Article here. Excerpt:

'Instead of a “pink floor” for girls and a “blue floor” for boys, Hamleys has introduced plain white labelling with red lettering throughout.

Toys have been reorganised by type rather than which gender is expected to want to play with them.

Laura Nelson, a blogger who accused the firm of “gender apartheid” in October, was celebrating what she claimed as a victory yesterday.

She wrote: “In response to the campaign against categorisation of toys by gender and sexist stereotypes, Hamleys has changed its signage.”

However Hamleys denied the changes were prompted by her campaign and claimed that, instead, they were part of planned alterations to “improve customer flow”.'

Regarding the article* printed in The Santa Monica Daily Press: Father’s Rights Protest Against Domestic Violence Video. Excerpt:

'The utter lack of balance, of an acknowledgment that women can be abusers also, saddened me. Because I grew up in a house where the woman was as much an inciter as the man, I know from personal experience that a woman is just as capable of domestic violence. I learned how to knife fight from my mom, not my dad. I learned how to shred a person’s ego not in law school but from listening to my mom do it to my father. She would regularly call him a coward, then berate him when he got physical with her. It was a no win situation, she would taunt and terrorize him and then fall back on her status as a woman as why he should not defend himself.

Petition here. (Please click 'Read more' to see contact information for Ms. Heigl and her affiliated partners.) Excerpt:

'The depiction of violence such as sexual mutilation and human castration in Ms. Heigl's campaign as humor is nothing short of repulsive. Would a video depicting a man having hopeful thoughts about the legalization of rape of women be humorous? Would a reenactment of a woman being raped on video be amusing and accepted if it were part of a charitable cause? Of course not. Both the acceptance of and the humor surrounding violence against men must be stopped.

In the I Hate Balls campaign, male hatred has been taken to a new low by being attached to a charitable cause essentially equating something positive with male sexual mutilation. Would a man shown in a video hoping to legalize female genital mutilation (FGM) and showing the procedure in a re-enactment be acceptable just because he claims it's just a joke and it helps a charitable cause? One can say in jest that FGM might make mating less desirable for the female and thus help reduce the animal population. Funny? Not at all. FGM is nothing to laugh about and neither is male genital mutilation. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b63f436ac2/katherine-heigl-hates-balls'

Article here. Excerpt:

'On Saturday, 12/10/11, the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) held a street demonstration outside Verizon to protest Verizon’s anti-father advertisements that depict fathers as “Monsters.”

Approximately 15 people participated in the rally, including members of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), a faith-based organization founded by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson that has a home for troubled young men. The rally was at the corner of 26th Street and Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica.

“Verizon finally pulled the ad, but the company has a history of anti-father ads, and we had to protest years ago for the same thing,” said Marc Angelucci, NCFM’s Vice President. “Also, a lot of Verizon‘s false, stereotyping information on domestic violence is still on their website.”

Story here. Excerpt:

'A study published by the American Psychological Association found that mothers with jobs were healthier and happier than mums who stay at home during their children's infancy and pre-school years. It found that the best way for mums to balance their working and home life was to work part time, which involved between one and 32 hours per week.

The research involved interviewing 1364 mothers, including 24 percent ethnic minorities, 1 percent without a high school degree, and 14 percent single parents, shortly after their child's birth with interviews and observation over 10 years from 1991.

Lead author Cheryl Buehler, PhD, professor of human development and family studies, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro said the study found there was no difference between mums who worked part time and full time.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'London, Nov 24 (ANI): British women in their 20s earn 3.6 percent more than men of same age, shrinking the overall gender pay gap with men to less than 10 percent for the first time, a new study has revealed.

The Office for National Statistics figures stated that in their 20s, women earn 10.45 pounds an hour, compared with 10.08 pounds for men.

But the figures also revealed that the situation changes dramatically in their 30s as women lose the edge when they start families.

By the time women are between 40 and 49, men working full time are paid 15.14 pounds an hour and women only 12.77 pounds.ccording to Jill Kirby, a family expert and author of The Price of Parenthood, the pay gap between the sexes had 'nothing to do with discrimination'.

"It is the fact that women become less committed to the workplace at the point in their lives when they have children," the Daily Mail quoted her as saying.

"They want to spend more time with their children, and regard lower pay as a trade-off for family time."'

Article here. Excerpt:

'However, when I'm asked to pretend that men are an oppressed group in society, I cannot decide whether I should laugh or cry.

This attitude is not limited to our campus; sites such as link aggregation database Reddit contain so much anti-feminist sentiment that they even have active communities such as “r/mensrights.” These men are also occupying the fantasy world where feminism ruins lives on a daily basis.

Story here. Excerpt:

'Men accused of ‘bullying or abusing’ their wives could face criminal charges under new domestic violence laws.

It could mean prosecution for husbands who treat their wives in a controlling way but do not assault them physically.

The change is being proposed by Liberal Democrat ministers as part of a review of domestic violence to be published this week.
...
Critics of domestic violence laws point to the lack of an agreed legal definition or specific criminal offence for attacks in the home.

The guidelines could cover anyone exercising ‘coercive control’ over their partner.

This would include demonstrating a pattern of threatening behaviour or emotional abuse.

It could also cover ‘economic control’ and the manipulation of children.

For the first time, the law could make clear that under-18s can be victims of domestic abuse.
...
The new definition would also cover women who bully their male partners.

From Wikipedia when you type the word "circumcision":

"This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation"

Can anyone tell me why when the victim is female it's called 'mutilation' but when it's a man it's referred to as 'circumcision'-- when by their own admission, it's the same thing? I find this offensive to say the least, and people need to know about this.

Link here. Excerpt:

'An independent panel convened this week by the National Institutes of Health has concluded that many men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer should be closely monitored, permitting treatment to be delayed until warranted by disease progression. However, monitoring strategies—such as active surveillance—have not been uniformly studied and available data do not yet point to clear follow-up protocols. The panel recommended standardizing definitions and conducting additional studies to clarify which monitoring strategies are most likely to optimize patient outcomes.

“It’s clear that many men would benefit from delaying treatment, but there is no consensus on what constitutes observational strategies and what criteria should be used to determine when treatment might ultimately be needed among closely-monitored men,” said Dr. Patricia A. Ganz, conference panel chairperson and director of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California in Los Angeles.

Article here. Excerpt:

"A top female surgeon has rejected claims the profession is sexist, saying women surgeons who claim it is should stop whining and that many are using the allegation to hide they fact they are not good enough.

Helen Fernandes, who chairs the Women in Surgery group at the Royal College of Surgeons, dismissed claims that sexism was the cause for only eight per cent of consultant surgeons being female. The number is even lower in neurosurgery, which is Ms Fernandes' area of specialism.
...
Ms Fernandes works as a consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. In an interview with The Times, she said: 'I don't think true sexism or harassment along those lines really exists.

In my opinion, a lot of girls who say that they've experienced sexism are, generally speaking, not up to the mark surgically. 'Sexism' almost becomes an excuse.'

Story here. A sad story about how the government can abuse parents mistakenly accused of abuse--and how the government assumes fathers are the likely perpetrators. Excerpt:

'"I knew as soon as I saw Dr. Reed’s face that something was terribly wrong,” Alice says. The x-rays showed that several of Liliana’s ribs were broken. “These injuries are nonaccidental,” Dr. Reed told them. Someone has squeezed your baby, probably to make her stop crying, Alice recalls him saying. The doctors did more tests to check for other injuries. Alice began sobbing loudly.

People in white coats peppered Miguel [the father] with questions. What had happened? Did he drink a lot? Get angry? Shake the baby? Miguel was shocked speechless.
...

Story here. This woman apparently faked her own rape to convince her husband to move to another part of town. One of the stranger stories I've ever come across. Excerpt:

'SACRAMENTO, Calif.—She split her own lip with a pin, scraped her knuckles with sandpaper and had her friend punch her in the face. Investigators say she even ripped open her blouse, then wet her pants to give the appearance she had been knocked unconscious.

But it was all part of what authorities said Friday was an elaborate hoax by the woman to convince her husband she was raped so they could move to a safer neighborhood.

Charges filed by the Sacramento County district attorney allege Laurie Ann Martinez, a prison psychologist, conspired with the friend to create the appearance that she was beaten, robbed and raped by a stranger in April in her Sacramento home.

Martinez, her friend and two co-workers eventually told police the whole thing was a setup to convince Martinez's husband that they needed to move from a blighted, high-crime area three miles north of the state Capitol. '

For Immediate Release (12/9/11 Los Angeles):

Story here. Excerpt:

'Latisha Lawson, 31, forced her two-year-old son Jezaih to drink a vile mixture of olive oil and vinegar as part of a ritual to drive the devil from his body.

As he choked on the liquid she held her hand over his mouth to stop him vomiting and crushed his neck.

Jurors heard Lawson had wanted to drive a demon named as "Marzon" from her son's body.
...

But prosecutors said there was no evidence to suggest the mother of two didn't understand how wrong her actions were.

"Jezaih was an unwanted kid," said Allen County Deputy Prosecutor Thomas Chaille. "This is a simple child abuse case. She still thinks she did the right thing. Scary."

Lawson was convicted of murder as well as charges of neglect and battery of her four year old daughter.

She faces at least 45 years in prison when she is sentenced next month.'