Woman doesn't want female cops

Guy Finally Gets Proof That The Rape He Was Accused Of Was A Lie

This poor guy lost friends, family, and a great career after this girl lied about being raped.

Source

Boy and girl, both 16, have consensual sex--only the boy faces statutory rape charges

A 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with a 16-year-old girl. She told her parents, who objected to the boy, and they had him taken into state custody for statutory rape. He's out on bail, awaiting another court date.  She was never taken into custody, because under the law, she did not commit a crime.

It happened in Ireland where the age of consent for both males and females is 17, but boys under that age can be prosecuted for statutory rape, girls can't. The applicable law provides: "A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

"Someone has to guide him and be firm, someone has to give him love. His parents have let him down," the judge said about the "criminal."

Notice that no one has to "guide" the girl, or be "firm" with her--her parents did not let her down. Only the boy, who did exactly what she did. He is guilty by reason of penis.

Throughout the civilized world, laws that favor males--either as written or as applied--are condemned as grossly unjust. But when the genders are reversed, we often hear little outcry (in the U.S., do you know the penalties when teenage men fail to register with selective service? Nothing to see here, the feminists tell us, move along). Males can't be victims even when they are.

This Irish case is reminiscent of the awful Milton Academy case out of Massachusetts several years ago. A 15-year-old girl engaged in group sex with five teenage boys in the boys’ locker room. They were 16. The boys, and only the boys, were expelled and charged with statutory rape, and the court ordered the boys to publicly apologize to the girl and her family, and to do community service.

Alan M. Dershowitz, the famous Harvard law professor and criminal defense lawyer, had a daughter who attended Milton Academy. Prof. Dershowitz said it plainly: "This represents the most senseless use of prosecutorial discretion I’ve seen in a long time.” He added: ”The idea that these youngsters should be branded rapists and the girl should be labeled a victim is preposterous.”

Read on only if you want to get your blood boiling.

The 16-year-old boys read their sickening apologies to the girl and her family, in open court, as part of their plea bargain. One boy read this: "Not a day has passed since the incident that I don’t wish I had shown more respect for you, myself, and everyone involved. I understand that by taking part I put myself in a very dangerous situation with consequences none of us had dreamed of.”

Another boy read this: ”Every day I am sorry, so sorry, for what happened. And every day I think of how hurt you must be and how upset your family must be. More than anything in the world I wish that I could turn back the clock. . . . All I can do at this point is truly and sincerely apologize for my actions and wish you happiness.”

The girl's family sat there stony-faced as the boys were publicly humiliated. They got what they deserved . . . because they were born male.

http://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/06/boy-16-faces-rape-charge-despite-sex-being-consensual-5736113/

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/a1506.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/02/deal_okd_in_milton_academy_sex_case/

Source

Law sweeping the nation under the radar makes young men accused of rape presumed guilty

"Affirmative Consent laws and policies are making their way through the states," an advocacy group correctly points out, and if you don't believe it, check out the state-by-state listing of legislative activity to make affirmative consent the law.

"Affirmative consent" is repugnant to notions of due process and makes innocent college men presumed rapists solely on the say-so of college women. One court candidly explained how it works after a young man is accused of sexual assault:

[The accused] must come forward with proof of an affirmative verbal response that is credible in an environment in which there are seldom, if any, witnesses to an activity which requires exposing each party’s most private body parts. Absent the tape recording of a verbal consent or other independent means to demonstrate that consent was given, the ability of an accused to prove the complaining party’s consent strains credulity and is illusory.

Mock v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, No. 14-1687-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct. Aug. 10, 2015).

Exactly how are innocent college men supposed to prove consent? A co-author of California's law, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, said this: “Your guess is as good as mine." That comment is as chilling as it is telling.

The sexual grievance cartel: no concern about innocent college men

When people of goodwill raise concerns about the effect of "affirmative consent" laws on innocent college men, the sexual grievance cartel becomes indignant. Attorney Shelley Dempsey recently testified against Connecticut's proposed "yes means yes" bill and explained that it undermines the fundamental presumption of innocence. This sparked a "heated exchange" with one of sponsors of the bill, Sen. Mae Flexer. Flexer didn't bother to refute Dempsey's argument that the proposed law would flip the "presumption of innocence" but instead played the "rape epidemic" card. She argued that "statistics show one of every five women will be a sexual assault victim on campus." Her implication was that because rape is a problem, we shouldn't worry about the wrongly accused, who are necessary collateral damage in the far more important war on rape.

