Now this article is a un-expected one, with a title like this: No shame in women choosing dough over the regular Joe Tina Arndt seems to be saying go for the money over the man, after making the case that most guys can't compete with the welfare state when it comes to women, she even goes on to say "So perhaps it is nurturing instincts that drive women to go for the money. No shame in that." And I thought she was on our side. Can't say I'm surprised.

Here's part 2 of the series continuing with The Gap In The Gender Gap and let's just say there's quite a bit of heresy to go around this time. This one should get the comments rolling....

Brett Carlson writes "This site is for men everywhere whose lives have been affected by Lifetime TV. Husbands Against Lifetime Tv"

This href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/30/ncoed30.xml">article
reports new research in the UK that indicates that single-sex classes in
some subjects may help boys to learn better.  Apparently, the
experimental single-sex classes helped both boys and girls to obtain
better grades, raise their confidence, increase their rates of
attendance, and improve their behavior in school.  While the idea
of single-sex classes and schools is understandably controversial, the
approach seems to have merit.  I was privileged to attend an
all-boys high school, and I must say that the experience is one of the
great treasures of my life.  I hope other students will have the
opportunity at least to explore the benefits of single-sex classes so
that they can perform better in school.

The question in this article posed by Dorothy Anne Seese is Giving Women the Vote:
A mistake that wounded America? there's alot to comment on here,
and I don't really the room or the time to do so. Oh yeah, have a look around the site to see who runs it, you should get an ironic laugh out of it.

Now here's un-expected surprise of an article, I could tell you what's said, but I think you want the fun of finding out yourself, so click the link for a refeshing perspective.

John Gardiner takes an interesting look at Oprah's prank team over at Oxygen, pointing out the hypocrisy involved, It's a great read. Don't just take my word for it, Have a look....

Mitch Dean writes "Milwaukee Journal 02/26/03

This is an article About a fourteen year old girl who alledegly solicited her boyfriend to kill her Grandmother for the sum of $100.00 or else she would break up with him.The grandmother was informed of the attempted plot by a freind of the girl.The girls defense attorney says he will establish that it was all joke.This defense does not surprise me.Our culture would be more comfortable believing a female of any age incapable of such treachery.The story should be tracked just to see the outcome and treatment by the legal system to further demonstrate inequity in charges and sentencing between male and female juviniles."

In his latest column, men's issues columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks defends men and masculinity against the anti-male attacks of misandrist femninist Dr. Helen Caldecott. Of Sacks' grandfather, a decorated World War I veteran, Sacks writes:
"This magnificent man (and the millions like him) is not your punching bag, Ms. Caldecott. He's not a bloodthirsty warmonger, or an oppressor, or a patriarch, or an abuser, or any other of the dozens of repulsive canards which feminists have used to vilify men over the past three decades"

" Feminists should be speaking out for human rights, not just women's rights." writes Cathy Young. In this article Cathy assails feminist diatribe as a pathetic waste. Even in this article it seems that the atrocities against men by Saddam is downplayed. But it does show the equation overall to women. Cathy still nails it. Human rights for all!

Brightwriter writes "We fathers have been duped. Pregnant women are told not to lift anything weighing over 20 pounds, but my (pregnant) wife's obstetrician could give no rationale for that edict when we asked what (bad) would happen if she did so. The obstetrician said prospective studies were unethical, and that's that. Problem: a pregnant woman with a child already born will lift him/her often, obstetrician edict or no. Anything more likely to go wrong if it is not a first pregnancy (and the mother often lifts a pre-existing child)? I think not, else where is the evidence? This myth needs formal challenge in the medical community. I am a doctor."

napnip writes "Not sure if this would be considered newsworthy, but MSNBC's homepage has a story on the renewed debate over women in the military. (Renewed due to Shoshawna Johnson being a POW in Iraq.) Ms. Huus does a pretty good job in covering this story, IMHO. The only thing I wish Ms. Huus had covered was the fact that women don't have to register with Selective Service, which seems rather hypocritical to me if they're going to have the same opportunities as men, but not the same responsibilities. The story can be found here: "

incredibletulkas writes "In response to the article "The Attack on Women's Sports" which complained against the sexes treating equally in school programs, I was incensed regarding a more serious issue which has been of concern to me for some time. As a result, I used the information in the article to write the following letter to Education Secretary Rod Paige at customerservice@inet.ed.gov :

"Hello;
I wish to contact Education Secretary Rod Paige regarding a serious and widespread violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which requires schools to treat the two sexes equally; this violation has been going on for a number of years with no protest from the Department of Education.

Specifically, these violations take place in the form of certain self-defense courses, often known as "RAID," which are offered exlusively to women-- at school expense-- and which specifically prohibit men from attending at any time, and in fact ban even male attendance or observation under any circumstances, except for the course instructors.

Furthermore, these courses are often open to female non-students in the community, while likewise barring even male students of the school from participation.
This sexism was rationalized dismissed by simply claiming men had the option to fend for themselves, or in terms of finding--and funding-- other self-defense courses "elsewhere," despite claiming them to be of inferior quality in adequately preparing a person to defend against an actual attack, as well as being more difficult to learn in terms of time, trouble, expense and safety.

Since statistics regarding violent criminal assaults apply at least equally to men as to women in terms of frequency and severity-- and in any event do not indicate men to be inviolate-- then there is no evidence, conclusive or otherwise, that men would not benefit from such a program.

As such, this sexist double-standard is an outright violation of Title IX, and I would like to see this issue addressed immediately; either schools must immediate cease and desist from offering such courses-- either in terms or providing funding or facilities for them-- or else they must offer them to male students or participants on equal terms.""

I will host this week's MANN chat, Wednesday
night (3/26), starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the href="http://www.mensactivism.org/chat.shtml">usual location. The
topic for this chat will be "Blaming Men  for War: A Healthy
Masculine Response."  Feminist dogma routinely blames men for
creating and fighting wars.  Dr. Helen Caldecott's recent href="http://www.mensactivism.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/17/2142202&mode=threaded">speech,
put the blame for war and destruction squarely on men's
shoulders.  It's convenient--and even popular--to impute to men
the responsibility for all violent human conflict.  But can we
answer the issue so simply?  If we look deeply into wars, we will
see that women and the material culture they enjoy are at least as
responsible for giving rise to wars as are men.  Join us at this
chat to explore some less popular views about the roots of war and how
an authentic, healthy masculinity supports peace rather than war.

Willj writes "This article by a Canadian columnist refers to an article in this month's French magazine Elle which says that French masculinity is in crisis. It describes three "generations" of men: 1) 45-55, guilty, afraid - they've capitulated to women. 2) Bitter divorced men, 35-45, looking for foreign women they can dominate. 3) The New Eunachs, 25-35, married, - they've set virility aside for conflict-free life in a matriarchal family. Interesting that those of us who don't want to live with feminist hatemongers are said to be looking for women we can dominate. I haven't found the original Elle article yet. I keep wondering when large numbers of men will finally stand up and show a bit of self-respect."