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

Woman Escapes Jail After Abusing Boy

Victorian County Court Judge Christopher O'Neill sentenced her to three years in prison, wholly suspended for three years.

The woman now has six children and Judge O'Neill said her family circumstances had to be taken into account in the sentence.

"Normally offending of this seriousness would warrant a significant jail sentence," Judge O'Neill said on Friday.

"(But) there is a discretion to the court to grant special mercy where the circumstances of family hardship are exceptional."

Judge O'Neill said the woman's husband worked full time to support the children.

"I accept that almost every waking moment is spent looking after the children in one way or another," he said.

The woman, now 32, pleaded guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16.

Judge O'Neill said the woman gave the boy alcohol, drugs and freedom, but that was not evidence of grooming or predatory behaviour.

He said the woman had an IQ of 64 and showed the cognitive ability of a teenager.

The boy was 13 when the pair started having sex. They lived together for a time and had their first child when he was 15.

The couple had two more children before they split up in 2009.

The boy reported the relationship to police in November 2011, but the woman wasn't interviewed until July 2012.

Judge O'Neill said the woman would be on the sex offenders register for life.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-escapes-jail-for-sex-with-13yearold-20140523-38t1c.html#ixzz32cwFAd4J

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here’s the opinion of the California appellate court.

Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order.

As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question “what would happen if the sexes were reversed?”

Jon and Sarah were married in 2000. Both were actors at the time. They had a son, but divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support. By 2009, Sarah’s life had gone from bad to worse. Apparently she hasn’t had an acting job since 2005. Indeed, if she’s had any job at all, it’s not reflected in the evidence before the court. For that matter, she seems entirely disinclined to look for work, for reasons which will become obvious.

Both Jon and Sarah remarried, but it took only a few years for Sarah’s second marriage to hit the skids. She had a son by that marriage too and maintained custody of both boys.

Soon though, Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied, but the court admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.

So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.

Why? Because she’s a deadbeat, that’s why. I’m really not making this up. Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.

So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.

How many times have fathers been told that they should stop griping about the countless injustices of the child support system because it’s all for the child? Yes it’s unfair they’re told, but just put a sock in it and pay; it’s for the child, don’t you see.

Well, this case gives the lie to that and doesn’t beat around the bush about it. No one believes that it takes $8,000 a month ($96,000 a year) to support a child 4% of the time. The money has nothing to do with child support; it has everything to do with deadbeat Mom support. In this case, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line, and it is this – Jon earns a lot of money, Sarah earns none; therefore Jon pays Sarah even though he’s the custodial parent. Simple.

Now no opinion in a custody case would be complete without genuflections to the best interests of the child, and this is no exception. Sarah told the court that, if Jon didn’t pay her ”child support,” she’d lose the house she lives in and that he helped her buy when they got divorced. Assuming that to be the case, that would mean that she’d have to live somewhere else.

According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son. Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day. So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.

Of course it would be nothing of the sort. Millions of children in this country live their whole lives in worse conditions and muddle through perfectly well.

Into the bargain, cutting Sarah off Daddy welfare might actually encourage her to better herself. The judges didn’t manage to notice what everyone over the age of about 12 would – that the reason Sarah has no income and is making no effort to work and earn is that she’s living off of Jon. Take his income away from her and maybe she’d start lifting a finger. Hey, anything’s possible.

But the courts weren’t finished. Perhaps sensing the radical injustice of what they were doing, both tried another tack. Because Sarah’s children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn’t. That could have changed at any time. The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon’s child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time. Let me remind you; I’m not making this up.

We all know that, if the juvenile court had altered the custody situation significantly, either Jon or Sarah could have gone to court and requested a modification of child support based on changed circumstances. And guess what. The courts know that too; they even said as much. But according to them, because circumstances might change in the future, their hands are tied; Jon has to keep paying to support his ex-wife because, well something might happen.

It’s hard to get more blatant than this. It’s Mommy support thinly disguised as child support. The child will never see one-tenth of this money. In fact, she’s using it to pay her lawyers in the dependency case.

