Trudy W Schuett writes "Remember the CANOW Report?

Not to be outdone, the AZ Coalition FOR Domestic Violence has produced one if its own. This time they've interviewed a big, whopping, 57 angry girls (surely that must represent a trend) and will present this to the AZ state Committee on Domestic Relations.

To see a copy of this and the call to action sent out to their supporters yesterday, go to:

DesertLightJournalAZDV

They complain about this report being suppressed -- OK, let's help 'em out here! ;>)

If you live in AZ, send this to your county attorney and/or state representive in legislature with your comments. The girls of the AZCFDV also accuse the state committee of making this a political issue. Like they didn't establish the whole situation as a political one themselves? Yeah, right."

Boy Genteel writes "I'm published often in the PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS. This appeared today (July 23rd, 2003):

I agree with Kim Elton (July 15) that women aren't to "blame" for most of the violence inflicted on them, but I'm not sure I understand her other point, that men are "taught" that it is OK to abuse.

I think we do a pretty decent job of trying to steer men away from violence. Unfortunately, we're at the same time dropping the ball when it comes to violent women, as various media seem to give them the green light for letting out their anger onto another person.

So when dozens of studies indicate that women initiate domestic abuse approximately as often as men, they're dismissed as unimportant." Maybe Kim Elton should see the Factory Mattress comercial?

Matt writes "Comments?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A379 61-2003Jul23.html"

Member 29? submits "I wish to submit the company, "Factory Mattress" for our list of companies to be boycotted. Their latest ad on TV starts out showing a woman's face, totally annoyed as she's lying awake in bed. We see her being moved up and down and hear the bed creaking as her husband is repeatedly tossing and turning beside her. Suddenly without warning, she takes a frying pan that she apparently has "at the ready" in her left hand and soundly knocks her husband in the head with it. Evidently knocked out while in his sleep, he immediately becomes motionless. Is it OK for spouses to hit their companion in the head with a frying pan to stop their tossing and turning in bed if they can't afford one of Factory Mattress' new mattresses? Are there people who could get this message? If a woman hits her husband in this way and he doesn't get knocked out, is it OK for him to hit her back in the same way? Or maybe with something much bigger and more lethal to ensure it never happens again?"

Shattered Men writes "TAKE BACK SOCIETY!

Our society is being held hostage by gender feminist.
They hold our Business, Courts, Health care system, Schools, Colleges and society in general hostage.

Isn't it about time for us to TAKE BACK SOCIETY?

Firey Outbreak writes "WEll, not sure if this has been posted before, but I think the Episode Equal Fights reflects the state of feminism quite nicely. It is about a feminist villain who persuades thePowerpuff Girls (the superheroines of the cartoon) not to attack her because "girls need to stick up to each other". Read the rest of this in the read more section.

This week, we're looking at counter arguments, ever been in a debate about men's issues and been kept on the defensive for lack of a good counter argument? Post the arguments you had the most trouble countering, and we'll help you to turn the pressure back on them.

Anon User writes "The University of California Regents recently passed new rules banning most faculty-student romantic relationships. CSULB professor Barry Dank, Ph.D. calls this the "bureaucratization of sexuality," and criticizes the new policy as an "unethical intrusion into personal and private relationships."

Dank will discuss the new ban, the John Dwyer/Boalt Hall controversy, and anti-male sexual harassment hysteria on campus on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles at 11 PM on Sunday, August 10. To listen to the show live via the Internet, go to His Side"

I just chanced upon this article by Katharine Winans talking about tears, and I thought you folks might be interested. That's all for now.

Luek writes " Well, well the proverbial worm has finally turned in this case
anyway.
Two men in California got an out of court settlement to the tune of over $100,000 dollars for being discriminated against because of their gender. The culprit was the infamous "ladies night discount" gimmick used by wateringholes to draw in more female customers and thus supposedly more horny men looking to score. It seems to only perpetuate the negative stereotypes of men.

Notice the not too subtle misandric catty remark at the end of the article. Sounds like someone has been eating sour grapes to me!"

This week's MANN chat will be held on
Wednesday night (8/6), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the href="http://www.mensactivism.org/chat.shtml">usual location. 
The topic will be "'No' Means 'No'? Implications for Men." 
Illinois recently enacted a href="http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0389">law
that allows a person who consented to sexual activity to withdraw that
consent at any time.  (MANN's coverage of the law is href="http://www.mensactivism.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/01/1641235">here.) 
How often does this situation really arise?  Do we really need a
law to deal with it?  Is this just an overreaction to one
publicized case   Is it another example of Oliver Wendell
Holmes' maxim, "Hard cases make bad law"?  What are the
implications for men?  Join us to share ideas about how to deal
with such laws and the hysteria that drives them.

Hi, we're a bunch of conservatives who talk about masculinity over
here after 9/11
we remembered that we needed the nearest man to save us from ourselves, because ya know,
we're not the ones with abilities around here. We're the worst of both worlds for you
men, as we're feminist enough to beat you over the head with a pseudo-moral club, but conservative enough
to think you exist only to be un-emotional expendables. Either we way don't care, we just want
you to be whatever we need you to be, your basic humanity be damned. We want it all, and you
better provide, even through we'll give you nothing in return, not even the most basic pretence of lip service. And of course being men you're morally inferior anyway, so we're doing you a favour.

rage writes "It seems that people in Australia are beginning to be aware of the various discriminations most boys face in schools because of the feminist indoctrination.....

And this time, it is not everyday people who become aware but rather authorities and officials themselves, and the message is being displayed in the mainstream media !

Check

this out and
and this

In the USA, things are also beginning, though slowly, to change : the media are more boy-friendly than previously. Some more

here as well,

good news at last.

And for the example, you can see as follows the usual denials
of feminists who systematically refuse to acknowledge gender-bias against boys."

This is a rather large Website, so I've only been able to read a bit of it. So far, it seems quite good, despite the fact that it uses frames (Yuck!).

The Viagra Monologues, by a New Zealand playwright, is reportedly an answer to The Vagina Monologues. The Viagra Monologues is receiving good reviews and might be worth seeing. Is anyone in NZ on this board, able to check this out, and willing to report to us? I might want to suggest to a local acting troupe that they put it on.