Anonymous User writes "I think that we all have noticed the increasing desperation of feminists who realise that the mens movement is starting to pick up momentum. In this article another feminist has noticed us and gone into the usual tailspin that happens when someones comfortable "facts" smack head on into uncomfortable reality. This one, however, is funded by the Canadian government to the tune of $75,000 smackers. In fact, much of what she has to say is true, so long as you ignore the negative connotactions that she attaches to it."

JackTakeyama writes "Hey guys. Just thought you might be interested in a series of essays by an unabashed feminist bigot on the frontpage of a purportedly progressive website. The latest tirade can be found towards the bottom of this page. Many of her other essays can be found here. The responses are even better than the essays.

It's stuff like this that keeps me (and a lot of other men I'm sure) from rejoining the so-called progressive community here in Portland.

Jack"

rage writes "Check the following link out, How about writing letters to this newspaper to defend the masculist cause and explain we're not woman-haters ? Articles released on the National Post up to now about the federally-funded feminist report have shown some kind of criticism against feminists'behaviour concerning this event. They seem to want to let men express their point of views, so why not trying ?

But in my opinion, we must write to them as individuals and not as "mensactivism" members, we must not give the link of our site, else it could be viewed as inopportune lobbying...."

Peter writes "Here is an article in The Globe and Mail about girls vs boys education: They are accomplished, idealistic, funny, modest, well-rounded, socially aware, and ferociously bright. And all of them are girls. The rest of the article is here"

Matt Campbell writes "Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley comments about a recent Supreme Court decision penned by CJ Wm. Rehnquist (or, more aptly, by one of his legal aides) in this column

Kinsley points out the sudden change of direction this decision constitutes away from Rehnquist's bias toward state soverignty and instead, in this case, toward pan-state applicability of federal laws regarding employment. While Kinsley never comes out and says it, it is clear that a massive exception in that direction was made in this case dealing with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 because the matter of gender was introduced into it. The decision may very well amount to a good substantive effect: state workers get the same FMLA benefits as federal workers get. But the disturbing thing about the ruling is the overwhelming pro-feminist sentiment in the wording of the decision. Gender issues and speculative opinions are dragged into a ruling wherein it is clearly not even relevant. This is a further example of the degredation of reasoning and retaining principle of scope when applying and interpreting laws in favor of gender-feminist hysteria.

I can't help but speculate the aide who actually wrote this decision was a 24-year-old female Harvard Law graduate.

The full decision is
here "

radikal writes "(AL.fuh urn.ur) n. A wife who earns all or most of her household's income.

Check it out!
http://www.wordspy.com/words/alphaearner.asp"

Okay, it's the second week of Ask Ads, where you can talk about things not strictly related to men's issues, or if you just wanna vent about something, or if you're wondering about something ask away, it's your call.

radikal writes "A post on this popular enough weblog deals with a male reader having marital issues with his stay-at-home wife. The comments alone are worth reading. I wonder what would happen if one of us responded."

Canadaman writes "I have found that most of my kids videos teach children to fit into to sterotype roles and put the value mainly on the mother as the household figure. I was proud to see that mens activism has made an effect on the Disney conquered world of childrens entertainment. There is this show for preschool kids called "Bear In the Big Blue House" that I think is great. It teaches real value of equality, not womens lib. Here's the web site this one is produced by Jim Henson Studios."

The Gonzo Kid writes "Under a new proposal, wanting to know the truth about whether or not you are the real father of a baby can land you in jail. Which is another way of saying that they are criminalizing the act of catching a woman in a lie. Seig Heil!"

Eric writes "Daniel K. Chang, Ph.D., of New Jersey, starts his 3rd week of a "Death Fast" for his constitutional rights and legal injustices. He declares that only water, salt and a brand name vitamin will pass his lips until he receives true justice and his rights.

At noon, May 16th, 2003, Chang started his hunger strike to the the death, if need be. Passively infuriated by his false arrests initiated by Middlesex County Child Support (MCCS), Daniel starts his 15th day of fasting until past wrongs are righted. When the New Jersey "family" courts system started with a basic denial of 14th Amendment rights of a parent and a child, then applied unjust levying of assets and finances to charge him with an insurmontable amount of payments to his ex-wife some 14 years ago, he tolerated it. But, when MCCS unjustly destroyed his character and the respect of his child, neighbors and the public, they went past the point of tolerance.

For the story thats "TOO HOT" for local and national media....Only in the:

NCP Advocate
The Non Custodial Parents WORLD information source
"

Chas writes "In Melbourne, Australia, Kathleen Folbigg has been convicted of murdering her four infants over a period of 10 years. In the pre-sentencing period, the usual excuses for her behaviour are being canvassed. In particular her father, her husband and 'society' are being examined for causes of her murderous conduct. In this article by Janet Albrechtson, "Mums must not get away with murder", it is refreshing to read a female journalist in the mainstream press examine the evidence of double standards which is familiar to readers of mensactivism.org. Albrechtson says, " ... when mothers kill we apply double standards. We look away, explain away, let women off. But a moral universe where we do this, and allow women to go on killing, makes no sense." It is a tightly written article. On line feed back is invited. You should just see what the tired old feminists have to say about it!!"

Well well, she's done it again, with her latest article and where to begin? perhaps we should start with what seems to be her condescending attiude and the fact that she pretends to know the nearest man's experience. The initative is in your hands.

radikal writes "Perhaps I read into the topic a bit deeply, but I could only imagine the silence if the shoe was on the other foot."

Dan Lynch writes "'BIG SISTER IS WATCHING' will be the topic. Im amazed at the turn of events; personally, I think its good publicity all around. Can't wait for Oprah to do a segment, myself. Here is a good article on the debacle of government funded feminism to go after men's activists. "Make sure you read to the bottom after the long list of names cited by the Canadian Feminists. The other links are up and running now. "
Here and "Here. It's a move in censorship that would make Stalin proud and Orwell protesting. Of course the the feminists rely on the oldies but goldies of 'abuse' and 'sex crimes' along with women's oppression as their reasoning factors. And as usual with those crimes its always their word and their word alone that is the convicting factor. With so many closed courtrooms and unconstitutional trials the public will never know until its to late. Its also difficult for embarassed men to fight the system that has degraded them so much publicly without fair treatment. I find it astonishingly interesting that those are the crimes in which rules of evidence are very different than regular trials. Here is another link that I feel coincides with all of this. The author asks why there is "double standards." Your input at the chat is important and a greater understanding of what's happening here is needed. "Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4"