Article here. Excerpt:

'Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced support for Oscar winning actress Patricia Arquette’s speech demanding equal pay for equal work in the United States.

“I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette’s speech at the Oscars because she’s right — it’s time to have wage equality once and for all,” Clinton said in a speech at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women.

During an interview portion of the event, Clinton explained to Re/Code’s Kara Swisher that the tech industry is a “Wild West” atmosphere that favors men.

“I think a lot of women find that distasteful, unappealing to be in a situation sort of resembling a locker room in some ways where you just feel like it’s hard to get your voice in, it’s hard to be heard,” she explained.

Clinton claimed that often, women speak their ideas and are ignored until a man comes up with the same idea 20 minutes later and is recognized.

Story here.

'The de Blasio administration will do away with the policy that required a mohel to obtain a written consent form from parents before performing Metzitzah B'Peh, the circumcision ritual that involves the mohel sucking blood from the wounded penis.

The city's health department has for years linked the practice to neonatal herpes, citing four cases in 2014.

But the consent forms, which were put in place in 2012, offended members of certain Orthodox Jewish sects who rejected the link and found the forms to be an impingement on their religious freedom.

During the campaign, Mayor Bill de Blasio promised to address the consent form and find a new way that respected religious freedom.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Around thirteen men in the UK will kill themselves today, and the male suicide rate is at a 14-year high. Is it time to accept that society has become dangerously hostile to men, asks Mike Snelle.

Story here. Excerpt:

"A man was stabbed and attacked by a mob when he was wrongly accused of rape, and claims his partner suffered a miscarriage after a gang hounded the couple over the false allegations.

Terry Brown, 33, was forced to flee his home town of Basildon in Essex after Lisa-Jayne Samuels falsely claimed he had drugged and raped her, and even picked him out of an ID parade. 

Samuels - who had made up the lies to get attention from her mother - was jailed for 20 months after she admitted perverting the course of justice but Mr Brown claims he was made a prisoner in his own home while he spent a year on bail for the false allegations. 

In one incident Mr Brown and his partner, Tracey Choularton, 25, were surrounded by a gang as they left their home and as Ms Choularton tried to flee she tripped and fell. She later suffered a miscarriage.  

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last week, 16 University of Pennsylvania law professors signed a letter protesting the lack of due process in the school’s sexual assault adjudication procedures. This follows a similar letter, signed by 28 Harvard Law faculty. It comes, as well, on the heels of a series of important articles by prominent feminists that individually, and even more so in combination, mount a powerful critique from a liberal feminist perspective.
...
But note also the steep asymmetry between the consequences of drinking and drug use for the complainant and for the respondent: for the former, intoxication is, to one degree or another, the basis for a per se finding of unwantedness even when assent — even when consent — has been given; but for the latter, it has no mitigating effect on his conduct. And now let us say that two Harvard students — one male, one female — have sex after drinking, using drugs, or both, that each of them feels intense remorse and moral horror about it afterward, and that they both rush the next morning to the Title IX Office with complaints. Let’s say they drop their complaints on the receptionist’s desk simultaneously. Which of them gets the benefit of the per se imputation of unwelcomeness, and which of them carries the heavy handicap of no mitigation? The woman and not the man? Both of them? Neither?
...
There’s no agreement in these essays as to exactly what sorts of policies should be put in place of what currently exists. But it is hard to read them all and maintain the belief that the miscarriages of justice remain a rare or marginal problem in campus sexual assault adjudication. It is likewise hard to believe that these kinds of abuses can persist indefinitely without doing real damage to the systems they represent.

Letter here. Excerpt:

'No, “due process of law is not window dressing,” and you have misstated the law of due process in the university setting. It is generally established that public universities owe students minimal due process rights, and private universities owe them none. While you critique the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights’ guidance that the evidentiary standard used should be a “preponderance of the evidence” standard instead of “clear and convincing” evidence, as a legal matter, private universities can discipline students with no process whatsoever. They must only adhere to the contract set forth by their own policies. Thus, the “Open Letter” must be seen for what it is: a disagreement with Title IX’s mandate that sexual assault survivors not be made to struggle through grievance procedures that specially insulate those accused of sexual assault. This policy, and the OCR’s guidance, was designed to fight the pernicious effects of sexism — including sexual harassment and assault — on our campus. Title IX, a civil rights law, mandates this policy for the purpose of ensuring that people are not denied the ability to pursue and enjoy their education on the basis of sex. The proceedings required are not criminal-light proceedings, despite your attempts to portray them as such. Although Penn’s data on discipline is sadly lacking, grievance proceedings are generally remarkable for the lack of consequences for those found to have committed a sexual assault. Few students found responsible for sexual assault in university adjudications are even expelled — between 13 percent and 30 percent by a recent count.

Article here. Excerpt:

'In September Barack Obama launched the “It’s on Us” campaign, designed to fight what he called the “nightmare” of campus sexual assault. “An estimated one in five women has been sexually assaulted during her college years,” Obama announced, pausing for emphasis. “One in five.” America, the president went on to argue, suffers from a “quiet tolerance of sexual assault,” all too often blaming victims, making excuses, or looking the other way. To combat sexual violence, he said, we need a “fundamental shift in our culture.”

With these words, the president of the United States went all in on the idea that America’s academic institutions have been taken over by a “rape culture” —a culture that normalizes, trivializes, and quietly condones male sexual assault against women, blaming female victims while subtly celebrating male predators.

Once rather obscure and confined to sociology and women’s studies departments, the term “rape culture” has slowly invaded the national consciousness. According to Google search analytics, the topic generated almost no traffic in 2005 or before. After 2011, its popularity slowly began to rise—as we’ll later see, this is no accident—and then, beginning in 2013, it spiked, the graph forming a hockey stick that would make global-warming doomsayer Michael Mann proud.

