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?"

Anon user writes "Family attorney Jeff Leving and columnist Glenn Sacks fired back at the now famous Kentucky judge who ordered 'deadbeat dads' to have vasectomies or go to jail in their new column, "It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads.'" The column is here"

Anonymous User writes "The NCFM regarding the article in the NY Times here

I don't think this is something that the NCFM should be celebrating -- another poorly veiled power grab by 4th/5th wave feminists. The NYT is printing this article not because they are stepping back on feminism, but because they are stepping up. They want women to rule the workplace AND the family. Women can have as much as they choose to want in the world of employment - time to put the brakes on men when it comes to family.

Don't be convinced by this feminine stroke on the male ego. (Oooh you big strong working man!) I'm certainly not impressed."

You can probably guess what to click to read the rest by now.

CPM writes "Age issues aside, there seems to be some serious stalking issues going on here. Also interesting is that the attorney for the school board is concerned about how this could disrupt the school. HELLO!!! Screw the school, how about the poor boy who has some whack job psuedo teacher stalking him ready to ruin any meaningful relationships that he may develop. It's a matter of time before she will defend herself with phony sex assault allegations."

Mangesh writes "A meeting of police officials and other govt agencies dealing with DV was held in Barabados. The main focus was violence against women, but DV against men was also discussed, which is `swept under the proverbial carpet'. Some participants also acted out a scene where a man is facing physical abuse (the story carries a picture of the scene). Some awareness! Read it here"

SuzMemphis sent us this article (registration required) and writes "In Memphis, TN an 11 year old girl accused a man of rape, but for once someone LISTENED to her story and found it to be false. Instead of allowing her to ruin an innocent person's life, she was arrested for the false accusation. Perhaps this is an indication that this horrible habit of believing all children without question will come to an end? We sure hope so!
We did notice that folks are still making excuses for this appalling behavior, but as long as justice is served, that's ok with us. We don't want children hurt either."

Michael_NC writes "An article in the Raleigh, NC News and Observer tells of new regulations and laws for domestic violence. The one thing that stands out the most is the introduction of a $100 fee that the person served with a restraining order would have to pay to help defray administrative costs. So lets see if I have this right. I saved the text of the article, so email me if you would like it. A woman gets a restraining order on dubious grounds to make room for a new boyfriend. So not only is the current guy out on the street, he gets to pay $100 for the privilege? I think this is rotten to the core."