Monday, December 30, 2013
Department of Justice hit with a lawsuit over dear colleague
Falsely accused student sues Delaware State University
December 18, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
A Delaware State University student is suing that school for defamation of character and violation of his civil rights delawareonline.com. reported yesterday.
Andre L. Henry was brought up on criminal charges after a woman with whom he had consensual sex on October 24 falsely accused him of raping her. The charges were dropped on November 1 according to his lawsuit but around that time the University notified him that he was barred from campus pending an investigation and hearing provided by the school. He was not allowed on campus grounds or adjacent areas for 45 days.
“For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, … he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation” said Daniel C. Herr, Henry’s attorney. “You can’t do that for 45 days and then finally say ‘Oh, we’ve come to our decision. He was found not guilty.’ ”
On Nov. 1 Henry was informed by DSU’s Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Paula Duffy, that a hearing would be held in front the General Judicial Council on Nov. 6. The suit says that he was not informed of his right to have an attorney present.
The suit also says he was not informed of his right to remain silent and that he was not given the right to face his accuser who was not present at the hearing.
A separate hearing, of which Henry wasn’t informed, was held especially for the alleged victim.
Jesse Allen, Henry’s roommate, testified at his hearing saying he had been in the apartment’s common room the evening Henry and the woman had sex and testified the woman did not scream for Henry to stop, as she previously alleged.
Henry’s suspension was lifted upon the conclusion of the hearing.
“We found out yesterday that his on-campus disciplinary charges were found to be ‘not responsible,’” said Herr on Tuesday, referring to DSU’s General Judicial Council’s investigation.“We are still moving forward for damages because he was suspended for a total of 45 days pending a full investigation and full hearing, which we allege is a violation to his right to due process,”
The lawsuit comes at a time when the Department of Education and Department of Justice has come under fire for recent developments in the way they expect schools to pursue alleged sexual assaults and sexual harassment. On November 14 the Department of Education, in a letter sent to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, renounced it’s overall support of the “blueprint” letter drafted by the Department of Justice in which it was deemed appropriate to suspend students, as well as meting out other punishments, before hearings were even held.
“The lawsuit looks good on DSU, and this sort of thing is way overdue. Colleges and universities have been blatantly violating the civil rights of male students since the Obama administration issued the ‘Dear Collegue’ letter’,” said Paul Elam, a men’s advocate and founder of A Voice for Men. “If they won’t stop it for the sake of decency, then perhaps financially bleeding them will do the trick.”
Source
I wish Andre L.Henry well and may he be victorious against this injustice called "dear colleague" which demonizes men and make women damsels in distress regardless of the facts. We at the Men's Rights Blog salute Mr. Henry and wish him well. If he is reading here he should go to the Community of The Falsely accused at COTWA where he can gain valuable information which should hopefully serve him well.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Filner versus the feminazis
SAN DIEGO (AP) — San Diego taxpayers could be on the hook for $4 million if the city settles all claims involving the actions of former Mayor Bob Filner, who has been sentenced to home confinement for the unwanted groping of women.
U-T San Diego, which has obtained nine claims filed against the city, saysamong those seeking money is the National Women Veterans Association of America.
The group hopes to recoup more than $100,000 for an event at which Filner was to be presented a lifetime achievement award.
Source
Some women's veterans group (veteran what? What are they "veterans" at? Bitching?) is suing this ex-mayor as well. Are they saying that sexual harassment is worse than front line duty? But then again what women are on the front lines of a war in combat positions? None. Those that are thrown into hell's fury of war are always men as they have always been men. We often hear about how women prostitute themselves for promotions or the get out of hazardous duty. That shouldn't be too surprising. A few nights ago I was watching Hannity,he had a liberal female and a conservative female talk about gender issues but when it came down to it they were both women firsters. IOW women's issues trumped everything else. It's like I always said: feminism has two wings: a right conservative one and a left liberal one. Or we can paraphrase the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again: meet the right wing feminist same as the left wing feminist. But the main thing is that men don't get fooled again.
U-T San Diego, which has obtained nine claims filed against the city, saysamong those seeking money is the National Women Veterans Association of America.
The group hopes to recoup more than $100,000 for an event at which Filner was to be presented a lifetime achievement award.
Source
Some women's veterans group (veteran what? What are they "veterans" at? Bitching?) is suing this ex-mayor as well. Are they saying that sexual harassment is worse than front line duty? But then again what women are on the front lines of a war in combat positions? None. Those that are thrown into hell's fury of war are always men as they have always been men. We often hear about how women prostitute themselves for promotions or the get out of hazardous duty. That shouldn't be too surprising. A few nights ago I was watching Hannity,he had a liberal female and a conservative female talk about gender issues but when it came down to it they were both women firsters. IOW women's issues trumped everything else. It's like I always said: feminism has two wings: a right conservative one and a left liberal one. Or we can paraphrase the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again: meet the right wing feminist same as the left wing feminist. But the main thing is that men don't get fooled again.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Feminazi professor endorses androcide
Professor Elizabeth Sheehy
Professor of Law seeks legalized murder
December 14, 2013 By John Hembling (JtO) —30 Comments
Elizabeth Sheehy is a respected law professor working at the University of Ottawa, and on 15 December, UBC press will publish her recent book, Defending Battered Women on Trial.
The thesis of the book, stated explicitly in the final chapter, is that murder should be legitimized for women who kill their spouses or partners.
Yes, you read that correctly.
She told The Ottawa Citizen that “battered women can justly kill abusive partners ‘because a woman in that circumstance has already lived in captivity’”
Setting aside, just for a moment, the depravity that a Canadian professor of law is publishing a book arguing for the legalization of murder – specifically of men – we must wonder how someone this rabid can be “respected”.
Sheehy argues that women, unlike anyone we might think of as adults, or even as “people”, are so weak, so infantile, and so free of self-actualization, will, or personal volition that when they suddenly find themselves (as if blown by the wind) caught in a dysfunctional, abusive sexual relationship they are incapable of leaving.
Women, apparently, are merely the possessed dolls of their spouses or romantic partners. A woman in an abusive relationship, mystically becomes incapable of finding her shoes and walking out the door, dialing 9-1-1, contacting the police, or locating a publicly-funded shelter.
According to Stats Canada, in 2010 “there were 593 shelters for abused women operating across the country”. However, because Sheehy finds women so completely incompetent, incapable, and feeble, hundreds of shelters, relief organizations, government and non-government agencies, specially trained police departments, gynocentric courts, and twenty four hour support services are inadequate. The legal murder of a sleeping partner must be added to the options.
It reads like a hoax.
Remember that this murder-advocate is a professor of law at a major Canadian university. In a secondary article, The Ottawa Citizen even characterized Sheehy’s work as “rife with trenchant observations” after informing us that she is the recipient of “a prestigious award from the Canadian Bar Association for her scholarship on” none other than “women and the law.”
In Sheehy’s asinine fantasy world, she likens women in abusive relationships to prisoners of war. “We would never say of a prisoner of war that it’s not just that she or he kill their captor to escape. It is just to kill to escape that kind of enslavement.”
While the Canadian public understands that prisoners of war are generally kept in actual prisons – the kind with locking cells, guards, and layers of razor-wire topped fences – some Canadian lawyers are unclear on the difference. Civilians in Canadian society, even those with abusive or violent partners, tend not to live in guarded, secured prison facilities. They live in houses or condos or apartments.
The only person actually needing this to be pointed out is one sociopathic academic in an ugly dress: Elizabeth Sheehy, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.
Sheehy appreciates that previous experience of violent abuse (or simply the claim of such experience) is already recognized as a legal defence for murder in Canada. She was “pleasantly surprised by the higher-than-expected number who were either acquitted or had charges dropped. But she said it was ‘disappointing and worrisome’ to see how many women had pleaded guilty.”
Her solutions are to refine the definition of “excessive force” so that battered women can claim self-defence, give women a “statutory escape hatch” so they have no mandatory minimum penalty if found guilty, and only charge them with manslaughter so they aren’t afraid of fighting it in court. Why? Because Elizabeth Sheehy thinks charging battered women with murder is “so arbitrary”.
I think Sheehy has a different definition of “arbitrary” than the rest of us do.
Laws, as a professor of law should know, are not whimsical. A legal defense in one instance becomes applicable to other, similar, situations. For example, if a woman can use past abuse to reduce a murder charge then, if your son is bullied at school, he can legally bring his dad’s glock to school the next day and gun down his bully. Oh, whoops, no he can’t.
Let us not forget that men are roughly half the victims of reciprocal domestic violence, and are MORE than half the victims of adult, non-reciprocal domestic violence. However, a man abused in a violent relationship can not use past abuse to lessen the legal penalty of murdering another human being.
Here’s an alternate solution: If your spouse or partner hits you or abuses you, DON’T MURDER THEM, STUPID!!! You are supposed to remove yourself from that abuse – like a fucking grown up!
But according to Sheehy:
“While the legal system sometimes excuses battered women who kill abusive partners by accepting a verdict of manslaughter on compassionate grounds, that does not go far enough”
She absurdly argues that it is “unfair” to call women first-degree murderers because “[m]en can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t”. Apparently, Sheehy seems to think we should forget there was a weapon used because women have trouble killing without one.
But she’s not really talking about fighting for your life against a violent aggressor in the heat of a desperate struggle. Shes defending the murder of a sleeping man, rather than simply using the opportunity to get the fuck out of the house.
