Article here. Excerpt:

'In many criminal prosecutions, the refusal of a victim to testify against a suspect might derail the case. Not so with domestic violence cases, such as that involving Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

Accused of misdemeanor domestic violence battery against his wife Eliana Lopez, Mirkarimi is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 24. Both husband and wife have publicly denied any abuse.

A neighbor reported the New Year’s Eve incident to police, saying a tearful Lopez complained of violence and showed her a bruised arm. Lopez subsequently said the incident was “completely taken out of context” and that the criminal investigation was motivated by her husband’s political enemies.
Lopez could refuse to testify at Mirkarimi’s trial.

Story here. Excerpt:

'FALL RIVER — For the past 13 years, the Seton Academy for Girls has held strong as the only school in Fall River where parents can find an all-girls education for their young daughters. That legacy is going to change.

School leaders informed parents Friday that Seton Academy will admit boys for the 2012-2013 academic year.
...
“We loved that it was an all-girl school; however, realistically we had to decide if it was more important to stick to our original concept, or more important to give all students a full education,” Sturchio said.
...
Sturchio said the school surveyed families about its plans before making a final decision. Some families were not in favor of the change said they would support it if declining enrollment jeopardized the future of the school. Only one parent surveyed plans to pull a student from Seton as a result of the decision, Sturchio said.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Gender differences in choosing to enter competitions are one source of unequal labor market outcomes concerning wages and promotions. Given that studying the effects of policy interventions to support women is difficult with field data because of measurement problems and potential lack of control, we evaluated, in a set of controlled laboratory experiments, four interventions: quotas, where one of two winners of a competition must be female; two variants of preferential treatment, where a fixed increment is added to women’s performance; and repetition of the competition, where a second competition takes place if no woman is among the winners. Compared with no intervention, all interventions encourage women to enter competitions more often, and performance is at least equally good, both during and after the competition.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'At the White House science fair this morning, President Obama is expected to announce a new education initiative to invest $100 million into training 100,000 new teachers. Specifically, the president is trying to fend off the problem of a shortage of teachers in science, technology, engineering and math — known as STEM — in order to keep the United States competitive in the global marketplace.

While he’s not expected to talk about the dearth of women in the STEM fields, you can be sure that’s part of the larger White House agenda.

In 2007 the National Academies released Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering — the first step in an effort by the feminist lobby, lawmakers in Congress and several federal agencies to solve the “crisis” of women in science.

Article here. Excerpt:

'LONDON — Fathers separated from their families will get increased rights to see their children under reforms being unveiled in Britain next week, the government said on Friday.

But it signalled there would be no change in the law to guarantee equal access, as sought by campaigners such as Fathers 4 Justice, who have scaled Buckingham Palace among other stunts to highlight the system’s unfairness.

New rules for court cases will “make it much clearer that it is vital for children to have an ongoing relationship with both parents after separation or divorce”, except where they pose a risk, the Department for Education said.

The measures will be outlined on Monday as part of the government’s response to a review of the family justice system published last year.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The National Human Rights Commission has issued its opinion that operating a municipal library for women only, which men are not allowed to use, constitutes gender discrimination and must be eliminated.
 
On the 7th the NHRC issued a judgment that the operation by a civic group of a women-only public library violates men’s rights to equality and constitutes discrimination, and advised the library to cease excluding men.
...
The library retorted that because its patrons constitute 15% of all library patrons in the city and the volume of use it sees during its long hours makes it more difficult to run than other libraries in the city, so it believes it is appropriate to place more restrictions on men than women.'

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.
...