Story here. Excerpt:

'PARIS (AP) -- The mother of a pupil at a French pre-school stabbed a teacher to death in front of her class Friday, the last day of the school year, authorities said.

The education minister said the mother apparently had "serious psychiatric problems," and pledged support for teachers in the face of angry or violent parents. Police said the mother was taken into custody.

Deadly attacks in a school are extremely rare in France, and the stabbing in front of a class of 5- and 6-year-olds raised concern at the highest levels. French President Francois Hollande expressed outrage at the attack at the Edouard Herriot school in Albi in southern France.

Education Minister Benoit Hamon traveled immediately to the school, and told reporters that the mother of a pupil "committed this abominable act in a class against a remarkable teacher." A police official said the mother stabbed the teacher with a knife soon after school started Friday morning.'

LMAO! Hardly a MR issue/topic, but it's a slow day and we're due for some comedy relief. If nothing else, this article shows the degree to which things like WST have become laughable. Hey, can an EE earn credit toward his degree as an EE for expanding his "engineering horizons" by taking a one-day clay pottery workshop, too? Excerpt:

'Female Arizona State University students can receive extra credit for defying social norms and refusing to shave for 10 weeks during the semester.

Women and Gender Studies Professor Breanne Fahs, encourages her female students to cease shaving their underarms and legs during the semester and document their experiences in a journal.
Men are also allowed to receive extra credit, as long as they shave their bodies from the neck down.

Fahs says the experiment illustrates social issues with gender roles, particularly with the male participants.

“One guy did his shaving with a buck knife,” Fahs said. “Male students tend to adopt the attitude of, ‘I’m a man; I can do what I want.”'

Truly fantastic news! David does a number on Goliath in this one! Article here.

'Today Israel’s High Court of Justice issued an unprecedented ruling—rabbinical courts in that country no longer have the authority to determine whether boys will be circumcised should divorcing parents disagree on the matter.

The 6-1 vote in favor of stripping the rabbinical court’s power, means the disputed circumcision of a child is no longer a divorce issue. To the extent that such issues arise, they will now be handled in family court and will be subject to a best-interests-of-the-child test.

The matter came to the High Court of Justice after a rabbinical court ordered a then one-year-old boy to be circumcised as part of a divorce proceeding. His mother, pictured above, is opposed to circumcision due to the pain of the procedure and it’s potential for complications.

Following today's ruling the mother stated: “Social pressure is no reason to force cutting my son’s body as nature, the universe naturally created him.”

This case has implications far beyond circumcision. It means that rabbinical courts in Israel have lost a degree of power; however, the decision comes as no surprise to lawyers there. Last December Carmel Shalev, an Israeli ethicist and human rights lawyer, told Beyond the Bris that the High Court of Justice would likely rule that the rabbinical court didn’t have the authority to force anyone to perform a circumcision.'

Press release here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON / July 1, 2014 – A new SAVE report reveals a sharp increase in the number of lawsuits filed by students alleging they were wrongfully expelled on allegations of sexual assault. Following implementation of a 2011 Department of Education sexual assault policy, the number of lawsuits rose four-fold, the report shows.

From 2008 to 2010, only four lawsuits were filed against universities. But from 2012 to 2014, eighteen cases are known to have been filed, representing a four-fold increase. Nearly all charge the university failed to comply with fundamental due process requirements in adjudicating the claim.

The report is believed to be the most comprehensive listing of campus sex lawsuits ever compiled:

The controversial Department of Education mandate requires all allegations of sexual assault to be heard by campus disciplinary panels. The policy also removes a number of due process protections. Over 170 editorials sharply critical of the panels have been published this year:

Article here. Excerpt:

'In the bizarro world of the right wing, those who are waging a relentless war on women's reproductive rights claim that there is a war on men being waged by feminists who are trying to emasculate American men. As the echo chamber for this alternate reality, Fox News' anathema lists now include feminists who have the audacity to question the patriarchy so beloved by the Fox enabled right wing who actually believe that women who don't know their place are hurting America! Fox & Friends has engaged in feminist bashing meme as well as promoting the dark and angry world of men's rights. On Monday, they established, as Fox Fact, that there is a war on men because nasty feminists accused a men's right's conference, which called for the defeat of feminism, of fostering hate speech. Funny, Fox & Friends fully supports free speech for Christians; feminists, not so much!

In bashing feminism, Fox & Friends has hosted a woman who claims to have been bullied by feminists, anti-feminist Suzanne Venker, and the infamous "Princeton Mom" who advises women to forget about getting a degree and focus on getting a husband. IN May, "Dr" Keith Ablow pushed misogynistic men's rights talking points. On Monday, Elisabeth Hasselbeck [link added] was able to advance the meme of intolerant feminists while promoting men's rights. Her piece was teased by Steve Doocy who, earlier, reported that "feminists are up in arms calling a men's conference a hate group even though it included all races and sexes." He asked "so who are the ones being intolerant?" The Cavuto marked chyron framed the propaganda message, "War on Men."'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Relationships can be an emotional rollercoaster. Throughout the ride, men and women can be everything from loving and nurturing, to sometimes verbally and even physically abusive during fights. While aggression in heterosexual relationships is believed to stem from men, a recent study presented on June 25 at a symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, found women are more likely to be “intimate terrorists,” or physically aggressive to their partners than men.

