It's a USA Today special, for all the wrong reasons. ppmnow writes "It's all starting to come together. Arm up, gentlemen, and take your weapons of pen and paper and begin the push full steam!
Mitchell A. Smith" Matt writes "USA Today quite out of character published this story on the "role women play in DV" They assert men do more physical damage to women in DV incidents. Well, the report needs some work, obviously, in terms of full disclosure. But it's a very good start. The false feminist beliefs around DV are directly challenged by name as such, too. Nice!" Mark writes " Less than a week after exposing the truth about domestic violence (that women are as likely to be aggressors as victims), USA Today is back to it's old self.
This gem of an article tells us that 92% of women fear domestic violence and 90% are concerned with equal pay for equal work.
Also, we are informed that women are very aware of cultural trends and that their feces doesn't stink and they are made of sugar and spice,... These ugh... "statistics" remind me how if you hype anything enough people will buy into it. Does anyone remember the months before 9/11 when everyone's biggest fear was the alarming "increase" in shark attacks? Actual data showed that the numbers were no different than before but the hype machine was telling us otherwise."

Warren Farrell emailed the mann admin so I thought it was good for immediate release. I will place it as the first post in this section of the thread, so you can all have a look at it. It's in regards to the Slander Groups in Canada's feminist elite squad. Warren touches on some interesting points but I don't think he goes far enough in the damage that this feminist move can do to all of our freedoms.

This is why I always question authority the media and anyone else for that matter. Artile Here

Matt O'Connor, leader of the British "Dads' Army" Fathers 4 Justice --whose spectacular acts of civil disobedience have garnered international attention--discussed his group's rapid rise and its upcoming plans on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles on Sunday, June 22. Also joining Glenn was Pat Lyons, a courageous English businessman who has vowed that he will go to jail rather than pay the Child Support Agency on behalf of employees who are being denied access to their children. To listen to the show archive, go to .

Neil Steyskal writes "USA Today has broken the taboo on mentioning that women get violent as often as men:ARTICLE HERE

Unfortunately, the article implies that abuse is worse for women because men are stronger. They fail to note that there is no help for men, unlike all the programs for battered women. More importantly they overlook the fact that men will lose their kids if they leave an abusive wife."

AFG writes "This video (found on www.fathers.ca) shows Canadian Alliance MP Betty Hinton blasting Heritage Minister -- and Liberal Party leadership candidate -- Sheila Copps with regard to the now infamous SOW report on men's groups. Look at the way Copps totally side-steps the questions by using the whole "women are still discriminated against" arguement.

Video Here

Chas writes ""The Australian" newspaper editorialises about the debate over equal custody proposals. You need to scroll down: it is the second editorial piece. Go here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_ page/0,5744,6617959%255E7583,00.html"

Anonymous User writes "Glenn Sacks' powerful new column, "Many Divorced Fathers Struggle Desperately to Remain in Their Children's Lives," tells the story of Jim, a disenfranchised Michigan father who has been kept out of his daughter's life for so long he says he can't even remember what his little daughter looks like. Read it at http://www.glennsacks.com/many_divorced_fathers.htm"

SunCat writes "Wendy McElroy has done it again. In A Conscientious Objector to the Gender War she says that mens interests and womens intersts are not inverse. I think she got the Warren Farrell quote that "when only one sex wins both sexes lose."

Liked her "flat-Earther"ref (and what will future generations think of us?) but

the list scrolls on.

But protesting men miss the point.

napnip writes "LINK HERE.

I can't wait to see the feminist spin that'll be put on this. Somehow it won't be the girl's fault. She's the real victim, right?"

This one is even more important. Get writing or Ms. Boxer and Ms. Feinstein will get this legislation passed.

LINK Here.

Here is what I wrote:

Regarding SB127/HB262:

I am totally opposed to the idea of allowing the IRS to double tax non-custodial parents who get behind in their child support payments:

1) The money was not "earned" and therefore cannot be taxed; how can the government "create" earnings where there are none?

2) Most non-custodial parents are already giving more than half of their income to the custodial parent (in real dollars meaning before taxes are taken out);

3) Non-custodial parents are already being penalized by not being allowed to see their children or participate in the parenting of their children;

4) These bills fly in the face of the President's Fatherhood Initiative by making it even MORE difficult for fathers (75% of the time the non-custodial parent) to stay close to and involved with raising their children;

5) This proposed legislation is another "bright" idea of the feminist movement -- NOW -- the most destructive organization on the face of the earth when it comes to personal liberties and keeping families in tact; they won't be happy until they have half the population in jail;

6) Feminism has taken a bad turn (gone sour) and most of us (the original feminists of the sixties and seventies) disown the radicals we see these days -- these women don't want equality -- they want dominance;

7) Any legislator that votes for these absurd bills will be written off as viable candidates in the future by those of us who are watching; our numbers are legion; we are in contact across the nation;

9) The women's movement (as it was intended)is over; women like myself are alligning ourselves with our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and male friends because we have sympathy for their plight;

10)If you don't believe that the public is sick of the feminists, take a look at New Hampshire, where the three most powerful women in the state were all defeated last election -- Governor Shaheen being one of them.

I'm a woman, a career woman, a mother, a grandmother, one of the first women to break through the ranks in the automotive industry back in the sixties. I called myself a feminist then -- but shun the title now. It's embarrassing. When I saw Ms. Shaheen (as she is now called) aligning herself with the feminists, I did everything in my power to get the word out and help defeat her in the last election.

While they disgust me, I can at least understand why women might be angry and vindictive toward men -- enough so to try to get this legislation passed.

What I don't understand is why men are turning on men.

In this essay, Dr. Stephen Baskerville briefly describes the war against fathers being waged by governments that increasingly encroach on our private lives. It's a good essay, with a lot of facts, but I have to say: I'm afraid he falls apart at the end. He recommends that fathers restore fatherhood with nonpolitical politics and a non-ideology "by re-creating the ordinary business of ‘civil society’ and private life," but he gives no details on how this might be done. With so much machinery stacked against fathers and husbands, their protests may have a mitigating effect, but they won't turn things around.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Young men can protect themselves by refusing to marry and by doing whatever they can (within reason) to avoid becoming fathers. Save your money. If things turn around by the time you're 55-years-old or so, you still want children, and you have a decent home and income, there will be plenty of women of child-bearing age in the US and elsewhere, who will be happy to marry you.

Good luck, gentlemen. The government is at war against you.

Here are a few humorous tidbits that relate, somewhat, to men's issues. Take a look at STATshot for "Why did we propose?" and "Father's Day Gift Way Shittier Than Mother's Day Gift" on the same page. I also enjoyed Hillary's Bestseller and the essay "You are a beautiful woman..." by a properly deconstructed, post-modern man.

If you can laugh, while the world around you is engaged in a gender war, ___ (I'll let you fill in the blank.)

Chas writes "Following yesterday's article about Australian plans to consider equal custody of children, predictable responses are now reported from women's organisations. American readers might like to respond online to these statements in the news report, and to set the record straight: "Sole Parents Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said overseas evidence showed the move was terrible for children, treating them like equally divisible pieces of property. "The research from America shows that it rarely works and kids are the ones that lose," she said.
Another comment: "Elspeth McInnes, convener of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, said California had been forced to amend its shared custody laws to prioritise child safety after "horrendous" problems with violence." Read the article here.

In this essay, which first appeared in the Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips lays into Britain's Home Office for selling out to feminists in their war against men. I think there are a few weaknesses in her logic, but on the whole it's a great essay. And I'm glad she's holding feminists accountable and not just blaming women and letting men off the hook.