A woman has filed a lawsuit against the Independence House battered women's shelter in Barnstable, MA, claiming that she was illegally forced to attend the program by DSS. When she initially refused, DSS put her children into foster care, a tactic which she claimed has been used to force her and other women to "accept the message" that the shelter teaches. "I complained in the Independence House meetings that I did not want to be there and was being forced to attend through intimidation, threats, and coercion. Independence House did everything to me that they claim would be control and emotional abuse if a man did it. I felt so violated. Our little girl suffered terribly. Independence House, of all places, should understand that when a woman says 'no' - it means 'no.'" The Massachusetts News has the article here - and thanks to Dr. Charles Corry for the submission.

Since a lot of Mensactivism.org visitors are fans of Fred Reed's writing, I thought I would post this link to his recent article about computer-assisted surveillance technology, and how the use of this technology for the purpose of social control is going to creep up on us if we aren't vigilant. While his explanation of the problem is very broad, it's a good introduction to the issues that groups like EPIC and the EFF are confronting.

AngryHarry pointed me to this UK Telegraph article about combat training in the Army. Brig Seymour Monro, director of the Army's infantry, is speaking out that the tests have been so watered down that they are little more than "aggressive camping" exercises. "The exercises, a crucial part of the Army's "Combat Effectiveness Gender Study", have concluded that women are as capable as men of serving in combat units. However, [Monro] said this conclusion could only be reached because the tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials. A scathing commentary on the trials, written by Monro, had been suppressed by senior officers, defence sources said."

A 19-year old Australian woman who had sex with a 13-year old boy as part of a "truth or dare" game was given a 12 month prison sentence but was "ordered not be sent to jail and that the term be served as part of an intensive correction order." This is despite the fact that the judge claims "the woman's conduct should be considered as serious as that of a man who had preyed on a young female." Also from the article: "a victim impact statement supplied by the boy with whom Dugdale had sex revealed he continued to experience nightmares and had trouble communicating with females. She said the boy experienced on-going embarrassment, guilt about his mother's distress and required on-going counselling." Read the article here a>.

The National Center for Policy Analysis has recently started publicizing the gender politics that created the myth that women are neglected in medical research. Their statement on the matter can be read here. The floodgates of truth open a bit further...

Marc Angelucci writes "Kudos to California for having the 5th worst Selective Service registration compliance in the nation (79%). But Assemblyperson Briggs and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors see this as a "problem." To fix it, they want to pass California Assembly Bill (AB1572), which would make draft registration automatic upon applying for a driver's license - if you are male, that is." Click "Read More" below to view some quotes and more of Marc's comments.

Some positive news from the UK Times: it turns out that "FATHERS emerged as the heroes of childbirth yesterday as women criticised maternity services and saved their praise for the men in their lives. " Fathers were also "rated as rocks of support." All I can say is wow!
It seems things are slowly starting to turn our way, but while we have a long way to go yet, perhaps we should sit back and enjoy this for a few minutes before continuing about our daily business.

AngryHarry had a link to this UK Telegraph article, which reports that Melanie Cangardel has been cleared of attempted murder charges. We had reported on this story earlier, which described how Ms. Cangardel crushed antihistamines in her husband's cereal and then tried to suffocate him with a plastic bag when he was sedated from the drugs. Mr. Cangardel did have enormous levels of the drugs in his system when tested, and the earlier story indicated that Ms. Cangardel admitted to doing this to bring attention to their marital problems. I have no idea what must have happened in court, but this is a tragic loss for justice.

Anonymous User writes "The February 2001 issue of American Psychologist arrived today (not online, unfortunately) with an article by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, discussing the concept of "benevolent (vs. hostile) sexism." There is much I find offensive in the article, such as the assumptions that "sexism" refers to prejudice against women only, and that disagreement with the feminist agenda is ipso facto prejudice against women. The concept of benign sexism is intriguing, though, because it consists of beliefs that women should be rescued before men in an emergency, that men need women's love in order to be complete, that women are more cultured than men, that women should be protected by men, and that men should make sacrifices in order to provide for women. They argue that these beliefs actually harm women by legitimizing less benevolent forms of discrimination, in the way the "white man's burden" legitimized colonialism. They are completely submerged in feminist ideology, but from a men's rights perspective, one can only hope that some of their ideas catch on!"

I've some mixed news about divorce - read this story. It turns out that British men might be able get a "cheaper" divorce settlement in certain countries due to a new European Union regulation. However, the main reason I'm posting this is due to this quote from Alain Cornec, a divorce lawyer in France who says "Being a lawyer, I'm delighted, the more paranoid that spouses get about their absent partners, the more legal assistance they will seek." It just goes to show how much profit there is for lawyers (and certain other groups) in gender polarization.

Scotland's national DNA database is about to become a lot bigger, now that police have been given permission to take DNA samples from anyone who is arrested. The UK Daily Telegraph story can be read here. Previously, only major crime suspects, such as murderers and sex criminals, were forced to give DNA samples. While suspects who are found innocent will have the DNA sample destroyed from the database, this still opens the door to the wider use of DNA to identify and track citizens, which carries a number of consequences in regard to privacy and civil liberties issues. Thanks to AngryHarry for the link.

Nicholas Krippendorf, a recent graduate of Brown University, is currently living in China teaching English. However, when he was at Brown, he wrote a blockbuster article critical of the false statistics that were put out by the university's Women's Center. He's looking to get the article published in other men's magazines, so if you want to re-print this elsewhere, feel free to do so. The text of his essay can be read by clicking "Read More" below. Enjoy!

According to this ZDNet story (found on Slashdot), " Members of Congress are inundated with so many e-mail messages from constituents and special interest groups--80 million last year alone--that lawmakers routinely ignore most of them, according to a new study." A disturbing part of the report claims that citizen's expectations should be lowered, and that people have no right to expect a response to electronic communications with Congressmen and women.

Not PC informed me that the BBC is reporting that a man is legally challenging a woman's right to abortion against his will. While the article aptly points out that men currently have no rights in the decision of whether or not to abort, it is pretty obvious (to me, at least) that this legal challenge will not be successful. There are too many other ways a woman could thwart a lover's demand to bring a child to term, and now that the possibility to obtain an abortion is viewed as a woman's right over her own body, I can't imagine that these "rights" can be taken away. But the struggle continues, for good reason. Men deserve some reproductive rights, the question is, which rights would be most fair?

A trial is currently underway in the UK in which a wife tried to kill her wealthy husband by poisoning his breakfast cereal with antihistamine tablets and then suffocating him when he was sedated. He barely escaped, and she claimed that she did it to draw attention to their marital problems and that they needed outside help to deal with them. The way in which the woman behaved seemed disturbingly apathetic to the consequences. The UK Times article can be read at this link.