Article here. Some good info if you can read around the BS. The author actually suggests "girl power" as a possible cause. Ridiculous. And I doubt anyone regardless of sex would be tossing in humor if the topic was women having issues with "low egg count" or premature entry into menopause. Excerpt:

'Men's sperm production is decreasing rapidly and the scientific community is struggling to find an explanation, writes Dr Phil Hammond

Up to a fifth of young men have a low sperm count, defined as fewer than 20 million sperm per millilitre of semen. Quite why you need so many sperm to fertilize one egg remains a mystery, but a low sperm count or poor sperm quality is the main cause of infertility in about 20pc of couples with fertility problems in the UK, and is an ‘additional factor’ in a further 25pc of cases. So what’s going on?

The much publicised decline of man has been on the cards since 1992, when seminal Danish research found that the number of sperm in each millilitre of semen has halved since the World War Two, while abnormal sperm (double-headers, big-headers, double-tailers and slow-coaches) is on the rise. ...
There does at least appear to be some circumstantial evidence to support what's known as 'the oestrogen hypothesis'. This holds that some of the 5,000 or so chemicals that inhabit our food, fertilizers and industrial cleaners are not dissimilar to the female sex hormone oestrogen - only they hang round a lot longer and at levels up to a thousand times higher than normal. This may have adverse effects on oestrogen-sensitive areas of the body (the reproductive tracts, breast, womb and possibly the developing foetus), which may possibly contribute to infertility and testicular cancer in men, breast and womb cancer in women and fetal abnormalities.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'A randomized control trial shows that circumcision in adult males can dramatically reduce HIV infection rates, and all my friends who opted for circumcising their baby boys are holding up the dozens of national news accounts of this saying to me, “See?! See?!” Like I just condemned my son to die of AIDS because I let him keep his foreskin.

Meanwhile, the subset of those friends who are Jewish keep hinting I might be anti-Semitic for suggesting that the Jewish ritual of neonatal male circumcision probably ought to end. Oy!

First things first: To state the obvious, circumcision doesn’t prevent HIV infection. A circumcised penis may be less effective at transmitting HIV, but it can still manage it. Anyone who thinks they are protecting their son from HIV by preemptive circumcision probably should also consider castration, since that significantly lowers the libido, and heaven knows libido is a serious risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases. Or you might just consider good sex education.

No one seriously thinks HIV risk is the reason to circumcise infants. This is just latched on to by folks who are looking for a reason to justify a pre-existing desire to circumcise perfectly healthy baby boys. Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out that judges tend to know how they want to rule, and then they go on to figure out how to justify the ruling. Routine neonatal male circumcision seems to be a lot like that. People want to do it, and they fish around for a good reason.'

Story here. As we all know a man would have been vilified if he did something similar. Excerpt:

'Kelly Roberts needed a way to stay entertained while running the 13.1-mile New York Half-Marathon. Her solution? Every mile, she took a selfie with a hot runner in the background.

“I didn't really train for this race because of the crazy winter we had, so live Instagraming was kind of a way to take my mind off the race,” the 24-year-old Brooklyn resident told the Daily News. “And finding cuties/making myself laugh is the best distraction from the cold and exhaustion.”

She posted each photo to Instagram, adding the tag #hottguysofthenychalf. There's some "eye candy" at mile 12, a guy with "dat headband" at mile 4, and an older gentleman with "short shorts" at mile 8. Take a look at the hilarious series below.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'A few years ago, I walked into a university to find several posters of my face. That was disconcerting enough. But it was advertising a graduate scheme for a science teacher – and I am a citizenship teacher. I made inquiries, and was told a focus group had suggested a female teacher was needed for the campaign to "break stereotypes" about scientists. The organiser quipped: "I think your being blonde was a bonus."
Like the university tutors who thought sticking a blonde woman on a science poster would somehow resolve gender disparities, Truss's main solution to the science gap appears to be gutsy role-modelling. In a recent speech to Google, Truss said: "It's up to all of us to encourage girls and say, you are just as good as the boys, you can do it."

But why are girls the ones constantly pathologised? This narrative makes out that girls are afraid to study the big scary sciences: but another way of thinking about it is that boys are the odd ones – crowding as they do into just a few subjects. They take up 60% or more of places in just five subjects, and two of these – maths and physics – are particularly dominated by boys, with the subjects accounting for one in five of all A-level examinations taken by boys.
Looked at in this way, the question we need to answer is less "Why do so few girls choose physics?" and more "Why do so many boys only choose physics and maths-related subjects?" After all, if they spread themselves out across all other subjects, girls would no longer be regularly outnumbered in physics.

Article here. Excerpt:

'It was a little over a year ago (January of 2013) that former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey ordered that combat-arm roles will be opened to women in all areas of service. Even Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) supported the 2013-policy reversal that excluded women from front line positions and elite command jobs (put in place in 1994). Women, which make up 15% of the armed forces, have found themselves in reality combat more and more over the past decade. Moving forward women will now be potential candidates for more than 230,000 jobs in Army and Marine infantry.

