Article here. Excerpt:

'America has witnessed a massive shift in government authority, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley — one that “has occurred without a national debate and certainly not a national vote.” That shift has led to the de facto creation of a “fourth branch of government containing legislative, executive and judicial components but relatively little direct public influence.”

Article here. Excerpt:

'Many more women than men will be opening acceptance letters and e-mails this spring and enrolling in college in the fall, in a trend that holds for both institutions in Massachusetts and nationwide.

Women accounted for 55 percent of undergraduates enrolled at four-year colleges in the United States as of fall 2014, according to the most recent data available from the federal education department.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Women have outnumbered men on college campuses in the US by a widening margin since the late 1970s, and the gap will continue to grow in coming years, according to some projections.

But it hasn’t always been this way.

In the late 1940s, men accounted for more than 70 percent of college students.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Newly released emails from Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s private email account show detailed correspondence with Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who pressured an enthusiastic and receptive Carter to give preferential treatment to women in the military.

The Pentagon released a huge tranche of Carter’s emails Friday as a result of several Freedom Of Information requests.

As head of the non-profit organization Lean In, whose goal it is to push women into key leadership positions in different sectors of American public life, Sandberg corresponded with Carter on May 31, 2015, well in advance of his Dec. 3 decision to open all combat roles to women.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Fornication. Sodomy. Adultery. Not so long ago, the U.S. criminalized pretty much all sex outside of marriage. As these laws have been struck down by courts or allowed to settle into obsolescence, it would seem that sexual liberty has been vindicated as an important American value. But while the courts have been busy ushering the government out of our bedrooms, it's been creeping right back in under new pretenses. Gone is the language of morals, tradition, and order—the state now intervenes in our sex lives bearing the mantles of safety, exploitation, and sex discrimination.

We are living in a new sex bureaucracy," warn Harvard Law School professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk in an upcoming paper for the California Law Review. Contra court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas—which decriminalized sodomy in Georgia and affirmed a constitutional right to sexual privacy—"the space of sex" is still "thoroughly regulated" in America, they write. And "the bureaucracy dedicated to that regulation of sex is growing. It operates largely apart from criminal enforcement, but its actions are inseparable from criminal overtones and implications."

Press release here. Excerpt:

'Polices designed to require explicit and ongoing agreement, often referred to as “affirmative consent,” experienced three setbacks during the past week. These developments signal broader concerns about the effectiveness, workability, and constitutionality of these policies, sometimes referred to as “yes means yes.”

Last Monday, members of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee declined to take a vote on HB 1142, a bill that would have required students at all Maryland colleges to give their “ongoing,” “clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary” agreement before engaging in sexual activities. Monday was the deadline for Maryland Delegates to approve a bill in order for it to advance to the Senate. Since no vote was taken, the affirmative consent bill is now considered “dead.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Since Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced in December that all combat positions must open up to women across the services, military officials have insisted standards for mental and physical fitness will not lower to accommodate women, but countless experts and former military servicemembers consider all such promises to be little more than empty words.

Here’s exactly how a shift in standards in the infantry and elite special operations could happen.

Back on January 24, 2013, during a Pentagon news conference, then-Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, planted the seeds for a future downward trajectory in standards. His revealing statement has become known as the “Dempsey Rule.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Are men dealt an unfair hand? Dr. Katherine Young, the co-author of a series of books on “misandry”—the anti-male equivalent of misogyny—thinks so. In her latest book, Replacing Misandry, Young and her co-author, Dr. Paul Nathanson, argue that the disparagement of boys and men in modern culture is undeniable. Dr. Young joins Andrew to discuss her research.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman who threw two babies in the garbage, killing them, is not guilty of second degree murder.

Meredith Borowiec was originally convicted of second degree murder in the deaths of her two babies in 2008 and 2009. Her original conviction was overturned and she has now been found guilty of the lesser crime of infanticide.
...
But this theme of women getting lesser sentences for the same crimes as men doesn't stop at mothers who murder their children. Women generally spent less time in jail for the same crimes.

Where is that male privilege the feminists keep telling me is out there? Because if a woman can kill two babies and nearly kill a third and get off with a mere 18 months jail time using a special law just for women, then I’d say she’s pretty privileged.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'A prosecutor is appealing a Gallatin County Justice Court judge’s ruling that says portions of a Montana law about domestic violence arrests are discriminatory toward men.

In a March 18 ruling, Judge Rick West dismissed a misdemeanor partner family member assault charge against a Big Sky man, saying that a section of Montana statute is unconstitutional and violates the man’s equal protection under state and federal law.

The law at the center of the case says that when law enforcement officers responded to a potential partner or family member assault case where there had been “mutual aggression,” the officer can evaluate the situation to determine the predominant aggressor.
...
Defense attorney Al Avignone filed a motion seeking to dismiss the charge, arguing that the criteria officers use to determine who the predominant aggressor is in a domestic violence situation is unconstitutional.