Attorney Dempsey challenged Flexer's premise by correctly refuting her statistics. Dempsey explained that, in fact, data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows the real number is 6.1 students per 1,000.

Flexer responded with indignation that Dempsey would dare to cite actual statistics to correct Flexer's fabricated statistics. Flexer accused Dempsey of "reframing the debate in a way that was not conducive to solving the urgent problem of college sexual assault." Flexner added: “It’s frustrating to be debating the criminal justice statistics on this issue when everyone in this room can recognize that there are clearly far too many young women in this state and across the country that are sexually assaulted on our college campuses.”

Indignation is a new approach for Flexer in responding to queries about "affirmative consent." Last year, speaking at a panel discussion at Yale, Flexer claimed that it is a "false criticism" to maintain that affirmative consent presumes guilt in an accused. Yale's Assistant Dean of Student Affairs Melanie Boyd chimed in, explaining that Yale still begins with a presumption of innocence but simply has shifted the question from “was there a refusal” to “was there agreement.”

Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall. When you force an accused student to prove there was an agreement, you are presuming guilt based on an accusation. ". . . the rule about burden of proof requires the prosecution by evidence to convince the jury of the accused's guilt . . . ." Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 1934, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468, 475, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 95, *12-13 (U.S. 1978). So, no, it is not a "false criticism" to claim that "affirmative consent" flips the presumption of innocence on its head.

______________

This is about what we should expect from the folks who dominate the public discourse on sexual assault--and don't give a damn about your son. Jaclyn Friedman, editor of the book “Yes Means Yes!: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape,” explained on PBS why "affirmative consent" is a good law:

Q: All right, Ms. Friedman, what about that switch, that the presumption has switched from guilt to — or innocence to guilt? 

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Well, we don’t say that when we say that a kidnapper, when we ask a kidnapper, like, did you have permission to take them somewhere, right? So that doesn’t create presumption of guilt. So I don’t know see why it would be different in sexual assault.

That Friedman seems to think a "kidnapper" has the burden of proving his innocence is not just naive and absurd, it is frightening. She is a leading light among the feminists who dominate the public discourse on sexual assault.

The goal: legislation that requires colleges to always believe the woman

A few years ago, it would have been irresponsible, even laughable, to suggest that college men are presumed rapists solely on the basis of an accusation. Today, it is law in our two biggest states, not to mention the official policy of many colleges, and the sexual grievance cartel is attempting to make it the law in many states.

If history teaches us anything, we know two things: (1) the progressives who run the sexual grievance cartel never lose a battle, and (2) the sexual grievance cartel will continue to push for more and more legislation until the goal of "always believe the woman" is given statutory articulation across the nation.

If that sounds absurd remember that before April 11, 2011, hardly anyone would have believed that the Department of Education would issue a fiat demanding that colleges lower the standard of proof for sex offenses in all U.S. colleges to "preponderance of the evidence." The Dear Colleague letter issued that date was a shocking display of executive branch hubris and an affront to the presumption of innocence.

Most people assumed the debate from that point on would be over rolling back the Dear Colleague letter's excesses. But the sexual grievance cartel had other ideas. Working under the radar, as it is wont to do, it was busy taking the next step and flipping the burden of proof on its head. It got "affirmative consent" passed in California and New York and enshrined in student disciplinary handbooks in colleges across America.

On college campuses, the debate has taken the expected course: earnest students, ever eager to be perceived as having the correct views, march in lockstep to the PC group-think of their self-anointed moral superiors in the sexual grievance cartel. The outlandish lie that a rape epidemic is sweeping the academy is largely unchallenged, and anyone who seeks to instill balance in the discourse is shot down as a rape apologist.

Whatever happened to liberals?