And again, imagine if the sexes were reversed. Imagine a father saying “Judge, it’s true I can earn a living but haven’t lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it’s true I lost custody because I’m dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it’s child support.”

Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail? I can’t decide.

http://ow.ly/nT8yL

Cheats on her husband but gets alimony

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody

Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here’s the opinion of the California appellate court.

Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order.

As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question “what would happen if the sexes were reversed?”

Jon and Sarah were married in 2000. Both were actors at the time. They had a son, but divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support. By 2009, Sarah’s life had gone from bad to worse. Apparently she hasn’t had an acting job since 2005. Indeed, if she’s had any job at all, it’s not reflected in the evidence before the court. For that matter, she seems entirely disinclined to look for work, for reasons which will become obvious.

Both Jon and Sarah remarried, but it took only a few years for Sarah’s second marriage to hit the skids. She had a son by that marriage too and maintained custody of both boys.

Soon though, Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied, but the court admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.

So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.

Why? Because she’s a deadbeat, that’s why. I’m really not making this up. Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.

So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.

How many times have fathers been told that they should stop griping about the countless injustices of the child support system because it’s all for the child? Yes it’s unfair they’re told, but just put a sock in it and pay; it’s for the child, don’t you see.

Well, this case gives the lie to that and doesn’t beat around the bush about it. No one believes that it takes $8,000 a month ($96,000 a year) to support a child 4% of the time. The money has nothing to do with child support; it has everything to do with deadbeat Mom support. In this case, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line, and it is this – Jon earns a lot of money, Sarah earns none; therefore Jon pays Sarah even though he’s the custodial parent. Simple.

Now no opinion in a custody case would be complete without genuflections to the best interests of the child, and this is no exception. Sarah told the court that, if Jon didn’t pay her ”child support,” she’d lose the house she lives in and that he helped her buy when they got divorced. Assuming that to be the case, that would mean that she’d have to live somewhere else.

According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son. Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day. So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.

Of course it would be nothing of the sort. Millions of children in this country live their whole lives in worse conditions and muddle through perfectly well.

Into the bargain, cutting Sarah off Daddy welfare might actually encourage her to better herself. The judges didn’t manage to notice what everyone over the age of about 12 would – that the reason Sarah has no income and is making no effort to work and earn is that she’s living off of Jon. Take his income away from her and maybe she’d start lifting a finger. Hey, anything’s possible.

But the courts weren’t finished. Perhaps sensing the radical injustice of what they were doing, both tried another tack. Because Sarah’s children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn’t. That could have changed at any time. The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon’s child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time. Let me remind you; I’m not making this up.

We all know that, if the juvenile court had altered the custody situation significantly, either Jon or Sarah could have gone to court and requested a modification of child support based on changed circumstances. And guess what. The courts know that too; they even said as much. But according to them, because circumstances might change in the future, their hands are tied; Jon has to keep paying to support his ex-wife because, well something might happen.

It’s hard to get more blatant than this. It’s Mommy support thinly disguised as child support. The child will never see one-tenth of this money. In fact, she’s using it to pay her lawyers in the dependency case.

And again, imagine if the sexes were reversed. Imagine a father saying “Judge, it’s true I can earn a living but haven’t lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it’s true I lost custody because I’m dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it’s child support.”

Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail? I can’t decide.

http://ow.ly/nT8yL

Feminista hatred

Paul Elam: Adios, c-ya, good-bye man-o-sphere

"The man-o-sphere is worthless to men’s rights activism."

Recently Roosh wrote an article proclaiming that the MRM was dead. It was the kind of piece that even 6 months ago I would have likely allowed to immediately bait me into a response article. And it was so full of fallacy and self-promoting claptrap that I would have had some fun doing it.

But that was 6 months and about a million years ago.