President Obama reminded the nation that “valor knows no gender,” which was a poignant statement considering that 150 American military women have died recently in Iraq and Afghanistan (out of 6598 total fatalities) and another 1000 have been wounded, just in the past two years. This new policy is parallel to America’s manifesto - committed to equality and standards of fairness. Applying it to US Military is a progressive and noble evolution. But if I am being honest, the concern is whether physical fitness standards and testing will be lowered to accommodate the variances between men and women, to allow women to pass and qualify.

Story here. Excerpt:

'A feminist studies professor at a California state university is facing criminal charges after a videotaped run-in with a teenage pro-life demonstrator in which she snatched an anti-abortion sign and appeared to get physical with the girl.

University of California at Santa Barbara Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young was charged with one misdemeanor count each of theft, battery and vandalism in the March 4 incident, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce Dudley announced Friday. The charges came days after 16-year-old Thrin Short and her parents met with prosecutors.
Miller-Young did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment. In the report filed by campus police, she claimed she had a "moral right" to act in the manner she did.
“The university is aware of the incident and it is being reviewed by the appropriate offices,” UCSB spokesman George Foulsham wrote to earlier this month. “It is university policy not to discuss personnel matters.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Americans say the best or most positive thing about a possible Hillary Clinton presidency -- if she were to run and be elected in 2016 -- would be her serving as the first female president in the nation's history. Other positives mentioned by at least 5% of Americans are her experience, that she would bring about change from the previous two administrations, that she would adhere to a Democratic agenda, and that she would be the best choice.
These results are from a Gallup survey conducted March 15-16, which asked a nationally representative sample of Americans to say what would be the best and the worst things about a possible Clinton presidency, if she were to be elected in 2016.

A little less than half of Americans did not give a substantive answer in response to the positive question, and about the same percentage didn't give a substantive answer to the negative question. This is in large part because the majority of Republicans have no specific thoughts about the best thing about a Clinton presidency, and a majority of Democrats do not have specific responses to the question about the worst aspects of a Clinton presidency.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'President Obama urged women at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Fla., to tell Congress to pass the Equal Paycheck Act, furthering the myth that women make 77 cents to the dollar that men make and claiming that “if men were having babies, we'd have different policies.”

We probably would. There’d probably be a “war on men” pushing false statistics that men are paid less for women, without taking into account life choices.
Women are not earning just 77 cents to the dollar that men earn; that gap virtually disappears when degree and occupation are factored in. But Obama won’t make that distinction.
And notice how he said women would earn less “over the course of their career than a man at the same educational level”? Think about that for a moment. What he said is that it’s not fair for a woman with a bachelor’s degree to not earn the same as a man with a bachelor’s degree.

But that is completely fair. A woman with a bachelor’s in sociology doesn’t make as much as a man with a bachelor’s in economics because the jobs aren’t equal. If we paid people based on education level than having a doctorate in physical education (a gym teacher) would deserve as much money as a biochemist. The two are not equal.

As soon as Obama stops telling women they are victims, real problems can be fixed.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Speaking at Valencia College, where more than half of the students (56 percent) are women, the President explained that women face "particular challenges" in our economy:

"Women make up about half of our workforce. ... In fact, for more than two decades, women have earned over half of the higher education degrees awarded in this country. So that means soon, for the first time, America’s highly educated workforce will be made up of more women than men.

But the thing is, our economy hasn’t caught up to that reality yet. So we’ve got too many women who work hard to support themselves and their families, including the 20 percent of women enrolled in college who are trying to raise kids while earning a degree, and they’re facing unfair choices or outdated workplace policies that are holding them back. That has to change — because it holds all of us back."

President Obama made clear that we need "a women's economic agenda that grows our economy for everybody," and that starts with ensuring that America's women get equal pay for equal work. On average, women today earn just 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. "And that's wrong," the President said. "This isn't 1958, it's 2014."'

Article here. Excerpt:

“Rape is as American as apple pie,” says blogger Jessica Valenti. She and her sisters-in-arms describe our society as a “rape culture” where violence against women is so normal, it’s almost invisible. Films, magazines, fashion, books, music, humor, even Barbie — according to the activists — cooperate in conveying the message that women are there to be used, abused, and exploited. Recently, rape culture theory has migrated from the lonely corners of the feminist blogosphere into the mainstream. In January, the White House asserted that we need to combat campus rape by “[changing] a culture of passivity and tolerance in this country, which too often allows this type of violence to persist.”

Tolerance for rape? Rape is a horrific crime and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced. Though rape is certainly a serious problem, there’s no evidence that it’s considered a cultural norm. Twenty-first century America does not have a rape culture; what we have is an out-of-control lobby leading the public and our educational and political leaders down the wrong path. Rape culture theory is doing little to help victims, but its power to poison the minds of young women and lead to hostile environments for innocent males is immense.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Citing a non-scientific survey of sexual assault in the military, the Pentagon issued a flawed report, which claimed that 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted last year. Panicked prosecutors and military leaders have responded by initiating some of the most preposterous prosecutions we have seen since the tide of false sex abuse allegations on college campuses reached its height a decade ago.

