Article here. Trump's mistake was his over-generalization, maybe coming from the sound-bite timeframes in which political messages get delivered these days. Had he been more precise in his accusations, he'd probably have less business-related fallout right now. Excerpt:

'Whenever The Donald is invited to defend his views for the umpteenth time, the questioning usually veers to the rape angle, as it did when Trump was interviewed by CNN’s Don Lemon Wednesday night. During the interview, the presidential hopeful brought up a Fusion article that reported that 80 percent of women coming into the U.S. illegally are sexually assaulted.

Lemon — sensing a delightful bit of schadenfreude within his grasp — pointed out that the article referred to migrants being raped, not the other way around. Unfazed, Trump responded, “Who’s doing the raping?”
...
But the answer to who’s raping these young women doesn’t appear to be a major concern. Mediaite added as an afterthought, quoting from the original Fusion piece, that “perpetrators can be coyotes, other migrants, bandits, or even government authorities.”

WaPo didn’t even bother to answer the question.

This lack of an answer reflects how so many members of the media treat this awful rape epidemic. They find out that eight in ten female illegal immigrants are raped and all they want to do is mock Trump — the mere messenger of the statistic.

It’s a far cry from how mainstream outlets treat college sexual assault. When it comes to campus rape, these same reporters deploy the old one in five trope ad nauseam to claim that it is a very serious problem. Pundits and commentators then place the blame on fraternities for fomenting a rape culture on campus and harboring predators in their midst.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The American Law Institute (ALI)—a respected body of professors, judges, and lawyers that draft model laws oft adopted in whole by state and federal government—has spent the past three years deliberating over sexual assault statutes (an area it hadn't revisited since 1962). A draft of the group's recommendations, released in May, endorsed "the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under" criminal law.
...
To this aim, ALI proposes establishing the new crime of sexual intercourse without consent, a misdemeanor, which takes place when a person "knowingly or recklessly has, or enables another person to have, sexual intercourse with a person who at the time of the act of sexual intercourse has not given consent to that act." (This is, of course, absent any sort of force, coercion, or indication the victim protested/resisted, which would remain felonies.) It would also expand the definition of criminal sexual contact to include any unconsented to contact with any body part if the perpetrator intended the touch amorously or lustfully.
...

PSA video here. Summary:

'Women Against Paternity Fraud is a non-profit organization that educates the public, media, and policy makers on issues relating to paternity fraud. To learn more information and to be become a member: http://www.womenagainstpaternityfraud.org'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Will last week’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court permitting same-gender couples to marry have any impact on the movement for equal parenting following divorce? It’s a question many people asked immediately after the opinion was announced.

My guess is that it will have no direct impact. The right of same-gender couples to marry has little legal relation to the importance to children of keeping both parents in their lives when the parents split up. The value of both parents is addressed to the “best interests of the child” standard that’s already found in Supreme Court precedent. As I see it, constitutional law is already where it needs to be as regards parental rights. What needs to change is factual - the awareness of state legislatures that children do best with both parents involved in their lives, an arrangement family courts need to stop obstructing.

But another, far less heralded opinion was issued by the Court holding, as it has in previous cases, that state action that creates a disparate impact on the basis of a suspect category like race, creates a cause of action under federal civil rights laws (Wall Street Journal, 6/25/15). That is, a plaintiff seeking to sue need not produce evidence of an intention on the part of the defendant to discriminate. Here’s how this article described the case in question: ...'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Female tennis players at Wimbledon are being allowed to take a 10-minute heat break while men must play on, as a quirk in the rules raises concerns of sexism in the sport.

The Wimbledon Championships are incorporating the rule which means that, if temperatures exceed 30.1C, a heat stress index will be taken and female players can request a short break between the second and third sets of matches.

However, there is no comparable rule in the men's game, which is run by a separate governing body to the women's sport.
...
British men's No 1 Andy Murray previously complained about the heat rule at the 2014 Australian Open, when sweltering temperatures of 42C caused one player to vomit and a ball boy to collapse. At the time, Murray said: "I don't know why there are different rules. If there's a medical reason for it, then I'm fine with it. If there isn't, I'm not."

In a statement, Wimbledon referee Andrew Jarret said that only one player need request the break for the rule to be implemented and that the rule applies only to ladies' and girls' singles matches.'

Article here. When male guards have sex with female prisoners, the men are evil and the women are victims. When female guards have sex with male prisoners, the men are still evil and the women are still victims. Welcome to third wave feminism: men bad, women victims with no agency. Excerpt:

'As allegations emerged about the potential relationship between two escaped convicted felons and a prison employee, one former female corrections officer is providing an insider perspective on forbidden love behind bars.

According to Robin Kay Miller, 53, a corrections officer for nearly 20 years until she retired in 2005, sex between officers and inmates has always been an issue in prison. Miller is writing a book about her experience working in the prison system.

“Inmates are con artists,” she said. “They know how to play the game and they know how to manipulate.”'

Article here.

'The leader of the city’s female firefighters has sparked outrage for blasting “white boys” and “white privilege.”

Sarinya Srisakul, president of United Women’s Firefighters, is taking heat from fellow Bravest after some found her online comments.

They read:

‘“These white boys crying and complaining over this because their white privilege is being messed with. Trying living a life being racially profiled!!!!”’

Critics say Srisakul violated the FDNY’s social-media policy when she posted the comments in November. The policy bars statements that bring the department into disrepute, but some firefighters say Srisakul gets away with it because she is “politically correct.”

Srisakul, who failed the Fire Academy twice before graduating after a third try, has been outspoken about the FDNY’s hiring criteria, calling some requirements unfair to women.

Srisakul could not be reached for comment. An FDNY spokesman said the posting is “under review.”'

Video here. Excerpt:

'"What now gets labeled feminism on [college] campuses," says Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis, "has to do with dialing back a lot the progress women have made establishing ourselves as consenting adults."

That was the main argument of an essay Kipnis published this past February in The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled, "Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe." After the article appeared, the Northwestern campus erupted in protest. Students demonstrated by carrying mattresses and pillows and wrote a public letter accusing Kipnis of "[spitting] in the face of survivors of rape and sexual assault everywhere.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) says having college administrators use a "preponderance of evidence" as a standard for dealing with someone accused of rape or sexual abuse is an expedient way of expelling someone they believe is guilty.

But Joseph Cohn, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, believes that's irresponsible.

"It provides tremendous resources to student complainants in the form of confidential advisors, but no resources whatsoever are provided to accused students – and that gives complainants a leg up in the process," he explains.

Cohn says these investigations wouldn't consist of witnesses testifying under oath, and there would be no discovery and no forensic evidence would be presented.

"... It's not that the preponderance of the evidence can never be fair," he continues, "but on campuses that don't include any of those other protections, reducing the burden of truth to the preponderance of evidence is very problematic."'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Campus hearings, even when they’re regarding an activity as serious as sexual assault, are not courtrooms.

It's a distinction that the U.S. Department of Education has embraced, requiring colleges to conduct their own investigations into claims of sexual assault, and to adjudicate those cases under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Colleges use “preponderance of evidence” instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof. If a student is found in violation of campus rules, he or she is “responsible” for the misconduct, not “guilty” of a crime. The potential punishments are writing assignments, suspension or expulsion -- not prison.
...
Colleges that opt to use outside adjudicators, Lake said, don’t often advertise that fact, so it’s difficult to get a read on how common the practice currently is.

Brett Sokolow, president and CEO of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, said he couldn't comment on which colleges use outside adjudicators, but noted that a few of NCHERM's clients do use judges now. It’s not a system he recommends, though.

“I am hearing about it more,” Sokolow said. “Generally I don’t think judges are a good idea, as it makes the process more legalistic and held to higher standards in terms of later legal challenges.”'

Read A college balks at Hillary Clinton’s fee, books Chelsea for $65,000 instead and ask yourself if you'd mind being as oppressed as Chelsea and Hillary (or Gloria Steinem too, for that matter). Excerpt:

'When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, one of the names that came to mind was Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. “Yikes!” one e-mailed another.

