This time, they used a tazer on a 12-YO girl who was believed to be drunk, skipping class, and fleeing police. According to the article, that use of the tazer was apparently wrong-- but not the other one wherein they used it on a 6-YO boy who apparently could not be stopped from self-injury any other way.


No 2x-standards here... nope...

mens_issues writes "Toys "R" Us has an anti-boy commercial on TV showing two boys exiting their bedroom at the same time. They get stuck in the door and are apparently too stupid to figure out how to solve the problem. Their sister condescendingly says "Maybe next year boys," while reading a Toys "R" Us catalog. She goes into her bedroom and closes the door, which has a sign saying "Girls Rule, Boys Drool."


Contact these jerks here or call 1-888-869-7932. The Toys "R" Us corporate Web site is at http://www.toysrusinc.com."

The operator of http://www.respectyourman.org/ contacted MANN administrators to let us know of his site. Please take a minute to visit it. There's some good stuff there.

I wonder if the police would have done the same thing had a 6-YO girl been behaving this way? I can only imagine what sort of effects this will have on him, as clearly he is already very disturbed by something going on in his life and/or mind. I wonder if the officers will even get into any serious trouble for what they did? Now contrast the concern for his well-being as compared to the concern for this girl's, both appearing as links on CNN's home page as of this writing. Would these stories be written the same way had the sexes been reversed? You bet they would not have.

The_Beedle writes "This woman intentionally causes a collision and then babbles at the Police that she was trying to hurt her boyfriend, yet the press is calling it 'Road Rage'. What does a woman have to do before it's labelled Domestic Violence?"

Dave K writes "

After arguing that the US wouldn't do this (in a thread below)... I have to admit this is exactly what they're doing.

Looks like their belief is that it's better to force male refugees back into the city to prevent any combatants to escape than to incarcerate them. Obviously they don't want combatants in jail... they want them dead, and are willing to risk the lives of (an admittedly low percentage of) innocent Iraqi males still in the city to do it.

It's a sad thing, right or wrong."

And more lies from the British government, I'm afraid. We've sure got a long way to go, with governments largely controlled by feminist hate-mongers, but at least the truth is starting to come out.

The article states, "Men accounted for 34 per cent of victims last year, compared with 27 per cent the year before," but I suspect that the difference is due not only to an increase in victimization of males but to the fact that male victims are starting to come forward.

Remind me never to visit India.

Mobs of women are attacking and killing or burning down the houses of men, some of whom were set free by the courts after being accused of rape and other crimes. In one case, a man was stabbed and stoned to death in court by a mob led by women. Police detained five women, but released them in response to public outcry.

Story here.


I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty. Indeed, he may be making the whole thing up just to get money. Then again, maybe not. Suppose she'll be given the benefit of the doubt because she's a she? I am betting so. We all know what happens in that regard when the sexes are reversed though don't we?

AngryMan writes "France introduces chemical castration for sex offenders - but only for male ones. Sweden and Germany already use it. Story here".

bandersnatch writes "A 48-year-old teacher in Seminole County, Fla., is accused of torturing her autistic students, including allegedly rubbing a child's face in vomit and slamming another child's head so hard that he lost his front teeth."

amperro writes "How much longer will the feminists deny that this crime happens?

The_Beedle writes "A month ago the Supreme Court of Ohio didn't overturned a lower court decision to prohibit the fathering of additional children by a father on probation for failure to pay his child support charges Fox News Reference. The Court of Ohio failed dodged the issue of whether such a restriction was legal in favor of overruling this particular case on the grounds that there was no provision for the man to pay up and then have more kids.

By way of comparison, People v. Pointer (California, 1984 available at Findlaw.com, free registration required) the Supreme Court of California found that a similar prohibition for a female convicted of child abuse and neglect was too great an inhibition on her constitutional rights :

"[5d] The challenged condition was apparently not intended to serve any rehabilitative purpose but rather to protect the public by preventing injury to an unborn child. We believe this salutary purpose can adequately be served by alternative restrictions less subversive of appellant's fundamental right to procreate."

A similar ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of California in 1992, People v. Zaring after a judge there ordered a mother of five and heroin/cocaine addict not to conceive as a term of her probation. The California Supreme Court overturned that, saying

"Recognizing that drug addiction could have an adverse impact on the unborn, we must conclude under the law that even if we were to assume arguendo that the safeguarding of the health of any yet to be conceived unborn child of appellant may properly be the subject of probation conditions, it is clear to us that other conditions, less drastic than an outright ban on pregnancy, could be used here to accomplish this objective, just as they could have been used in Pointer."

They also quoted similar rulings from Kansas, Ohio and Florida, all of which illustrates a clear double standard with respect to procreation. A woman's right to concieve is inviolate, despite convictions of child endangerment, child abuse, neglect or even kidnapping. A man's right to procreate is fair game for having incurred a bad debt."

. writes "Radio talk show host Glenn Sacks has launched a new campaign--this time against an insulting Verizon DSL commercial. In the commercial a father is trying to help his young daughter with her homework when he is belittled and scolded by his wife, who orders him to 'leave her alone!' and go wash the dog. To view the ad and participate in the campaign, go to
http://hisside.com/verizon_campaign.htm"

AngryMan writes "A US scientific study finds that men who ejaculate frequently are less prone to prostate cancer: "Although much more research remains to be done, the take home message is that ejaculation is not harmful, and very probably protective of prostatic health - and it feels good!" There are implications for social attitudes towards male sexuality - the fact is, masturbation is good for you! Article here"