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?"

Rob writes "I wearily report another story of a Celebrity being accused of sexual assault only for all the charges to be dropped today. The prosecution have "come into possession of further material that has led to the charges against the defendant being reviewed". The reasons for the charges being dropped are not being revealed as it would be "unfair to the complainant". She is of course anonymous. He has of course lost his high-profile TV presenting job and been a social leper for almost a year. You can comment on the story here."

Mark writes "Tonight's Scarborough Country (10pm EST on MSNBC) will feature an article on the anti-male bias inherent in rape shield laws. If this posts too late, I believe MSNBC may re-run the show at 1am EST. Also, Wednesday's show featured Tom Leykis, a popular talk-show host out of LA and a men's right's advocate (in an odd way) who has received alot of attention lately for naming (Kate Faber) as Kobe's accuser."

Ryan writes "SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.

Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

Read more at here" Napnip also submitted this link and said "Not sure if this has been submitted yet, but a law just passed in Illinois will allow someone (probably only women) to consent to sex, then change her mind during the act. If the man doesn't immediately stop, he can be charged with rape. Question: Will a man be able to use this law as well?

Read all about it here. It's a bit more of the same, so you know how it goes.

Anon User writes "The pro-feminist Seattle press recently launched an assault on Washington state police officers with the publication of a series of hit pieces on the alleged link between cops and domestic violence.
Glenn will discuss this anti-male press campaign with domestic violence activist Greg Schmidt and criminal defense attorney Lisa Scott on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles at 11 PM on Sunday, August 3. To listen to the show live via the Internet, go to Listen Live His Side.

An up and coming writer and past president of the Independant Women's Club, Amber Pawlick, has written an article (click here) that starts like this "American women should be outraged. Not because of their supposed oppression over the years, not because of over inflated rape statistics that are always being beat into their brains, but because American women have been starved of one of the greatest values open to them while living life on earth – masculinity. " It is an enjoyable read and I hope you like it as much as I did. As a minor forwarning: this woman is hetrosexual.

I will host this week's MANN chat on
Wednesday night (7/30), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the href="http://www.mensactivism.org/chat.shtml">usual location. 
The topic will be "An Activist by Any Other Name."  As activists,
we work in a world of words.  Therefore, we have to be careful
about the words we use to advance men's issues.  But what are the
right words?  If we use some words, we will alienate men--and
women--who could be allies.  On the other hand, if we try to be
too "nice" and please everyone, we'll drive ourselves mad.  Where
is a workable balance?  What are the words that "push people's
buttons"?  How can we use them, or avoid using them, to
communicate most effectively?  Join us to talk about the role of
language in men's activism.

Angry Harry has written an interesting list of similarities between Nazism and feminism.

If his article entitled "30 Reasons Why Feminists Really Are 'Feminazis'" isn't at the top of the page after today, you might have to scroll down or search for it.

HombreVIII writes "Fathers-4-Justice has been getting a lot of press in the UK for their demonstrations this summer. Perhaps this is because they demonstrate in biohazard overalls while setting off air raid sirens? Find out more here."

HombreVIII writes "Michelle Landsberg slams father's rights activist in this article entitled Children of divorce need our protection. A few excerpts - "The fathers' rights activists have shrewdly thrown up a fog of misstatement, false "anecdotes" and outright lies designed to elicit public sympathy. The first whopper: "Every child has a right to two parents" and "Kids need fathers.""

- "A loving father, of course, is a boon to any child. But just any old father? A drunk, a batterer, a tyrant, an infantile male supremacist? A man who stalks his ex-wife through the courts? I don't think so."

- "Maybe fathers are being bamboozled by their own propaganda."

Maybe Ms. Landsberg is so bamboozled by her propaganda that she inadvertantly slipped and attacked fathers in that statement instead of father's activists."

Men's and fathers' issues radio talk-show host Glenn Sacks blasted those threatening and harassing the alleged victim in the Kobe Bryant rape case, calling them "demented animals" on his Los Angeles talk show His Side with Glenn Sacks. The entire statement, which Sacks read on his Sunday, July 27 show on KRLA AM 870 can be found on the underlined hyperlink.

Garth writes "This intelligent article discusses how, these days, superficial things (skin colour, sex, sexual orientation) are used to measure how "worthy" your opinions are, and how this approach in fact works towards conformity rather than diversity."

Rob writes "Like another female golfer, Anneka Sorenstam, this story paints Suzy Whaley as a crusader for women and a winner even when a loser. There are a number of issues with this type of reporting. Firstly, her male golf partners were "exemplary" because they allowed her onto the green first to take the applause. Mindless chivalry? She played "for women and their daughters" and "carried herself with the dignity...of champions". Leaving aside the fact she qualified by "beating" men (she was allowed to play from the Ladies tees in the qualifying tournament), she ended up about 146th out of 150. Hardly a winner! I'm firmly for equality, but this incessant focus and reporting slant that women are taking on and "beating" men is pointless and surely just riles the men. In addition, how do the jobbing pros on the PGA Tour feel about a place being taken in the Open by a qualifier who did not have to meet their qualifying criteria?"

HombreVIII writes "Many of us have lamented about the lack of men's issues sections in our local bookstores, but for Gordon Clay a men's issues section isn't good enough. Gordon is the owner of the new Men's Issues Study, a library soon to be opened in southern Oregon. After having toured 26 US states with thousands of men's issues books, cassettes, and videos in his Browser Bookmobile, Mr. Clay has created a new home for them by personally funding the construction of a suitable building to house them out of his own savings. The building was completed on July 19th and the shelves are expected to be fully stocked in August."