Michael P. Johnson, an American sociologist coined the term “intimate terrorism,” or batterers or abusers, in the 1990s to define an extreme form of controlling relationship behavior involving threats, intimidation, and violence. Men were almost always responsible for these heinous acts. This belief is further supported by statistics highlighting nearly three in 10 women (29 percent), and one in 10 men (10 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner, affecting some form of their functioning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, blasted the ruling as "a direct attack on women and our fundamental rights" from "five male justices." Others hailed the ruling as a resounding win for freedom of conscience. What's largely missing from the debate is the voices of feminists who believe it's dangerous to tie women's freedoms to government-mandated benefits.

It's unclear how broad the ruling's effects will be. The case applies to a specific type of business: corporations with a limited number of shareholders such as Hobby Lobby, the crafts store chain. The court's majority has held that, since religiously affiliated nonprofits such as schools and charities are partially exempt from the contraceptive-coverage mandate (which they believe would force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and devices), family-owned businesses are entitled to the same exemption.

Framing the issue as a "war on women" is misguided and polarizing. The fact that the court's three female justices dissented, along with Justice Stephen Breyer, is a function of ideology rather than gender. It is also worth noting that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the swing vote in the case, is a strong supporter of women's rights and reproductive rights. And there are many women who believe the birth-control mandate infringes on religious liberty - among them Hobby Lobby cofounder Barbara Green. To suggest that those who share this view are woman-oppressing Neanderthals if male, and dupes of the patriarchy if female, is hardly conducive to civilized discourse.

Story here. Excerpt:

'The young South African thought he was going to the hills to become a man. He came back with a horrifying injury that made him an outcast.

In 2012, Asanda lost his penis to gangrene in a botched circumcision ritual performed by a traditional surgeon wielding the same spear on more than a dozen initiates. He was an unusual case among thousands of men hospitalized after such ceremonies in past years because he broke a code of secrecy about the tradition and spoke out in protest. For that, he endured public humiliation and even a severe beating a few months ago.

"People would just stare at me, as if I were not a man," 25-year-old Asanda told The Associated Press. He did not want his family name published for fear of a bigger backlash from his community.
Septic shock causes many fatalities. The problem is most severe in the Eastern Cape province, where nearly 500 young men have died in circumcision rituals since 2006, including 83 last year, according to the provincial health department.

Officials further north in Mpumalanga province reported 31 deaths in 2013. Twenty-three people, including doctors and traditional surgeons, face charges including negligent killing for the Mpumalanga deaths, South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority announced Tuesday.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The very first International Conference on Men’s Issues happened over the weekend, in the unlikely surroundings of a VFW Lodge in Detroit. The thought of a bunch of men’s rights activists converging to swap stories of how good women have it these days isn’t one that fills anyone with joy (unless they’ve been on the Reddit red pills for a while), and I’m loath to give it any more publicity — but fuck it, the event has already happened, and it provided a pretty good snapshot of where the MRA movement, such as it is, is at in 2014. And, perhaps most frustratingly, its very existence basically precluded any sensible discussions of the issues it professed to address. Good job, everyone.

It’s easy to write off MRAs as lunatics — any group who can call feminism “a multibillion-dollar hate industry” isn’t exactly asking to be taken seriously, especially since I’m writing this on a day when the Supreme Court just decided that a corporation’s right to believe in whatever bullshit it likes is more important than a woman’s right to insurance-subsidized birth control. If you want proof that the world is still biased very much in favor of men, have a read through Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent on the Hobby Lobby case, and then meditate on this for a bit:

There are many things to dislike about r/RedPill types. Many, many things. But here’s the issue: quite apart from their hatefulness, they do their “cause” — such as it is — absolutely no good at all. As with extremists in many other areas, they hijack and polarize a discussion that is worth having.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Efforts to legislate "affirmative consent" as the standard for college disciplinary proceedings on sexual assault, which I discussed in my last column, continue to advance. The California bill requiring colleges and universities to adopt such a standard to qualify for state student aid, S.B. 967, was overwhelmingly approved by the State Assembly's Committee on Higher Education on June 24. And now, reports legal expert Hans Bader, similar measures may be coming on a federal level. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who leads the congressional crusade against campus rape, apparently supports a definition of sexual assault that includes any sexual activity without "explicit consent"; so does the federal Office on Violence Against Women.

Article here. Excerpt:

'It started when the mild-mannered journalist tried to get press credentials months in advance to cover the event and was repeatedly ignored.