"Liberalism . . . used to stand for due process of law, but not anymore," wrote Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer at Manchester, Connecticut, lamenting that the anti-due process bandwagon is about to ensnare Connecticut--its legislature is considering making "affirmative consent" the law for colleges in the state.

The presumptive Democrat Party nominee for president shares the belief that men accused of rape are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This unconscionable belief is being enshrined in affirmative consent laws across America.

The "affirmative consent" standard is the easy, but not the appropriate, way to respond to the public outcry about sexual assault on campus. Innocence Project guru Mark A Godsey has said that "the risk of wrongful conviction is the highest when there’s public outcry. Most of the exonerations and wrongful convictions have occurred in rape cases."'

The problem is, the progressives leading the charge to enshrine "affirmative consent" into law don't give a damn about your son or the wrongly accused. 

 

Source

Men wage battle on 'paternity fraud'

By Martin Kasindorf

An acid sense of betrayal has been gnawing at Damon Adams since a DNA test showed that he is not the father of a 10-year-old girl born during his former marriage.

"Something changes in your heart," says Adams, 51, a dentist in Traverse City, Mich. "When she walks through the door, you're seeing the product of an affair."

But Michigan courts have spurned the DNA results Adams offered in his motions to stop paying $23,000 a year in child support. Now, Adams is lobbying the state Legislature for relief and joining other men in a national movement against what they call "paternity fraud."

In almost a dozen states, men have won the right to use conclusive genetic tests to end their financial obligations to children they didn't father. But women's groups and many public officials responsible for enforcing child support are battling the movement, which they say imperils children.

Most states design their family laws to protect what they call "the interests of the child." That means siding with the child's financial and emotional needs and against supposed fathers who want to avoid paying for tricycles and braces.

Taxpayers also have a big stake in child support collections, which have grown to$18 billion annually and cover 20 million children. If men who are paying child support no longer have to and authorities can't find the real fathers, welfare agencies will get the bill for family assistance.

Many men who feel deceived by a woman are in no mood to accept a legal system that doesn't recognize DNA science in such cases. "It's like they are saying, 'Let your wife cheat on you, have children by other men, divorce you, and now you have to pay for it all,' " says Air Force Master Sgt. Raymond Jackson, 43. California judges won't consider tests he says prove that the three children of his former 10-year marriage were fathered by other men.

Fraud, mistakes

There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father.

The legal doctrines raising barriers to DNA testing on paternity questions are formidable. In 30 states, married men face a 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's. The concept, based in English law, is aimed at preventing children from being branded illegitimate. Nebraska's Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child's father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments.

The law is more flexible for men who admit to fathering a child out of wedlock but then change their minds or who are named by the mother. But they have only brief opportunities to deny paternity. Florida allows a year after a child support order, California two years after a birth.

Many unwed fathers paying child support have never admitted paternity. A 1996 federal welfare law requires a woman to name a father — no questions asked — when she applies for public assistance. A court summons can be mailed to the man's last known address. Many men don't get the notice. The result: The paychecks of 527,224 men in California, for example, are being docked under "default" judgments of paternity that can't be contested after six months.

Men who urge use of DNA cite a precedent: DNA's increasing impact in murder and rape cases.

"Think of it. I can get out of jail for murder based on DNA evidence, but I can't get out of child support payments," says Bert Riddick, 42, a computing teacher in Carson, Calif.

Riddick is paying $1,400 a month for a teenage girl born out of wedlock whom he's never met. Strapped, he and his wife are living with in-laws. Their three children, ages 3 to 11, cram into one room. He lost his driver's license for missing support payments and rides a bus 75 minutes to work.

Gradually, legislators are reshaping paternity law. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia now permit ex-husbands and out-of-wedlock fathers to end child support through DNA. Maryland has made the same change via court decisions.

Colorado, Illinois and Louisiana grant relief only to ex-husbands, allowing them to offer genetic proof. Texas allows ex-husbands four years from a birth to disprove paternity and gives unwed fathers unlimited time. A sweeping bill that would authorize married and unmarried fathers to offer DNA evidence is working its way through the New Jersey State Assembly.