So the school booked the next best option: her daughter, Chelsea.

The university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance Feb. 24, 2014, a demonstration of the celebrity appeal and marketability that the former and possibly second-time first daughter employs on behalf of her mother’s presidential campaign and family’s global charitable empire.
...
So the university turned back to others, eventually choosing Chelsea Clinton when the agency indicated she was willing. Just shy of her 34th birthday, Clinton commanded a higher fee than other prominent women speakers who were considered, including feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000), the records show.
...
“As my mother has observed, equal rights for women and girls remains the unfinished business of the 21st century,” she said, according to a university account of her remarks. “We will only complete this business if we are equally committed and we highlight the role models we are already blessed to have.”'

My Prostate Cancer Experience is a new survey, helping us understand how prostate cancer treatment affects day to day living. The Prostate Cancer Experience encompasses all of the prostate cancer treatments that you may have chosen, from watchful waiting/active surveillance to those for advanced stage disease. 

My Prostate Cancer Experience is a collaboration between the USA based prostate cancer support group network, Malecare and the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.  The results will be available on many prostate cancer focused websites in the Fall of 2015.

My Prostate Cancer Experience takes less than nine minutes to complete, is anonymous, and is open to all men diagnosed with prostate cancer, at any stage, using any treatment, from all countries.

Only you know what you are experiencing ... spend a few minutes helping us guys understand what prostate cancer treatment is all about. We'll all be glad you did.  

You can contact me directly if you have any questions or comments.

Best regards,

Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW
darrylm@malecare.org

Interview here.  Remember: Criticism = SEXISM, so be forewarned!  And I'm sure all those cute men working for her appreciate the compliment.  Excerpt:

' People say that you are a micromanager. But they also say that since the last election, you have changed and decided to empower people like your finance minister and your vice president, Michel Temer — to enable Temer to negotiate with Congress.

Have you ever heard someone say that a male president puts his finger on everything? I’ve never heard that.

So you think that is a sexist comment?

I believe there is a bit of a sexual bias or a gender bias. I am described as a hard and strong woman who puts her nose in everything she’s not supposed to, and I am [said to be] surrounded by very cute men.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'On the one hand, it's funny to think that a man who's worried he's considered weak would overcompensate by going on a power tool shopping spree at Home Depot, even if he really wants a sweater from Banana Republic that day. On the other hand, it makes you sad for the guys out there who might be feeling pressure to conform to an outdated societal norm of what it means to be a man.

For now, what we do know is that redefining masculinity and making it a more inclusive construct can only be a good thing for the men whose egos get deflated when they don't measure up and the people who have to interact with them when that happens (and Banana Republic, apparently).'

Article here. Excerpt:

'“Set yourself on fire.”

“You’ve made your bed, now get fucked in it.”

“Fuck your feelings.”

To most, these will sound like the words of an online troll, or at the very least someone with what in the 1990s we used to call “anger management issues.” And that’s probably an accurate assessment.

Yet these are not occasional, one-off outbursts, but rather part of a pattern of behaviour from perhaps the most darkly fascinating person currently causing grief on social media. They are the words ofRandi Harper, an activist who runs a charity set up to prevent online abuse. Yes, you read that correctly.

This is the story, in three parts, of how Harper rose to prominence, how she has gotten away with such outrageous behaviour for so long while maintaining friendships with influential media commentators, activists, and journalists, and how she treats those who disagree with her far-left, hardline feminist politics.

It is the product of dozens of interviews with friends, former colleagues, and objects of Harper’s vindictive social media crusades. Almost all of them refused to speak on the record for fear of reprisals from Harper and her band of social media supporters.
...
Our interviews reveal a deeply troubled, hateful, and damaged human being in desperate need of help. They also expose just how tolerant to hatefulness the authoritarian left-wing establishment in America has become, provided the abuser in question has the right sort of opinions.

“Randi Harper is probably the person doing the most harm to the cause of feminism on the internet today,” a well-known progressive journalist confided last week, on condition of anonymity. “Ordinarily we could dismiss her as a mess. But she has become a damaging force.”'

Syndicate content