As any good reporter would, he showed up at the Hyatt anyway and asked the attendees about the so-called “war on women” they are fighting diligently against.

When word got around that Watters [link added] was asking questions like,”have you ever been hurt by the war on women?” or, “have you ever burned your bra?,” the alpha-females of the group took charge and called the police. He was promptly removed, but not before being called a “sexist,” of course.

After some fun chatter with the friendly officers who escorted him out, Watters was informed by a stern police woman that the Hyatt hotel demanded he not return and said he would be arrested if he did.

“I feel very discriminated against,” he said.'

A rather biased article has been published in the Washington Post about the Men's Issues Conference in Detroit by Monica Hesse:

'The feminists hadn’t shown up yet, but they could, at any moment, with their protest signs and screaming. The threat of them was an infuriating and exhilarating specter throughout the weekend, a symbol of the oppression facing the men’s rights activists who had gathered to meet for their inaugural conference.

Early Friday before the opening session, a wispy trail of men — mostly white, college-through-retirement-age — waited for the doors to open outside of this Veterans of Foreign Wars outpost in suburban Detroit. One man talked about his ex-wife. A lot of guys talked about their ex-wives. Ex-wives and ex-girlfriends were often cited as the catalysts to these men’s realizations that the world had become a hostile and dangerous place for males. Such realizations are what activists sometimes call “red pill moments,” and although attendees coalesced around different issues — paternity fraud, circumcision, false rape allegations — the binding theme was that almost everyone here had experienced a version of a red pill moment."

Story here. Excerpt:

'Almost daily we report here and at College Insurrection on the almost insane application of campus speech codes, frequently utilized disproportionately against non-politically correct (i.e. conservative) students and groups.

Speech codes are closely related to other forms of campus oppression, like the stripping of due process rights for men accused under vague and overly-broad definitions of sexual assault and subjected to kangaroo courts.

It all part of enforcing compliance with a dominant campus ideology (almost always progressive and radical feminist).

Our friends at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have led the fight against speech codes for years, and today they announced a major litigation effort:

"This morning, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) coordinated the filing of lawsuits against Ohio University, Chicago State University, Iowa State University, and Citrus College (Calif.). The filings launch FIRE’s new Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project, a national effort to eliminate unconstitutional speech codes through targeted First Amendment lawsuits. The project and lawsuits were announced today at a press conference at the National Press Club."'

Story here. I have an explanation for her behavior: She's a sick creepazoid who got off on molesting men, specifically truckers. She has a perv thing for truckers. But wait, that can't be it. She's female. There has to be some other explanation, one that clearly shows her to be an innocent victim, because as we all know, women *never* do this kind of thing. Ever. Unless a man's behind it. An evil, awful man. Yep. Excerpt:

'JUNE 30--A Pennsylvania woman masqueraded as a medical doctor and performed physicals on at least two male patients in her home, according to police.

Investigators allege that Joann Elizabeth Wingate, 56, marketed her services to truckers who needed to have updated physicals so as to maintain their commercial driver’s license. Wingate, pictured below, this month examined a driver from California who spotted a sign she posted at a truck wash.

Wingate, a Cumberland County resident, was arrested Saturday on felony forgery, fraud, and identity theft charges. She is being held in lieu of $10,000 bail.
Court records do not offer a motive for Wingate playing doctor, the details of which were first reported by The Patriot-News.

Pennsylvania Department of State records show that Wingate has held two separate chiropractic licenses, one of which is described as “inactive” in online records. Her second license was suspended late last year, due to “advertising violations” related to her performing Pennsylvania Department of Transportation physicals in a county about 120 miles from her residence.

Article here. Excerpt:

'According to its own policy, Pride Toronto doesn’t permit cancellations after June 21 — thereby ensuring that groups have an opportunity to respond to complaints lodged against them. CAFÉ, which has charity status (giving them more legal standing than most of the other participating groups), took part last year without incident and had two months ago successfully registered to walk this year, their name appearing in official Pride literature.

CAFÉ was given no substantive reason for the rejection, just a note from the Pride organizers: “It has come to our attention that the work of your organization may contravene the spirit of the mission, vision, and values of Pride Toronto and WorldPride.” And that was it. Their right to march was withdrawn. At a stroke, CAFÉ was lumped in with pedophilia-promoting groups such as Men Loving Boys Loving Men, the only other type of group I could find to have been spurned by Pride as inconsistent with its mission.
Although CAFÉ’s broad mandate is freedom of speech, much of its activity has focused on raising awareness of men’s issues — including those that affect, say, the right of gay men (and all men) to have equal parenting rights under Canadian law. But feminists regard any such advocacy as a threat to their dogma. And so feminist activism, occasionally aggressive, has attended almost every men’s rights speaker sponsored by CAFÉ on Canadian university campuses. (I was one such speaker two years ago.) It therefore isn’t much of a stretch to infer that CAFÉ was booted from Pride because of the complaints of militant feminists.

Syndicate content