Article here. Excerpt:

'Defamation suits are becoming a routine tool of retaliation and revenge for men accused of sexual and domestic abuse – and a growing threat to women’s ability to safely and freely speak about their own lives. The advocacy group Know Your IX, which lobbies on behalf of student survivors of sexual violence, says that 23% of students who make Title IX complaints are threatened with defamation suits by their alleged abusers.

Depp is just one of a growing number of high-profile men who have retaliated with lawsuits against the women who have accused them of violence, or the journalists who have investigated these accusations. Depp now shares this litigious distinction with his friend, the musician Marilyn Manson, and with the Barstool Sports executive Dave Portnoy. These lawsuits are not meant to determine whether a man should be punished for his abuse of women. They are meant to determine whether women should be punished for speaking about it.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded over $40,000 to New York University (NYU) researchers to conduct a study on why children "favor Whiteness and maleness over other identities."

The project titled, "Societal assumptions regarding typical personhood and their effects on reasoning development," seeks to uncover the developmental processes by which children "acquire the belief that White males represent the default person – a pattern rooted in the ideologies of androcentrism (centering the experiences of men) and ethnocentrism (centering the experiences of White people) prevalent in the United States," according to the grant summary on USASpending.gov.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Dilbert creator Scott Adams has sparked outrage after suggesting that families could be forced to "kill" young men unless society adopts his "solution" to the "danger" they pose to themselves or others.

Adams argued that "society" forced parents to choose between murdering their own "broken" teenage sons or risking additional deaths in a series of tweets on Wednesday. The veteran cartoonist, also known as an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, said that this week's deadly mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, and fentanyl overdoses among young men were "teaching us the same lesson." Adams said that he was "qualified" to weigh in on the matter due to his 18-year-old stepson dying of a fentanyl overdose in 2018.'

Article here. The author asks if the subject's sex (and race) weren't the key factors in him being targeted. What's your opinion of the situation? Excerpt:

'There are many cancellable offenses in the land of the free. Expressing the wrong opinion on a multitude of issues – from immigration policy, to drag shows for children, to whether Kyle Rittenhouse deserves life in prison – is a surefire way to find yourself vilified and, quite often, unemployed. What’s worse is that the borders of wrongthink continue to expand, rendering it difficult to know which opinions result in life ruination. Such was the lesson Griffin Green learned when he made the grave mistake of having the ‘wrong’ opinion on bodegas, of all things.

However, Green’s disdain for bodegas was far from the only reason he faced a torrent of online hate, which culminated in his firing. Griffin Green was ultimately guilty of being an insufficiently woke white guy.'

This TEDx talk is over three years old. The speaker denounces male leaders in general and pushes for more female leaders because the guys are just so incompetent.

I would love to know what MANN readers think of this talk. Some breakdown/analysis/critical deconstruction, if necessary. Comments are open, as always.

Article here. Excerpt:

'It would be easy to make the mistake of thinking men’s issues have become a more acceptable area of discourse over the last nine years, but this might be because we operate within a very small bubble. Where it matters – in Government, education, academia, the arts, and the entertainment and corporate worlds – things are on a one-way ratchet. Lip service may be paid now and then, but in policy and legislation there continues to be a monopoly on sympathy and concern for just one sex. Most men, including myself, would be quite content to tolerate even very high levels of disadvantage if that were compensated by commensurate respect. But it is the withdrawal of all respect for men and its replacement with bottomless vilification that renders the situation of men now entirely unacceptable.
...

Article here. Excerpt:

'Boris Johnson blamed Russia’s war in Ukraine on “toxic masculinity” just days after Vladimir Putin defended his penchant for bare-chested photographs.

The UK prime minister called the invasion a “crazy macho war” after Putin said Johnson would look “disgusting” if he attempted to flex his flesh like the Russian strongman.

“If you want a perfect example of toxic masculinity, it’s what he’s doing in Ukraine,” Johnson told a German television outlet Wednesday.

“You need more women in positions of power. If Putin was a woman — which he obviously isn’t — but if he were, I really don’t think he would have embarked on a crazy macho war of invasion and violence in the way that he has.”'

---

European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings:

https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

Article here. Excerpt:

'A major review has called for Queensland to adopt affirmative consent laws among sweeping reforms to the handling of victims of sexual assault and violence in the state’s criminal justice system.

The long-awaited final report of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce includes 188 recommendations to improve experiences with the justice system.

They include calls for the state government to carry out a “comprehensive” community education campaign to address “rape myths” and for Queensland to adopt affirmative consent laws.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'The new Louisiana law, which Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, signed on June 15, contains similarities to the DeVos regulation.

For one, public colleges must offer students or student organizations the chance to make opening and closing statements during disciplinary panels, and give them the power to cross-examine witnesses.

These proceedings also can’t be marred by conflicts of interest, the law states. To ensure that, college officials cannot take on certain multiple roles in disciplinary cases — for instance, an investigator and adjudicator can’t be the same person.

If students or student-run groups are found to have violated a college’s rules, they must be able to appeal to an administrator or entity that did not make the initial decision.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last week, on the 50th anniversary of the passage of Title IX—the federal law banning sex-based discrimination in education—the Biden administration announced sweeping proposed regulations to address how colleges and universities adjudicate sexual misconduct allegations. The move wasn’t very surprising: During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden had sharply criticized the existing regulations developed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, which require colleges to conduct live hearings with cross-examination in campus Title IX cases.

With Roe v. Wade overturned, to not mention it hereon is like ignoring the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla. So I won't.

One man's opinion on the recent decision made by SCOTUS: Strictly speaking it is a Constitutionalist/Constructionist decision. However getting the Con'n updated by amendment is nigh onto impossible even when a lot of ppl think it ought to be. So modernist judges use contemporary standards to find rights that are not explicitly acknowledged in the Con'n by interpreting it as if it had just been written w/ today's standards in view. In short, in the matter of individuals' rights discussed in a federalizing document, to me, there is no right answer, as both approaches to interpreting the Con'n are arguably valid. Thus the matter is political in nature since legality itself supplies no solutions. Yes indeed, it becomes a matter of just who is on SCOTUS when the matter comes before the Court.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Title IX initially meant educational institutions had to provide both sexes with opportunities "substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." And a 1992 court decision determined that noncompliant schools could face lawsuits, as well as being cut off from federal funding.

But when implemented, Title IX effectively turned into a form of affirmative action for women in sports—an unsustainable quota-like system. It's proven difficult for schools to equally allocate resources—scholarships, equipment, arenas, and budgets—across genders and sports, which has caused schools to take the easy way out by slashing male programs. Especially given that football, a huge moneymaker on college campuses, doesn't have a female equivalent in size or impact.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Today, on the 50th anniversary of Title IX's implementation, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education is getting a radical overhaul that will gut critical due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Another new private club is opening in San Francisco, this time exclusively for female executives. Chief, a private membership network for women, will open up a multilevel space in Jackson Square, as first reported by the San Francisco Business Times.

The space at 735 Montgomery St. was originally slated to debut sometime in 2020 but was delayed because of the pandemic. The space reportedly includes a bar, a lounge space, meeting rooms, private phone booths and a mothers’ room. Chief confirmed to SFGATE that they hope to launch the clubhouse before the end of the year.
...
Carolyn Childers and Lindsay Kaplan founded the network in 2017, and backers of the company include Alphabet’s investment arm CapitalG. It already operates clubhouses in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Membership with Chief doesn't come cheap — women at the vice presidential level would pay of $5,800 annually and C-Suite executives would pay $7,900.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'As Canada moves to introduce legislation to better address an ever-growing volume of online hate, a national non-profit is working to ensure the disproportionate impact on women and gender-diverse people is known.

Informed Opinions launched its Toxic Hush campaign this month, with some initial and disturbing findings from an ongoing survey documenting online harassment and hate.
...
Shari Graydon is the director of Informed Opinions, which works to amplify the voices of women and gender-diverse people. She said while online hate is increasing across the board, it is particularly bad for women with intersectional identities.
...
“The current scenario means many women don’t have freedom of speech because others are exercising hate speech that shuts them down, makes them fear, makes them go offline, makes them decline profile-raising opportunities.”'