It was at a time when I still felt connected in some way to the phenomena we sometimes call the man-o-sphere. We were, in days past, a loosely associated collection of thinkers and writers, who at times shared some mutual ambitions to improve the state of men and boys, and often tore at each other like siblings reared in a whore house. It was stimulating and often messy, but it helped pass time in a world where waiting on progress for men was like waiting for a raise from a cheap boss.

But in case anyone hasn’t noticed, things in the sphere have changed a lot in recent times. Ferdinand Bardamu, after letting In Mala Fide devolve from a rigorously thoughtful source of counter-theory into a cesspool of white supremacy and anti-Semitism, mercifully checked out for good.

What remains, with some few exceptions, are not worth mentioning by name. There are some collections of decent writing, squandered by rudderless, self-serving management with no interest in activism. They serve a purpose, but not a cause.

And then there are the PUAs and Gamers, about whom this will be the last time I write, or that will ever again appear in an article on this site. They are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either.

I don’t blame them, given the way they were fucked out of relevance. They never had a chance. They are the walking wounded; the children left behind from a sexual war in which their fathers refused to fight. I have been personally wrong to have engaged in conflict with them when I could have, should have, been working harder to provide them an alternative.

I aim to remedy that mistake.

The very expression, man-o-sphere, implicitly paints an image of connectivity; of shared purpose and identity. Aside from distaste for feminism, which anyone capable of critical thought will share, there is no real or abiding connection; no universality or even commonality, and that lacking manifests in how we tear ourselves, and each other, down, and always have.

In the comments of the Roosh piece I mentioned at the start of this article, there came a summation from zed, who has studied this society longer than most all of us, and longer than some of us have been alive. It is most sobering and well worth posting here.

I see this same argument raging a couple of dozen places around the net right now. It appears that men are Balkanizing into half a dozen “tribes” of mutually hostile social, cultural, and political values.

It is that phenomenon alone which accounts for the fact that no coherent Men’s Rights Movement has ever gelled. Terms get flung around with no agreed-upon definition behind them. If MRAs were a political party, we have spent the last 40 years arguing over what our platform should be.

For someone who understands politics, that should not be surprising. The favored method of the human race throughout history for resolving such conflicts over what people believe is to reach for the guns – and before guns were invented, spears, knives, swords, and clubs.

In the US, slavery existed for 300 years before it got ended by the bloodiest war in US history. It took a lot of Abolitionist Activists dying to even reach the point where the war broke out.

Pointing out that MRAs have not made much progress because they have not already solved the problem politically without having to resort to the ultimate form of activism – war – is silly.

There have been tons of good MRAs over the years doing what they could to make a difference – without guns. Every last one of them got taken down by the very men whose rights those MRAs thought that were fighting for.

A guy like Paul Elam stands up, tries to do something, and “men” from all over the place attack him because 1) he is not doing things exactly like they would do them, if they had done anything, which they never do, and 2) he hasn’t already solved the problem so they wouldn’t have to be bothered with it.

I quit being any sort of MRA because I got so sick to death of having to argue with men over how to split a hair 10,000 different ways. I got so sick of listening to armchair quarterbacks bitching that the free beer wasn’t cold enough, that I quit serving it at all.

With a handful of people and a little spare change, Paul Elam has launched the most successful Men’s Rights initiative to date. Do “men” appreciate that? Hell no!

Instead of pitching in and adding their own “activism” to his effort, men just pick at him and piss him off enough that he feels the need to come over here and defend what he is doing to the very group he is doing it for.

If “men” were a football team, the opposing team would not even have to put anyone on the field because they spend all their time and energy tripping their own ball carriers instead of blocking for him.

What I don’t get about “men” is why – if they are so certain that their way is the right way – they don’t just go do it and leave everyone else alone. Instead of spending their time doing what they claim they believe in, they spend it attacking every man who is not a clone of them.

There are lots of good MRAs, but there is no MRM. Men won’t allow one to get formed, because every time some MRA starts to get some traction, other men take him down.

