Article here. Excerpt:

'Isn't it infuriating when women who probably abhor the very fundamentals of feminism suddenly embrace it in order to play victim? And isn’t it so offensive when Gender is used as the convenient and automatic justification for losing?

Watching the otherwise fascinating American elections unfold, I’m stunned by how ‘sexism’ has become a central character in the narrative. First, they argued that Hillary Clinton got booted out because she was female. Never mind her dithering, incoherent positions on Iraq; forget about the surly anger and petty control that her husband brought to the campaign and don't even mention the fact that when they thought the ‘tears’ were working, her managers pushed her into playing it even ‘more female’. If anything, surely that’s sexist?'

Story here. Excerpt:

'A woman who set off a major police investigation after falsely claiming she was raped by a stranger in Orkney, has been spared a custodial sentence.
...
Sutherland was sentenced to 300 hours of community service at Kirkwall Sheriff Court.

Sheriff Graeme Napier said Sutherland came across as a selfish young lady whose actions had had an insidious effect on the community, but that she deserved some credit for admitting her guilt.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Boys will perform better in education if they have a male teacher in their primary school, according to research published today.

A study of more than 1,000 men reveals almost half of them (48 per cent) cited male primary school teachers as having had the most impact on them during their school life.

In addition, 35 per cent said having a male teacher challenged them to work harder at school while 22 per cent said males had boosted their confidence in their own ability.'

Story here. Of course the opening text reports three fathers abandoning kids at "safe haven" spots, creating the impression that they are the typical dropper-offers. Excerpt:

'Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday, three fathers walked into two hospitals in Omaha and abandoned their children. One left nine siblings, ages 1 to 17.

The men, unless proven to have abused the kids, won't face prosecution under a new Nebraska law that is unique in the nation. The law allows parents to leave a child at a licensed hospital without explaining why.
...
Landry says the courts will decide whether to require the parents to pay child support or to try to reunite them with their children.
...
All 50 states have "safe haven" laws, but the others apply only to infants less than 1 year old.

The Nebraska law is the "worst-case scenario of unintended consequences," says Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a research group. He says it allows parents to walk out on troublesome teens.'

13.5% of likely voters, or 16.5 million voters, believe the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) and the intrusive state-level domestic violence laws that flow from it are deeply flawed. (The calculations, including number and percentage of voters in each state, are shown at http://www.mediaradar.org/political_argument_for_fixing_vawa.php)

People adversely affected by VAWA, and their family members, represent a cross section of the electorate and very often feel so strongly about the harm they suffered that any promise to fix VAWA would override all other issues. This could well be the factor that determines which candidate they vote for.

Furthermore, VAWA-inspired domestic violence laws clog our courts with false claims of domestic violence, which prevents true victims from getting help.

This week, we ask you to share RADAR's calculations with the Democratic National Committee:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

According to the DNC's website, one of their guiding principles is to "restore our civil liberties and uphold the civil rights of all." (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html) Tell them one way they can achieve this laudable goal, and pick up lots of votes in the process, is to Fix VAWA Now!

As always, be courteous.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: September 29, 2008

Want to improve the chance that they'll pay attention to your letter? Click here.

Story here. Excerpt:

'In a significant pronouncement on family matters, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman earning sufficient income is not entitled to maintenance from her estranged husband.

The logic for alimony is given in a Supreme Court ruling, which says that a woman is entitled to maintenance if her personal income is insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to while living with her husband.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'A growing number are intentionally becoming pregnant by men they don't expect to be involved. Is it feminism or folly?
...
Katya’s attitude might seem blunt, reducing it to nothing more than a biological transaction between herself and a suitable stud, but as a fiercely independent and financially secure woman, she is not alone. The news that the French justice minister, Rachida Dati, 42, is pregnant was greeted with feverish speculation about the identity of the father. Dati, meanwhile, has refused to name him, saying simply that her private life is “complicated”. “I’ve always said that having a child was fundamental to me,” was as far as she would go.'

Author Steve Moxon places yet another nail in the coffin of the thrice-debunked "glass ceiling" myth.

An excerpt from the article: "There is no "concrete ceiling" for women. Or even a glass one, come to that. Yet this entirely bogus and unscientific notion is claimed by the Equality & Human Rights Commission -- as a continuation of the old mantra from the unlamented EOC. Women newspaper columnists have queued up this last week to rubbish it, though only on the unenlightened usual lines of women being held back by babies. The broadcast media struggled even to manage this, notably remaining as scientifically illiterate on this as on all matters.

