Now here's un-expected surprise of an article, I could tell you what's said, but I think you want the fun of finding out yourself, so click the link for a refeshing perspective.

John Gardiner takes an interesting look at Oprah's prank team over at Oxygen, pointing out the hypocrisy involved, It's a great read. Don't just take my word for it, Have a look....

Mitch Dean writes "Milwaukee Journal 02/26/03

This is an article About a fourteen year old girl who alledegly solicited her boyfriend to kill her Grandmother for the sum of $100.00 or else she would break up with him.The grandmother was informed of the attempted plot by a freind of the girl.The girls defense attorney says he will establish that it was all joke.This defense does not surprise me.Our culture would be more comfortable believing a female of any age incapable of such treachery.The story should be tracked just to see the outcome and treatment by the legal system to further demonstrate inequity in charges and sentencing between male and female juviniles."

In his latest column, men's issues columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks defends men and masculinity against the anti-male attacks of misandrist femninist Dr. Helen Caldecott. Of Sacks' grandfather, a decorated World War I veteran, Sacks writes:
"This magnificent man (and the millions like him) is not your punching bag, Ms. Caldecott. He's not a bloodthirsty warmonger, or an oppressor, or a patriarch, or an abuser, or any other of the dozens of repulsive canards which feminists have used to vilify men over the past three decades"

" Feminists should be speaking out for human rights, not just women's rights." writes Cathy Young. In this article Cathy assails feminist diatribe as a pathetic waste. Even in this article it seems that the atrocities against men by Saddam is downplayed. But it does show the equation overall to women. Cathy still nails it. Human rights for all!

Brightwriter writes "We fathers have been duped. Pregnant women are told not to lift anything weighing over 20 pounds, but my (pregnant) wife's obstetrician could give no rationale for that edict when we asked what (bad) would happen if she did so. The obstetrician said prospective studies were unethical, and that's that. Problem: a pregnant woman with a child already born will lift him/her often, obstetrician edict or no. Anything more likely to go wrong if it is not a first pregnancy (and the mother often lifts a pre-existing child)? I think not, else where is the evidence? This myth needs formal challenge in the medical community. I am a doctor."

napnip writes "Not sure if this would be considered newsworthy, but MSNBC's homepage has a story on the renewed debate over women in the military. (Renewed due to Shoshawna Johnson being a POW in Iraq.) Ms. Huus does a pretty good job in covering this story, IMHO. The only thing I wish Ms. Huus had covered was the fact that women don't have to register with Selective Service, which seems rather hypocritical to me if they're going to have the same opportunities as men, but not the same responsibilities. The story can be found here: "

incredibletulkas writes "In response to the article "The Attack on Women's Sports" which complained against the sexes treating equally in school programs, I was incensed regarding a more serious issue which has been of concern to me for some time. As a result, I used the information in the article to write the following letter to Education Secretary Rod Paige at customerservice@inet.ed.gov :

"Hello;
I wish to contact Education Secretary Rod Paige regarding a serious and widespread violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which requires schools to treat the two sexes equally; this violation has been going on for a number of years with no protest from the Department of Education.

Specifically, these violations take place in the form of certain self-defense courses, often known as "RAID," which are offered exlusively to women-- at school expense-- and which specifically prohibit men from attending at any time, and in fact ban even male attendance or observation under any circumstances, except for the course instructors.

Furthermore, these courses are often open to female non-students in the community, while likewise barring even male students of the school from participation.
This sexism was rationalized dismissed by simply claiming men had the option to fend for themselves, or in terms of finding--and funding-- other self-defense courses "elsewhere," despite claiming them to be of inferior quality in adequately preparing a person to defend against an actual attack, as well as being more difficult to learn in terms of time, trouble, expense and safety.

Since statistics regarding violent criminal assaults apply at least equally to men as to women in terms of frequency and severity-- and in any event do not indicate men to be inviolate-- then there is no evidence, conclusive or otherwise, that men would not benefit from such a program.

As such, this sexist double-standard is an outright violation of Title IX, and I would like to see this issue addressed immediately; either schools must immediate cease and desist from offering such courses-- either in terms or providing funding or facilities for them-- or else they must offer them to male students or participants on equal terms.""

I will host this week's MANN chat, Wednesday
night (3/26), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the href="http://www.mensactivism.org/chat.shtml">usual location. The
topic for this chat will be "Blaming Men  for War: A Healthy
Masculine Response."  Feminist dogma routinely blames men for
creating and fighting wars.  Dr. Helen Caldecott's recent href="http://www.mensactivism.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/17/2142202&mode=threaded">speech,
put the blame for war and destruction squarely on men's
shoulders.  It's convenient--and even popular--to impute to men
the responsibility for all violent human conflict.  But can we
answer the issue so simply?  If we look deeply into wars, we will
see that women and the material culture they enjoy are at least as
responsible for giving rise to wars as are men.  Join us at this
chat to explore some less popular views about the roots of war and how
an authentic, healthy masculinity supports peace rather than war.