While I appreciate zed’s very kind words about me, that isn’t why I reposted his thoughts. I did it because reading them was a personal turning point. It was the point that just accepted the fact that a handful non activist, essentially blue pill bloggers, and their blue pill acolytes, are as useful to the idea of an MRM as eggshells in an omelet.

The man-o-sphere is worthless to men’s rights activism.

The man-o-sphere itself is a misnomer, a façade hidden behind an illusion. Looking for unity or support or action in that non entity is nothing more than looking for water in an empty bucket. Similarly futile is the idea that friction or conflict with those ghosts is detrimental to the cause. It isn’t detrimental because these men have nothing more to do with the cause of men’s rights than feminist bloggers or volleyball coaches. Pearl clutching over a badly needed division between them and activists is foolish. They are just another, and a comparatively minor, source of attempts to bring us down. We do not have to be bothered with them, even if we are advocating on their behalf.

If there is a real men’s movement that will spring from the online world, it is here and nowhere else.

In fact, we already see it happening. But continuing to buy into the false unity of a non-existent entity will only slow us down.

I have always taken care, and still to, to point out that AVfM is not synonymous with the men’s movement. And after mulling this over one more time of thousands, I am really glad that I have taken this approach.

I don’t know what the men’s movement is, in all honesty. I don’t even know that it exists. But I do know what AVfM is. And I know we have created a culture here that is moving toward a bona fide movement. I know we are prone to occasional squabbles, but the circular diatribes outlining 10,000 ways to split a hair, the ones that drove men like zed to wash their hands of other MRAs, are not part of the program here.

We have succeeded here because we do not allow other men to come in and drag us down with whatever they imagine their justification or “better way” to be.

We don’t allow our writers or supporters or other activists to be personally insulted. We invite everyone with better ideas than ours to prove it by doing them, or to find the donation button so we can do it, or hold their silly tongues. We systematically ban people who are not here to support our growth because that is the only way among men it can be done.

We recognize, as zed surely does, that the majority of men will always be their own worst enemy, so we let the minority of men (and women) who are cognizant enough to overcome that stupidity to carry the leverage of authority here.

And it is working. We now have a robust community of men and women who are starting to make it happen on the ground.

Now we can move ahead with that, the few with a fighting chance at changing the world in spite of the many, by refusing to try to drag dead wood with us as we go.

Source

White males now classed as a 'minority group' at university

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9484597/White-males-now-classed-as-a-minority-group-at-university.html

Women now dominate Britain’s universities and professions to such an extent that a leading institution has launched a campaign to recruit more “white males”.

The move by the Royal Veterinary College, where more than three-quarters of the intake are female, marks the first time that white men have been included in a strategy to help under-represented groups.

While the college is an extreme case, it reflects a wider trend of women overtaking men in education. Of the 24 leading universities in the Russell Group, only three have a majority of male students.

Across UK universities, 984,000 female undergraduates are studying for degrees, compared to 713,000 male. The gap is expected to widen in future years as new government rules make it easier for universities to recruit students with A-level grades of AAB or better, more of whom are female.

While last week’s A-level results showed boys narrowly outperforming girls at the A* grade for the first time, girls remained significantly more likely than boys to achieve grades in the upper range of A* to B.

According to Mary Curnock Cook, the chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the “very worrying gap” between male and female performance at school and university is leading to “fundamental shifts” in society.


Figures from professions which were traditionally male bastions reveal the workplace gender revolution.

In law, women made up 60 per cent of individuals qualifying to practise and admitted on to the roll of solicitors in 2010.

In the same year, 56 per cent of places in UK medical schools went to women, compared to less than a quarter in the 1960s, and it is predicted that by 2017 female doctors will be in a majority.

Yet while women account for 62 per cent of trainee GPs they make up less than a third of hospital consultants. A reluctance among female doctors to take on more demanding specialties, such as cardiology, has led to fears of shortages in key areas.

Women’s domination in veterinary science is also causing concern. About three-quarters of newly qualified vets are now female. By 2015, it is estimated that 90 per cent of those qualifying will be women.

The huge imbalance has prompted the Royal Veterinary College, with campuses in north London and Hertfordshire, to launch a campaign, outlined in its annual report to the admissions regulator Offa, to attract “white males”, among other under-represented groups such as pupils from poor backgrounds and ethnic minorities.

White males are defined as under-represented because while they make up about 45 per cent of the UK population, according to the last census, they account for only 20 per cent of the college’s intake.

Prospectuses and publicity materials have been redesigned to feature photographs and quotes from white male students. Visits to schools and college roadshows specifically target boys.

The college also targets other under-represented groups including ethnic minorities of both genders, who together make up about 10 per cent of the UK population but only 6 per cent of the students at the college.

They are sought out through schemes such as a science Saturday school for pupils from inner London.

By contrast, white women are overrepresented among the students, and are not being targeted for recruitment.

Professor Stephen May, vice-principal for teaching at the college, said: “Our concern is that just in terms of the professional community, having a good gender mix is healthy.

“It may be that in recent years, good quality male candidates have been attracted to more lucrative careers, such as banking.

"The decline in agriculture versus small animal practise could also be a factor. We are not in the business of quotas, that would be discriminatory, but we hope in the long term we will see progress with white males.”

This year, 84,000 more women applied to higher education than men. The only Russell Group universities where male students are in a majority are Cambridge, the London School of Economics and Imperial College, London.

Women outnumber men in the vast majority, including King’s College, London, where 67 per cent of students are female, and Cardiff University, where the figure is 60 per cent.

Mrs Curnock Cook said: “If you look at educational achievement through primary and secondary school and then university outcomes there is a very worrying gap between males and females.

“Somebody needs to address what it is about our education system that is allowing females to perform overall so much better than males. If this trend continues it will start to underpin quite a fundamental sociological change.”

While women are forging successful careers on the back of superior performances in school and university exams, some fear boys are being left on the scrap heap by an education system which disadvantages them.

Coursework and modular exams, less emphasis on the physical, outdoor curriculum and the lack of male teachers have all been blamed for boys’ underachievement. White working class boys now do worse at school than any other group.

Diane Houston, a psychology professor and graduate school dean at Kent University, said that whilst boys may be disadvantaged at school, women still faced a glass ceiling in the workplace.

“There are issues about the way in which schools have become feminised,” she said. “There is a culture in some schools which can be quite difficult for boys, the sitting still and being neat and organised.

"Some can be put off education at a critical point.

“But I’m not sure that at this point we should be screaming about percentage differences in attainment given the way in which women’s careers atrophy through their reproductive lives. There may be more women training to be solicitors, but the judges are men.”

Angelina Jolie lookalike 'stabbed taxi driver' for refusing sex a third time

A TAXI driver claims a sex-crazed Angelina Jolie lookalike passenger stabbed him after he refused to have sex with her.

Romanian cabbie Nicolae Stan told police Luminita Perijoc - who models herself on Hollywood star Jolie - had already forced him at knifepoint to have intercourse and perform another sex act, The Daily Mail reports.

He claims Perijoc had asked him to help her with his bags but once inside her apartment she demanded sex.

When he refused she allegedly pulled out a knife and forced him to undress, Romanian media reported.

Police investigating his claims say the Perijoc's behaviour may have been down to the fact she was on medication at the time.

Mr Stan said that his life has been made a misery by pals giving him a hard time about the fact that he had turned down the beautiful double of the Hollywood star.

He said: 'It is terrible. I am now a local celebrity, every one is talking about me.

Read more at The Daily Mail.

Janet Napolitano-run Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security could be renamed the Department of Hyper Sexuality.

A blistering federal discrimination suit accuses agency honcho Janet Napolitano of turning the department into a female-run “frat house” where male staffers were banished to the bathrooms and routinely humiliated.

James Hayes Jr., who now is New York’s top Homeland Security cop, claims Napolitano filled top spots in Washington, D.C., with two of her gal pals who were bent on tormenting male employees.

