Via Marc A.: "That's right. She murders her husband at gunpoint for the life insurance proceeds so she can continue her affair with a co-workers, she's convicted of first degree murder, but then she gets only probation and a fine. Genarlow Wilson gets 10 years for consensual oral sex with a 15 year old when he was 17, but this adult gets no jail time for 1st degree murder. I guess she's too pretty for jail. And she has two sons. Of course, if a father of 2 sons murdered his wife, he'd be thrown right in jail and wouldn't even get visitation."

Story here. Excerpt:

'Traci Rhode spent two days in jail and will pay $10,000 for the crime of murder.

Story here. Are women starting to find that false rape accusations and big payout days are waning? Excerpt:

'Los Angeles, CA (AHN) -- Michael Flatley on Tuesday was awarded $11 million by a superior court judge who ruled early this month against a woman who accused the Irish-American dancing champion of rape.

Real estate agent Tyna Marie Robertson attempted to extort a "seven figures" sum from Flatley last year on the threat of charging him for sexual assault. When Flatley refused, Robertson filed a $33 million civil lawsuit claiming he raped her in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2002. The charges were dismissed and Flatley filed a $100 million countersuit against Robertson for extortion and defamation.'

Story here. Hell hath no fury like a false rape accusation, and a Klan-type mob outside your door! Excerpt:

'RALEIGH, N.C. — Three current and former Duke lacrosse players who were not indicted in the discredited rape case have filed a lawsuit against the university, disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong and dozens of others for inflicting emotional distress.

Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson and Breck Archer also accuse the defendants of negligence, fraud and conspiracy for pursuing the case despite evidence that the allegations were false.'

Video here. It's good they at least covered it. But anyone else notice no one commenting was either 1) male or 2) a medical professional?

[If that particular video isn't the one that comes up, look for it in the listing on the lower half of the page.]

Story here. Excerpt:

"Protests from female soldiers have led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup's coat of arms.
...
"We were given the task of making sure the willy disappeared," Christian Braunstein from the army's 'tradition commission' said.
...
"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown," said Sagerlund.
...
"We were forced to cut the lion's willy off with the aid of a computer," he added.

The Nordic Battlegroup is one of eighteen such military groups in the European Union."

Is nothing sacred? Story here. What's unusual is that she's even being charged. That's progress. Excerpt:

'DANBURY -- A 33-year-old woman was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault Saturday after allegedly groping a man playing Santa Claus at the Danbury Fair mall.

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, according to Danbury Detective Lt. Thomas Michael.'

I must warn all the readers that this post will likely disturb you. The first Hostel was bad enough, but sadly, a sequel was made (which was banned in New Zealand and not even for the reasons I mention) which pushes misandry to it's limits and then some. Though the trailer leads you to believe that women will be the main victims of this movie, it is actually three men who suffer the worst fates; one is eaten alive by dogs, another is eaten alive by a cannibal, and the third is sexually mutilated at the hands of one of the would-be victims, completely uncensored. Had it shown a woman being mutilated sexually, it would have never made it into theatres. In a suprising twist, a poster for the movie depicting the body of a dead woman was pulled because it was deemed "misogynistic", yet the movie itself, horrifically misandric, was still allowed to be released. Can anybody else think of a greater example of a double standard in movies? We need to work together to get this filth banned!

This commercial promotes violence against men.

How long will society support the misandric double standard where violence against women is unacceptable, yet violence against men is promoted daily?

This isn't a new development; Mark Rudov debated this issue on Fox news. Notice at the end of the article there is a section called "related stories". One particular story reads "Tasers can be instrument of torture, says UN"

"An enterprising Arizona woman has redefined the Tupperware party paradigm for the 21st century, and is hosting girlie get-togethers where security-conscious women can get to grips with the US's fave non-lethal lethal weapon - the Taser.
...
Shafman explained: "I felt that we have Tupperware parties and candle parties to protect our food and house, so why not have a Taser party to learn how to protect our lives and bodies?"

Her customers agree. Debi McMahon, who attended the first Taser party in Scottsdale, described herself as "excited" by the electrifying Taser experience. She said: "I feel like I'm 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. I'm going to buy one for my mom. It's going to be her 81st birthday present."

Two weeks ago the Boston Herald ran an inflammatory story claiming "by New Year's Eve 57 people will have died this year in Massachusetts because of domestic violence - a toll not seen in 15 years." The death toll information was compiled by the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, a.k.a. Jane Doe Inc. The spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc. declared the situation a "crisis" and predictably called for more funding. This flawed article was the focus of RADAR's December 12 Alert

This past week the Boston Globe ran a copy-cat story quoting a Jane Doe Inc. spokeswoman who made the same claim.

But the Jane Doe spokeswoman neglected to mention one critical fact: Jane Doe Inc. started counting domestic violence homicides differently in 2006 -- see http://www.janedoe.org/involved/Narratives%202007.pdf.

An excerpt from the article:

"NEW YORK - Men are not discriminated against by "ladies' nights" at Manhattan nightclubs, just as people in their 20s do not suffer because some restaurants let children eat for free or have "early bird" specials for older customers, according to nightclub lawyers fighting a federal lawsuit.

Roy Den Hollander has sued clubs including Lotus and the China Club, saying he was discriminated against by ladies' nights, which offer women free or discounted admission and drinks.

Deborah Swindells Donovan, a lawyer for Lotus, called the lawsuit frivolous in papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

She wrote that if his "ill-conceived theory is applied to restaurants, then 'early bird' specials for the elderly or promotions allowing children to eat free would be discriminatory on the basis of age."

Vanessa R. Elliott, a lawyer representing the club AER Lounge, said in court papers Friday that nightclubs recognize that men might not want to visit the clubs if they fail to attract enough women.

Description here.

"Since the introduction of the so called “No Fault Divorce” in Canada, the divorce industry has evidenced unprecedented growth estimated at $6 billion per year. The problem is that the Legal / Court industry thrives off the $B’s generated by Tax payers and Families in crises. For this they provide no value and in fact cause destruction of families by unnecessarily removing fathers from children’s lives and lowering the standard of living for all family members. This is done through unnecessary litigation, biased decisions and unreasonable support orders which escalate conflict to perpetuate the status quo in support of their self serving business. The Solution is to update divorce laws to reflect parental equality and get families out of court eliminating significant grief and $'s wasted by families and taxpayers. An alternative to courts is identified in the book."

What's nice about this story is the feminist version is totally absent, which does not happen too often. Excerpt:

'Sections 498A and 406, feels Sharda, have ensured that people are afraid of getting married. Under these sections, the husband's family can be harassed and booked on charges of 'cruelty'.

"Lawmakers have divorced themselves from reality. The Law Commission needs to examine this," Sharda added.

"Men get slapped with charges of neglecting guardianship and domestic violence during a divorce and Section 498A is often used as a bargaining chip for higher alimony," said lawyer Tarun Goombar."'

A refreshing viewpoint from a female journalist in Ireland's Sunday Business Post. Excerpt:

'But it’s downright dangerous for our children, who have a right and a need to be allowed to develop a healthy, secure and mutually-respectful relationship with their fathers. At its most extreme manifestation, the risks for the children who are brought up without knowing anything much about their father, beyond the colour of his eyes, have been well-documented: research shows that they are twice as likely to drop out of high school, and twice as likely to become parents as teenagers themselves.'

Essay here. Excerpt:

'As I head off for my day at home, I feel for them at the office coalface, required to toil away long after their kids are in bed. In an age of equality where dads are expected to shoulder as much of the home burden as mums, it feels unfair.

Inevitably there is a backlash. Spearheading this are the self-employed, or flexi-working fathers who can wear their caring-daddy status with pride. The types who proudly tell you they can’t work as they are doing the kids. They are the male equivalent of the stay-at-home-mum brigade.'