Promoting the panic in Congress, Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York demanded that the military chain of command be replaced with civilian legal processes in cases of sexual harassment and assault. Claiming that the military leadership is unable to deal with issues of “violence and power,” Ms. Gillibrand sent a powerful message to military leaders that convictions are necessary — and the “good soldier” defense is dead.

Although the Gillibrand bill has been stymied, the panic persists. Most recently caught up in its effects is Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair. Facing life in prison if he had been convicted, Gen. Sinclair had been charged with sexual assault, sodomy, having public sex and abusing his government credit card in pursuit of a three-year sexual affair with the same female officer who accused him of sexual assault.

In a military courtroom at Fort Bragg, N.C., last week, the accuser tearfully testified that she continued to have sex with the general for two years after she says he threatened to kill her. Gen. Sinclair maintained that the accuser was angry because he refused to leave his wife. Her private journal confirmed this. In an attempt to avoid the life sentence that is a real possibility in any moral panic, Gen. Sinclair pleaded guilty to adultery and lesser charges.

It seems that more and more college campuses are experiencing an outbreak of a new and very dangerous virus. This virus causes fear and anxiety among female students. And it causes fear, anxiety, and depression among male students.

This virus is called "the Rape-Culture Myth."

Radical anti-rape activists are claiming that rape has increased to epidemic status.

In reality, the opposite is true. This chart (right side of page, half-way down entitled "Female Rape Victimization Rate 1993-2010") from the Dept. of Justice shows a steady decline in female rape victimization.

We believe that rape is a serious crime. Victims, both men and women, need and deserve support.

We also believe that hysteria over any subject is more harmful than helpful. And that includes rape.

Good laws are based on accurate facts. Please use this information to help us further educating the public and lawmakers about sexual assault.

Learn more here:

Thank you!

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Press release here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON / March 18, 2014 –Senate Bill 967, which would impose an “affirmative consent” standard on California colleges, will serve to outlaw 99% of campus sex acts. SAVE, a national victim-advocacy organization, invites lawmakers to consider the unintended effects of enacting such a sweeping bill.

SB 967 would institute a stringent—and possibly impractical—standard on all sexual activities, not just sexual intercourse. SAVE notes that SB 967 lacks key definitions about what types of “words or clear, unambiguous actions” would represent legally effective consent, or the how often the parties must “continue to consent to sexual activity.”

The broad scope and definitional uncertainties surrounding SB 967 are likely to have five undesirable consequences:'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Franklin notes that the gender imbalance affects the social climate on college campuses. “The men can do whatever they want,” she says. “So, many women don’t date anybody on campus because you don’t know if he’s talking to Jill, Bill or Phil.”

Research supports her concern. A study of gender imbalance at HBCUs in the journal AIDS Care, in 2006, found that “primary consequences of this gender ratio imbalance were men having multiple female sexual partners during the same time period and women complying with men’s condom use preferences.” The study urged HIV preventive intervention programs at HBCUs to reduce women’s risk of infection.
Taylor commends the efforts to increase male enrollment and retention, but he says more is needed at the national level. The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans joined the Morehouse Research Institute in February to sponsor the Black Male Summit, which focused on education reform. Taylor is calling for national sponsorship of a program such as Five-Fifths to specifically address Black male retention and graduation. Studies are showing a male-female disparity in Hispanic college enrollment, so Hispanic-serving institutions are also taking steps to counter the imbalance. The latest Census Bureau information states that Hispanics make up 19 percent of all college students ages 18-24, up from 12 percent in 2008. Still, in 2009, Latinas earned 61 percent of all bachelor’s degrees earned by Hispanics.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Glenn McDuffie, the man believed to be the “kissing sailor” of Times Square captured in Life magazine’s pages in 1945, died this month. But not before the feminist establishment successfully transformed the hapless McDuffie from an exuberant symbol of America’s joy and relief at Japan’s surrender and the ending of World War II into a malevolent symbol of that current feminist bugaboo: “rape culture.”
That was then. Now, we have this from the “pursuit of gender equality” website Crates and Ribbons:

“It seems pretty clear, then, that what George had committed would be considered sexual assault by modern standards…. The fact that this much-loved photo is a depiction of sexual assault, rather than passion, is an uncomfortable truth, and to call it out as such might make one seem to be a priggish wet blanket. After all, this sailor has risked his life for his country. Surely his relief and excitement at the end of the war is justified? Surely these are unique circumstances? The answer to the first question is yes. He is perfectly entitled to be ecstatic. He is perfectly entitled to celebrate. However, this entitlement does not extend to his impinging on someone else’s bodily autonomy.

“The unwillingness to recognize a problem here is not surprising, considering the rape culture in which we live.”

Fortunately, the statute of limitations for a sexual-assault prosecution had run out by the time Glenn McDuffie died.
We really do live in a different age from the one in which young men, even teenage boys, eagerly and bravely helped bring their country to victory and in which young women were proud to be kissed by them — and people all over America, young and old, viewed an image of such a kiss as an expression of unadulterated joy.'

Syndicate content