The suit identified them as Dora Schriro, who is now running the city Department of Correction, and Suzanne Barr, the chief of staff for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Soon after Schriro and Barr were hired in January 2009, male staffers were treated like lapdogs, Hayes claims.

Barr “moved the entire contents of the offices of three employees, including name plates, computers and telephones, to the men’s bathroom at ICE headquarters,” the suit says.

Barr also stole a male staffer’s BlackBerry and fired off a message to his female supervisor indicating that he “had a crush on [her] and fantasized about her,” Hayes claims.

Sometimes, Barr took a more direct approach. In one case, she called a male colleague in his hotel room and screamed at him using sexually humiliating language, the suit says.

Hayes claims that after he reported the abuse to the Equal Employment Opportunity office, Napolitano launched a series of misconduct investigations against him.

Hayes claims he was denied a prized promotion and systematically pushed aside while working out of ICE’s Washington office. The suit says Schriro was named the special adviser to Secretary Napolitano on Detention and Removal Operations and began to replace Hayes at meetings despite having no “experience in managing a federal law enforcement department.”

Schriro did, however, have a “long standing relationship with [Napolitano],” the suit says.

Hayes, who is seeking relief for $335,000 in damages, was named the special agent in charge of ICE’s New York field office in Oct. 2009.

ICE Director of Public Affairs Brian Hale blasted the suit, which was filed in May and first reported by the blog, debbieschlussel.com.

“ICE doesn’t comment on unfounded claims and will respond to Mr. Hayes’ allegations as appropriate through the judicial system,” he said.

A Department of Correction spokesman denied claims that her relationship with Napolitano figured into her hiring.

“Commissioner Schriro’s selection and service at DHS was based on the merits. Any suggestion to the contrary is false,” spokesman Robin Campbell said.

Source

Discrimination against men in Medicine

Source

Now that men and women pay equally for healthcare, shouldn’t men receive equal coverage when it comes to fully covered services? Shouldn’t there finally be a government health office dealing with men’s health? Men and women should sign this petition no matter if they agree with the Affordable Care Act or not. The Act is sexist and needs to be made unbiased should it remain in existence in its present state.

On August 1, 2012 many more health care services became available to women without co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses. While this can be seen as a victory for women’s health, there are many services that affect men in equal or similar ways that still require men to be able to afford those cost-sharing requirements. 

Why should all women receive these services (such as well-care visits) “free” while men still will be denied those services if they can not afford to pay for them? The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly expand the gender life-expectancy gap even further due to men being denied these well-care visits. Blacks and Hispanic males will be hit hardest as studies have shown them to be less likely to afford those out-of-pocket expenses.

These are our fathers, our brothers and our sons that perhaps will be forced to go without those well-care visits to determine important screenings and services. It’s great to have our mothers, sisters and daughters to not have to be concerned with financial obligations to receive those services. This act should not force some men to be denied those preventive care services just because of financial inability. It’s time to rectify the imbalance and make this bill adhere to gender equality.

A look at what preventive services are deemed sexist can be found in the US Dept. of Health and Human Services list of such services and to whom they apply:

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforAdults

We ask President Obama to correct the following biased aspects of the Affordable Care Act:

FACT#1

WOMEN ARE PROVIDED WELL-CARE VISITS WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES. MEN WILL BE DENIED THESE WELL-CARE VISITS UNLESS THEY CAN COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED EXTRA FUNDS. This will mean that many men will not go for well-care visits due to lack of affordability. This will lead to many men not being diagnosed until a disease has become more expensive to treat or until it is too late for treatment altogether. This will cost lives and add to the already burdensome cost of The Affordable Care Act.

FACT#2

BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS ARE FULLY COVERED WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. PROSTATE CANCER SCREENINGS REQUIRE MEN TO FIND A WAY TO PAY THOSE EXTRA COSTS OR BE DENIED PREVENTIVE CARE. Prostate cancer affects 1 in 6 men and kills roughly 28,000 annually. Breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women and kills roughly 39,000 annually. Should this Act continue, no one should be turned away from these preventive cancer screenings.

