Article here. Last time I checked, a good half of any given US senator's constituency is male. So why focus so much on just one gender when the other gender has issues with 'getting ahead' as well (boys and education, anti-male discrimination, etc.)?

Imagine a senator who stated quite publicly that his or her focus would be on helping whites get ahead, or green-eyed people get ahead, or people under 5' 5" tall get ahead, etc., all on the dime of the rest of that person's constituency?

Real political leaders are representative of ALL their constituents, not focusing on just one subgroup. I think it's time Sen. Gillibrand heard that. So please contact her and *politely* point this out, especially you folks in the State of New York here in the US. This idea that it is acceptable for pols to pursue the advancement of one group over others at the expense of the rest of their constituents must end, starting with the pursuit of women's interests over men's.

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Email: tstoddard-at-saveservices.org

Telephone: 301-801-0608
Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- A growing number of groups, including Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, are criticizing the proposed reauthorization bill of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for losing sight of the law’s original intended purpose: to help victims of domestic violence. These concerns were highlighted during the recent February 2 meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Concerned Women for America, the largest women’s organization in the country, noted in a February 1 group letter that the Leahy-Crapo bill will “actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims.”

Victim-advocacy group Survivors in Action decries what it calls the “DV run-around” in which victims are shunted from hotlines to shelters to social service agencies, never receiving the services they need.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Fathers matter, and the law now recognises this. The government is rewriting the law so that children will have a legal right to see their father, even when their parents have split up. Fathers' rights campaigners will hail this as a victory for fathers – but in fact, it's a victory for children.

Via email:

Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been criticized by people as serving to expand the reach and size of government, to weaken the family, and to roll-back the Constitution. And because of its innocent-sounding name, few lawmakers have been willing to take on the VAWA juggernaut.

Late last week the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it was going to hold a mark-up of the VAWA reauthorization bill, S. 1925. And we knew GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley was unhappy with Sen. Patrick Leahy’s bill, for a variety of reasons.

So groups mounted telephone campaigns, did lobbying, and Concerned Women for America put together a group letter that was signed by 25 groups and individuals. This letter was circulated to GOP senators just minutes before yesterday’s mark-up.

And when the dust had settled, all 8 GOP senators voted ‘No’ on Sen. Leahy’s bill, instead preferring Sen. Grassley’s substitute amendment. All 10 Democratic senators voted ‘Aye,’ so Leahy’s bill carried through the committee. In a word, yesterday’s party line vote was unprecedented.

Via email:

According to an article that appeared on the front page of the Science section of Tuesday's New York Times (1/31/12), "The day of the assembly-line circumcision is drawing closer." The article states that two new devices, named PrePex and the Shang Ring, will greatly increase the ease and speed with which nurses can perform circumcisions in Africa, with the goal of circumcising 20 million men by 2015.

Article here. Another Super Bowl myth supported by questionable data? Excerpt:

'Indiana lawmakers passed tough human trafficking legislation this week -- just in time to prevent an event where thousands of young girls could get bought and sold for sex.

“The Super Bowl is a huge human trafficking event,” said State Sen. Randy Head, (R-Logansport). “They’re running sophisticated rings -- trading girls from city to city.”

Via email from an activist:

As a result of all our efforts and the attached letter signed by 25, this morning all 8 GOP senators voted 'no' on Sen. Leahy's VAWA reauthorization bill. The aura of VAWA enjoying full bipartisan support has been broken. Now, passage is of VAWA is no longer a foregone conclusion.

Needless to say, NOW is fuming right now.

Although we still have a lot of work to do, CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO ALL.

Click here (.pdf file) for the CWA letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Story here. Excerpt:

'NEW YORK -- A woman has been charged with stalking and shaking down New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman.

Louise Neathway was arraigned Thursday night in Manhattan Criminal Court. Prosecutors said she extorted $6,000 from Cashman, tried to squeeze $15,000 more and engaged in "a long-term effort to control and manipulate" him.