And that is what UBC Press is publishing.
What level of blatant, depraved and malevolent corruption is required before a “respected” academic is treated correctly by the public as an evil and violent sociopath? This murder advocate, Elizabeth Sheehy, should properly be persona non grata in any area of civilized society but, instead, she gets a book deal.
When, three years ago, I posted a satirical article on AVFM announcing a new tourist industry for women traveling to Canada – namely, murder-tourism – I did so not expecting to be right.
Normally I like to be right.
Source: click here
Sheehy is one nutty bitch. Fuck Canada,it is truly a castrated nation. How can I say that? The improvements that occured in the United States did not occur in Canada just as the misandric tyranny is more harsh in Canada than it ever was in the United States,the only exception would be the Bobbitt case. If Canadians are going to champion some nutty cunt like Sheehy then why don't they just endorse Hitler while they are at it. It wouldn't be much of a leap between Sheehy and Hitler as we have seen.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Misandric witchhunt led by Geraldo Rivera
Geraldo has stooped to a new low. He is trying to get Jameis Winston thrown in prison to satisfy his perverse sense of chivalry. He touched on it briefly on O'Reilly last night (see preceeding post) but on his show tonight he devoted 38 minutes to the topic. He interviewed Winston's attorney who not only presented the facts as outlined by the prosecutorial team that investigated the case but he also refuted the lies Geraldo was spewing. He even told Geraldo that he is not entitled to his own facts. But in Geraldo's world his opinions are facts. Next he had a panel discussion which featured a male defense attorney,whom Geraldo was very rude to. Feminist prosecutor Wendy Murphy,some airhead from Take Back The Night and an alledged rape victim. Geraldo and Murphy were the lead inquisitors in vehemetly making unfounded accusations against Winston. Both were very rude to this male defense attorney who is trying to make sense of this situation. Murphy comes off a self righteous cunt I would love to see her get locked up and see how she reacts. I'll bet she freaks out royally. Anti-male zealots are the reason that a lot of young men have their lives turned upside down,from Brian Banks to the Duke lacrosse boys. Asshats like Geraldo don't care if someone gets hurt because of them. All that matters is that they get ratings.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Prosecutors decide not to charge Jameis Winston with a rape charge
The prosecutors investigating the charges against Jameis Winston have decided not to go to trial. I was reading up on it here and like most he said/she said situations it is difficult to find out exactly what happened on the night in question. All the rest of us have is second hand information. The investigators did talk to witnesses at the party amongst others including the complaintant whom kept changing her story. To top it off we have asshat galore Geraldo Rivera shooting his mouth off on the O'Reilly Factor about how Winston is guilty and how evil he is. Let's not forget that Geraldo is the same assclown who sided with Jodie Arias when she murdered Travis Alexander. Apparently Geraldo is a self hater or he feels inadequate compared to other men that he feels glee by putting on the chivalry act by siding with women no matter how savage their crimes are. Of course when we take into consideration the stupidity of Rivera it is easy to see why he does the things he does:
Geraldo does have sons and if one of his sons were falsely accused of rape would Geraldo ease up on the chivalry crap or does his gallantry know no bounds? Most of all thank you to the State of Florida and Florida State University for having the integrity that Duke University and the County of Durham North Carolina lacked when the Duke lacrosse team was not only falsely accused but truly harassed even threatened by both students and faculty staff;had their play schedule cancelled even before they were arraigned in court. Perhaps we've reached that point where we realize that prosecutorial witchhunts accomplish nothing but destroyed lives and are now seeking justice instead.
Geraldo does have sons and if one of his sons were falsely accused of rape would Geraldo ease up on the chivalry crap or does his gallantry know no bounds? Most of all thank you to the State of Florida and Florida State University for having the integrity that Duke University and the County of Durham North Carolina lacked when the Duke lacrosse team was not only falsely accused but truly harassed even threatened by both students and faculty staff;had their play schedule cancelled even before they were arraigned in court. Perhaps we've reached that point where we realize that prosecutorial witchhunts accomplish nothing but destroyed lives and are now seeking justice instead.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
The truth about gender in Iran
The myth of patriarchal oppression in Iran
Middle East, November 24, 2013 By Ali Mehraspand —
From the second feminists started spawning their “patriarchy” baby, women’s issues in less-developed countries such as middle-eastern ones were presented as proof of “oppression of women as long as human beings have lived.” Western media and feminists in particular look at a society in a difficult condition and do not see people suffering; they see women suffering.
Western media and in fact eastern media’s handling of the state of affairs is one of adamantly illustrating women as slaves and cunningly displaying men as cruel slave owners. This of course has been only responded to, so far, by some people in these cultures who, in an effort to defend those cultures, usually come up with religious statements explaining the rights of women in Islam and Islamic philosophy, which causes some confusing problems. Among the more evident of the problems lies the question: What if somebody is not religious and does not choose to live with codes of Islamic philosophy?
Iran, for instance, seems to have the least religious people among middle-eastern countries. Rejection of long-ingrained religious doctrines invariably leads to less and less obligation. And for the many who dump religious doctrines, it seems like most are keen to consent to any criticism of the culture – even an unfair one. That is why, for many, the ridding of old cultural norms comes as a package deal with feminism. This is the perfect time for feminism to ride on a mind, repelled of the old restrictions.
However something is amiss here. Are those restrictions all on women? It is fascinating how from a nonreligious viewpoint, the western eyes have only been catching glimpses of some woman in misery while being completely indifferent to the large and ubiquitous pain of men. Feminists are quick to shout “patriarchy!” and others are quick to find faith in it and judge.
Today we pay a little visit to Iran, in hope of finding patriarchy in a highly misandric, feminist-infested culture. This view of Iranian women as oppressed by men, which has been the bread and butter of Western media and feminists, has been served to the public as a patriarchal feast.
Over the past few decades, eyes and ears were bombarded by the media about Iran’s patriarchy and the slavery of women. Unfortunately, that is a joke nobody is laughing at. Each feminist movie was rewarded by Western festivals and film awards up to a level where feminism is now an element of film-making for every director who is desperate for Western attention. Iranians were told billions of times about women’s issues, usually in a lying propagandist manner, and were fed the lies enough times that they actually started believing in them.
So, for any blue-pill readers out there, before your reflexive defensive outburst impairs your judgment and reduces you to a shrill screaming feminist or white knight, crying “women’s issues in Iran!”: let me clarify that I am the last person to discard some issues faced by some women in Iran. I do think some of those issues are legitimate causes about which something must be done. In fact, I wouldn’t discard the notion that any class of people might have some issues.
Having said that, if you bear several paragraphs and put aside the beliefs hammered into your head, you will see how the supposed “Patriarchy” has increased the Quality of Life of women much higher relative to that of most men. In fact, in this part of the world, infantilizing and spoiling women is done to a level possibly unmatched anywhere else. Bear in mind the fact that all the local media, operating under the guidance of their Western counterparts, along with Iranian feminism, are injecting a significant dose of misandry into this society.
We start by examining the basic rights of men and women in Iran, point out some forms of discrimination against both sexes–and then blow your mind about how the media is misrepresenting this whole matter. Although misandry can be easily spotted under the law, it can in no way express cultural norms and expectations of the gender roles which shoot this country right among the top misandric ones.
Keeping in mind that when moving one step away from the law and into the culture, misandry gets much more evident; this article only gives a fair examination of the laws and leaves the cultural misandry for other writings.
Some forms of discrimination against your average woman in Iran include the following.
•In case there is no will documented by a deceased person and no agreement on the part of the deceased’s family members, the sons will receive twice as much inheritance as daughters.
•Married women need their husband’s signature to get a passport.
•Women must wear rousari (veil) when appearing in public and no, it is nothing like what they showed you on TV (if this is what you saw):
oppressive iranian patriarchs
This is what they actually look like when you walk the streets:
Here are some forms of discrimination against men:
•Conscription. All males are mandated to do at least two years of service in the military or armed forces. The conscription is not a draft that one may not attend in case there are enough volunteers. The time to join the forces is as soon as males come of age (18 years old) and is allowed to be postponed to after graduation, if they manage to get accepted in Iran’s university entrance exam system within a 1 year period. Unless their full time in the military is served, no adult male is allowed to leave the country, buy or sell anything in their names, get a license to work, use their university degree, etc. The punishment for not enrolling on time, aside from being reduced to a person with no rights, is that the person is to be taken into the military by force wherever he is spotted, with added service time. The mandate of the service is lifted in case a boy is confirmed to have severe disabilities or he is an only son in a fatherless household where he claims to be the provider.The law forbids women from the service, which is a bit different from what it sounds because it is not necessarily about military training per se. Many of the very important, highly dangerous jobs are done by soldiers. Doing extreme specialized and physical work in 120 Fahrenheit degrees in islands with no supply of fresh water (and void of any women), or in -22 Fahrenheit degrees, is a part of service. This especially poses a big problem on athletes. They have to shun their athletic careers for two years at the peak of fitness in their early twenties. Omid Noruzi for instance, the gold medal winner of the 2012 Olympics, was forced to leave his career and not compete in the 2008 Olympics, despite being qualified as he was the world champion in 2007, in order to join the military – which made him suicidal.
•“Free” (paid by men) health insurance for women only. Should a single woman choose not to work, she will be covered under her parent’s medical insurance for life even after the death of her parents. Males are covered only up to the age of 21. Married women are automatically covered under their husband’s medical insurance plan (even after the death of the husband). Husbands, on the other hand, are not covered under the wife’s insurance plan if they find themselves out of job. This of course is in a country where medical costs are so unbelievably high that the government subsidizes insurance for medical care. Should an employed woman with her own insurance get fired or choose to leave her job; she will be covered automatically again under her live/deceased father/husband.
•Pensions for women. Should a husband die, his occupational insurance (his highest salary per day multiplied by the years he worked) will be monthly paid to his wife as a salary for life, regardless of her being employed or not. No such law for men. Just FYI: occupational insurance is mandatory for all jobs.
•Support for divorced women. Should a woman get divorced, in addition to what she gets out of her husband (called Mehrieh - this will be discussed in more detail in another article), her provider is considered to be her father and in case her father is dead, she will get from the government an equal share of her father’s occupational insurance as her salary for as long as she lives. This way, most divorced women do not have to work.
•No compensation for surviving husbands. There is insurance for housewives who choose not to work so that after a certain age they will be paid a salary. The husband who pays for the insurance is not compensated in case of the woman’s death, but the woman’s siblings and parents will receive the lion’s share of the money the husband paid for.
•Welfare for women. When it comes to the poor sectors of the society, any woman who claims not to have a providing father and husband and a state-paying job receives monthly paid wages from an association called Kommiteye Imdad that, aside from women of any age, only registers men who in addition to not having any sort of income are severely disabled or are aged.
•Inheritance after divorce. If a woman divorces an ill husband who dies as a result of that illness within a year from the date of the divorce, his ex-wife still inherits as if they were never divorced.
Iran’s other marriage and divorce laws, as well as misandry in education, are left for future articles.
Saddening is the fact that nobody even thinks about these issues – to which must be added some other conditions:
•There are currently 1.7 million children laboring (ages 5 to 15), 92% of whom are boys.
•95% of children living in the streets are boys.[1] (Curiously enough this statistic was very hard to find because almost none of the sources concerning child labor mentioned the disparity between the sexes.)
•Males make 85% of the homeless.[2] (Interestingly enough you will find that newspaper titles are: 15% of the homeless are women and address concerns regarding that, implying that the goal should be that 100% of the homeless are male. Also, numerous articles, investigations and organizations exist in regards to homeless women.)
•100% of battlefield deaths have been and will be men.
•100% of battlefield injuries are men.
•98.5% of workplace injuries in 2005 were men[3]. (In 2004, 2003 and 2002 respectively 98.5%, 98.7% and 98.7%)
•60% of rape victims are male[4] (excluding prison rapes).
•Males also make up 81.7% of suicides.[5] (Interestingly, it is a piece of cake to find many media outlets openly lying that women have higher rates of suicide.)
This might give you a general idea for starters as to the state of affairs in Iran. But these so far only deal with discrimination under the law and not cultural standards to which men and women are held. The same cultural inclinations that create a society wherein 67% of university students are female, but most will not have jobs. This is not because they are discriminated against, as feminists will tell you, but because the majority won’t even fill out one job application form during a lifetime. University and jobs are hobbies and ego-boosters to many Iranian women.
There is a joke going around the country about how women mostly go to universities to have a diploma in their dowry! Their husbands are held responsible and should they not get married, the father is responsible.
Before I end, here is a typical effort of media at representing Iran as truly proof of gynocentrism rather than patriarchy[6]. This is actually one of the least misandric pieces I have read which does not explicitly attack men, rather it solely concentrates on women. That is why this article you are reading is not tackling the extreme, but rather the typical world we are living in:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark.
In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend. If she gets pregnant, the state will look after her. If she commits a crime, the worst that can happen to her is imprisonment in a humanely run prison.
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public. She may not drink alcohol or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged. If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes. If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public. It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
Now let’s comment on this. Starting with the last sentence is nice to get the perspective of why to criticize:
“
It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
There goes your typical gynocentrism; one big prison for women, but for men it is nothing but blow jobs every second of every day. That way it is also implied that men are the prison guards. Getting back to the beginning:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark. In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend.
Except for the drink, a young woman does all of that in Iran.
“
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public.
Actually Iranian women are among the largest consumers of makeup in the world, along with Iran having the highest rate of nose jobs for women in the world, and being among the countries with highest rates of cosmetic surgery fr women. These exceedingly expensive nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries are – as you guessed it – almost always paid for by men. Even most women in the rather poor sectors of society force their men to pay for cosmetic surgeries usually by exercising guilt trips and shaming. This article provides some insight into this:
Beauty obsession in Iran
Quoting from the article:
…Iranian obsession with physical beauty. Far from focusing on internal spiritual values, young people – some aged 14 – are having cosmetic surgery in the hope of attaining “doll faces” to make them look like the actors they see in Hollywood films and satellite television programmes from the west.
Back to the gyno-minded article:
She may not drink alcohol…
Boys cannot drink alcohol either; it is illegal in Iran for anybody to drink. It is called prohibition, not oppression of women.
still more more oppressed iranian women
… or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged.
She cannot associate with boys? She will be flogged? Really? Pffffffffftt. Victim mentality and propaganda is one thing but this is a new low, even for feminists.
Ask yourself, what kind of a lunatic tells these kinds of lies? Or worse, why did these liars have everybody convinced that there is a heinous patriarchy in Iran ripping women apart? Or worse, why have people believed them? Male-domination, my patriarchal ass – I assure you, articles won’t stop until this whole pathetic charade comes to light.
She cannot associate with boys? Iranian girls don’t have boyfriends? Pffftt and pfffft. Perhaps they also think that Iranian boys all have girlfriends. It must be nice to have no logic and be given a platform to dance on the truth. Their key to success is to conflate religionism with sexism. Much more to be said on this later.
“
If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes.
This is an outright lie which is constantly repeated all over the western media; here is the truth:
If a girl has consensual vaginal sex outside marriage in Iran, she can sue the boy and force him to marry her and she will be legally paid Mehrieh, which for now think of it as 150,000 US$. Trust your eyes; you read it right. This will be discussed in another article. Do not miss the upcoming article about Iran’s marriage and divorce laws and again how the media is presenting it.
“
If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public.
The rest of that article is dedicated to the death penalties of women over the past several decades, but wait a second.
Yes, hanging criminals in public does happen in Iran but here are some facts for you:
In 2012, 580 people were sentenced to death – some of whom were hanged in public. 9 were women, 571 were men.[7]
Actually, it is highly unlikely that Iranian judges make this kind of sentence for women. 76% of the aforementioned hanged cases were sentenced due to drug trafficking – only 3 of whom were women. The bias is too obvious to need further explanation.
Media’s distorted representations can be traced everywhere:
So Hitchens says and I quote: “You insult your sisters in Tehran who are being beaten and raped every day when you say they have rights.” When exposing feminist lies and propaganda you just know that rape would come up. Come to think of it, as rape is considered to be a crime of patriarchy; let us study rape statistics in Iran:
900 cases of rape were handled by the police last year in Iran. 60% of victims of rape were men, 40% were women.[8] This shocking fact hides inside it some cultural difficulties that Iranian men and boys face. Also chances of being raped in Iran is pretty much lower than most countries. Suffice it for now to say that in this supposed patriarchy, the punishment for rape is being hanged in public. Same goes for child molestation and being a gay man. Yes, a gay man, not a lesbian.
To sum up, the (western) Mainstream Media is a mess of gynocentrism and feminism. Gynocentric in that you might find 100 articles in English about the extremely few female taxi drivers in Iran, but not one article in any language about the 2076 male taxi drivers only in Tehran who are aged 71 to 80 (also 234 male taxi drivers in Tehran who are over 81)[9] who still work to provide for their thirty-some year old single daughters – daughters who are confused whether they have yoga class or English class today, whether they tell their boyfriends to get out of work early so as to give them a ride home, or if they should go shopping after class. Go figure.
Source:click here
This is truly an eye opener and it highlights just what propagandists the western mainstream media is. As we can tell Iran is not the male paradise everyone thinks it is. It's time to stop the lies.
Middle East, November 24, 2013 By Ali Mehraspand —
From the second feminists started spawning their “patriarchy” baby, women’s issues in less-developed countries such as middle-eastern ones were presented as proof of “oppression of women as long as human beings have lived.” Western media and feminists in particular look at a society in a difficult condition and do not see people suffering; they see women suffering.
Western media and in fact eastern media’s handling of the state of affairs is one of adamantly illustrating women as slaves and cunningly displaying men as cruel slave owners. This of course has been only responded to, so far, by some people in these cultures who, in an effort to defend those cultures, usually come up with religious statements explaining the rights of women in Islam and Islamic philosophy, which causes some confusing problems. Among the more evident of the problems lies the question: What if somebody is not religious and does not choose to live with codes of Islamic philosophy?
Iran, for instance, seems to have the least religious people among middle-eastern countries. Rejection of long-ingrained religious doctrines invariably leads to less and less obligation. And for the many who dump religious doctrines, it seems like most are keen to consent to any criticism of the culture – even an unfair one. That is why, for many, the ridding of old cultural norms comes as a package deal with feminism. This is the perfect time for feminism to ride on a mind, repelled of the old restrictions.
However something is amiss here. Are those restrictions all on women? It is fascinating how from a nonreligious viewpoint, the western eyes have only been catching glimpses of some woman in misery while being completely indifferent to the large and ubiquitous pain of men. Feminists are quick to shout “patriarchy!” and others are quick to find faith in it and judge.
Today we pay a little visit to Iran, in hope of finding patriarchy in a highly misandric, feminist-infested culture. This view of Iranian women as oppressed by men, which has been the bread and butter of Western media and feminists, has been served to the public as a patriarchal feast.
Over the past few decades, eyes and ears were bombarded by the media about Iran’s patriarchy and the slavery of women. Unfortunately, that is a joke nobody is laughing at. Each feminist movie was rewarded by Western festivals and film awards up to a level where feminism is now an element of film-making for every director who is desperate for Western attention. Iranians were told billions of times about women’s issues, usually in a lying propagandist manner, and were fed the lies enough times that they actually started believing in them.
So, for any blue-pill readers out there, before your reflexive defensive outburst impairs your judgment and reduces you to a shrill screaming feminist or white knight, crying “women’s issues in Iran!”: let me clarify that I am the last person to discard some issues faced by some women in Iran. I do think some of those issues are legitimate causes about which something must be done. In fact, I wouldn’t discard the notion that any class of people might have some issues.
Having said that, if you bear several paragraphs and put aside the beliefs hammered into your head, you will see how the supposed “Patriarchy” has increased the Quality of Life of women much higher relative to that of most men. In fact, in this part of the world, infantilizing and spoiling women is done to a level possibly unmatched anywhere else. Bear in mind the fact that all the local media, operating under the guidance of their Western counterparts, along with Iranian feminism, are injecting a significant dose of misandry into this society.
We start by examining the basic rights of men and women in Iran, point out some forms of discrimination against both sexes–and then blow your mind about how the media is misrepresenting this whole matter. Although misandry can be easily spotted under the law, it can in no way express cultural norms and expectations of the gender roles which shoot this country right among the top misandric ones.
Keeping in mind that when moving one step away from the law and into the culture, misandry gets much more evident; this article only gives a fair examination of the laws and leaves the cultural misandry for other writings.
Some forms of discrimination against your average woman in Iran include the following.
•In case there is no will documented by a deceased person and no agreement on the part of the deceased’s family members, the sons will receive twice as much inheritance as daughters.
•Married women need their husband’s signature to get a passport.
•Women must wear rousari (veil) when appearing in public and no, it is nothing like what they showed you on TV (if this is what you saw):
oppressive iranian patriarchs
This is what they actually look like when you walk the streets:
Here are some forms of discrimination against men:
•Conscription. All males are mandated to do at least two years of service in the military or armed forces. The conscription is not a draft that one may not attend in case there are enough volunteers. The time to join the forces is as soon as males come of age (18 years old) and is allowed to be postponed to after graduation, if they manage to get accepted in Iran’s university entrance exam system within a 1 year period. Unless their full time in the military is served, no adult male is allowed to leave the country, buy or sell anything in their names, get a license to work, use their university degree, etc. The punishment for not enrolling on time, aside from being reduced to a person with no rights, is that the person is to be taken into the military by force wherever he is spotted, with added service time. The mandate of the service is lifted in case a boy is confirmed to have severe disabilities or he is an only son in a fatherless household where he claims to be the provider.The law forbids women from the service, which is a bit different from what it sounds because it is not necessarily about military training per se. Many of the very important, highly dangerous jobs are done by soldiers. Doing extreme specialized and physical work in 120 Fahrenheit degrees in islands with no supply of fresh water (and void of any women), or in -22 Fahrenheit degrees, is a part of service. This especially poses a big problem on athletes. They have to shun their athletic careers for two years at the peak of fitness in their early twenties. Omid Noruzi for instance, the gold medal winner of the 2012 Olympics, was forced to leave his career and not compete in the 2008 Olympics, despite being qualified as he was the world champion in 2007, in order to join the military – which made him suicidal.
•“Free” (paid by men) health insurance for women only. Should a single woman choose not to work, she will be covered under her parent’s medical insurance for life even after the death of her parents. Males are covered only up to the age of 21. Married women are automatically covered under their husband’s medical insurance plan (even after the death of the husband). Husbands, on the other hand, are not covered under the wife’s insurance plan if they find themselves out of job. This of course is in a country where medical costs are so unbelievably high that the government subsidizes insurance for medical care. Should an employed woman with her own insurance get fired or choose to leave her job; she will be covered automatically again under her live/deceased father/husband.
•Pensions for women. Should a husband die, his occupational insurance (his highest salary per day multiplied by the years he worked) will be monthly paid to his wife as a salary for life, regardless of her being employed or not. No such law for men. Just FYI: occupational insurance is mandatory for all jobs.
•Support for divorced women. Should a woman get divorced, in addition to what she gets out of her husband (called Mehrieh - this will be discussed in more detail in another article), her provider is considered to be her father and in case her father is dead, she will get from the government an equal share of her father’s occupational insurance as her salary for as long as she lives. This way, most divorced women do not have to work.
•No compensation for surviving husbands. There is insurance for housewives who choose not to work so that after a certain age they will be paid a salary. The husband who pays for the insurance is not compensated in case of the woman’s death, but the woman’s siblings and parents will receive the lion’s share of the money the husband paid for.
•Welfare for women. When it comes to the poor sectors of the society, any woman who claims not to have a providing father and husband and a state-paying job receives monthly paid wages from an association called Kommiteye Imdad that, aside from women of any age, only registers men who in addition to not having any sort of income are severely disabled or are aged.
•Inheritance after divorce. If a woman divorces an ill husband who dies as a result of that illness within a year from the date of the divorce, his ex-wife still inherits as if they were never divorced.
Iran’s other marriage and divorce laws, as well as misandry in education, are left for future articles.
Saddening is the fact that nobody even thinks about these issues – to which must be added some other conditions:
•There are currently 1.7 million children laboring (ages 5 to 15), 92% of whom are boys.
•95% of children living in the streets are boys.[1] (Curiously enough this statistic was very hard to find because almost none of the sources concerning child labor mentioned the disparity between the sexes.)
•Males make 85% of the homeless.[2] (Interestingly enough you will find that newspaper titles are: 15% of the homeless are women and address concerns regarding that, implying that the goal should be that 100% of the homeless are male. Also, numerous articles, investigations and organizations exist in regards to homeless women.)
•100% of battlefield deaths have been and will be men.
•100% of battlefield injuries are men.
•98.5% of workplace injuries in 2005 were men[3]. (In 2004, 2003 and 2002 respectively 98.5%, 98.7% and 98.7%)
•60% of rape victims are male[4] (excluding prison rapes).
•Males also make up 81.7% of suicides.[5] (Interestingly, it is a piece of cake to find many media outlets openly lying that women have higher rates of suicide.)
This might give you a general idea for starters as to the state of affairs in Iran. But these so far only deal with discrimination under the law and not cultural standards to which men and women are held. The same cultural inclinations that create a society wherein 67% of university students are female, but most will not have jobs. This is not because they are discriminated against, as feminists will tell you, but because the majority won’t even fill out one job application form during a lifetime. University and jobs are hobbies and ego-boosters to many Iranian women.
There is a joke going around the country about how women mostly go to universities to have a diploma in their dowry! Their husbands are held responsible and should they not get married, the father is responsible.
Before I end, here is a typical effort of media at representing Iran as truly proof of gynocentrism rather than patriarchy[6]. This is actually one of the least misandric pieces I have read which does not explicitly attack men, rather it solely concentrates on women. That is why this article you are reading is not tackling the extreme, but rather the typical world we are living in:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark.
In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend. If she gets pregnant, the state will look after her. If she commits a crime, the worst that can happen to her is imprisonment in a humanely run prison.
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public. She may not drink alcohol or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged. If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes. If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public. It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
Now let’s comment on this. Starting with the last sentence is nice to get the perspective of why to criticize:
“
It is claimed by feminist and human rights groups that Iran is one big prison for women.
There goes your typical gynocentrism; one big prison for women, but for men it is nothing but blow jobs every second of every day. That way it is also implied that men are the prison guards. Getting back to the beginning:
“
The comparison between modern British girls and modern Iranian girls living less than 3,000 miles apart could hardly be more stark. In Britain, a young woman can wear pretty clothes and makeup in public, talk on her mobile, smoke, go for a drink and have a boyfriend.
Except for the drink, a young woman does all of that in Iran.
“
In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public.
Actually Iranian women are among the largest consumers of makeup in the world, along with Iran having the highest rate of nose jobs for women in the world, and being among the countries with highest rates of cosmetic surgery fr women. These exceedingly expensive nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries are – as you guessed it – almost always paid for by men. Even most women in the rather poor sectors of society force their men to pay for cosmetic surgeries usually by exercising guilt trips and shaming. This article provides some insight into this:
Beauty obsession in Iran
Quoting from the article:
…Iranian obsession with physical beauty. Far from focusing on internal spiritual values, young people – some aged 14 – are having cosmetic surgery in the hope of attaining “doll faces” to make them look like the actors they see in Hollywood films and satellite television programmes from the west.
Back to the gyno-minded article:
She may not drink alcohol…
Boys cannot drink alcohol either; it is illegal in Iran for anybody to drink. It is called prohibition, not oppression of women.
still more more oppressed iranian women
… or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged.
She cannot associate with boys? She will be flogged? Really? Pffffffffftt. Victim mentality and propaganda is one thing but this is a new low, even for feminists.
Ask yourself, what kind of a lunatic tells these kinds of lies? Or worse, why did these liars have everybody convinced that there is a heinous patriarchy in Iran ripping women apart? Or worse, why have people believed them? Male-domination, my patriarchal ass – I assure you, articles won’t stop until this whole pathetic charade comes to light.
She cannot associate with boys? Iranian girls don’t have boyfriends? Pffftt and pfffft. Perhaps they also think that Iranian boys all have girlfriends. It must be nice to have no logic and be given a platform to dance on the truth. Their key to success is to conflate religionism with sexism. Much more to be said on this later.
“
If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes.
This is an outright lie which is constantly repeated all over the western media; here is the truth:
If a girl has consensual vaginal sex outside marriage in Iran, she can sue the boy and force him to marry her and she will be legally paid Mehrieh, which for now think of it as 150,000 US$. Trust your eyes; you read it right. This will be discussed in another article. Do not miss the upcoming article about Iran’s marriage and divorce laws and again how the media is presenting it.
“
If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public.
The rest of that article is dedicated to the death penalties of women over the past several decades, but wait a second.
Yes, hanging criminals in public does happen in Iran but here are some facts for you:
In 2012, 580 people were sentenced to death – some of whom were hanged in public. 9 were women, 571 were men.[7]
Actually, it is highly unlikely that Iranian judges make this kind of sentence for women. 76% of the aforementioned hanged cases were sentenced due to drug trafficking – only 3 of whom were women. The bias is too obvious to need further explanation.
Media’s distorted representations can be traced everywhere:
So Hitchens says and I quote: “You insult your sisters in Tehran who are being beaten and raped every day when you say they have rights.” When exposing feminist lies and propaganda you just know that rape would come up. Come to think of it, as rape is considered to be a crime of patriarchy; let us study rape statistics in Iran:
900 cases of rape were handled by the police last year in Iran. 60% of victims of rape were men, 40% were women.[8] This shocking fact hides inside it some cultural difficulties that Iranian men and boys face. Also chances of being raped in Iran is pretty much lower than most countries. Suffice it for now to say that in this supposed patriarchy, the punishment for rape is being hanged in public. Same goes for child molestation and being a gay man. Yes, a gay man, not a lesbian.
To sum up, the (western) Mainstream Media is a mess of gynocentrism and feminism. Gynocentric in that you might find 100 articles in English about the extremely few female taxi drivers in Iran, but not one article in any language about the 2076 male taxi drivers only in Tehran who are aged 71 to 80 (also 234 male taxi drivers in Tehran who are over 81)[9] who still work to provide for their thirty-some year old single daughters – daughters who are confused whether they have yoga class or English class today, whether they tell their boyfriends to get out of work early so as to give them a ride home, or if they should go shopping after class. Go figure.
Source:click here
This is truly an eye opener and it highlights just what propagandists the western mainstream media is. As we can tell Iran is not the male paradise everyone thinks it is. It's time to stop the lies.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Let's go to Asia instead
Former heads of state urge EU to outlaw anti-feminism
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anti-male article from Time magazine
One of the most pernicious biases in the media is the bias against men. Time today published a piece by Jeffrey Kluger titled: “Women Make Better Doctors Than Men.”
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Voice For Men at Queen's Park in Toranto
I'd like to turn this back on the feminists: We hear your here,we hear you're queer now how about you disappear.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Another perspective of femitheist
It all starts innocently by Lucian Valsan
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse
From Stop Hillary PAC:
Hillary Clinton and her SuperPAC cronies have declared war on Stop Hillary PAC.
That's why I'm writing you this urgent email today – just hours from our critical fundraising deadline.
If you can step up right now and support our efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton, I need your contribution in the next few hours – before our make-or-break August 31st fundraising deadline.
I needyour immediate support to enable Stop Hillary PAC to fight back against the MILLIONS being spent right now to install Hillary in the White House.
As you know, Hillary Clinton's team has announced a multi-million dollar fundraising haul.
Hillary Clinton must never become president of the United States. I know it, you know it, and millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – know it.
But massive forces are aligning to begin the coronation of "President Hillary."
I need everyone who has pledged to defeat Hillary in 2016 to donate at least $35 before this important fundraising deadline to have any chance of keeping pace with the Clinton machine.
Friend, can I count on your immediate donation of $35?
They may have the fat cat donors...but we have the American people.
Thousands of great supporters have already stepped up again, and I need your support once again. but so far. So please click the link below to make an important gift today.
If supporters like you – who have already signed our pledge to defeat Hillary – step up immediately, we will send a strong message to Hillary and the liberal elite. Otherwise, we will be crushed by shady special interest money.
I urgently need you to back us up on this.
Thanks for your support.
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
Click here to contribute.
I can think of a lot of reasons why Hillary should never be President. Benghazi proves she should have never been Secretary Of State. Let's cut to the chase: Hillary Clinton is a feminist statist. Do you want to give a feminist statist the power to issue Executive Orders? Think about it.
Hillary Clinton and her SuperPAC cronies have declared war on Stop Hillary PAC.
That's why I'm writing you this urgent email today – just hours from our critical fundraising deadline.
If you can step up right now and support our efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton, I need your contribution in the next few hours – before our make-or-break August 31st fundraising deadline.
I needyour immediate support to enable Stop Hillary PAC to fight back against the MILLIONS being spent right now to install Hillary in the White House.
As you know, Hillary Clinton's team has announced a multi-million dollar fundraising haul.
Hillary Clinton must never become president of the United States. I know it, you know it, and millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – know it.
But massive forces are aligning to begin the coronation of "President Hillary."
I need everyone who has pledged to defeat Hillary in 2016 to donate at least $35 before this important fundraising deadline to have any chance of keeping pace with the Clinton machine.
Friend, can I count on your immediate donation of $35?
They may have the fat cat donors...but we have the American people.
Thousands of great supporters have already stepped up again, and I need your support once again. but so far. So please click the link below to make an important gift today.
If supporters like you – who have already signed our pledge to defeat Hillary – step up immediately, we will send a strong message to Hillary and the liberal elite. Otherwise, we will be crushed by shady special interest money.
I urgently need you to back us up on this.
Thanks for your support.
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
Click here to contribute.
I can think of a lot of reasons why Hillary should never be President. Benghazi proves she should have never been Secretary Of State. Let's cut to the chase: Hillary Clinton is a feminist statist. Do you want to give a feminist statist the power to issue Executive Orders? Think about it.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
JTO on toning it down and why it's never going to happen
MRAs: be quiet, be more polite by John Hembling (JTO)
Apparently, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are legitimate issues.
The rate of workplace death – somewhere around 93 percent male – is a real issue. The rate of male suicide – where 4 out of 5 who die by their own hand are men – that’s real, too. The overwhelming majority of the homeless who are male – real. The fact that men are sentenced more harshly in the criminal courts, and that fathers are grossly mistreated and abused by the family courts – real. And indirectly, children mistreated by those same family courts, who are denying them healthy relationships with their fathers, is a real issue as well.
These are real issues – and feminists have even deigned to acknowledge that they are real issues. I’m not being sarcastic at all.
There are also a few issues not agreed on by the self-appointed public arbiters of truth or fiction, those gender ideologues calling themselves “feminist” and claiming that all they ever wanted was equality, that most slippery of political goals.
Consider routine male infant genital mutilation – that’s not a real issue, apparently. Never mind that hundreds of children die every year from the shock and trauma of having the most sensitive part of their anatomy severed with no anaesthetic, and that the practice was normalized specifically to desensitize the sexual organs of boys by a medical quack in the 19th century. In spite of the fact that the sexual mutilation of girls is almost universally condemned – doing the exact same things to infant boys is no problem, and as an ongoing outrage and abomination – it’s not a real issue, and those objecting should sit down, shut up, and stop whining. Stop whining already.
Similarly, just as feminists and other fascists agree that mutilating male infants is routine but don’t see any particular problem with the continuation of the practice – men and boys are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system. Female graduation outcomes account for more than 65% of all graduation from institutions of higher education. This is not debated by feminists, but rather than recognizing the growing inequality produced by a systematically biased education system, they celebrate this as a positive outcome. Feminism is all about equality, and if feminist policies in education produce a growing inequality, then obviously, we need more feminism – to – ah, fix the problem.
Human rights activists who might become angry when their brothers, sons, fathers and friends are systematically marginalized by all this, ahem, equality, should pipe down, don’t get so angry, be more polite, wait your turn, and can you just be quiet, because the feminists are busy taking care of your issues, or they would be, if only you’d be silent, go away, and stop inconveniencing them by illuminating the human damage their policies produce.
The sadists informing public policy don’t like it when you point out that they are sadists.
But the fact is that the men and women in the men’s rights movement recognize human harm done directly to men and boys, and harm done indirectly to women and girls by feminist driven policies, are outraged by the decades of fucking indifference from the public when this human damage is pointed out.
Ill say that again. The human damage produced in full knowledge by feminist driven domestic policy is met with almost total indifference. It has been the case for decades, and those of us who actually give a shit about addressing these problems are just a little bit goddamn tired of that indifference.
Out of every 100 suicides, 80 are male. Oh well, yawn, who cares. Oh yeah, and in a world where men die earlier, when men kill themselves more, when men die violent deaths more than anybody else, where men comprise the majority of the homeless, and are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system – we are treated to an apparently never-ending narrative about how the whole world is a male-advantaging patriarchy in which being male means getting a cruise through life with the difficulty setting at easy.
Well, that’s not really all of it, even. There’s also rape culture. That’s a populist narrative in which it is claimed that the rape of women and girls is a central feature of our culture. It is claimed that the rape of women and girls is normalized, that we are socialized to accept rape as if it is acceptable.
However, the reality is that rape has no sex, and that if we are to throw out the politicized definition in most dictionaries and look only at violent sexual victimization – it’s men and boys who are the predominant victims across our culture. This is not to suggest that women don’t get raped, and that they are not also victimized, but we are living in a culture where the rape of men and boys, while it occurs with greater frequency, has been defined in the dictionary to not exist. It happens in the real world, but the dictionary says that’s not rape, and besides – boys raped by their teachers are lucky to get some – because they don’t get to say no, they are sex machines, not human beings, and certainly not children sexually abused by those they should have been able to trust.
Yeah, this rape culture is one where only the rape of women is treated as acceptable.
And for those of us who recognize the humanity of more human beings than just the members of our culture’s leisure caste – when faced with indifference at human harm, and sometimes the sadistic glee flaunted by abusers, sociopaths, criminals, and gender ideologues with political power – we get a little bit angry.
That’s not quite fair. We don’t get a little bit angry at the injustice, abuse, indifference, and the gleeful sadistic mockery and scorn heaped those most wounded, who are silenced by the prevailing zeitgeist – it is deserving of a deep and white hot rage which drives any real human rights movement.
But what we keep hearing is that, oh yes, the issues of this movement are real and legitimate, oh yes. But we’re too angry. In fact, if only we weren’t so angry, if only we weren’t so loud, then they – those people who have deigned to acknowledge that the concerns of the movement are real – they would have been willing to address these issues, if only we were less angry, not so loud and not so insistent. In fact, if men’s human rights advocates would just be polite, just be quiet, and just learn to shut up and sit down, feminists would be solving the problem’s we’ve been so vocal about. So seriously guys, why can’t you just be quiet and go away – because honestly, you’re really holding the whole class back.
That’s the message. It’s a bargain, isn’t it? Just be quiet and go away, and feminists will solve the problems we’ve been talking, or in some cases, shouting about. The issues are real, so say even the feminists, but doggone it, those darned MRAs are so angry and nasty – they’re the ones stopping anyone from addressing issues like 80% of suicides who are male or the fact that 90% of the homeless are men.
If only MRAs weren’t so loud, obnoxious and angry, these problems would be solved. Well, that’s the bargain being offered.
Time for a reality check.
MRAs were polite. Men’s human rights activists were polite, and did not express their anger, and played by the rules for decades. Oh yes, this movement is over a century old, and for most of that time, almost all the principal activists and writers within the movement stuck strictly to the facts, keep their tone civil, and hardly offended or upset anyone.
And you know how much notice anybody took of the issues, such as suicide, homelessness, joblessness, predatory and corrupt courts, violent death and so on?
The public took no notice whatsoever. Oh yes, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are real, and we’ll get right on that – hey, look – The Real Housewives of Las Vegas is on, oooooh shiny bullshit on my TV screen.
If the violent deaths of women were treated with the same total contempt and disinterest that the deaths of men and boys earn, there would be not feminists, but actual female rights organizations executing public officials in the town square, and putting whole cities to the torch.
However, the bargain being offered now is that if only we would just politely quiet down, fold our hands in our laps and go obediently away – well, by golly, all the issues we’re so inappropriately angry about would be solved almost right away.
And like just about everything else from the propaganda machine of the cult of hate and human damage calling itself feminism, this is a fraud. What they’re really saying when they tell us we’re too loud, and too angry, is that it would be awfully nice if we would just shut up, and go back to quietly and conveniently killing ourselves, or dying on the job of keeping everything else running for the benefit of the members of the leisure caste.
Get back to work for the benefit of those who disregard the humanity of men in preference for the utility of men. Go back to quietly and conveniently absorbing and dispensing violence for the benefit of your social betters. And when you’re broken beyond your continued utility to the leisure caste of our society, kindly be so good as to quietly and uncomplainingly kill yourself, so nobody who matters is troubled by the unsightly spectacle of a human being in pain.
That is the bargain being offered by those who say, in public, or in print, that the anger demonstrated by this human rights movement is inappropriate and counter productive, and that we should all just be more polite.
Here’s the counter offer.
To those acknowledging the reality of this movement’s complaints, workplace death, infant mutilation, corrupt courts, a systematic and abusive bias in the education system: Keep telling us to be quiet and polite. We’ll come for each of you. And we’ll target you with the spotlight, and put your indifference and contempt for the suffering of human beings on public display. Because we recognize that what you’re trying to do is coerce men to go quietly to their deaths, for your own convenience. We recognize that you know your continued exploitation of the disposability of human beings other than yourself is what you fear losing. We also know that without this movement, without the public discomfort created by a loud, angry and in many cases obnoxious men’s rights movement, what you’d have instead would be the redress of these grievances in the oldest and most basic format used by upright apes through the history of the human species.
Source:click here
I love how JTO fucking nailed this. It is fucking perfect. Fuck you Cathy Young,you showed your true colors. Go shove it up your Soviet shithole cunt. Fuck you bitch and everyone who agrees with you. We don't serve you and if we ever did the only thing we would serve you is a subpeona. Again fuck you. Here is some music to top it off:
Let us not forget who made this article possible:
Fuck you cunt.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wrongfully expelled man sues Xavier Unversity
Maryland guard Dez Wells suing Xavier for expulsion
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Monday, August 19, 2013
Reelect Senator Jim Risch
Senator Jim Risch(R-Idaho) is up for reelection and I'm calling upon all MRA's that are registered to vote in Idaho to vote for him. Risch voted against VAWA which is why he should remain in Washington DC as Seantor for Idaho. He voted in favor of men that is why we must keep him in the Senate. At this time Risch is unopposed but it's not going to stay that way and you can be assured that whomever the democrats throw at Risch they are going to be a liberal democrat that embraces feminism. If the dems win we lose,it's that simple. Safeguard your rights,reelect Jim Risch. You can contribute to his campaign here.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Hillary's camp has gone too far
From Stop Hillary PAC:
I wish I didn't have to write this letter. But I do.
Last week I received a voice mail that I immediately turned over to local and federal authorities -- including the FBI.
You see, because of my high profile campaign against Hillary Clinton -- Hillary's supporters are fighting back and I have become public enemy #1.
And now they have gone too far.
In a profanity filled voicemail, one of Hillary Clinton's supporters from New York has personally threatened me.
I can't even repeat the threats in this email it was so disgustingly evil. I have turned the voicemail over to the Capitol Police, State Patrol and the FBI.
I don't know where else to turn... so I'm turning to you.
I helped found Stop Hillary PAC for one reason -- to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States. So far, the response has been overwhelming. Tens of thousands of you have pledged to do whatever it takes to defeat Hillary. Our web video has been featured by CNN, CBS, Politico and other national news outlets and has tens of thousands of views on YouTube. Our momentum is building and I couldn't be more optimistic about fighting Hillary every step of the way.
What I didn't count on was the vitriol, personal threats and vile objections from her supporters. The emails from her supporters have been nasty. But threatening me and my family has gone too far.
The only way I know to fight back is to build an army of Americans to fight Hillary Clinton -- and her despicable supporters -- at every turn.
But I can't do it alone -- will you stand with me today?
If you agree that nobody should be personally threatened just because they oppose Hillary Clinton then I'm asking you to sign my petition insisting that Hillary denounce her supporters' threats and publicly apologize immediately.
And while I can't even repeat the disgusting, evil threats that were made against me -- I will play the voice mail for Hillary if she will listen. If Hillary Clinton has one ounce of decency she will immediately denounce this threat and openly and publicly apologize.
Will you stand with me in calling on Hillary to apologize today?
A public apology and rebuke of this vile human being by Hillary Clinton might be the only thing that will discourage this type of behavior in the future -- and I pray it will stop this individual in his tracks.
If you will stand with me please click here to sign the petition insisting that Hillary Clinton publicly apologize immediately and denounce this attack immediately.
If enough of you will stand with me, I will have our attorneys deliver your signed petitions directly to Hillary Clinton.
One more thing -- will you chip in $25, $50 or even $100 to help fight Hillary Clinton and her disgusting supporters? If so, I will be able to distribute this petition to millions of Americans to demand a public apology from Hillary.
Please click here to sign the apology petition today.
I'm not backing down and I hope I can count on you to not back down either.
Thank you for your support and prayers.
Senator Ted Harvey
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
I wish I didn't have to write this letter. But I do.
Last week I received a voice mail that I immediately turned over to local and federal authorities -- including the FBI.
You see, because of my high profile campaign against Hillary Clinton -- Hillary's supporters are fighting back and I have become public enemy #1.
And now they have gone too far.
In a profanity filled voicemail, one of Hillary Clinton's supporters from New York has personally threatened me.
I can't even repeat the threats in this email it was so disgustingly evil. I have turned the voicemail over to the Capitol Police, State Patrol and the FBI.
I don't know where else to turn... so I'm turning to you.
I helped found Stop Hillary PAC for one reason -- to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States. So far, the response has been overwhelming. Tens of thousands of you have pledged to do whatever it takes to defeat Hillary. Our web video has been featured by CNN, CBS, Politico and other national news outlets and has tens of thousands of views on YouTube. Our momentum is building and I couldn't be more optimistic about fighting Hillary every step of the way.
What I didn't count on was the vitriol, personal threats and vile objections from her supporters. The emails from her supporters have been nasty. But threatening me and my family has gone too far.
The only way I know to fight back is to build an army of Americans to fight Hillary Clinton -- and her despicable supporters -- at every turn.
But I can't do it alone -- will you stand with me today?
If you agree that nobody should be personally threatened just because they oppose Hillary Clinton then I'm asking you to sign my petition insisting that Hillary denounce her supporters' threats and publicly apologize immediately.
And while I can't even repeat the disgusting, evil threats that were made against me -- I will play the voice mail for Hillary if she will listen. If Hillary Clinton has one ounce of decency she will immediately denounce this threat and openly and publicly apologize.
Will you stand with me in calling on Hillary to apologize today?
A public apology and rebuke of this vile human being by Hillary Clinton might be the only thing that will discourage this type of behavior in the future -- and I pray it will stop this individual in his tracks.
If you will stand with me please click here to sign the petition insisting that Hillary Clinton publicly apologize immediately and denounce this attack immediately.
If enough of you will stand with me, I will have our attorneys deliver your signed petitions directly to Hillary Clinton.
One more thing -- will you chip in $25, $50 or even $100 to help fight Hillary Clinton and her disgusting supporters? If so, I will be able to distribute this petition to millions of Americans to demand a public apology from Hillary.
Please click here to sign the apology petition today.
I'm not backing down and I hope I can count on you to not back down either.
Thank you for your support and prayers.
Senator Ted Harvey
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
What may be next for Hugo Schwyzer
How is Hugo Schwyzer going to top himself? He expolits his students and cheats on his wives. If this were any other guy I would have sympathy but not for Schwyzer. He is a psychopath that will throw other men under the bus for his own benefit. But back to the topic: how is he going to top this? He could do what he's probably wanted to do for a long time,perhaps all if not most of his life. What he has always wanted to do is to fuck his mother or at least have a 3some with mom and dad. If he had the hots for a male porn star you know he wants to blow his father. If he doesn't do his parents then he'll probably try to do his kids or the family pets. Animals have instinct that usually serves them well so chances are they picked up what a psycho Schwyzer is and hightailed it out of there. Which means that Schwyzer may be on the road to pedophilia. Stay tuned.
Friday, August 16, 2013
What do feminists think about Hugo Schwyzer
I wonder what feminists think about the whole Hugo Schwyzer saga. You've seen what I have written but I want to know what femimists think about it. They've been silent on this for the most part that I know of and Hugo Schwyzer is a feminist that is no different than any other feminist. Sure he's been underhanded about things but what feminist isn't. Sure he does sick things to his students but what feminist doesn't. While it is true he has raped the genders for his own gain but what feminist hasn't.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
More on Hugo Schwyzer
Porn Professor Hugo Schwyzer Attempts Suicide
By Dennis Romero Fri., Aug. 2 2013 at 2:01 PM
Hugo Schwyzer, the social sciences academic at Pasadena City College best known as the "porn professor," tried to commit suicide last night, he told the Weekly today.
He was visiting his mother in the Monterey area, where he grew up, when it happened about 10 p.m., he said. He was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold at Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, the professor said:
"I took an entire bottle of Klonapin," he said. That's a muscle relaxant and anti-anxiety drug.
Schwyzer said he's physically OK but reiterated how the social media fallout from a sexting relationship with a sometime porn star and multiple affairs with women made his marriage "over" and sunk him into a deep depression.
He wanted to make clear that none of these dalliances involved PCC students or employees.
The prof says Twitter and article comments roasting him as a woman hater and regurgitating a 15-year-old suicide attempt and attempted murder of a girlfriend have taken their toll.
Schwyzer is perhaps best known for his writings on women ("male feminist," he's been called), though many feminists have issues with his personal track record and his academic fascination with pornography.
(He says porn, a major piece of our media landscape, needs to be studied more seriously in this country.)
The professor also made headlines for inviting some of adult video's top stars, including James Deen, to speak during his course on pornography.
That class has been canceled, the prof said this week, because of his personal issues. But he told us he hopes to bring it back someday.
"Mental illness is a bitch, it really is," Schwyzer told us on the phone today.
Send feedback and tips to the author. Follow Dennis Romero on Twitter at @dennisjromero. Follow LA Weekly News on Twitter at @laweeklynews.
Source:click here
I always remembrer that quote ending the article. Speaking of bitches Hugo is feminism's bitch that is in the doghouse.
By Dennis Romero Fri., Aug. 2 2013 at 2:01 PM
Hugo Schwyzer, the social sciences academic at Pasadena City College best known as the "porn professor," tried to commit suicide last night, he told the Weekly today.
He was visiting his mother in the Monterey area, where he grew up, when it happened about 10 p.m., he said. He was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold at Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, the professor said:
"I took an entire bottle of Klonapin," he said. That's a muscle relaxant and anti-anxiety drug.
Schwyzer said he's physically OK but reiterated how the social media fallout from a sexting relationship with a sometime porn star and multiple affairs with women made his marriage "over" and sunk him into a deep depression.
He wanted to make clear that none of these dalliances involved PCC students or employees.
The prof says Twitter and article comments roasting him as a woman hater and regurgitating a 15-year-old suicide attempt and attempted murder of a girlfriend have taken their toll.
Schwyzer is perhaps best known for his writings on women ("male feminist," he's been called), though many feminists have issues with his personal track record and his academic fascination with pornography.
(He says porn, a major piece of our media landscape, needs to be studied more seriously in this country.)
The professor also made headlines for inviting some of adult video's top stars, including James Deen, to speak during his course on pornography.
That class has been canceled, the prof said this week, because of his personal issues. But he told us he hopes to bring it back someday.
"Mental illness is a bitch, it really is," Schwyzer told us on the phone today.
Send feedback and tips to the author. Follow Dennis Romero on Twitter at @dennisjromero. Follow LA Weekly News on Twitter at @laweeklynews.
Source:click here
I always remembrer that quote ending the article. Speaking of bitches Hugo is feminism's bitch that is in the doghouse.
Piece of shit judge retires
From A Voice For Men:
Corrupt Judge Michael J. Kelly Is Retiring
According to West Virginia’s Bureau of Child Support Enforcement: Kelly Is Retiring
Controversial Judge Is Calling It Quits
Soon West Virginia families will be safe from abusive Kanawha County Family Court Judge Michael J. Kelly-who presides over some Putnam County cases. alt
The man that refused to let a dying grandmother from a final visit with her grandson, and held the same child hostage, in West Virginia, banning him from the beach, will be retiring at the end of 2013.
That’s the word from sources with the West Virginia Bureau of Child Support Enforcement.
Kelly can read the writing on the wall. Parents and children, who have had their civil rights trampled on by the Cretin in a Black Dress, were lining up to trash Kelly at campaign stops had he been stupid enough to run for re-election, in 2016. And he would never be able to explain his mental instability about denying the grandmother’s visit with her grandson. Instead, Kelly’s chickening out and retiring.
Soon, but not soon enough.
Facebook followers posted the following comments when they read the news:
Sabrina Leighann Ledford I hope this means good things for you and Matthew
23 minutes ago via mobile
· Denise Adams Miller Bout time, don’t you think?
22 minutes ago via mobile
· Kimberly Smith Case I hope you see some justice from his replacement, and sleep better at night…LoL
Editor’s note: this item originally appeared on PutnamLIVE. For previous entries on this corrupt judge, see West Virginia family court corruption and incompetence –DE
Here are some of the comments:
De2nis in reply to markis1
They’re animals. When they see a female, they see a beautiful potential mate. When they see a male, they see competition.
Source:click here
If they are animals then they should be neutered for the good of society. Let the judge's male victims have at him,deciding his fate. )-)
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Tawana Brawley coughs up money
The Tawana Brawley hoax is finally coming to a close. Brawley, who accused Steven Pagones of rape in 1987, has started making defamation payments.
According to the NY Post, Pagones recently received $3,764.61 from Brawley. She still owes more than $431,000 in damages.
Mercury News reports that Brawley claimed that she was raped by a gang of white men in 1987. Brawley, who was 15 at the time, claimed that the men sexually assaulted her, wiped their feces on her, and wrote racial slurs over her body.
The case quickly gained national attention but was later determined to be a hoax. Brawley reportedly made up the story to avoid punishment for being out past her curfew.
Pagones sued Brawley, as well as the Rev. Al Sharpton, and attorneys C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox, for defamation. Sharpton, Mason and Maddox have all paid (or are paying) their debt back to Pagones.
Brawley was ordered to pay $185,000 in the defamation judgment but has refused to send a check to Pagones until this week. With interest, she now owes him more than $400,000. Brawley has been ordered to pay about $627 per month.
Pagones is happy to see Brawley finally paying for the hoax but said that he would rather receive an apology from the young woman.
Pagones said: “Every week, she’ll think of me… And every week, she can think about how she has a way out — she can simply tell the truth.”
That probably won’t happen, however, as Tawana Brawley still claims that there was no hoax and that she actually was raped by Pagones.
Source:click here
Finally someone with cajones. Thank you sir for holding this false accuser accountable I hope you get every penny from her she has. Too many guys let these women and the con artists that assist them walk away with no repucussions but not Steven Pagones.Pagones wanted justice. Steven Pagones if you are reading this I raise my glass to you sir and say well done.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
The crimes of Hugo Schwyzer
When it comes to male feminist sleezebags there is no one more slimier than Hugo Schwyzer. Schwyzer is a big time scumbag. In fact he won't even own up to his being a child's father. In fact Hugo has no problem if this child has problems down the road. It's not his concern. When you're a pompous,narcissitic asshole like Schwyzer others don't matter,just you. Now that he's telling men who are in their 40's who want to be with women in their 20's what sick fucks they are we are finding out that it takes one to know one. It seems that when it comes to wanting younger women Hugo is exempt from the "pervert" label. If you don't believe me ask Hugo. Hugo is not above blaming us for his problems. In fact he will blame anyone but himself. Schwyzer is even telling everyone he is retiring but I'll believe that when I see it. If he is retiring for good then let the door hit him on the ass on the way out.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Contribute to keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse
From Stop Hillary PAC:
Hillary Clinton and her political team have taken notice - and they feel threatened.
Just look at the email I received below - written moments after the release of our hard-hitting Stop Hillary video. Hillary's team is using the success of our new video to launch a counter offensive and ramp up their organizing efforts.
Will you help me fight back?
The movement to stop Hillary is off to a great start - but I need your immediate help today.
You see, Stop Hillary PAC is just three days away from the end of the month where we face a critical fundraising deadline.
Will you help me send a loud and clear message to Hillary by making an urgent end of the month contribution of $25, $50 or even $100 to fight back?
Fundraising deadlines are critical benchmarks to show the left-wing media and Hillary herself that Stop Hillary has the momentum and backing to fight toe-to-toe with Hillary and ultimately ensure she NEVER becomes president of the United States.
Please, before you put this email down... click here and make an urgent contribution in the final three days before our fundraising deadline.
For America,
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Contribute to keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse
Hillary Clinton and her political team have taken notice - and they feel threatened.
Just look at the email I received below - written moments after the release of our hard-hitting Stop Hillary video. Hillary's team is using the success of our new video to launch a counter offensive and ramp up their organizing efforts.
Will you help me fight back?
The movement to stop Hillary is off to a great start - but I need your immediate help today.
You see, Stop Hillary PAC is just three days away from the end of the month where we face a critical fundraising deadline.
Will you help me send a loud and clear message to Hillary by making an urgent end of the month contribution of $25, $50 or even $100 to fight back?
Fundraising deadlines are critical benchmarks to show the left-wing media and Hillary herself that Stop Hillary has the momentum and backing to fight toe-to-toe with Hillary and ultimately ensure she NEVER becomes president of the United States.
Please, before you put this email down... click here and make an urgent contribution in the final three days before our fundraising deadline.
For America,
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Contribute to keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Tell McCain not to let go
DOJ disregards McCain, McCain fails to react
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
Ariel Castro is misunderstood
Everyone is so quick to paint Ariel Castro as the bad guy just because he let 3 women stay with him thus offering them his protection. Ariel Castro gave these women a purpose. The only purpose they are on this earth for and a white knight who is a felon himself put these women back on the street where they can face real danger. When you get right down to it Ariel Castro is not really a bad guy just as Charles Ramsey is no saint. Charles Ramsey has been in and out of prison a lot and he even tried to kill his wife. No one takes into consideration that Castro himself is victim of child abuse and they don't care that some felon has added to that abuse. They don't care that a matriarchial society has victimized Castro because all they want is the blood of a man,any man. When Charles Ramsey goes on to victimize one of your brothers,uncles,fathers,nephews or male cousins then we'll see if you still regard him as a hero.
Feminists hate boys and want to hurt them
Feminists target lecture on boys’ education
By Della Burton
MR-E hosting lecture on boys in education.
Men’s Rights Edmonton has arranged a lecture event to be held on July 29th at 7pm at the Edmonton Public Library (Stanley A. Milner branch) with Dr. James Brown, author of Rescuing our Underachieving Sons.
The Stanley A. Milner Library is located downtown at 7 Sir Winston Churchill Square.
Dr. Brown, a career educator with a doctorate in education and post doctoral diplomas in Educational Administration and in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership, will be discussing the challenge of improving boys’ education.
Due to opposition by local feminists, promoting the event has been a challenge.
According to Eric Duckman, posters advertising the event have been vandalized with paint or torn down almost instantly after being put up.
This leads to the question, why would feminists be so opposed to a lecture by a highly respected and credentialed educator on improving boys’ performance in school?
There may be an opportunity to get an answer to that question at the event, as a counter-event has been organized to take place at the site. The event, titled “Feministing at ‘Rescuing Our Underachieving Sons’” is described by its organizer Brittany Kustra as a chance to confront attending men’s rights activists over their “Don’t be that girl” poster campaign, and to “see who is behind the group.”
In other words, she plans to protest a scheduled lecture on an unquestionably positive topic with demands to discuss another, unrelated topic, and she will be mining for group member identities.
MREdmonton and AVoiceforMen invited live debate on blog talk radio following news coverage of the posters, and feminists everywhere, including the most vehement critics of the campaign, lined up to not take them up on it. In light of that, it’s odd that Brittany should think it necessary to disrupt an unrelated event to revisit the controversy.
Rather than take the offered chance to have all of their questions answered, this feminist group has decided to disrupt an event held for the benefit of boys who are underserved by their education system. One cannot reasonably argue that after disregarding such an open opportunity, the goal of feminists planning to converge on Dr. Brown’s lecture is merely to ask questions. Without that as a possible motive for the protest, that leaves their other goal of identity mining.
However, a group with that goal in mind would have been more sneaky than to alert the very people they seek to identify. The Facebook event page for Feministing at “Rescuing Our Underachieving Sons” is public, and they’ve made sure that the MREdmonton group would be aware ahead of time that they were planning to crash the lecture. That seems counterproductive, unless there is a different goal.
Could it be that Brittany and her friends just absolutely hate little boys, and want to deny them any effort that might be made to improve their circumstance within the education system, or are they maybe planning to hijack Dr. Brown’s lecture and distract from its intended purpose just to draw attention to themselves?
Source:click here
This is proof feminists hate boys. This is proof that the term "feminazis" fits them to a tee. What other conclusion can you come with? the proof is in the pudding and this is the proof.
By Della Burton
MR-E hosting lecture on boys in education.
Men’s Rights Edmonton has arranged a lecture event to be held on July 29th at 7pm at the Edmonton Public Library (Stanley A. Milner branch) with Dr. James Brown, author of Rescuing our Underachieving Sons.
The Stanley A. Milner Library is located downtown at 7 Sir Winston Churchill Square.
Dr. Brown, a career educator with a doctorate in education and post doctoral diplomas in Educational Administration and in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership, will be discussing the challenge of improving boys’ education.
Due to opposition by local feminists, promoting the event has been a challenge.
According to Eric Duckman, posters advertising the event have been vandalized with paint or torn down almost instantly after being put up.
This leads to the question, why would feminists be so opposed to a lecture by a highly respected and credentialed educator on improving boys’ performance in school?
There may be an opportunity to get an answer to that question at the event, as a counter-event has been organized to take place at the site. The event, titled “Feministing at ‘Rescuing Our Underachieving Sons’” is described by its organizer Brittany Kustra as a chance to confront attending men’s rights activists over their “Don’t be that girl” poster campaign, and to “see who is behind the group.”
In other words, she plans to protest a scheduled lecture on an unquestionably positive topic with demands to discuss another, unrelated topic, and she will be mining for group member identities.
MREdmonton and AVoiceforMen invited live debate on blog talk radio following news coverage of the posters, and feminists everywhere, including the most vehement critics of the campaign, lined up to not take them up on it. In light of that, it’s odd that Brittany should think it necessary to disrupt an unrelated event to revisit the controversy.
Rather than take the offered chance to have all of their questions answered, this feminist group has decided to disrupt an event held for the benefit of boys who are underserved by their education system. One cannot reasonably argue that after disregarding such an open opportunity, the goal of feminists planning to converge on Dr. Brown’s lecture is merely to ask questions. Without that as a possible motive for the protest, that leaves their other goal of identity mining.
However, a group with that goal in mind would have been more sneaky than to alert the very people they seek to identify. The Facebook event page for Feministing at “Rescuing Our Underachieving Sons” is public, and they’ve made sure that the MREdmonton group would be aware ahead of time that they were planning to crash the lecture. That seems counterproductive, unless there is a different goal.
Could it be that Brittany and her friends just absolutely hate little boys, and want to deny them any effort that might be made to improve their circumstance within the education system, or are they maybe planning to hijack Dr. Brown’s lecture and distract from its intended purpose just to draw attention to themselves?
Source:click here
This is proof feminists hate boys. This is proof that the term "feminazis" fits them to a tee. What other conclusion can you come with? the proof is in the pudding and this is the proof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)