Read more and sign the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-stop-sexism-in-the-affordable-care-act

What’s wrong with equitable treatment in healthcare? Nothing.

Men and women deserve equitable treatment in healthcare that respects their respective differences and needs. Right? Right.

If you agree please sign the petition. It can help achieve equitable treatment in healthcare.

Healthcare, Healthcare, Healthcare

Thank you Mr. Goldman. Nice job.

All men are potential rapists

Another airline doesn't trust men to sit next to unaccompanied minors, but they will handle it "discreetly and respectfully."

Respectfully, as in, "I'm very sorry, sir, but would you please switch places with a woman? Any woman will do, regardless of her character. You see, we don't trust that you can control your male-driven urge to insert your penis in a child sitting next to you on an airplane. Thanks for understanding!"

And it doesn't matter if the man is Fred Rogers, Barack Obama, a firefighter who's saved scores of children, or Jesus of Nazareth. They are all guilty by reason of penis.

I would like to see the airlines respond to this. They won't, because they can't.

Source

Wicked women who cried rape trapped by three-in-bed photos

Two friends who falsely claimed they were raped were jailed yesterday because the suspect had photos of them all having a threesome. Jennifer France, 24, and Kelly Weston, a 27-year-old mother, posed for saucy snaps on Enes Gozalan’s bed after meeting him in a pub.

A court heard they later made the false allegations because both had long-term boyfriends and were ashamed of what they had done. Their 30-year-old victim was arrested and kept in custody for 18 hours because the pair claimed they had been raped multiple times.

As soon as Mr Gozalan was arrested, he produced his mobile phone and told officers he had photos to prove his innocence. He later told detectives: ‘The photographs show the girls were having a good time. I do not understand why they would make up something so nasty.’

Carolyn Branford-Wood, prosecuting, told Southampton Crown Court that Weston attended a police station two days after the alleged attack.

‘Miss Weston had been out with her brother’s girlfriend, Miss France, for a family meal,’ she said. ‘During the course of the evening they met two Turkish men. The four of them had been in a pub together and left together.

‘Miss Weston went on to claim that she had been raped by one of these men at his home.

'The following day Miss France also informed the police that she too had been raped by the same man.’

But she said Mr Gozalan’s phone showed ‘not only him engaged in sexual activity, but the two women too’. He was released on bail following his arrest on October 18 last year and later informed no further action would be taken.

Weston and France were arrested in January on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In two interviews, Weston maintained she had been raped but, in a third, she broke down when she was shown the photographs.

Miss Branford-Wood added: ‘She said she had gone to Mr Gozalan’s house and had consensual sexual activity with both him and Miss France. In police interview Miss France said she had made up the account to cover up the fact she had had sex with someone who was not her boyfriend.’

In a statement read to the court Mr Gozalan said the incident had ruined his life. He added: ‘I was shocked when I was arrested for rape. My first thought was that I was pleased I kept the photographs, which showed the girls were having a good time. ‘I have faced threats of attack following the allegations and have had sleepless nights.’

France, of Southampton, and Weston, of nearby Eastleigh, each admitted a count of perverting justice. They were jailed for 20 months. The court heard Weston accepted she had done wrong and feared going to jail because she wanted to look after her two children. Natalie Wood, defending France, said she had felt guilty about having sex with Mr Gozalan because she too had a boyfriend.

Passing sentence, Judge Peter Ralls QC told the pair: ‘The allegations you have made are of the most serious kind and were entirely false. ‘Although there had been sexual activity between you and Mr Gozalan and between you together, there was no force and it was consensual. ‘By supporting one another with these wicked allegations, you have aggravated matters. This man was at serious risk of being imprisoned for a long period of time, perhaps ten years, perhaps indeterminately.’

Read more

Violence against men