Carnell Smith, 41, an engineer in Decatur, Ga., who was getting nowhere in challenging a support decree, started a group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud that lobbied for the law Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes signed in May. The slogan on the Web site of Smith's group (www.paternityfraud.com): "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit." Smith is back in court and says, "I fully intend to be one of the first people to be released."

Pending in Vermont is the toughest bill of all. It would make a mother's knowingly false allegation of fatherhood a felony that could put her behind bars for up to two years and fine her up to $5,000. "A woman almost always knows who the father is, and if she puts down the wrong person knowingly and it's costing him money, it's just plain fraud," says state Rep. Leo Valliere, a Republican, the bill's sponsor.

Men's rights groups aren't advancing everywhere. California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a bill in September that was opposed by women's organizations. It would have given men two years after discovering they weren't the father to produce the DNA evidence to prove it. Florida paternity fraud bills died this year. A package of bills passed the Michigan House 102-0 but is stalled in the Senate.

'Dump the child'

Some analysts say laws need revising but DNA shouldn't be decisive. "Some people want to dump the child and say biology is all that matters, not relationships," says Jack Sampson, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin. Carol Sanger, a family law professor at Columbia University in New York, says the law should be more generous to men who may not even know a child than to dads who have been living with the kids they didn't father.

"Families are more complicated than who's biologically related to whom," says Valerie Ackerman, staff director for the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland. "If there has been a relationship between a father and child, the man can't just abdicate the responsibility that he's taken on."

Supporters of current law say the interests of the child should trump a man's concern for his wallet. "The other guy is somewhere over the hill and long gone," says Jenny Skoble, an attorney at the Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law in Los Angeles. "If it comes down to whether the only (available) father is going to be on the hook to pay money or this kid is going to be in the situation of having no father, I'd say we have to put the child first."

Men who want relief say it's a matter of equity. "DNA equals truth," says Patrick McCarthy, 41, a Hillsborough, N.J., package courier. After paying for 13 years to support a girl he denies fathering, McCarthy co-founded New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. The group has put up nine billboards supporting the pending bill in New Jersey. The ads depict a pregnant woman and ask, "Is it yours? If not, you still have to pay!"

"Obviously, there's more to fatherhood than genes," McCarthy acknowledges. "However, to pay support on a non-biological offspring should be an individual choice, not ordered by the courts." Adams says he's willing to directly aid the child he'd thought was his but doesn't want to give his ex-wife any more cash.

Trouble could be minimized if all children were DNA-tested at birth or at the time of divorce, says Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. She says maternity wards should distribute pamphlets telling men, "Get tested now if you have any questions, because doing it later will disrupt this child's life."

Source: http://goo.gl/uw2hCk

Preventing Paternity Fraud

By Luke Smith

The Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department (CSSD) boasts an impressive record. According to its website, in 2002 alone CSSD “established paternity for more than 65,000 children, and distributed over $428 million dollars for families.” But taking into account the L.A. bureaucracy’s ruthless crusade to find “deadbeat dads,” as well as the widespread problem of paternity fraud, the numbers become a lot less impressive.

The Los Angeles Times reveals that in 79 percent of L.A. child support cases, paternity is established by default judgments in municipal court, meaning that paternity is simply presumed but not proven. Men are declared “default” fathers when they fail to contest paternity allegations within a month, but many men report that they never learned of the allegations in time. 

According to U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, as many as 30 percent of “fathers” paying child support nationwide may not be the actual fathers. Often, child-support agencies bamboozle them into signing paternity declarations, or the mother fraudulently names a father to qualify for welfare assistance. In some cases, judges are prohibited from overturning default rulings despite clear DNA evidence. The problem is so out of hand that in 1998 the California Court of Appeals had to rebuke overzealous L.A. officials for having “lost sight of the paramount duty to seek justice” in child-support cases.

The problem is not confined to California. Federal initiatives begun in the late 1990s require states to search vast databases of tax records for “deadbeat dads,” but do not specify rigid standards of accuracy in paternity identification. As former President Clinton trumpeted Arkansas’ system of child support enforcement in a 1994 town hall meeting, “We started immediately beginning to process child support and creating a presumption of paternity that could be only overcome with proof.”

This kind of aggressive child support enforcement can have devastating personal consequences. State authorities begin taking “Dad’s” wages and ruining his credit, by reporting owed arrears to credit agencies—measures that ensure the financial security of single mothers, at the expense of justice for the men erroneously declared fathers. Instead, states should establish paternity with hard and fast DNA evidence, before notifying employers and credit agencies. Judges should never be left to decide a paternity case without such easily obtainable evidence.

Efforts to enshrine in law the ability of judges to refer to DNA tests, however, have encountered ferocious opposition. In Sept. 2002, for instance, California Governor Gray Davis vetoed the Paternity Justice Act under pressure from the National Organization for Women and children’s advocacy groups. The legislation would have freed thousands of paternity fraud victims from unwarranted child-support obligations by allowing judges to overturn default paternity judgments when confronted with DNA evidence disproving paternity.

Defending opposition to the Paternity Justice Act, an official from the Children’s Advocacy Institute in San Diego said, “We’re glad that the governor put children first.” Advocates of “children first,” however, could instead focus their efforts on the federal guidelines for welfare assistance, which require states to identify fathers before giving assistance to single mothers. Paternity justice need not be a zero-sum fight between single mothers and men wrongly declared fathers.

Trying to explain feminist opposition to paternity justice laws, Victor Smith, president of Dads Against Discrimination, observes that Americans “have a healthy disrespect for fathers. It’s socially ingrained in our society.” But Bernard Goldberg, a CBS journalist who covered the paternity fraud crisis in 1998, proposes a more sinister hypothesis: Americans have developed hostility toward men.

As far-fetched as this sounds, the fact that paternity justice has devolved into a bitterly divisive gender issue supports Goldberg’s claim. Rather than take the time and procure the evidence necessary to nail the guilty man, the state often just nails any man who is a tenuous match. Clearly, it’s not just “a healthy disrespect for fathers” that is becoming ingrained in our society. It’s also a very unhealthy disrespect for men.

Feminists sometimes allow this disrespect for men to spill over into their rhetoric. Activist Helen Caldicott argues that men are psychopaths (in her more diplomatic phrasing of it, “societies dominated by male values” condone “violence and killing” and “psychotic behavior”), and she also points out that men are “clinically and psychologically dead.” Columnist Anna Quindlen sums up her philosophy on gender issues: “It’s simply that I think women are superior to men.”

Some might claim these women are joking. (Dr. Caldicott certainly isn’t joking; as she clarifies, “I am deadly serious”). But is their man-hating humor really that funny? After all, who cares that the clinically and psychologically dead psychopaths are forced to support other people’s children? Men are guilty and should pay, simply because they are men. As California attorney Fatima Araiza says, “This is no longer the oppression of women. This is now the oppression of men.”

Opponents of paternity justice, even if they don’t like men that much, should keep in mind that it’s not really a gender issue at stake. Paternity fraud devastates not only the men erroneously declared fathers, but also their families. This includes the children who really are theirs, whom they must also support, sometimes on meager incomes. Laws exonerating paternity fraud victims and rescuing their families from undue financial hardship deserve support, not the blind opposition and gendered hostility they have encountered so far.

Luke Smith ‘04, a Crimson editor, is an economics concentrator in Quincy House.

Source: http://goo.gl/YJzWzB

Asian Women Need To Stop Dating White Men

Por Anne Gus 

They’re everywhere. I can’t walk half a yard down the high-fashion streets of Boston with my girlfriends without being visually assaulted by them. They are such an eyesore that I wish they would just put a big fat trigger warning on themselves, or just like wear one of those blankets that women from the Mid-East wear, jihads, or whatever, and cover up completely. Everytime I see one I can’t help but feel as though the Patriarchy is giving me a big fat Bitch slap on my rosy, supple 23 year old cheeks.

I am referring, of course, to WMAW couples: White Man – Asian Woman couples.

Okay, so now you might be thinking like, Gosh Anne, why you gotta be all racist, they’re strong, independent yellow women, choosing their own partners in life. If they wanna date a white man, all the more power to them, right?