The idea that one in five college women has or will be sexually assaulted is mind-boggling and horrifying. It’s also not true. As Slate’s Emily Yoffe pointed out in December, the statistic—together with two other dubious studies that, just for the heck of it, upped the ante to one in four—would “mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.”

Article here. Excerpt:

'Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce, but women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of her Senate years’ salary data.

During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.
...
Mark Perry, an economic scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written extensively on the White House hypocrisy related to gender pay equality, said that the data on Clinton shows that she is guilty of the same hypocrisy.

“Politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can’t have it both ways,” Perry said. “They use raw, aggregate, unadjusted gender differences in pay and then claim that those pay gaps are the result of gender discrimination, like the 23 percent national gender pay gap in aggregate median income.”

“They would then have to admit that they themselves are guilty of gender discrimination and have their own glass ceilings to explain, because they have gender pay gaps that are much greater than the average gender pay gap in Washington, D.C.”

Perry said Clinton needs to either put an end to her rhetoric on the issue or admit that she too is guilty of gender discrimination.

“Either Clinton is guilty of gender discrimination and pays her female staffers significantly less than men, or she is guilty of statistical fraud for spreading misinformation about the alleged gender pay gap at the national level,” he said.

Article here. Excerpt:

'There was much discussion recently about the rise in male suicide rates, after official figures published last week showed they were at their highest level since 2001. But one aspect of this has attracted little attention: the lack of support for men abused by their partners. In a poll of 130 Citizens Advice Bureaux [link added] workers, 63 per cent said it was easy to get help for women reporting domestic abuse, compared to 13 per cent for men.

It’s bad enough that men struggle to find help once they pluck up the courage to ask for it. But they are also less likely than women to look for support in the first place – and more likely to be disbelieved.

Story here. Excerpt:

'A MUM-of-four has been jailed for almost two years after lying that she was raped.

Lisa-Jayne Samuels told police that she was sexually assaulted and had her drink spiked in October 2012.

A court heard how the 29-year-old's claims led to the arrest of innocent Terry Brown who endured more than a year of suspicion before Samuels finally admitted she had lied.

During that time, it was reported that Mr Brown was attacked by a gang and his pregnant partner lost her baby.
...
When interviewed, she gave a detailed description of the non-existent rapist, claiming she had been drinking with friends at a pub where she met a man she knew from a night shelter who spiked her drink and attacked her.

An e-fit was drawn up and Mr Brown, from Essex, was later arrested.

But he was later released without charge after police uncovered inconsistencies in Samuels' story.

Story here. Excerpt:

'A CARE worker was caught falsely accusing a man of rape because he recorded their sexual encounter.

But Pauline Muir’s lies still led to the man being arrested and held in custody for more than two hours. He was on bail for seven weeks and said later: “She could have ruined my life.”

Single mother Muir even contacted the man’s 16-year-old son via Facebook to tell him of the allegation, Derby Crown Court heard.

She was jailed for 14 months after admitting perverting the course of justice by making an allegation of rape on September 1.

Judge Hilary Watson told her: “This is a serious perversion of the course of justice. It was a pre-planned, pre-meditated and wicked allegation to make.

“The audio on the recording shows it was entirely consensual and enjoyed by both parties.

Article here. Excerpt:

''At the Academy Awards last night, actress Patricia Arquette [link added] won a round of applause from many in attendance after calling for “wage equality” and “equal rights” for women.

The U.S. Department of Labor was ready to pounce on wage equality:
...
Did somebody at the Labor Department know that was coming, or was it a spontaneous reaction?
...
The Labor Secretary should first walk over to the White House to have a chat with them.
...
Related:

FLOTUS pushes debunked wage gap myth on ‘Equal Pay Day’ [pic]'

Story here.

'A night out drinking and an argument with his girlfriend nearly cost a Tulsa man his penis.

Officers responded to a Tulsa hospital early Thursday morning where a man claimed his girlfriend attacked him while he slept.

Amber Ellis was arrested for maiming and assault with a dangerous weapon.

According to the police report, the victim said he and his girlfriend were out drinking and began arguing while walking home "about how needy she had become." The couple verbally fought in the apartment until the victim told police Ellis stormed off, slamming the bedroom door.

Police say the victim fell asleep on the couch only to wake up to find Ellis "biting his (penis) off."

The victim told police he fought Ellis off but she hit him in the head with a laptop computer.

Once hospitalized, the victim received several stitches to the base of his penis and was treated for injuries to his head, face, neck, fingers and knee.

Story here. Excerpt:

'Jobless mum Kay Bird has enjoyed a £3,000 round-the-world holiday with her 10-month-old baby funded entirely by ­welfare benefits.

Kay, 28, who lives ­comfortably at home with her middle-class parents, has just returned with daughter Chloe from a month-long trip to Australia, Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Dubai, Turkey, Greece and the Netherlands.

And the single mum, who gets more than £8,500 a year in child benefit, ­income support and tax credit, is already planning another luxury trip to New Zealand.

Kay confesses she could work but chooses not to because she wants to wait until Chloe is older, reports the Sunday People.

And she says she doesn’t really need the benefits – equivalent to over £700 a month – because her mum Jill, a shop manageress, and stepdad Bob, a lawyer, pay for everything.
...
“I know there are people worse off than me but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I spend my allowances on.

“If someone’s offering you free money and telling you to take it, you’d have to be a fool not to – that’s all I did.

“Once it’s in my bank account it’s up to me how I use it and I decided to spend it on taking the trip of a lifetime.

"I don’t feel guilty and I don’t regret it.”

Kay’s attitude will outrage millions who work and pay taxes – and nearly half a million more lone parents who struggle to ­survive on benefits on council estates with no help from well-to-do parents.

Article here. Excerpt: