Article here. Excerpt:

'If the words “Selective Service” aren’t a call to arms for you, it might be because you are a woman – with no sons. For American young men and their parents, “Selective Service” means “the draft,” and, yes, boys still have to sign up for it.
...
True, the country has not yet re-activated a draft, leaving Selective Service to fade into near obscurity, while our all-volunteer military has fought three more wars. However, the consequences for men who don’t register are immediate and real: up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up $250,000, and ineligibility for government jobs or financial aid.

That’s right; your son can go to jail if he does not register for the Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday.

But don’t worry; your daughters are still safe. They can choose to serve or not. Even if your son has a disability, he must register. But America’s healthiest daughters do not.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'But Joshua Engel, a Mason attorney who is representing students suing Ohio State University, the University of Cincinnati, Ohio University and Marietta College, said universities have a financial motive for unjustly treating the accused.

“Schools are scared,” he said. “They’re scared that if they don’t crack down and show they are tough on allegations of campus sexual assault, that the federal government is going to come in and take all their money. How do they keep the federal government from investigating them and threatening their funding? The way to do that is by throwing kids out of school because that impresses the federal government, evidently.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'USA TODAY College: Is the statistic that 1-in-5 women will be sexually assaulted in college widely accepted in Congress? It’s gotten some backlash from university administrators who think it’s an exaggeration.

Sen. Robert Casey: The number is important. Even if the argument proves true that it’s not (valid) — that it’s 1 in 6, 1 in 7, 1 in 10, 1 in 20 — that is still way too high. I have four daughters, two in college. So this hits people in a very personal way. We could spend all day debating numbers. I’m much more concerned about taking action.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Vice President Joe Biden has called current campus consent policies "tricky," but is apparently still just fine with using them to brand students as rapists.

Biden, speaking at a Domestic Violence Awareness Month roundtable on Thursday, said that current "yes-means-yes" — or affirmative consent — policies can be "tricky," despite his continuous insistence that schools do more to curb an alleged epidemic of campus sexual assault.

"The cultural norms make it still kind of hard to say, 'Yes, I'd like you to kiss me,' or 'Yes, I'd like you to do that,'" Biden said, according to veteran journalist and Washington Editor for PJ Media Bridget Johnson. "So it's still tricky."

Article here. Excerpt:

'Q: How to prove consent?

How, in a realistic scenario, could a person accused of sexual assault under affirmative consent provide evidence that consent occurred?

A: Jaclyn Friedman

That would depend a lot on the details of the case. But the standard is no different than in a kidnapping case - if a defendant wanted to defend against a kidnapping charge by saying that the person agreed to go with them voluntarily, they'd have to convince a judge and jury that was true. Rape is no different.
...
Q: criminal law "yes means yes?"

It's my understanding that "yes means yes" provisions are confined to college campus codes of conduct---for now. Is this a standard we would want in our criminal law?

A: Jaclyn Friedman

Article here. Excerpt:

"The Democratic National Committee is 'clearing a path' for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday's primary debate.

Speaking on the condition that she isn't identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it 'early on.'

The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary's rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.

Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and 'the party's female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,' the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the 'real power' in the organization.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Closing out Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, the evening newscast found it pertinent to tout a new campaign by the British edition of the liberal feminist magazine Elle to photoshop men out of pictures of elected officials in an effort to promote the global need for more women in office.

Anchor Lester Holt led into correspondent Stephanie Gosk’s piece by admitting that “it’s one thing to talk about the gap in power between men and women” but “another to see it before your eyes.” He continued by explaining that this represents “the idea behind a thought-provoking new campaign that’s making its point with the help from photoshop.”

Article here. Excerpt:

'The University of California, Santa Barbara has agreed to settle a civil lawsuit brought by two anti-abortion protesters after feminist studies professor Mireille Miller-Young mocked them, stole their sign, destroyed the sign and scratched up the wrists of one protester — a 16-year-old girl.

The financial details of the settlement will remain confidential, reports Campus Reform.

The plaintiffs, sisters Thrin Short and Joan Short, say they are “very satisfied” with the settlement amount.

The events that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred in March 2014. At the time, Thrin Short was 16 and Joan Short was 21.'

Essay downloadable from here. It is by Janet Napolitano, a driving force behind the current campus nutsery. But hang on, sometimes Hell freezes over... jump to page 398 of the essay and be prepared to feel your jaw hit the floor. Description:

Article here. Excerpt:

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Sexual Assault Support Center (SASC) is starting a program this month to facilitate the exploration of masculinity.

The “Creating Healthier Masculinities Leadership Program” seeks to question social expectations of men through conversation, training and eventually whatever program participants decide that UBC needs.

To kick off the project, former BC Lions player JR LaRose will discuss his own relationship to the hyper-masculine stereotype.

“Men, this isn’t a women’s issue, a trans issue, [or] a gender non-conforming issue — it’s your issue.... We’re trying to contextualize it more than just, ‘Stop screwing up, do better,’” said AMS President Aaron Bailey and soon to be participant in the training. “This could make you healthier, make you better able to deal with things.”

The goal of the campaign is to help men overcome the harmful societal expectations that prevent them from accessing counselling, exploring male privilege and other personal issues.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ah, the special feeling you get when logging into Facebook and find someone thinks you’re cool enough to invite to their event. Is it a house party? Is it a social? All the possibilities race through your mind. Then it hits you. You tap the red notification and find you’ve been summoned to this year’s “I Heart Consent Training Sessions”. Your crushing disappointment quickly melts away and is overcome by anger.

Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.

Article here. Excerpt:

'I’d like you all to take a moment to think about someone you’ve probably never met.

His name is George Lawlor, and he’s a student at Warwick University. And, dear readers, something terrible has happened to George. You see, George logged on to Facebook recently and noticed that he had an invitation to an event.

Perhaps Lawlor doesn’t get asked to all that many parties - such was his dismay at this particular invite. Instead of a request for his presence at the coolest club in town, he’d been invited to something entitled “I Heart Consent” - a workshop where people willingly turn up and learn about the idea of sexual consent. These sessions, popping up on campuses across the country, are happening in a bid to decrease the number of assaults.'

Story here. Excerpt:

'A student at the University of Warwick has divided opinion online after speaking out against being invited to sex consent training lessons – a move, he says, was ‘the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years’.

Writing in online student publication The Tab, politics and sociology student George Lawlor described how he was excited to receive an invite to what he thought was a social event, but says his crushing disappointment quickly melted away to be overcome by anger when he realised what he was being invited to.

Having acknowledged how people should only interact with mutual agreement, he said he still found the invitation to be loathsome, adding: “It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.”'

Article here. Excerpt:

'One major and negative narrative about the justice system is that wealthy and well-connected people get to live by different rules than the rest of us. One can find examples both reinforcing and undermining this, but the prevailing narrative remains.

If one wanted to find a blatant example of wealthy, privileged people getting their own justice system they can bend to their will, look no further than the anti-campus sexual assault movement. Born of false statistics and exaggerated (orwholly made up) victimhood, the movement has created (and seeks to maintain) a separate court system for those who can afford college.

What we're left with is a movement that seeks "easy justice for me, but not for thee." It's a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who are at a higher risk for sexual assault and who cannot afford college, many of them poor, minority women.'