Wrong. The WMAW phenomenon is itself one steeped in Patriarchal values, sexism and racism. Ever since its breakout, it has caused white men to trick millions of Asian women into relationships in which they’re being heavily taken advantage of.

Asian women, are you too narrow-sighted to realize that the only reason the most privileged and devious group on this side of the Milky Way, White men, are trying to get all up in your wonton soup, is that they are heavily fetishizing you?

If that is the case, let me explain something you, and you better listen, it could save your lives.

White men who chase after Asian Women are afflicted with something called, in laywomen’s terms, Yellow Fever, Asiaphilia or Hentai-ism. Unlike Scarlet fever, which, thanks to modern medicine was gotten rid of after like the First Spanish civil war, scientists back then had no clue how to cure its coeval cousin, the Yellow fever Pandemic. Even now, in 2014, or the Horsey year as you guys call it, we’re no closer to finding a cure.

Upon contraction of Yellow Fever, White men suddenly stop going after strong and beautiful white women like myself, and start trading us for our shorter, black haired and more yellow-hued sisters, namely, you people. Yellow fever is classed as a mental aberration and causes White men not only to date outside their own race, but also to see you Asian women as nothing but dehumanized, servile Toshiba robots.

White Men are in mass denial as to the severity of their illness, and try to mask it as a preference. When interrogated, they give a number of reasons and justifications as to why they suddenly begin crave girls of the more Animé persuasion, the most common being “Asian women are more pleasant than White women.”

Like, OMG? Do you realize how rude that is to Asian Women? Being pleasant is NOT a good trait, that’s a very Patriarchal way of thinking, being pleasant denotes that you’re not fierce and strong like women should be. Asian women, how can you tolerate this rhetoric being spouted about you?

According to many blogs that I read in preparation of writing this inspiring piece, The Patriarchy’s Asian Division seems to have, throughout the centuries, been harder on women in The Asia than here in the US. There seems to have been a lack of Oriental Dworkin’s and Greers in Asian herstory, something that has obviously halted a lot of progress. Some speculate that the small faction of what could have become The Asia’s revolutionary Feminist movement, The Crouching Tigresses, was massacred by Imperialist US soldiers in the Vietnam wars of the 1950’s.

I believe that, as a result of the lack of feminism in The Asia, a sexist and racist view of Asian women being softer and more submissive than Western women, has spread across the globe.

Being a very cultured young woman in her twenties who watches a lot of foreign film, I faced this stereotype many years ago. I mean how many female ninjas do you see in all the Bruce Chan movies ? I’ll spare you a thousand hours of male on male violence and tell you the answer. None. They’re always portrayed, either as ‘Gay Charles’ a homophobic slur that means “an Asian high-class lady of the night”, or rice picking slaves with Sombreros.

It is obvious that White men, a group that is infamous for watching movies, have harnessed this stereotype and now use it to justify pouncing on unsuspecting Asian women. They do this, of course, to feed their own twisted need to feel masculine and dominant, while exotifying, objectifying and dehumanizing you poor Asians. You hear that Asian women? They think you’re exotic, like Fanta Exotic. That’s right. White Men think you’re about as human as a carbonated drink. Think about that for a second.

How can you not realize that you’re being exploited badly by these White scumbags?

And, like they’re not even dating you for your looks, because, like no offense, but you all look kind of similar, so they’re dating you purely because of your race. Can you even fathom how racist that is? Seriously, am I like watching a new Disney Channel show called “That’s so Racist” or what the fuck is going on around here?.

Oh and what are we white women supposed to do now then, that you’re like, totally dating all the white guys? Are we supposed to like, go for your men? No offense, but they’re like kinda short and nerdy and not very hot. I mean they’re perfect for you, you’re like made for each other, but white men kind of like, belong to us.

Okay, that came out a little disjointed or whatever, but I was super mad when I wrote this. Asian women, you need to say no and stop being victims of White guy’s racist power fantasies, and conversely, White guys why don’t you back the fuck off, stop preying on poor Asian women’s weakness, and like come back to me and my friends already.

Help me put a stop to this Mandarin madness, show your Asian friends this article and send tweet under #stopWMAW.

- http://goo.gl/O9PyZM