Article here. There has been a determined push by Feminist Advocacy groups in the UK and America to claim that research supports the theory that better gender and racial diversity on Corporate Boards improves decision-making and hence financial performance. Unfortunately - as explained by Prof. Alice Eagly, Professor of Psychology and Professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern University - that is not supported by research. Excerpt:

'You’d be forgiven for assuming a quick and sure way to multiply profits and amplify organizational success is to increase the gender and racial diversity of any group. According to claims in the mainstream media, the effects of gender and racial diversity are universally favorable. News stories tend to mirror this 2014 Washington Post article’s claim that “researchers have long found ties between having women on a company’s board of directorsand better financial performance.”

And as Nicholas Kristoff wrote in The New York Times in 2013:

Story here. Excerpt:

'The Marine Corps commandant has laid out a campaign to impose “cultural change” in macho ground combat units to make sure warriors display no resistance to accepting and mentoring women.

The “Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan,” approved by Gen. Robert B. Neller, sparks a revolution in training and education as the 182,000-strong expeditionary force prepares for the Obama administration’s April 1 deadline to start the process of putting women in infantry, armor and artillery units.

It contains a new curriculum of sensitivity training.

“The purpose of gender integration education is to support leadership efforts to facilitate the cultural change necessary to ensure the integration of female Marines into ground combat arms MOSs [military occupational specialties] and units is successful,” the document states. “In most cases, the introduction of new players to a team disrupts unit cohesion.”

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Ghomeshi trial has to have been a giant embarrassment for Ottawa law professor and hard-core feminist Elizabeth Sheehy. In 2013, Sheehy published a book, Defending Battered Women on Trial. In it, Sheehy proposed that women who experience extreme abuse from their male partners should have the right to kill them pre-emptively – in their sleep, say – without fear of being charged with murder.

According to Sheehy, women in abusive relationships are like prisoners of war, for whom it is a duty to kill their captors. To be sure, Sheehy’s target group would not include the three women who made such a hash of their testimonies at the Ghomeshi trial, since they were not in any way captive to Ghomeshi as the women she envisages are, nor did they experience extreme abuse.

But that hardly matters, because Sheehy’s thesis rests on the same foundational articles of faith regarding all women victims, of all male abuse, that the Ghomeshi trial has taken a jackhammer to: namely, that women never lie about abuse and that the justice process is biased toward men.

She has been proved wrong on both counts.

To begin with the second myth: Handbooks for police across the country reflect the feminist vision of women that Sheehy embraces. In fact a decade ago some lawyers launched a human rights complaint against Alberta Justice over their “Handbook for police and prosecutors” dealing with domestic violence (the twin gender crime to sexual assault) because it portrayed men always as perpetrators and women always as victims throughout its 160 pages, and because the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” didn’t make a single appearance in all those pages.

Story here. Excerpt:

'Going away for college is a dream for most young people, but for a local teen it turned into a nightmare.

Instead of starting fall semester, he spent the first day of school in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.

“It’s just I was the wrong guy,” Elijah Bethel said. “That’s all that really happened. They just picked the wrong person.”

Bethel was a star in the classroom and on the football field. But the hit he didn’t see coming happened last Fall when he enrolled at SUNY Buffalo State.

At 3:21 a.m. on August 28, 2015, campus police were called to Porter Hall where a young woman had been groped in her sleep. The attacker fled and dropped cigarettes and a lighter.

“She was sleeping, and it was very difficult for her to make an identification,” attorney Paul Michalek said.

She said it was a short, black man in black shorts.

Nineteen minutes later at 3:40 a.m., police see Bethel in black shorts with three friends on the other side of campus.

Article here. Excerpt:

'An editorial executive at the Harvard Crimson is decrying all people who believe in due process as “rape apologists.”

In an article on the Harvard Crimson, Nian Hu laments over the allegedly “stymied” progress for alleged sexual assault survivors.

While admitting, “practically everyone agrees that rape is bad,” Hu writes those who believe in due process for individuals accused of rape are “rape apologists”:

"Who is upholding this broken system, and protecting sexual assault perpetrators at the expense of survivors?

Rape apologists are. The problem is, they don’t consider themselves defenders of rapists. Instead, they call themselves defenders of liberty and due process before the law. They are the self-proclaimed champions of “innocent before proven guilty.” All they want is fairness and equality—that is, for the men who are accused of rape."'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Hey, men: Ever wonder why your life expectancy is shorter than women's? It could be because you're too busy chugging whiskey, chopping firewood and doing other tough man stuff to go to the goddamn doctor.

Men who subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity are less likely to go to the doctor. They're more likely to downplay their symptoms. They also tend to experience worse overall health than people who don't hold those beliefs, according to new research.

Tradition-bound dudes are also more likely to choose male doctors — but they're less likely to open up to them about health issues than they are with female doctors.

Psychologists at Rutgers University say their findings could help explain why men tend to die earlier than women.

"Men can expect to die five years earlier than women, and physiological differences don't explain that difference," Diana Sanchez, associate professor of psychology at Rutgers' School of Arts, said in a press release.'