Anon User writes "The University of California Regents recently passed new rules banning most faculty-student romantic relationships. CSULB professor Barry Dank, Ph.D. calls this the "bureaucratization of sexuality," and criticizes the new policy as an "unethical intrusion into personal and private relationships."

Dank will discuss the new ban, the John Dwyer/Boalt Hall controversy, and anti-male sexual harassment hysteria on campus on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles at 11 PM on Sunday, August 10. To listen to the show live via the Internet, go to His Side"

I just chanced upon this article by Katharine Winans talking about tears, and I thought you folks might be interested. That's all for now.

Luek writes " Well, well the proverbial worm has finally turned in this case
anyway.
Two men in California got an out of court settlement to the tune of over $100,000 dollars for being discriminated against because of their gender. The culprit was the infamous "ladies night discount" gimmick used by wateringholes to draw in more female customers and thus supposedly more horny men looking to score. It seems to only perpetuate the negative stereotypes of men.

Notice the not too subtle misandric catty remark at the end of the article. Sounds like someone has been eating sour grapes to me!"

This week's MANN chat will be held on
Wednesday night (8/6), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the href="http://www.mensactivism.org/chat.shtml">usual location. 
The topic will be "'No' Means 'No'? Implications for Men." 
Illinois recently enacted a href="http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0389">law
that allows a person who consented to sexual activity to withdraw that
consent at any time.  (MANN's coverage of the law is href="http://www.mensactivism.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/01/1641235">here.) 
How often does this situation really arise?  Do we really need a
law to deal with it?  Is this just an overreaction to one
publicized case   Is it another example of Oliver Wendell
Holmes' maxim, "Hard cases make bad law"?  What are the
implications for men?  Join us to share ideas about how to deal
with such laws and the hysteria that drives them.

Hi, we're a bunch of conservatives who talk about masculinity over
here after 9/11
we remembered that we needed the nearest man to save us from ourselves, because ya know,
we're not the ones with abilities around here. We're the worst of both worlds for you
men, as we're feminist enough to beat you over the head with a pseudo-moral club, but conservative enough
to think you exist only to be un-emotional expendables. Either we way don't care, we just want
you to be whatever we need you to be, your basic humanity be damned. We want it all, and you
better provide, even through we'll give you nothing in return, not even the most basic pretence of lip service. And of course being men you're morally inferior anyway, so we're doing you a favour.

rage writes "It seems that people in Australia are beginning to be aware of the various discriminations most boys face in schools because of the feminist indoctrination.....

And this time, it is not everyday people who become aware but rather authorities and officials themselves, and the message is being displayed in the mainstream media !

Check

this out and
and this

In the USA, things are also beginning, though slowly, to change : the media are more boy-friendly than previously. Some more

here as well,

good news at last.

And for the example, you can see as follows the usual denials
of feminists who systematically refuse to acknowledge gender-bias against boys."

This is a rather large Website, so I've only been able to read a bit of it. So far, it seems quite good, despite the fact that it uses frames (Yuck!).

The Viagra Monologues, by a New Zealand playwright, is reportedly an answer to The Vagina Monologues. The Viagra Monologues is receiving good reviews and might be worth seeing. Is anyone in NZ on this board, able to check this out, and willing to report to us? I might want to suggest to a local acting troupe that they put it on.

This is an area I don't think I've seen very much of in regards to men's activism. Though I think women are suseptible to this as well, from what I know it is mostly men who suffer from alcoholism. Go to this LINK and have a look at the subliminal messaging this ad expert is describing to us. I found the site to be very informative overall and is worth looking at in regards to media, marketing and conditioning of the masses. Also make sure to read this LINK Perhaps not all alcoholics are born some are made.

Anonymous User writes "Again we can see another feminist who promotes her sexist materials with prejudiced ideas and excessive love and admiration for her and her counterparts ideas and usage of them as generalized and proven scientific facts. Go and read the article"

Jen writes "Another slam on men supposedly proven by science. While later in the article the writer concedes that women lie on the tests if privacy is not guarenteed, the most adament points are made in the beginning as hard fact. Many of the social observations made are 20 years outdated, as not many parents in the post-AIDS, 'rape' happy age encourage their boys to have sex at all. "

Raymond writes "I was listening to the Larry Elder show today and heard about FreeKobeBryant.net. Larry got a kick out of it, so i decided to check it out. They seem to have a refreshing and sometimes hilarious take on the entire Kobe controversy."

Raymond Cuttill writes "The July Men’s Hour is out; Including “Divorce makes men richer”, “Western Authors Book Look - 16th August, Arizona”, “Male Suffrage - Heard of it?”, “NOW convention - Fun workshops?”. News items including - Boys read, they just don't read books - Low pay a choice? - Marriage tames genius - Father suicides - Women lie about their sex lives. And there’s now a forum; Fathers-4-Justice 27th July protest photos and a transcript."

warble writes "As usual we find this conservative female appealing to chauvinism and blaming the male when he objects to her bigotry. I've never cared much for Schlessinger, but now I know that I dislike her because she is an anti-male bigot. In this article, "Sperm donor or the father?" we find her devaluing a the natural father of a child to a speck of fluid while elevating the mother to near god-like stature. If Schlessinger were not a bigot then we would find her considering the mother to be nothing more than an egg donor. Instead Schlessinger promotes permitting the mother superior rights by permitting the mother to randomly choose any male to be the father while dehumanizing the natural father to a speck of fluid. Clearly, there is no doubt that if the mother went on welfare, had the male named as the father and assigned paternity, obtained oppressive child support obligations, and the male fell behind due to unemployment that Schlessinger would label him a deadbeat dad and spew her hate. What is also interesting is that Schlessinger spends so much time explaining and excusing her blow-up when the male objects to her hate speech. Naturally, Schlessinger believes the male is at fault."

This editorial is a mixed bag, as far as I'm concerned, but it makes a few good points and may inspire some interesting discussion. At least the author, Marianne M. Jennings, states, "Some professional athletes need to worry about even being alone with their wives, but that's a story for another time," and "What man is safe from accusations if he spends time alone with a woman these days?"