're waiting for the punch line of some anti-male joke (Men are great AT...insert derogatory male stereotype here). Nope, that's it. There isn't any more to it. I figured with the enormous amount of time and energy devoted to pointing out all the flaws of man, it would be nice to devote a bit of time appreciating them...even if it is only a couple of paragraphs in my blog. There are certain pictures that make me cry every time I see them. I'm referring to pictures of men, great men, doing what great men have done since the beginning of time...sacrificing all for the greater good. I'm talking about pictures of soldiers, giving their lives to protect us, pictures of firefighters on 9-11, pushing their way UP into the towers, going to their doom in order to save lives. How many times have men faced death in protection of their countries, their homes, their families? How many men have worked at thankless jobs, never complaining, never questioning, in order to provide for their families? Now, I'm not implying that this is what men should be doing...sacrificing themselves. I'm saying that, right, wrong or otherwise, this is what men always have done and continue to do, and the very least we should do is recognize and show appreciation for that fact.
To put it simply, I love men, and not in a 'I like to sleep around and men are great in that capacity' way, either. I love and celebrate all the wonderfully unique traits and characteristics that are distinctly male. Now, I could expand upon all the contributions men have made to the world, but I won't, I don't have enough room on my blog, or enough time. Suffice it to say that due to the minds and accomplishments of men, the world has benefitted more than can be conveyed. What I will take time to do is acknowledge some of the little things, the things that tend to be taken for granted and go unnoticed. I know for a fact that if anything gross, disgusting or dirty has to be done, my husband, no questions asked, is going to do it. There's never an argument over who's going to go outside and shovel the driveway or who's going to change the oil, or the tire. I can guarantee if anybody ever needed to kill anything or venture into a potentially spider infested crawl space, it wouldn't be me. Not because I'd refuse....I'd never have to. If there's anything repugnant to be done, my husband does it. I have at times volunteered, because I know he'd never ask me to, but he says no. Not because he want to do it, but because he takes care of and protects his wife and children, self-sacrificing in the way that man have done for ages. So I say "thank you" to all the men who quietly go about their lives, unappreciatedly sacrificing for those around them. Thank you for all that you are and all that you do. I want you to know that although your are grossly underappreciated, you're not completely unappreciated

I realize that many of my posts could be considered controversial. They definitely buck the norm along with what is popular and generally accepted. This post, however, I fail to see where anyone could find fault with it....unless you were virulently anti-male and against men recieving any form of respect, recognition or praise. The post is very simple, it is nothing more and nothing less than a show of appreciation for men in general and, more specifically, for my husband.

This is Anon's comment to my post,

Dear Kim,

I'm sorry there are things your husband won't let you do. Know in your heart that your capable of anything!

In case you're scratching your head in confusion wondering what one thing possibly has to do with the other, allow me to translate. Anon has taken something wonderful, the way my husband loves and cares for me and his family and twisted it into something ugly. My husband (or any husband) shoveling the driveway, killing the spiders, changing the oil.....gets perverted from what it really is, kindness and caring, into oppression and control.

I have often contended that this is what feminism has done to men; taking every act of caring, kindness, selflessness and love and twisting it into control, dominance and oppression, so, once again, I say, 'thank you, anon', for demonstrating my point far more succinctly than I could.

As for my husband, he has never not "let" me do anything. We don't have that kind of relationship. He respects and loves me as I do him. If I felt strongly enough about doing something, he'd support me in it. If he felt stronly enough about me not doing something, I respect him enough to care about his concerns. The things he does, he does out of selflessness and love. I find it rather sad that you are unable to comprehend that.

Mary Winkler Gets Custody

2008-08-06T17:36:00.003-06:00

Thanks to Billy and Kelly Mac on antimisandry.com for the heads up on this.

I'm sure we're all familiar with the disgusting details of the Mary Winkler case. I'm sure you all remember the woman who shot her unarmed husband in the back with a shotgun while he slept. The woman who watched her injured husband roll of the bed, ask, "Why?", unplugged the phone so he couldn't call for help then left him alone to slowly die. The same woman who spent a mere 12 days in jail and 2 months in a mental health facility after which she walked away a free woman.

Oh sure, she accused her husband of abuse. Apparently he was a little annoyed that she'd been caught up in a money swindle known as the "Nigerian Scam" which had caused them financial harship and actually had the audacity to berate her for it. He was also causing her great emotional and mental trauma by wanting her to wear high heels for sex. Surely she was justified in killing him for burdening her with such things. [/sarcasm]

So poor, abused, traumatized Mary Winkler who doesn't even remember pulling the trigger (of course her confusion didn't prevent her from taking the time to destroy her husband's one hope of survival by unplugging the telephone before she left) has been fighting to regain custody of her daughters who have been in the care of their grandparents. She's finally won that fight and, despite having murdered their father, her three girls will be returned to her.

According to her lawyer, "It should be seen as a sign that the family is healing....It's a good thing for everyone." Ms. Winkler herself has stated the need for her and her daughters to heal. Apparently, we should not only feel sympathy for her three fatherless girls, but for Ms. Winkler as well.

Honestly, this whole case just makes me so sick, I have a hard time reading or writing about it. I feel like I'm fighting down bile with every word I type. Who cares if a man, a good man, a husband and father lies rotting in the grave? What's important now is that poor Mary Winkler can move on with her life and heal.....because, afterall, isn't she the real victim? Of course she is....she's a woman. Mary Winkler is a victim while her murdered husband, the REAL victim, gets to be remembered as some monster who abused his wife.

http://news.aol.com/article/slain-ministers-wife-gets-custody-of/116933?icid=100214839x1207071406x1200352715

A Glass Ceiling in the Blogosphere

2008-08-04T23:38:00.004-06:00

Apparently, women have been confronted with yet another glass ceiling, folks. This one is not professional or political. It's a glass ceiling within the blogosphere.

According to Kara Jesella in her article "Blogging's Glass Ceiling" women are unable to achieve the same success at blogging as their male counterparts.

Some of the reasons inlude,

"(T)hey are not taken as seriously as their male counterparts "

"(T)heir male colleagues and major media groups tended to ignore them, and to link to them less often"

“Women get dismissed in ways that men don’t”

"Women are taught not to be aggressive and analytical in the way that the political blogosphere demands, and are more likely to receive blog comments on how they look, rather than what they say."

Come on now, ladies, it's time to stop playing the victim card. I just assume that if people aren't reading my blog it's either because A) I haven't done enough to promote it and make it more visible or B) people just don't like it or aren't interested in what I have to say. If people come to my blog, read it and then choose not to return or not to link to it, I just accept that they didn't like it or didn't agree with it (presumably due to poor taste and judgement on their part ;-) ).

Where are women taught to not be aggressive or analytical? In schools? If so then boys must be being taught the same thing as we sit in the same classes and recieve the same education. By society? I see women being praised for being analytical and I've yet to see much judgement in our "you go girl" society for showing a little aggression.

Now bear in mind that, according to Ms. Jesseller's article, "36 million women participate in the blogosphere each week, and 15 million of them have their own blogs". Yet, despite this apparent abundance of women on the internet, female bloggers account for a very small portion of blogs that would be considered successful.

Let's consider for a moment that the reason behind this has nothing to do with glass ceilings, oppression, or some form of devious plan by the patriarchy to keep women down. Let's consider the remote possibility that, just maybe, the reason women aren't as successful at blogging has absolutely nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with their blogs and the time and effort expended in getting them out there.

Of course, if we were to do that, we might have to also consider the same being true of other previously mentioned, more well-known glass ceilings. We might have to consider the possibility that women not succeeding at the same level as men professionally and politically has much more to do with the effort and commitment extended and much less to do with oppression and victimization in a "male dominated society", and of course....THAT would be nigh on heresy.

It's much easier to fabricate imaginary barriers and turn to the usual scapegoat (men) then to have to accept that the responsibility for our own success, or lack thereof, lies mainly with us.

You can read Ms. Jesella's New York Times article in it's entirety here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/fashion/27blogher.html?ex=1374811200&en=ab80e6a56e05a151&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

The Lives Of Men

2008-07-30T15:25:00.003-06:00

I was reading a post on antimisandry.com today about Women's Institute women who are fighting to legalize prostitution in order to improve conditions for prostitutes. The women are visting brothels in various countries to find what they consider an example of ideal working conditions or the "perfect brothel". One of the women made the following comment,

'I discovered that in brothels in Holland men must wear condoms, which makes sense, and girls are regularly tested for infection. This is very important, not just for the girl, but for the family of the man who has been to see her.'

Did you catch that? It's essential for a man to wear a condom to protect the girls, as well as to protect his family should he catch some terrible sexually transmitted disease. Of course, there's no concern for the man who'll potentially contract HIV and end up be dying of AIDS.

I see this concept repeated time and again, and not just by the rad-fems, either. It seems I can hardly read anything that talks about the welfare of men without seeing the real concern being for the women in their lives.

If a soldier dies in combat, it's his wife and mother who are the real victims. If the suicide rate for men is alarmingly high, we must combat it because of the devastating impact it will have upon their wives and mothers. If men are dying at younger and younger ages, the real issue is the wives who they'll no longer be able to support.

Men are actual real, live human beings and as such, they matter. They don't merely matter as an extension of someone else. Their lives are not only important as they relate to the women in them. The very worst part about a soldier dying is the tragic loss of a young life that's ended way too quickly. The worst thing about high male suicide rates is the large number of men suffering emotional and mental anguish and the subsequent needless, wasteful end of their lives. The worst thing about men dying IS MEN DYING.

I don't imply that wives and mothers are not affected by the death of their sons and husbands. I can't imagine anything more devastating than if my husband or one of my children were to die, but the greatest tragedy would not be mine. The greatest tragedy would be the life that was ended prematurely.

Personally, I'm tired of the lives of men only mattering as they affect women. I'm tired of concern only being shown for the issues of men if those issues are negatively impacting women and I'm tired of hearing that we must take interest in the welfare of men for the benefit of women. It's a disgusting disregard for the value of life and it's a despicable display of bias. Society obviously accepts the importance of lives.....just not the lives of men.