Tatis writes "Hundreds of thousands of divorced and unwed fathers are victims of the government's war on so-called "deadbeat dads." Patti Diroff of the Children's Rights Council joined Glenn to discuss these abuses and how they drive decent fathers out of the lives of their children on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles on Sunday, June 1. To listen to the archived version of the show, go to "Past Shows: June 1" at His Side"

warble writes "It pleases me to announce that SB1030 has passed out of the California Senate by a vote of 34/2. Considering the power of the opposition, it is astonishing to see this level of support for the bill. SB1030 addresses the category of paternity fraud that we call an incorrect default paternity judgments (IDPJ's).

An IDPJ results when a judgment is entered against a male who is mislead into believing he is the father, or a male that never receives notice of a paternity hearing because the mother supplies incorrect information. Currently, when the 6 month to two year time limits expire, there is no possibility of making a challenge to the default judgment.

This means that victims of an IDPJ will potentially be subjected to contempt, oppressive child support burdens, criminal charges, and jail when they refuse to pay for a child that is not theirs. This pattern will continue until the child is 18 or graduates from college. Worse, the victim of an IDPJ will learn that they are behind on the first day they learn of the judgment. The source of the oppression is the CA DCSS. It is radical feminist organizations that seek the oppression of men and the destruction of their families.

Often the victims do not learn of the IDPJ until there is a wage garnishment, tax seizure, damage to a credit report, and etc. That is because the DCSS relies heavily substitute service. With substitute service the notice of a hearing may go to the wrong address without the victim ever learning of a hearing. In Los Angeles County alone, there is a 79% default judgment rate. This means that significant numbers of males never learn of the judgment until enforcement action is taken.

SB1030 addresses this failure of the system by permitting the victims of an IDPJ to use DNA testing to overturn the judgment and have the arrears dismissed. The victim will have two-years to overturn the judgment from the day a wage garnishment begins. The advantage of this is that for under $1000 an IDPJ can be overturned. Currently, if the male is lucky they can do this for ~$5,000 if they discover the IDPJ in time.

The next stop is the California Assembly. There it will meet stiff and well-organized opposition. NCFM, LA will be working with the Men's Issues Coalition in California to lobby the Assembly in California. This is a tough fight, but it is not an impossible fight.

Warble
"

One feminist group that refuses to have their voice as a woman replaced by totalitarian feminist dogma talks about 'masculist discourse'. Wendy McElroy delivers a piece with multiple links including the IWF's (another group of women that refuses to be silenced by totalitarian feminist dogma) letter to NOW. It has been my opinion that "feminists" have replaced women's voice for their own party line indoctrination. Regardless of my agreement or dissagreement with McElroy or IWF I feel they are speaking up for themselves more and more everyday. It will be women like them that will lead men and women to a better communication for eachother.

sick of it! writes "Some vicious women cuts off a man's penis... and the headline makes a joke about the wife giving her husband 'the chop'. on that page is a list of related stories where other women have done the same thing.
Maybe they will make this women a folkhero among the fem-nazis. makes me sick.

Cant imagine the journalist being so 'cute' if the man had attacked the woman.

This is a staunch warning to all you Americans about Radical Feminists and the plight of Canada. Take this to heart; because this author nails it.

CJ writes "Here is another example of feminist intent to remove due process based on gender profiling. A Lawyer for students at Harvard states: "it's a myth that only rape produces difficult ''he said, she said'' cases. ''In almost every crime, it's the credibility of one person that makes or breaks the case, whether it's a cop watching a drug deal, or a woman who's raped,'' she said. ''You challenge their credibility, assess their demeanor, and render a judgment. That's what the justice system is all about.'' This is absolute tyranny. A judgment should be FIRST based on the facts, and contributing factors such as credibility are secondary to the case. Last year Harvard attempted to change the school's sexual assault policy - making corroborating evidence a prerequisite for the university to fully investigate - this in turn drove (feminist)students to file a discrimination complaint with the department's Office for Civil Rights. The highly organized feminist movement of today is working toward a gender based standard of justice, and it appears due process and evidence is something that they regard as insignificant. Its time to fight back against the dominant paradigm that gender-socialism has become. Be active before the rights of men are all but gone.

MrDave writes "
In recent years, I've often heard women say, "What happened to all the good men?" ... Fred Reed has one answer that I expect will
become increasingly common as feminist/socialist control continues to spread: Men are simply leaving ... leaving the USA and other Western countries ... and moving to countries where the culture still respects men. Here's a taste of Mr. Reed's recent essay on this topic: 'For a man of fifty, a sloe-eyed sweetie of twenty-five beats hell out of an angry menopausing gringa with a law degree. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is that way.' "

Neil Steyskal writes "The Senate is scrambling to expand the child tax credit because it was left out of the recent tax-cut legislation. This is a good opportunity to highlight the tax code's bias against fathers. Send a letter to your local newspaper. Here's mine to the Washington Post (letters@washpost.com).

To the Editor:

If senators are really concerned about those who miss out on the child tax credit, they will provide for fathers to be eligibile, not just mothers ("Senators Rush to Propose Expanded Child Tax Credit," June 3). Currently a noncustodial father may not take the child tax credit even when he provides a majority of the child's support.

Sincerely,
Neil Steyskal
(address and phone)"

alphamale writes "It has been many years since I have come across a male friendly movie but "Finding Nemo" is a refreshing change to the deluge of female chauvinism that we have been inundated with during the past few decades. It is a wonderful story about a single dad whose son is abducted and the amazing adventure and gutsy determination the father endures to rescue his son. While there was one sexist rant about men and asking for directions, the rest of the movie is sexism free. A thoroughly enjoyable story about dad as hero. Just in time for Father's Day and well worth the price of admission."

This may only be tangentially related to men's issues, since both men and women were involved in the struggle against the fires that devastated Colorado last summer. I still wanted to post this, though, perhaps as inspiration. Click on "VIEW PHOTOGRAPHY ESSAY" on the page that first comes up, or just wait for the slide show to begin.

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 "