Story here. Notice the tone of the article; seems to me they're almost soft-peddaling her. Much of the article is given to how "it's not really that bad," and she was raised by a single mother and had a hard life, etc. Really, would this be the tone if the defendant were male? Excerpt:

'The 38-year-old woman looks like a librarian or pharmacist. But when Beate Zschäpe faces the court in Munich on Monday, hers will be most-watched trial Germany has seen in decades.

For almost 14 years, the neo-Nazi group Nazionalsozialistischer Untergrund (NSU), allegedly led by Zschäpe, killed and maimed across Germany. Her trial may last for years, too. She’s accused of complicity in the murders of 9 foreigners and 1 police officer, several attempted murders, 2 bombings, and 15 robberies and is going on trial with 4 of her top lieutenants. Two other NSU leaders, Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos, committed suicide when police finally caught up with their group after a bank robbery 18 months ago.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Students at the State University of New York at Geneseo are lashing out at a professor for scheduling the lecture “Against ‘Sexual’ ‘Assault’ ‘Awareness’ ” (yes, with three sets of scare quotes) during the college's Sexual Assault Awareness Week. The professor himself, however, says students are jumping to conclusions without even knowing the contents of the talk.

News of the lecture drew outrage from students who say Theodore Everett, professor of philosophy, intentionally aimed to provoke. Sam White, a senior political science and international relations major, created a petition calling on SUNY Geneseo’s administration to reaffirm the institution’s dedication to sexual assault awareness and condemn Everett’s talk.'
...
The abstract of Everett's talk states "the sexual assault awareness movement counts too many borderline cases (for example, badgering somebody into letting you give them a kiss) as true sexual assault, when they are not really sexual and not really assault. This diverts attention away from the truly damaging core cases of rape and sexual assault that everybody cares about and toward borderline cases that no one believes are equally important, even though they also shouldn’t happen."'

Article here. Excerpt:

'At Xavier University, a student who was found not guilty of sexual assault by a judge was nonetheless told by the university that he would be prohibited from participating in classes or extracurricular activities with his “victim.” Caleb Warner was banned from the campuses of the University of North Dakota for three years. When police investigated the case, they issued an arrest warrant for his accuser, charging her with making a false rape charge. Only after repeated interventions on Warner’s behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) did the university finally admit that the charges were without foundation.

Having virtually obliterated procedural protections for those accused of serious offenses and crimes, the Obama administration has now added a new insult — a restriction on free speech itself. For two decades, universities have struggled with the question of “speech codes,” tempted by the left to enshrine political correctness at the expense of the First Amendment. Most campuses have resisted, but through the Obama administration, the censors have triumphed all at once and everywhere.
...
Obama promised fundamental transformation. This is part of it. Freedom of speech is sacrificed, and a new army of sexual harassment “specialists” will descend on America’s campuses to enforce the new dispensation.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'In practice, that covers just about any speech of a sexual nature, period. After all, in a nation as diverse as ours, there's no shortage of opinions about what kinds of sexual expression are "unwelcome." Hell, some folks even find Anne Frank's diary "pornographic."

Think about it. A socially conservative student is offended by a BDSM panel discussion during your college's "Sex Week." Under the new federal "blueprint," he's got a sexual harassment claim to file. Or perhaps a student doesn't like hearing about a planned "Slutwalk." That's another sexual harassment claim. How about rapper Tyga's lyrics? To some students at Harvard, they would count as sexual harassment. Or a crew team's joke t-shirts reading "Check Out Our Cox"? To a few at Tufts, that would be sexual harassment.
...
1. When everything is sexual harassment, real harassment gets marginalized.

As discussed above, if anybody on campus can file a sexual harassment claim any time they're offended by sex-related speech, just about anything will qualify as sexual harassment. This beyond-broad definition means that real instances of truly harassing conduct will be lost among the flood of complaints, as administrative resources and time are wasted investigating and responding to students who are merely offended or uncomfortable. That's a terrible outcome for those students who are actually suffering real sexual harassment.

2. When everybody is a harasser, administrators can punish students and faculty with unpopular views.

Article here. Excerpt:

'In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country," the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private.

The letter states that "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'" including "verbal conduct" (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation"—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.
...
Among the forms of expression now punishable on America's campuses by order of the federal government are:

• Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of "The Vagina Monologues," a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita—subject to discipline.
• Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.
• Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Three out of four people believe that people accused of rape and other sexual assaults should have their identities protected until they are convicted.