According to a statement from an investigator for the district attorney, starting in the fall of last year, Neathway allegedly asked for money for a medical procedure that would cost more than $15,000. She allegedly threatened to "contact the press and informant's family and assert facts that would subject the informant to ridicule and damage his personal relationships and professional reputation."
...
Judge Abraham Clott set bail at $300,000 bond or $200,000 cash, according to Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.'

I don't know if this was posted already, but it's rare that the discrimination against dads gets any recognition in the mainstream press. Excerpt:

'The papers informed him his wife was filing for divorce. Worse, she had requested, and been granted, a temporary protection order based on allegations of domestic violence. The order—issued at a hearing that took place without Jim—took effect immediately. It required him to vacate his house and refrain from "any contact whatsoever" with either his wife or his 3-year-old son.

In it, his wife wrote that she felt like she had to "walk on eggshells" around Jim due to his unpredictable temper. He would scream to such an extent that "veins in his neck were bulging" and "spittle from his lips was hitting me in the face." She also described him yelling at their dogs, roughly handling their cat, and driving aggressively and recklessly.

But there's one thing she never claimed—that Jim had ever hit her or their son. Nor did she accuse Jim of threatening either of them.
...

Article here. Excerpt:

'Now, five years later, the State Supreme Court has ruled that Fischer (the duped provider) can proceed with a lawsuit demanding that the girl's biological father pay him $190,000 — half the cost of raising her. She's now a young woman of 19.'

What is unfortunate is that the Supreme Court did not in some way require the mother, who knew all along the child was not her husband's, to pay 50% of that amount to Fischer. The mother remains unaccountable for the fraud she foisted upon her husband.

Article here. Excerpt:

'To kick off Super Bowl XLVI weekend, Verizon will participate in the 13th annual Super Bowl Gospel Celebration (SBGC) on Friday, Feb. 3, an NFL sanctioned event, where legendary NFL Pro Bowl players, Super Bowl Champions and MVPs come together on one stage with Grammy Award-winning artists, A-list entertainers and special guests. Salvation and Deliverance Church Choir, the winner of Verizon's 2011 "How Sweet the Sound" national choir competition, will perform during the 2012 SBGC taking place at Butler University in Indianapolis. HopeLine® from Verizon will also make a donation to a local domestic violence agency to help the organization increase awareness of domestic violence and further prevention efforts.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'In 1993, in advance of the Super Bowl games held in Pasadena, Calif., several local women's advocacy organizations came forward with anecdotal evidence that domestic violence shelters and emergency rooms saw a surge of battered women on Super Bowl Sunday. Experts appeared on national television, citing research proving a link between the game and violence against women. But a closer look at the initial research revealed that there was no clear association.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Most people associate Title IX with athletics as the main point as it states that men and women should be treated equally when it comes to athletics. It states that athletic participation should be proportional to the student enrollment. I understand where they were originally coming from and there is nothing wrong with women playing sports. It is great seeing the success and attendance of women's athletics, especially here at Iowa State with our basketball team.

The problem here, though, is with reverse discrimination. In order to be fair, basically the same number of players from each sex need to play. So sports such as basketball, soccer, track and gymnastics are fine because each sex can play them. Then you have the problem with football. Football is a male sport only. So in order to make it fair for the females, we either need to make a football team with the same number of females or cut smaller men's sports programs.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Nagging doesn’t come out of nowhere. It’s usually the woman doing the nagging and the man feeling nagged. And it happens because of a power imbalance in the relationship: men have more power to blow off what women say to them, in almost every sphere of their lives. I’ve found this especially exaggerated in relationships where one partner stays at home and the other works full time.

I put a stop to the nagging cycle in my own marriage a few years ago, doing it exactly the way Marcotte describes. My husband is a feminist. He cares deeply about gender bias. But he’s still a guy who was raised with male privilege, and it’s not always visible to him when gender dynamics are at the root of a problem.

I noticed a Psychology Today article titled "Are you with the Right Mate?" which portrays a woman married to a male chimpanzee. Kind of demeaning, huh? Read the article if you can stand it. Excerpt: