Imagine

Rob Case at One Man’s Kingdom posted a very remarkable piece of writing. Go read it. It’s that good.

Posted in Justice, MGTOW, Rants | 2 Comments »

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy, thy name is Duke University.

When a mentally deluded stripper accused three Duke University lacrosse players of a brutal gang rape at a March 2006 off-campus team party during spring break, dozens of activist Duke professors were not content merely to give great credence to the rape charge, even as evidence of its probable fraudulence poured into the public record. They also treated the lacrosse players as pariahs for having hired strippers at all. So, too, did Duke President Richard Brodhead, Board Chairman Robert Steel, other campus administrators, many in the media, and others.

…

To underscore its horror, the university adopted a new rule: “Strippers may not be invited or paid to perform at events sponsored by individual students, residential living groups, or cohesive units.”

So, some might be surprised to learn that on this year’s Super Bowl Sunday, Duke University played host to a group of strippers, prostitutes, phone-sex operators, and others in a “Sex Workers Art Show” to display their “creativity and genius.” The university spent $3,500 from student fees and various programs to pay the performers and cover expenses.

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Posted in Justice | 3 Comments »

When women were property

Rob Case has an excellent post entitled When Women Were Property. Go read it.

Posted in Justice | No Comments »

Cutting fruit gets you arrested!

This example of Political Correctness Run Amok™ makes me simply livid. I sincerely hope that this results in national media attention and outrage against the school in question and the Orlando police in particular. These actions against this girl are just asinine. Not only is this supposed “felony” a violation of the girl’s 2nd amendment rights, the charge is factually wrong, too. A knife is a tool, not a weapon.

Anyway, here’s the story:

Student Arrested After Cutting Food With Knife
10-Year-Old Charged With Possession Of Weapon On School Property

POSTED: 3:40 pm EST December 14, 2007
UPDATED: 4:08 pm EST December 14, 2007

An elementary student in Marion County was arrested Thursday after school officials found her cutting food during lunch with a knife that she brought from home, police said.

The 10-year-old girl, a student at Sunrise Elementary School in Ocala, was charged possession of a weapon on school property, which is a felony.

According to authorities, school employees spotted the girl cutting her food while she was eating lunch and took the steak knife from her.

The girl told sheriff’s deputies that she had brought the knife to school on more than one occasion in the past.

Students told officials that the girl did not threaten anyone with the knife.

The girl was arrested and transported to the Juvenile Assessment Center.

I’m asking any readers – bloggers or otherwise – help spread this story around… to the national media, your local media, friends, family, neighbors… Anyone who might help make this a public relations nightmare for that school and the Orlando police.

Posted in Justice, Rants | 4 Comments »

Brits can’t have a minister for men

You know, sometimes I feel quite sorry for our British brothers. I applaud their attempt to help out men, but not their means (increasing government). But anyway, the backstory.

British MRA’s sent around a petition asking the Prime Minister to create the position of “Minister for Men,” to balance out the earlier creation of a “Minister for Women.” Well, the petition was sent to the government (Brit-speak for administration) and the government replied to the petitioners with this missive:

Minister-for-men – epetition reply

7 December 2007

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to restore equality for men by creating a minister for men.”

Details of Petition:

“In this era of single parents, divorce and blended families, the role and reputation of a man has been diluted to a point where he is severely discriminated against in almost all arenas. I call on the Prime Minister to show true equality to men by creating a Minister for Men to reflect balance in Parliament as Ruth Kelly is currently the Minister for Women.”

The Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition about the creation of a Minister for Men. Though the Government recognises that there are areas where men face disadvantage or discrimination, a glance at the income and poverty figures will show that, overall, inequality in our society affects women to a far greater extent than men. That is why the Government appointed a Cabinet Level Minister for Women in 1997 whose remit was, and is, to promote equality of opportunity in our society. The current holder of this office is Harriet Harman QC, MP and she is supported by Barbara Follett MP.

Despite the passing of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination legislation over 30 years ago, and other improvements since 1997, women in Britain still experience significant disadvantage in our society. For example:

• Women account for over half of the United Kingdom’s population, but only make up 19% of MPs and 29% of local councillors.
• Black, Asian and Ethnic minority women account for 8% of the UK’s female population but make up less than 1% of local councillors.
• Only 10.3% of the directors in the boardrooms of the top 100 FTSE companies are female;
• The gap between the pay of male and female workers is currently 12.6% for full time and a staggering 40% for part-timers.
• Women are the main victims of domestic violence in the UK and 83 of them are killed by their partners or ex-partners in 2005.
• Women still shoulder the lion’s share of caring for the old and the young and 90.5% of lone parents are female.

However, the Government recognises that men do want to spend more time with their families and this is reflected in the action we have taken to improve work life balance. That is why, in 2003, we introduced the right to request flexible working for all parents with children of under six years old or with disabled children of under eighteen years old. In April this year this right was extended to include people who care for adults.

Our Government is determined to fight discrimination and ensure everybody in Britain can make the most of their talents regardless of their gender, race, sexuality, age, faith or disability and we are committed to tackling these inequalities to create our vision of a fairer society and the role of Minister for Women is crucial in delivering our aims.

The Government have established the new Equality and Human Rights Commission which will champion equality, diversity, and human rights as defining values of our society, encouraging all our institutions to operate for the benefit of every individual.

Harriet Harman will be working across Government with Ministerial colleagues to ensure that we deliver on this ambitious agenda.

Did you notice that three of the “facts” they use to support their position are out-and-out lies, and that the rest are due to women’s own choices (Don’t women keep going on about “Freedom of Choice?”) and not some sort of patriarchal oppression?

A little message to British men:
The Labour government hates you. You are only useful to it insofar as it can make you pay for everyone else in society.

I’m pretty sure there’s a revolution coming, and that it will shake the entire western world. I just wonder on which side of the pond it’s going to start.

Posted in Justice, Politics | 3 Comments »

Three very simple questions

I have a few questions that should be very easy for supporters of the current way of doing things to answer – if they’re not ashamed of the answers. Here is what I’d lke to ask:

If child support payments are intended to be spent on things the child needs, then

1. why must payments be sent to the state instead of the child/custodial parent?
   (Could this have anything to do with it?)
2. Why aren’t custodial parents required to show how the money was spent?
3. Why are child support payments not calculated on how much the child needs, but on how much the noncustodial parent earns?

Posted in Justice, MGTOW | 3 Comments »

Judge removed after jailing entire courtroom

This post is about a bit of judicial misconduct. I thought it was kind of strange that I didn’t run across this in any domestic news source, but in a source from a foreign country. I found the story at The Telegraph’s website. The Telegraph is a British newspaper. A little odd, wouldn’t you say? What does this say about the state of affairs in the United States?

In any event, first check out the story. I’ll have a few comments located below the text of the article.

A US judge has been removed from the bench for jailing 46 people after none of them admitted responsibility for a ringing mobile phone in his courtroom.

A commission on judicial conduct recommended Judge Robert Restaino be struck off, saying he had “snapped” and “engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness” while hearing a domestic violence case at Niagara Falls city court in 2005.

The strange incident began when a mobile phone rang and an angry Mr Restaino demanded to know who it belonged to.

When no one owned up, Mr Restaino told the court: “Everyone is going to jail”.

“Every single person is gong to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now.

“If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.”

Despite the threat, no one came forward and the judge ordered that the group be taken into custody.

The entire courtroom was taken to the city jail, where they were searched and jammed into crowded cells.

Fourteen people were unable to pay their bail money and were shackled and bussed to Niagara County Jail.

The judge released the defendants later that afternoon after the media began showing interest in the bizarre episode.

In defending his actions, Mr Restaino told the commission he had been under stress in his personal life.

I think the Founding Fathers dropped the ball on ensuring there were sufficient Checks and Balances against the Judicial Branch of our form of government. Or, alternately, that they are too slow in acting. Yes, the recommendation was to remove the offending judge, but it took two years from the time of the offense.

And about the offense itself. While it is undoubtedly true that Judge Restaino was feeling stress, and that this prompted his action, it is also undoubtedly true that he had been conditioned to believe that his action was, if not entirely appropriate, at least permissible to him. And what could possibly have conditioned that belief? My theory is that it was conditioned by his time on the bench having granted him unlimited power over other human beings. In a courtroom, what a judge says, goes. Who polices the judges? Why else has family law courts become so biased against men? Why else have debtor’s prisons returned, with the not-so-polite fiction that these debtors are in contempt of court, rather than unable to pay?

The United States isn’t ruled by the people or by the politicians. It is ruled by an oligarchy made up of a sect of black-robed priest-kings, whose words are (literally!) law.

Posted in Justice, Rants | 1 Comment »

On MRA’s

KellyMac has taken on Jeff Fecke’s libel against MRA’s. Good. Now I won’t have to. Go read it.

For the record, I believe that human life begins at conception, not at birth. Ergo, abortion is morally indistinguishable from murder. I oppose ALL abortion. The typical abortion debate is usally framed as if there were only two people involved: mom and baby. Everyone forgets about dad. There are 3 people involved. And it’s usually a question of whether one person’s life creates an inconvenience for someone else. Well, a life is always more important than mere convenience.

Posted in Justice, Politics, Rants | No Comments »

Some are more equal than others

Stephen Baskerville wrote the following article, which I repost here:

The substitution of the re-titled “Women's Equality Amendment” (WEA) for the same old text of what was known in the 1970s as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a real-life validation of George Orwell's fictional portrayal of the opportunism of extremist political movements and their tendency to turn high-minded ideals into the opposite of what they promise. In “Animal Farm,” Orwell's allegory of the Soviet revolution, the pigs proclaim that “All animals are equal.” Once they seize power, the pigs revise the principle: “But some animals are more equal than others.”

Promoters of the WEA claim that it will prohibit discrimination against both men and women. But if so, why the name change? The entire U.S. Constitution has always been gender neutral, and without the help of feminists. The aim of the new sexual militants is not to ensure the “equal protection of the laws,” but – precisely the opposite – to signal that only one sex is equal.

Whatever the situation 35 years ago, today's name change is a declaration not of weakness but of strength. Virtually all forms of “discrimination” against women have been proven to be false or eliminated. Warren Farrell has shown the fallacy of the “wage gap.” Christina Hoff Sommers demonstrated that, far from being privileged, it is boys who are now struggling under feminist changes in public education.

In fact, if any group faces systematic discrimination today, it is males. And it is not trivial. Men routinely lose their children, along with everything else they possess (including their freedom), in divorce courts, because child custody is virtually automatic to mothers, even when the mother is the one breaking up the family. Feminists not only defend but celebrate this “divorce revolution” and resist shared parenting provisions that would allow children to have their fathers as well as mothers after divorce.

Much more is at work here than just than the principle that, all else being equal, young children need their mothers. Men lose their children even when they have given neither consent nor grounds to divorce and are legally faultless. Further, the legal innovation that opened the door to mass fatherlessness was itself the creation of organized feminism. As author Judy Parejko has shown, the National Association of Women Lawyers designed the “no-fault” divorce system as long ago as the 1940s.

So perhaps we need a resurrected ERA to protect men. I would be very skeptical. It is precisely to head off that possibility that feminists have changed the name to permit only feminist-approved definitions of equality.

Feminists and their judicial allies are very adept at redefining words to suit their interests. For example, laws already provide for gender equality in child custody. Feminists circumvent them by invoking different male and female roles (”primary caretaker”) when it works to their advantage. These ensure that “the hand that rocks the cradle” is a feminist one.

Thus do feminists either ignore or invoke biological reality to suit their immediate interests and make up new rules as they go along. According to their most tortured definition of inequality, feminists argue that because only women have babies denying taxpayer funding for abortion is discrimination against women.

The opportunism is visible in existing feminist legislation. Promoters of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) claim it protects both men and women. Yet laws against violent assault already do that. VAWA, on the contrary, eliminates the gender-neutrality of criminal law by skewing it toward one group; as such, it is essentially a “hate crimes” law. And this clearly is the purpose, since otherwise why do feminists vehemently oppose changing the name of VAWA to one that is gender neutral? VAWA-funded programs specifically exclude male victims of domestic violence, though a virtually unanimous body of scholarly research demonstrates that men are equally likely to be assaulted.

Here too the consequences are far more serious than “discrimination.” Patently trumped-up domestic violence accusations are likewise used in custody cases to break up families by ensuring not only that divorcing mothers get monopoly custody of children, but that the children will be excluded from contact with the “patriarchy” represented by their fathers. Further, fathers are criminalized not for physical assault but for domestic “violence” that has no precise definition and may be no more than verbal insults. The Orwellian irony is when “human rights” groups like Amnesty International promote the violation of human rights by VAWA in the name of women's equality.

“Power is the alpha and the omega of contemporary Communism,” wrote Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas during the repression of the 1950s. “Ideas, philosophical principles, and moral considerations … all can be changed and sacrificed. But not power.” Something similar can be said about today's feminism, an ideology with no fixed principles. At times gender differences are “social constructions”; at other times women have special “needs.” Women are oppressed by gender roles, but those same roles make women more “compassionate” and “caring.” Women and men must compete on equal terms, except when men must be excluded from certain competitions in order that women can win. Fathers should share equally in rearing children, but sole custody must always go to mothers, regardless of fault.

Alison Jaggar, author of “Living With Contradictions,” proclaims openly that feminists should insist on “having it both ways”: “They should use the rhetoric of equality in situations where women's interests clearly are being damaged by being treated either differently from or identically with men.” Her words are revealing. This “rhetoric of equality” is just that: rhetoric. As with Humpty Dumpty, words like “equality” change meanings as convenient; “interests” alone endure. But the bottom line is always power: to increase the power not so much of women, as of those women who claim to speak on behalf of the rest.

Those who want to know where the feminist revolution is now going may wish to read Orwell's account of how the pigs' revolution turned out.

Posted in Justice | 1 Comment »

A sex crime by any other name

From the Pacific Sun News:

A sex crime by any other name

Experts refute idea that age-of-consent sex crimes against boys are ‘victimless’

by Ronnie Cohen
Pacific Sun Staff

The defense attorney for a former kindergarten teacher charged with sexually molesting two 15-year-old boys describes the one-night incident in Corte Madera as a victimless crime.

“I don’t know who’s the victim here,” attorney Michael Semansky said of the case against 41-year-old Amy Lee Kelly. “How do you molest a boy who’s 15 years old, who’s filled with testosterone and alcohol and begging for sex? I think it’s a victimless crime.”

But therapists who work with sex offenders and victims of sex crimes paint a different picture. They say sexual relations between 15-year-old boys and a 40-year-old woman can overwhelm boys, traumatizing and scarring them for life.

“Boys, though they can’t acknowledge their vulnerability, have a potential vulnerability that’s equal to females,” said psychologist Michael Grogan, director of San Rafael’s Jeannette Prandi Children’s Center, where sexually abused children are sensitively interviewed. “Boys are subject to the same kind of psychological implications as girls. There has to be an awareness that when you get involved with a person sexually, and you are an adult, there can be ramifications to that child that are lifelong. And I don’t think it matters if it’s a boy or a girl.”

The law treats male and female perpetrators of sex crimes equally. So Kelly, who taught at Bacich Elementary School in Kentfield for 11 years until June 2006, faces the same charges and the same punishment a man would face. In July, the district attorney charged the divorced mother of two with sexually molesting the Redwood High School boys and having unlawful sexual intercourse with one of them.

Kelly, who lives in the East Bay, was released from jail after posting $100,000 bail. Although she has pleaded not guilty, her lawyer said she feels remorseful about her role in the events that unfolded on a Friday night last October in her friend’s Corte Madera home. Semansky blamed alcohol for the alleged sex crimes and said Kelly completed a 90-day alcohol-rehabilitation program after the incident and now volunteers in the recovery community. She faces up to four years in state prison for the sexual intercourse charge. If convicted, she would have to register as a sex offender.

Despite the lack of distinction based upon gender, gender does color community perception about whether a case like the one against Kelly should be prosecuted and even whether it should have been brought to law enforcement’s attention in the first place.

Kathryn Mitchell, chief deputy district attorney, said numerous adults had knowledge about the drunken incident, which took place while Kelly was visiting her friend last October. “A lot of people apparently knew all about this and didn’t come forward in the fashion they should have,” Mitchell said.

According to court documents, Kelly told her friend–in whose home the incident occurred–about the sexual activity the following morning. Instead of summoning authorities, the hostess found the alleged victims–friends of the hostess’ 15-year-old daughter–at a Redwood High School football game, and the three of them vowed to keep the incident secret.

“That’s a pretty big secret for a 15-year-old to have to maintain,” said a therapist who works with Marin County sex offenders and requested anonymity. “Can’t tell your friends. Can’t tell your family. They’re afraid they’ll get the adult in trouble. The secrecy is a burden for a young person.”

After meeting with the alleged victims and promising secrecy, according to court documents, Kelly’s friend returned to her Corte Madera home, photographed everything she thought might be relevant, donned gloves and retrieved two used condoms, one from beneath a balcony and one from her daughter’s bedroom. The party hostess put the photographs and the condoms in a paper bag and gave it to another friend who lives in Mill Valley.

About four months passed before law-enforcement officials heard about the incident. In February, a Kent Middle School counselor, a so-called mandatory reporter, informed authorities that a parent told her Kelly may have had sex with multiple boys while she and the boys were intoxicated. A few months after the counselor’s call, a Twin Cities police detective began his investigation.

Detective Toby Miller said the incident remains under investigation, and authorities have not yet determined whether they will press charges against Kelly’s friend in whose home teen-agers were drinking alcohol that night. [The 'Pacific Sun' is withholding the hostess' identity in the interests of protecting the identity of her teenage daughter.]

The hostess appears to have cooperated with authorities. She had her friend in Mill Valley bring to the Twin Cities Police Department a sealed paper bag with the used condoms. And she turned over to police three recorded voice-mail messages Kelly left for her. In one of the messages, court documents say, the former teacher asked if anyone knew about the “Mary Kay Letourneau incident.”

The most infamous of teachers in sex scandals, Letourneau was 34 and the mother of four in 1996 when she began having sex with a sixth grader in her suburban Seattle school district.

On Friday afternoon, Oct. 20, court documents say Kelly brought her two young children to her friend’s house and began to drink red wine and beer. Later in the evening, Kelly’s friend determined she was too drunk to drive home, the documents say. So before the hostess went to bed, she hid Kelly’s car keys.

While the hostess and Kelly’s two children slept, the hostess’s 15-year-old daughter entertained friends. Court documents detail sordid images of teenagers unchaperoned except for the alleged too-drunk-to-drive and flirtatious former teacher. At one point, the documents say, the hostess’s daughter walked into her own bedroom to find one of her 15-year-old male friends naked with her mother’s 40-year-old girlfriend. Stunned, the girl shot photographs.

More details could come out during a preliminary hearing to determine if sufficient evidence exists to force Kelly to stand trial. The hearing is scheduled for Oct. 31.

Earlier this month, Kelly appeared in Marin County Superior Court briefly with Semansky, her attorney, to set the preliminary hearing date. Wearing her long black hair loose and a stylish black pantsuit with high heels, the trim, 5-foot-7-inch Kelly appeared inwardly agitated when Judge Faye D’Opal granted the ‘Marin Independent Journal’’s request to photograph her.

After the hearing, Kelly rushed out of the courtroom with a pony-tailed man Semansky called her boyfriend and two women the attorney identified as Kelly’s mother and sister. Kelly refused to comment. But, outside the courtroom, Semansky said he was surprised the District Attorney filed the charges and described the alleged victims as “sexually aggressive.”

Steven Duditch, a San Rafael attorney who explained his role as working behind the scenes to protect the rights of one of the boys, said he cannot discuss the facts but called Semansky’s claim that the boys were aggressive “ridiculous.”

“All the parties were drinking,” Semansky said. “They were probably nice young boys, nice boys who should have been home. She was in what I think was a blackout. She’s completely remorseful about what’s happened. She’s in therapy. After her divorce, she had problems.

“I just wonder where all the parents were. Would they want to bring their kids to court?”

Prosecutor Mitchell said she expected testifying would be difficult for the victims and their families.

“Going through the court process could be as shame-provoking and anxiety-producing as the offense,” said the therapist who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“Nobody wants to bring their sexual-assault experiences into a courtroom,” psychologist Grogan said. “There’s an immediate judgment about the victim. It can be a devastating experience to have this happen and then have it explored in a public forum.”

Both therapists said boys generally are more reluctant than girls to come forward as victims of sex crimes because the culture expects males to handle their own problems and because they are supposed to always want to engage in sex.

“There is a stereotype that boys are very interested in having sex with adult women. It can be overwhelming and traumatizing to a young teenage boy. Boys would feel: I gotta do this, when in fact, they may have very mixed feelings, especially if they aspire to be macho guys. Boys are expected to be more sexually experienced than girls, that the definition of their masculinity comes from their sexual prowess. A real man would never turn down this opportunity. That’s not reality. That’s a fantasy. It really hides the potential vulnerability of young men,” Grogan said.

Of the 430 sexual-abuse interviews he has conducted at the Prandi Center, he said no more than five have involved female perpetrators. But both therapists said they have treated adult men who as children were devastated and overwhelmed after sex with adult women.

“It’s a very complicated dynamic to explain,” Grogan said. “It so flies in the face of public perception.”

Ronnie Cohen can be reached at ronniecohen@comcast.net.

Posted in Justice, MGTOW | 8 Comments »