A ComRes survey for The Independent found strong public support for the controversial view expressed by Maura McGowan, chairman of the Bar Council, who argued that suspects in sex cases should enjoy the same right to anonymity as defendants. Some 76 per cent of people agree with the statement that “people accused of sexual assault should be given anonymity until they are proven guilty”, while 18 per cent disagree and six per cent don't know.

Perhaps surprisingly, there is little difference between the two sexes on the issue. Some 74 per cent of women support anonymity for such defendants, compared to 78 per cent of men. Liberal Democrat supporters (95 per cent) are more likely to back anonymity than Conservative (76 per cent) and Labour supporters (75 per cent). People in the top AB social group (80 per cent) are more likely to endorse anonymity than those in the bottom DE grade (67 per cent).'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Diane Abbott has been thinking long and hard of late about how Labour responds to the family. She offers the next instalment of her ideas in a speech to think tank Demos on Thursday, and will argue that rapid social and economic change has caused a ‘crisis of masculinity’ in Britain which manifests itself. Coffee House has been offered a preview of that speech, which marks a significant shift in the way Labour talks about the family.

Abbott believes the Conservatives have occupied this debate for too long, and wants her party to make families and fathers a priority. As a single mother and a left-wing feminist, her intervention is an attempt to reclaim this territory.

She will say:

‘Tomorrow, too many British men and boys will wake up isolated and misdirected by a boundless consumer outlook, economic instability and whirlwind social change.

‘Tomorrow, too many British men and boys who need the space and support to talk about manhood, expectations and boundaries from an early age, at schools, with other boys, and with their parents will remain silent.’'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Feminists contend that patriarchy and its “male enablers” enslave women through marriage and motherhood. They assert that men are sex-driven, lustful pigs keen on subduing women. As a result, feminists are determined to undermine them.

Here is proof:

1) A typical feminist believes men enslave women through marriage:

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” – Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970)

2) A typical feminist thinks men are rapists:

“Male sexual aggression is endemic, if any sex act against a person’s will were considered rape, the majority of men would be rapists.” – Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 193

3) A typical feminist wants to eradicate manliness:

“Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it–only then will we know what it is to be free.” -Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics

In order to successfully carry out their agenda, feminists want “new castrati males” to replace manly men.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'In the lead up to the 2012 election, there was plenty of focus on the so called “war on women” that, in reality, existed only in the minds of Democratic campaign strategists and a complicit media, but is there a real “war” underway in America directed at members of the opposite sex?

According to Democratic U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, not only is such a conflict happening, but the very existence of the human race is dependent on the outcome.

At a campaign fundraiser earlier this month, Schakowsky openly advocated for women “taking charge,” according to CNS News.

While speaking at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event on May 3, dubbed ”The Ultimate Women’s Power Lunch,” she said:

“Today I am asserting that humanity is at a crossroads on this small planet and that our survival as a species is dependent on women taking charge, taking the world in our own hands.”

Doesn’t get much clearer than that.'

Also, watch the vid here.

-----------
Wikipedia on Jan Schakowsky

Article here. Excerpt:

'Yes, 50 Shades is pornography. Like most pornography, the storyline is weak, the characters one-dimensional, while the sex itself graphic, detailed, but formulaic. The underlying theme to 50 Shades is something far more sinister and appalling though than your mere run-of-the-mill porn. It is pedophilia. It is child porn. Kiddie porn.
...
I didn't seek out 50 Shades of Grey. It was brought to my attention by a longtime friend who is also a clinical psychologist at a university. She's a bit older than me. She grew up in the counter culture era and did her fair share of experimentation of all kinds. So she's hardly a prude. What she today though is a mother and grandmother. And she's smart. One of the things that fascinates her is this age of cultural phenomena. How due to technology things now spread so quickly throughout society and become the next big thing at an increasingly rapid pace. She says sometimes this phenomena is pretty much harmless, and other times it can be very damaging to kids and or adults who begin to emulate something out of a need to belong to the "next big thing".
...
The problem for her, and it was a BIG PROBLEM, was that the narrator in the story, was in fact, an underage girl. My friend indicated, based on the use of language in the narration, that this girl was likely no more than 12 or 13 years of age. I made mention that the girl in the story was actually getting ready to graduate college. My friend, a woman with years of experience as a clinical psychologist, whose expertise I had personally witnessed a number of times over the years, shook her head and told me that she would not be able to convince me by simply talking about it. She said I should read the book myself, but do so with the eyes of somebody whose job it had been for many years to try and protect children. As someone who has seen over and over the signs of abuse, and the damages of abuse. Because there are always warning signs. I know that. How many times have I heard people horrified in saying "I can't believe I didn't see that" "How couldn't I have known?" Or even worse, "I knew something wasn't right but I didn't want to believe they were capable of doing something like that."
...