This article from ninemsn in Australia is about a woman who crushed florescent glass with a meat tenderizer and mixed it into her husbands sandwiches to poison him slowly. After discovering an affair he was having, she decided to get her revenge this way. The husband eventually found a tupperware container full of this crushed glass and a note.

From the article: "The court heard Mr Nash called police after he found his wife's handwritten note saying: "Q - at death what happens to transfer of property?""

Comments from the judge, from the article: "However, Justice Tennent said Quessy, a charity worker, was unlikely to reoffend and was previously of exemplary character."

From the article: "Justice Tennent noted Mr Nash had lifted an apprehend violence order against his wife in March, allowing her to return home after he had testified that he no longer feared her. A silent Quessy was shepherded out of the Hobart Supreme Court past waiting media by 12 supporters just before lunchtime."

12 supporters? No jail time? Unlikely to reoffend?

Well, fellow MRAs, it's time to start boycotting Cadbury Adams, the maker of Trident and Stride gum. As if those terrible Trident Splash commercials weren't enough, now Stride has a commercial featuring not one, but two groin shots. In the ad, a man is crossing the street, talking on his cellphone, when out of nowhere a ram comes along and hits him in the crotch. He then falls and tries to get up, when it hits him again, forcing him to spit out his gum. Two guys then come along, grab the piece of gum and jump into a van.

This ad is beyond immature, and is reminiscent of the trident ad "the fifth dentist". I'm convinced that the advertising department at cadbury adams must really hate men. I decided to write them the following letter:

Hi. I was just writing because I have a great idea for an ad for your product, Stride gum. A woman is just walking down the street, minding her own business, when out of nowhere a ram head butts her in the crotch, causing her to fall to the ground in agonizing pain. Then when she tries to get up, it hits her again, causing her to spit out her Stride gum.

From this article:

'When a man asks for divorce, we blame him for not valuing a life long commitment. If a woman asks for divorce, in seven out of ten cases they do, we assume that the man must have been responsible for forcing her into the situation.'

'The social prejudice is definitely against the men. It is just not restricted to society but is also present in our judicial system. The divorce laws are totally biased towards the women. In a majority of cases she gets the automatic custody of the children, gets a lion’s share of the assets and gets paid alimony most of her life.'

From this article:

'Fathers-to-be are not exactly queuing up to get on Virginia's Putative Father Registry. One year after its creation, only 64 men have signed up.

The registry was created so that unmarried men can preserve their legal rights in case they father a child out of wedlock. The response is just as underwhelming in the other 35 states with similar registries.

The only certain way to prevent that from happening is to register every sex act or to abstain. Most men will probably reject both options. But the growing number of registries around the country are a recognition that the old adoption laws were flawed, too.

For instance, mothers can now avoid the humiliation of having their names published in newspaper legal notices, previously required before the child of an unknown or absent father could be placed with adoptive parents. Children can more quickly be sent to stable homes, and adoptive parents have more protections against lawsuits years after the fact.

Article here. Excerpt:

Story here. Excerpt:

'A young Swedish couple has been charged with bearing false witness after the woman reported she had been raped by a cab driver when the driver tried to get the couple to pay for their ride.
...
“I felt like I’d lost all my rights when I was suddenly arrested. I just wanted to get paid for the trip,” the cab driver said during questioning, according to TT.

The woman later recanted her story about the alleged rape when she learned that a surveillance camera mounted in the taxi had recorded the couple leaving the vehicle without paying.

The cab driver is now demanding compensation for indignity, lost income, as well as pain and suffering.'

Story here. Exceerpt:

'NEW DELHI: Two women were arrested in the national capital for allegedly extorting Rs 100 from a man after threatening to implicate him in a rape case, police said on Friday.
...
The incident took place when Gaur stopped his motorcycle at Netaji Nagar on September 24, police said, adding that suddenly three women appeared on the scene and one of them sat on his vehicle.

While the second woman stood in front of the vehicle, the third took the keys and demanded money threatening that they would raise alarm and implicate him in a rape case, they said.

Gaur gave Rs 100 and drove away from the scene to police station where he registered a complaint.

A police team accompanied Gaur to the spot and after sometime they found the women standing near the Netaji Nagar round-about waiting for another prey.'