This story on knoxstudio.com describes how a Bush aide wants to "run with the idea" of paying women an "extra $100 per month" if they marry the fathers of their children. This seems like a desperate attempt to keep the traditional family together, and in the long run it may hurt more than it helps. "Mommy, do you love Daddy?" "No, honey, I'm just in it for the money. Someday YOU can use a man for some extra cash!" Society would be better served by allowing people to remain independent of marriage while supporting fathers in their attempts to be a larger part of their children's lives.

Considering the controversy over boxer Mike Tyson's original conviction of rape in the early 1990s (according to polls I recall from those times, males generally perceived the conviction as a bum rap, females perceived it as justice being served), I thought this story on Excite News was appropriate. A 50-year-old woman recently charged that Tyson raped her while training for an upcoming bout. Prosecutors say there is not enough evidence linking Tyson to the reported crime, and they do not expect things to change, but they're not considering the case closed.

This story on Excite News details new UK guidelines for doctors who are being told they must stop parents from having their female children circumcised. There is no mention of male circumcision anywhere in the story, although male circumcision is obviously more widespread (and, as obviously, more widely accepted). I've always found it interesting that women refer to female circumcision as "genital mutilation" and male circumcision as a "medical procedure."

This story on Excite News reports on a Minnesota wrestling coach who is under scrutiny for "misuse of resources" after he developed a program to fight the gender equity problems caused by Title IX. The coach had managed to gather support and funding from several people and schools before being accused of using school property for personal work.

Marc Angelucci writes "The L.A. Times printed this article today, titled "Moms Are Enough," which essentially says that the success of lesbian parents means dads are not really needed. It's interesting how the author doesn't mention the flipside: the success of gay male parents would mean moms aren't needed. The author also conflates all father's activists with traditional family supporters, which not all of us are. We're just sick and tired of seeing courts blocking fathers from being with their kids. I wrote to them. You can too at letters@latimes.com."

A really passionate article was written on the problems that boys face in the UK Times. While the author writes with a great deal of despair, he accurately describes the many problems that have put boys these days in crisis: suicide, fatherlessness, repression of boys' physical exuberance, etc. Perhaps the article will act as a wake up call to those who claim to care about boys' needs but have taken no action on their behalf as of yet. We can't continue to let things continue this way. The article can be read at this link.

A federal appeals court last week affirmed that the University of Texas failed to take proper action when a male faculty member claimed he was being sexually harassed by a male superior. This story on Excite News details that the man's case was the first to take advantage of the 1998 Supreme Court ruling which established that sexual harassment could take place between members of the same sex.

Anonymous User writes "As if all crimes aren't hate crimes... now we need additional laws to further oppress and strip people of their constitutional rights to appease the radical left. Oppose further dilution of due process and liberty! Be aware of laws like this that pass without opposition!" The link to the story is here. What I'd be curious about is if this law specifically protects women and not men. Certainly, even if it is egalitarian, it will most likely be interpreted in a biased way against men by the courts.

The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned another court's acceptance of the University of Minnesota's appeal of a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a male professor, according to this story on Excite News. Amazingly, one of the university's arguments was that anti-discrimination laws were intended to protect women only! The male professor filed the lawsuit as a result of women-only pay increases after a 1989 sexual discrimination lawsuit settlement. In response to the University's second argument, the appeals court ruled both men and women are protected under sexual discrimination laws. Update: You may e-mail the university's Board of Regents here.

This report on Excite News attempts to remove responsibility for a woman's own sexual choices and place them squarely on the shoulders of her male partners. Men who are bisexual and who do not use protection, the study claims, are directly responsible for an increase in HIV among women. Their solution is to include men in education about condom use. I, for one, had no idea we were being excluded.

As if the military doesn't already screw men over with the draft, now some scientists are claiming that mustard gas, a common biological weapon used in warfare since World War I, causes testicular damage and infertility in men. It was intended to attack the respiratory system, skin, and eyes. So not only have governments forced young men who weren't willing to give their lives into service, but they've also destroyed the survivors' chances of carrying on future generations.

Offering proof that men everywhere are finally demanding something of their own in a world rife with periodicals and entertainment geared almost exclusively to women, this story on Excite News reports that FHM has not only become the fastest growing men's magazine in the world, but is also now the fastest growing magazine of any category in the United States. May the advertising and entertainment industries take note. If men once again become a consumer powerhouse, we're likely to see less male bashing as advertisers attempt to cater to men and women equally.

Fathers are being driven out of the family--effectively disenfranchised from society--but no one knows. Those are the introductory words on this Web site, which is promoting the Mankind Conference 2001, to be held Sept. 15, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., at The Friends House, Euston Rd., London. Opposite Euston Station. I'm in the U.S. and won't be able to attend, but I encourage anyone interested in fathers' rights to get involved. The ultimate goal of this conference is to make family courts public, because The process of smearing is now second nature in the media and in the secret family courts. It makes for fabulous headlines but when the cases fall flat the public is never told.

Our latest feature article was written by Marc Angelucci and is on the double standards of justice America has for male and female criminals. Are women really treated more leniently than men for the same crime? If so, how does it compare to racial differences in sentencing? Read on for a superb eye-opening article that was so thoroughly researched that Marc also got it published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a reputable legal newspaper.

Here's an update we received by e-mail about Michael Sandifer: "Six days after being named a defendant in a $36 million lawsuit, [Colorado] State District Judge Thomas L. Kennedy had the Plaintiff, Father's Rights
Advocate, Michael Sandifer jailed. Sandifer spent 6 hours in the Criminal Justice Center of El Paso County before being released on bail. Sandifer has responded by saying: "I will be formally notifying State Attorney General, Ken Salazar, of my intention to bring civil action against the State of Colorado in Federal District Court under the Racketeering and Corrupt Practice Act. The lawsuit will seek class action status and be asking for damages in the amount of $ 1 Billion. For further information contact Chuck Hansen @ (719) 748-9058"