Nice work from Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel. Please drop her a note at ksantich@orlandosentinel.com to thank her for covering this topic.

Ray writes "Mensactivism is prominently mentioned in this article published at Men's News Daily Are We Men, Or Sheep, Or Men, Or... The author issues a call for men to supersede their natural (and learned) drive to be isolated individuals (loners/dominate males) for the sake of the greater good of all men. Men alive today are targeted as individuals in a group by various "oppressive things," but men have not learned to respond to those "oppressive things" in a concerted fashion. Men tend not to be effectively united as a group, yet they share a common bond as men affected by common "personal" issues. Is it the targeted personal shaming of each men's deepest and most private feelings by radical feminist tactics, that has left men as individuals and as a group so utterly disempowered, or do we each fall prey to our own innate drive to be more dominate than the next male? Men have many, many valid issues! Men are certainly dying to prove that, but not intentionally."

Philalethes writes "'A German inventor who developed a gadget that berates men if they try to use the toilet standing up has sold more than 1.6 million devices.' Came across this link in the weblog of Claire Wolfe, who remarks that '...this whole business of trying to get men to sit to pee has a lot more to do with feminism gone amuck than with keeping a ty-de-bowl,' and also links a great Walter Williams article I remember from a couple years back. *Sigh.* More and more I find myself feeling relieved that at age 60 I probably won't live long enough to see the worst of it."

Ray Blumhorst writes "A third teen is involved in filing a false police report that alleges sexual assault, all in a weeks time. This story talks about two of the teens, A Female Would Never Lie About Sexual Assault What makes females lie about being raped? Judging by the responses of these three, I'd say, "anything." Is it possible that females could lie about other things like domestic violence, child abuse sexual harassment, etc., where physical evidence isn't as readily available to show their lying? Only our gender feminist trained police, judges and law makers are stupid enough to believe they wouldn't."

Rand T. writes "A humorous (i.e. positive), article about the purple flour incidence,
surprisingly from the usual feminist-inclinced Guardian:

here"

frank h writes "I submit this article on the International Olympic Committee here because I think that this decision, which may well be celebrated by the feminists, may spell the end for women's sports. The nitwits that think the differences between men and women can be reduced to nurture, not nature, are going to celebrate this, but the reality is that biology plays a far larger role than the courts choose to recognize. Look for transexual females (formerly males) to compete at the highest levels in all sports, thereby ruining women's sports. This is not a good thing for men, either. On the other hand, I guess it's wise to be careful what you ask for, isn't it?"

this is not equality writes "Here is an interesting article from Canada (go figure) that should pose quite a dilemma for those hypocritical feminists. I'm not condoning this man's actions, simply pointing out the quagmire that will exist when those nutty feminists read it (i.e. We hate males, but do we want to admit that he ended a human life?? Hmmm?) article

here.

This line is the kicker...'Society cannot tolerate a male partner in a relationship unilaterally putting an end to a pregnancy.'"

dipy911 writes "In thisarticle
I was reading the costs associated with moms working I saw several problems.
1. Daycare may not be mandatory. The dad may be willing to take the kids while the mom works. The woman's mom might be willing to take the kids. She might even find a job with daycare.

2. The grocery bill doesn't have to be larger. Just bring in the same food to work that you normally eat. I do this and save quite a bit of money.

3. You do not have to pay for gifts at work. This is always optional. If you have little money, most co-workers understand your situation.

4. You don't need to spent a lot every month for clothing. I probably spend no more that $500 a year total on all my clothing. Just wear the same clothing over and over again. Now if I could just convince my office to allow my kilt, which look more professional that a lot of the skimpy outfits that women at my office wear."

CPM writes "Here is a story about a woman forgiven for kidnapping two kids "because they were family". This is an ongoing crime and one of the two perps is simply given a literal "get out of jail free" ticket. She's being deported not extradited! Why is she being set free when the kids are still in the kidnappers' hands?"

A couple essays related to the college scene...

Here's Wendy McElroy's most recent FoxNews.com essay. What troubles me is that, instead of pointing out that an increasing number of men face extreme difficulty as a result of not receiving good educations, she seems to feel that all will be well with women being far more educated than men. A true, two-sided role reversal would hardly be a disaster for most men. But women will not allow a system to develop in which women find it nearly impossible to have careers, and in many cases find themselves social pariahs, unless they support men and the men's children, and in which, if the relationship breaks down, the men receive the houses, custody of the children, and alimony/child support as long as an ex-husband and ex-wife are both alive or until the ex-husband remarries. (Can you imagine feminists calling that situation oppression of men they way they call the reverse situation oppression of women?)

The sociologists in Wendy's essay, who are bemoaning the fact that their poor daughters will have to go slumming, clearly need to take more women's studies classes. Haven't they learned that their daughters can all just decide to be lesbians?

(To see the rest of this post, click on "Read More.")

Here's an essay by K.C.Wilson debunking the typical, feminist lie that in the past men were allowed to beat their wives, so long as their weapons were no wider than their thumbs.

I've put this under false accusations because the so-called "rule of thumb" is a standard feminist lie against the alleged "patriarchy." In other words, it's a typical, false accusation against men in general.

caeruleus writes "According to this members of Fathers 4 Justice threw a capsule of purple powder at British PM Tony Blair." There is also a CNN story on the event. Whether or not you agree with F4J's actions in this case, they are now getting global media attention. Adam also writes, "I'll advise some caution here, while this could well be the work of F4J this could just as easily be be part of a smear campaign against them. Either way, why not visit the talking points and have your say?"

this is not equality writes "This is what it comes down to for some men who just can't take the abuse at the hands of ex-wives (and society) anymore. Some have killed themselves, while others rob banks ( article ). Things will continue to go downhill until laws are changed.

Jeff"

The Laconia Citizen reported on the final public hearing of the NH Child Support Study Committee last Friday in Plymouth, NH. The Commission was formed to examine the current child support system and make recommendations for change. Some of the ideas that are likely to be brought forward officially by the Commission are to base child support on the USDA data of the cost to raise a child rather than the current "standard of living" measure. Many people have testified before the Commission that the current system is abused to benefit the custodial parent rather than the child, and provides enormous incentives for women to marry, have a child, and then leave the marriage to obtain child support money. Rep. David Bickford chairs this Commission, so the outcome of this is likely to have a major impact.

Ray Blumhorst writes "The man in this domestic violence story Bethlehem woman found guilty of assaulting boyfriend was "Beaten so badly he lost 80 percent of his kidney function." Yet, the Prosecutor questions the veracity of the man, "who took his beatings like a man" without striking back at the woman. The Prosecutor asked, "What man would allow himself to be beaten like that?" and "Why didn't the boyfriend just leave?" If you want to see a glaring example of a domestic violence victim being battered, then battered again by the legal system, then look no further. ...and what would have happened to this battered man if he had tried to leave, or had put up his hands to ward off the blows, or simply tried to hold (restrain) his brutal attacker? How can a man get away from domestic violence, when every shelter he calls treats him like a batterer, or refuses him admittance, or tries to send him on a hundred mile drive?"