Wendy McElroy recently told me about this web page, which aims to create a list of personal resources that are gender-inclusive. The list is currently a bit sparse, but there is an attempt to include info on domestic violence and sexual assault resources which don't exclude men. Many of you might know of some resources for men that could be added - SAFE is one of the ones I have in mind - so feel free to let the webmaster, Kirsten Tynan, know about them: ktynan@seds.lpl.arizona.edu.

This article covers Terry Barton, the woman who finally admitted to starting the worst wildfire in Colorado history. In a ploy reminiscent of the NOW's stand on Russell Yates, Stephanie Howard, a Forest Service wildlife biologist states of Barton's husband, "He didn't know how to love her. He had a drinking problem. He had just a huge amount of issues with trying to deal with loving someone, loving his daughters . . . He was a very difficult man to live with."

Prosecutor Dave Conner asked, "You're not suggesting that John Barton caused Terry Barton to set this fire, are you? Or are you?"

Howard replied, "Indirectly, I am, yes."

frank h sent us a link to John Leo's recent article on CEDAW, which appeared in U.S. News and World Report, among other periodicals and web sites. Leo explains that the dangers of CEDAW are that "it bristles with contempt for family, motherhood, religion and tradition" and will "impose "gender studies" on the schools and feminist-approved textbooks on students." It's encouraging to see the flaws of CEDAW exposed in the media, which has so far been avoiding covering the treaty for as long as possible.

SJones writes "According to the June 23rd issue of News of the Weird Susan Winkler, 44, of Green Bay, Wisconsin, claims she accidently shot her husband in the groin with a shotgun. Police charged her with reckless endangerment, which is the standard charge for firing a weapon within the city limits without hitting anyone. No charges were filed for the shooting and sexual mutilation of her husband."

SJones writes "The city of San Francisco is using a feminist program run by a group called 'SAGE' which defines
prostitution to be male exploitation of females and
encourages the arrest of male customers while
providing (at tax payer expense) protection and services
for the prostitutes themselves. On Court TV a program
showed police actually watching the hookers to make
sure their tricks went well and they weren't hurt
while conducting business. Sometimes they'd harass the
women, but never did they arrest any. Male
customers, on the other hand, were arrested, booked,
and forced to pay hundreds of dollars to go through a
special 're-education camp' where feminists screamed
at them and blatantly sexually harassed them with
demeaning criticisms of their male genitalia.
According to the SAGE website, many other cities have
adopted this state-run prostitution racket after San
Francisco did."

Dan-Lynch writes "Carol Gilligan, at one time an advocate for "girl power" in schools is now singing a different tune about how boys are doing in school (poorly of course). I submitted this National Post article (found on Men's News Daily) because it just rings of the old saying, "the fox guarding the chicken coup"."

Mark writes "Governor Mark Warner was on AM 1140 today in Richmond, Virginia taking calls from the listening audience. I called to see if he has or knows of any plans in the Virginia legislature to pass Paternity Fraud laws similar to those in other states. After explaining it to the screener I was put on hold for a few minutes. Eventually the screener came back and said that he will save me the time because the governor NEVER HEARD OF PATERNITY FRAUD, but claims he (Governor Warner) did say that "Fraud is Fraud."
Perhaps he never did hear of it. If that is the case, I would love to inform him of it. Does anyone have or know of any god draft letters for politicians? I like to think that he wasn't dodging because he knew that it would be hard to defend why such laws shouldn't be passed."

Dianna Thompson of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children derided the National Organization for Women's new Family Court Report 2002 in the Los Angeles Times today (free reg. required), noting that the report was a "self-selecting survey among NOW constituents" and not objective research. Thompson also noted that US census data showed that women are granted custody 80% of the time and that "fathers have very small chances of getting even dual custody." Also, men's issues columnist Glenn Sacks blasted NOW. on KTRS AM 550 in St. Louis today, advising listeners that NOW's recently released report is a fraud designed to create the false impression that family courts are biased against women.

Here is the text of Trudy Schuett's speech to the recent NCFM forum. It's great to see Trudy point out that the seeds of anti-male hate have resided in feminism for a long time. This fact debunks the claim that early, second-wave feminism was a purely benevolent movement. I also loved her statement, "We didn't realize that feminism, by its own nature, cannot be about equity. It's right there in the word. The word isn't equalitarianism, it's feminism. The word itself suggests concentrating on women -- that they should be elevated in recognition, somehow. That can only be lopsided and unnatural."

Thanks for all the hard work and devotion, Trudy.

This article in the Washington Post covers a report by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, directors of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. While men are described as "phobic," the article does quote some of men's reasons for avoiding marriage. Two examples include, "An ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and 'men have more to lose financially than women.'" Whitehead called the work, which was based on interviews with only 60 single men, a "pilot study" and called for a nationally representative examination of the situation.

Trudy W Schuett writes "The signs are put away, the speakers have gone home, but St. Paul Minnesota and the men's movement will never be the same! Read the commentary on how it all went at Men's News Daily." Update: Wendy McElroy has made a transcript available of the on-line chat that happened last Sunday, which can be viewed here. Wendy's speech at the NCFM event can be read here.

Glenn Sacks writes, "NOW launched an assault today on the Fathers' Rights movement with the publication of its new "Family Court Report 2002." Many fathers' rights groups are named in the report, including the ACFC and the NCFC. The John Knight/Fathers Manifesto fiasco is used against us, as well as the Warren Farrell/incest nonsense. It's getting a lot of publicity here. I suggest you download and take a good look at the report--if we do not fight this it will serve to kill much of the progress we have made in educating the public on anti-father family court discrimination."

The Washington Post reports on the continuing decline of male enrollment in US colleges and universities. It's interesting that they admit that the problem can no longer be "shrugged off." One has to question the sincerity of many of the people who are currently examining this crisis. There are still a few areas where women don't outnumber men and Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the National Women's Law Center, states, "The job is not yet done." Also, note that the article does not mention the hardships that this development portends for men. Rather it comments on the fact that "the lack of marriable men is a hot topic of conversation among black women. They can't see it now, but that is going to happen for white women in the future."

Tonight, Sunday the 23rd, 9:00 p.m. EDT, join the free online ifeminists/mensactivism chat where Trudy Schuett, father's rights activist, and Wendy McElroy will discuss their participation in the path-breaking counter-NOW conference on June 21st. Trudy's speech during the conference has been transcribed and can be read here.

BusterB writes "The audacity of the Ontario court is astounding. The judges' claim (unanimous no less) is that the law as it stands clearly gives mothers the final say on whether to even acknowledge the father on the birth certificate, let alone name the child. There may be a Supreme Court appeal, but the Ontario court is held in high regard in Canada. Well, at least there was a dissenting opinion in the B.C. court, but notice that it was just a "dissenting opinion," not a victory for fathers. This is the same "justice" system that has struck down laws right, left, and centre when those laws infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Someone explain to me just exactly why kiddie porn distributors' Charter rights are more important than fathers' Charter rights? Go figure."