Willj writes "This article by a Canadian columnist refers to an article in this month's French magazine Elle which says that French masculinity is in crisis. It describes three "generations" of men: 1) 45-55, guilty, afraid - they've capitulated to women. 2) Bitter divorced men, 35-45, looking for foreign women they can dominate. 3) The New Eunachs, 25-35, married, - they've set virility aside for conflict-free life in a matriarchal family. Interesting that those of us who don't want to live with feminist hatemongers are said to be looking for women we can dominate. I haven't found the original Elle article yet. I keep wondering when large numbers of men will finally stand up and show a bit of self-respect."

CJ writes "

Notice how the Associated Press article starts this article off in an inflammatory way by highlighting the data point (not fact until research is shown) that women at the absolute highest level of incomes are not on par with men (I’m sure not all dat is considered when researching this point too). The article then goes on to point out that "Despite lingering disparities, a separate Census Bureau report last week showed that earning levels for women are at record highs" Here is media manipulation at its best...ala the gynarchy."

Now here's an excellent looking book, It's Equality: A Man's Claim
by Alan Millard, The website gives you a good preview of the book, and it's a very interesting perspective
written there. It's quite an eye opener, even for us folk in the know. The book is 563-pages long
and at only $14.95, There's no excuse for not getting this book, Since my sources tell me this book gives Warren Farrell's work a serious run for it's
money, You know where to take it from here.

Luek writes "Seems like Progressive Insurance just can't stop being misandric in the image they project to the public.

This time these misandric idiots have put a nude picture of an 82 year old man in their annual report! Would a nude picture of an elderly female ever be used? I don't think so!

I recently got a junkmail solicitation from Progressive offering me insurance. When I read this article I fished it out of my trash barrel and sent the self-hating male president, Glenn Renwick a letter containing the junkmail solicitation and the following note along with a copy of the article about the nude man.

"""Monday, March 24, 2003

Progressive Insurance Corporation
6300 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143

Attn: Glenn M. Renwick
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Mr. Renwick,

Enclosed in this correspondence you will find a solicitation letter from
your company offering me insurance.

Also you will find a news report about the use of a picture of a nude
elderly man used in your annual report.

Even though I am currently in the market to find the best insurance
rates I will have to pass up your offer due to the situation mentioned
above. I prefer my insurance carrier to have a more mature attitude
about the image they project to the public. I am afraid yours is lacking in this regard."""

Story at:

http://www.wsbtv.com/money/2047118/detail.html"

BlondGuy10 writes "Glenn Renwick
Progressive Insurance
6300 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, OH 44143

Dear Mr. Renwick:

I am writing to you regarding a commercial that you are running. The commercial in question is the voodoo commercial with Kate Martin. This commercial is highly offensive to me and to other males in this country. Every time I see it I want to throw a brick at my television.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to think that airing a commercial over and over depicting a supposedly jilted, revengeful female relentlessly sexually humiliating a male using voodoo and her computer is going to make other males buy your insurance. Are you under the mistaken impression that is does? What kind of message is this type "advertising" sending to young, impressionable minds in country?

I expressed these thoughts at your web site and a female replied that this was a humorous way to sell insurance and that it would continue. Well, male bashing is NOT funny to males and it is going to stop. Let's see a commercial where the tables are turned and it is a female being made a complete fool of and routinely discarded like yesterday's trash under the guise of humorous advertising. That would be on the air about 2 seconds before the women's groups had it removed!

You are spending much money I am sure to run this GARBAGE which is making males NOT buy your insurance. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, Mr. Renwick, to see that there might be an error in this plan.

I would not buy your insurance if it were the only insurance on the planet. Nor will anyone else over whom I have any control. Further, I am going to post this letter to every male movement web site I can find. Hopefully, you will receive additional letters in this regard.

I hope that I have your attention and that this trash will be removed from the air and replaced with a commercial where the male is NOT the subject of humiliation to the delight of a "victimized" female such as "Ms". Martin.

Thank you for your time and attention.

(signed)"

Continiuing on from the previous parts (which can be read here
and here if you missed 'em)
Gerald Rowles has just written a follow-up called The Machismo Monologues
It's quite good, I know you'll like it. I think this was a good trilogy of articles don't you?