Not PC sent in this link to a NewsMax story on the importance of fathers. The article touches on a wide range of subjects, including the rise of illegitimacy, father's influence on their children's academic success, the problems facing urban black families, reasons why we currently have so many children without regular contact with their dads. The article isn't entirely pro-male, but covers both sides of the issue, closing with "Many "deadbeat" fathers are actually "dead broke," Rep. Carson said. Carson said she knows it's not all men's fault. Some mothers accept child support but refuse to grant fathers access to their children, she said, and some women drive a wedge between children and their fathers."

Andrew submitted this story from the Washington Post. It gives a very thorough introduction to the Independent Women's Forum and what the group is involved in, and how it has come a long way in the public profile. Mention was made that IWF has a $1.3M annual budget, something that no men's group can claim, so I think that as an organization which is publicly challenging anti-male feminism, it is something we might do well to learn from.

Jim Castelli submitted this link to Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe editorial and writes, "Jacoby reacts to the MA Supreme Court's decision forcing a young man to support a child he has been deceived into believing was his. Mr. Jacoby writes: "And what burden, you might wonder, does the law place on women? A burden to tell the truth when asked to identify a child's father? A burden not to trick a young man into forfeiting tens of thousands of dollars that he doesn't owe? A burden not to deceive the courts? Nope, none of the above. To judge from the court's opinion, a woman like Cheryl's mother is under no obligation at all....In the court's view he is not a wronged man with a compelling plea for relief. He is an ATM machine.""

My latest article for the UNH school newspaper, The New Hampshire, has been printed. I must admit there was a bit of a struggle to get them to print this article, and it was assumed that my challenging of the "1 in 4" rape statistic was simply wrong, despite the fact that I included my source in the article. I ended up having to show up in person with photocopied sections of Who Stole Feminism? to demonstrate that I had the facts straight, and then they agreed to print the article. But that, of course, was after a week's delay. The on-line editor for the paper has left, so the article isn't on TNH's web site, but you can read it by clicking "Read More" below. Enjoy!

Not PC submitted a link to this story from the Oregon Live, regarding a recent OR Supreme Court Ruling that divorced parents can be forced to pay college expenses for their children, even though married couples are not required by law to do the same. The judge even admitted that it was discrimination, but discrimination with a "rational basis." I guess it must be "rational" to extend the "divorced-father-as-wallet" metaphor for as long as possible. And if you combine this with MA's recent Supreme Court ruling, you'd even get non-bio fathers to pay for their non-bio children's college expenses! This is surely the pinnacle of "rationality"...

Here's a book review of Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism it's quite an interesting read, as all the main points are well summarized.
Carolyn Graglia is a 72 year conservative who says of feminists that they are "borderline misogynistic" and with a lifetime of seeing social change behind her, this book might well be worth buying.

frank h submitted this article from the Washington Times. The article discusses a new controversial sexual harassment policy being drafted at George Washington University, which says that "faculty members accused of sexual harassment would not be told the identity of the accuser or the specific charges against them...teachers could be charged with sexual harassment if something they say in class can be construed as such." Frank writes "Again, we see that men are no longer afforded protection under the Fourteenth Amendment." Well, I'm hoping that since the faculty are the ones up in arms, that something will actually be done to stop this. The lack of student outrage about Columbia's rape policy is more than a bit disturbing.

Considering Columbia's new Sexual Misconduct Policy and the controversy it has created, the courage of student Jaime Sneider is even more awe inspiring. Sneider's NY Daily News article debunks the statistics used by the promoters of Columbia's Take Back the Night rally, including the "1 in 4" rape statistic and domestic violence myths. It seems that Jaime and I were thinking along the same lines recently (more about that on Monday).

jonathan writes "This feature from New Scientist, taken from a review paper, reveals some interesting results relating to the biological basis for monogamous relationships." One has to wonder how much truth there are to stereotypes about men and women - I felt there were some really good points made in the article, but is biology really destiny? I guess it's up to us to decide.

Spartacus and Not PC submitted this link to news that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was recently passed, which will make it a federal crime to harm a pregnant woman, because the fetus also may be harmed. The bill specifically makes an exemption allowing for women to abort the "person," so there is a great deal of controversy over whether this is contradictory. It certainly seems so to me.

J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC) submitted an abstract of an article about the needless procedure of circumcision. "The article, "Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision-An Ethical and Legal Conundrum," appears in the Winter 2000 issue of the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy." Click "Read More" below to view more info on this article and what it's all about.

Ed Bartlett from Men's Health America had an article (scroll to bottom of page) printed in the Spring 2001 issue of the American Public Health Association's Journal Section on Epidemiology. Ed tallied the participation in several key research areas, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, and injury, among others, demonstrating the fallacy that women were routinely discriminated against in health research. Check it out.

Elliot Zaret from TheGuyCode sent me a link to this article, which is superb. It discusses the hypocrisy of female stars, such as Jennifer Lopez, who complain about the way women are portrayed in film but then "flaunt their stuff" when it is to their advantage. The article is also interesting in that it is laid out as a dialogue between himself and Lisa Napoli, the co-author, with each side giving their own take on the issue. Both agree that women's sexual power is a very real force and one that isn't recognized as such these days. It's a great read.

Not PC and Jim Castelli submitted this link from the Boston Globe, a serious setback for male reproductive rights. Not PC writes, "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says that it doesn't matter if there is a biological connection of a man to a child, he's still the father. In other words, he's guilty of being a man. Women, on the other hand, can bear children from any man and never worry about getting paid for it. They can even get college expenses for those children in Massachusetts." "Guilty for being a man" is exactly right.

Further evidence of bias against men in medical health research was noted in Ed Bartlett's MHA mailing list, message 319. "The journal, Statistics in Medicine, has just published an important article that compares the number of single-sex studies done for men and women, and compares that number with the disease burden faced by both sexes. The study, "Estimation of Gender Bias in Clinical Trials" looks at articles published from 1966-1995. The article...concludes that while women were underrepresented in heart disease trials, men were underrepresented both in cancer and in other trials. The article further abolishes the myth that women were "routinely excluded" from medical research.