Probable Anti-Male Caps in Math and Science
MONDAY, 01 OCTOBER 2012 07:19 EAGLE FORUM 1338 readings
Feminists intent on limiting opportunities for men and boys have long abused Title IX when it comes to school athletics. Now we can expect the same assault against men who are interested in math and science.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that schools and colleges receiving federal funding not discriminate “on the basis of sex.” The law is traditionally associated with school sports programs, where radical feminists have used it to forcefully eliminate hundreds of men’s sports teams in the name of “proportionality.”
The White House has announced a new set of policies that would step up enforcement of Title IX, explicitly applying the rule to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Title IX has always applied to all federally funded education programs, but the Department of Education’s new enforcement efforts will “develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX in STEM.
Just as enforcement of Title IX has meant gender quotas on school sports teams, increased enforcement in STEM education will likely lead to artificial enrollment caps aimed at keeping men out of math and science classes. “Title IX isn’t just about sports,” President Obama wrote in Newsweek earlier this year. It’s also about “addressing inequality in math and science education” and “a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.”
“To Obama, gender disparities are only bad when they disfavor women,” wrote the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader. “Under his strange idea of equality, equality means men losing out to women. . . . The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.”
Fewer women major in subjects like science and engineering because they choose to study other things, not because anyone discriminates against them. Charlotte Allen of Minding the Campus noted in a July blog post:
When college women study science, they tend to gravitate toward biology – about 58 percent of all bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in biology go to women. In contrast, women earn some 17 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and computer science and just over 40 percent of bachelor’s degrees in physical sciences and mathematics. The likely reason for this . . . is that women tend to be drawn to “organic” fields involving people and living things, whereas men are more interested in the objects and abstractions that are the focus of STEM majors.
Yet the Obama administration sticks closely to the hard-line feminist argument that the problem is bias: women are somehow being denied access to STEM courses.
These new policies come at a time when women frequently outnumber men in classes of all subjects. 25 percent fewer men than women now graduate from college. Title IX was passed to correct a much smaller gender disparity in the days when 17 percent fewer women attended than men. So many more women than men now attend college that the Richmond-Times Dispatch asked in March whether colleges ought to begin considering affirmative action for men:
In every other academic realm, the existence of a statistical disparity . . . is taken as definitive proof of gender discrimination. . . . We look forward to a robust debate on how institutions of higher learning can correct the discriminatory circumstances that are leading them to graduate nearly three women for every two men.
“The fact that engineering departments are filled mostly with men does not mean they discriminate against women,” notes Bader, “anymore than the fact that English departments are filled mostly with women proves that English departments discriminate against men. . . . Deep down, the Obama administration knows this, since it is planning to impose its gender-proportionality rules only on STEM fields . . . not other fields that have similarly large gender disparities in the opposite direction.”
Charlotte Allen pointed out that applying gender quotas to STEM is not merely bad policy:
The use of Title IX to force universities to restructure their curricula and alter the composition of their hard-science and engineering departments in order to achieve a supposed gender equity that matches neither the aptitudes nor the interests of many women isn’t just heavy-handed and totalitarian. As study after study indicates, it’s bad science as well.
The Washington Post’s Christina Hoff Sommers warned in 2009 that the sciences would become radical feminism’s next favorite target:
The idea of imposing Title IX on the sciences began gaining momentum around 2002. Then, women were already earning nearly 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and at least half of the Ph.D.s in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education. Meanwhile, men retained majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering. Badly in need of an advocacy cause just as women were beginning to outnumber men on college campuses, well-funded academic women’s groups alerted their followers that American science education was “hostile” to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive “Left Out, Left Behind” letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings.
The Department of Education says that it has “not expanded the jurisdiction of Title IX, nor has the department issued new Title IX regulations or guidance regarding the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM),” but has instead created a new multi-agency initiative “to develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX as it relates to STEM:
The goal of this coordinated multi-agency collaboration is to reduce the burden on schools and institutions, who may benefit from common guidance about their Title IX responsibilities and way to improve access and outreach to women and girls in STEM fields. There is no truth to claims that the Department plans to impose STEM quotas or caps.
But, as the Heritage Foundation noted:
The heart of the matter remains the same: Title IX has a track record of measuring “opportunity” in athletics on the basis of whether participation is proportional to enrollment. This shifts the focus from equality of opportunity to equality of results, substituting policymakers’ desired outcomes for students’ own preferences. . . . Will this new collaboration result in quotas, substituting policymakers’ predetermined outcomes for the preferences of students, and diminished opportunities for men in STEM fields? If implementation of Title IX in the intercollegiate athletics context is a reliable indicator, there is strong evidence that it might.
Legal precedents have made it very difficult for school sports teams to comply with Title IX without imposing gender quotas, and it’s unlikely that STEM education will be different. Bader explains:
The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. In light of this fact, courts have rejected lawsuits by men’s teams cut by colleges to achieve proportionality (that is, quotas), concluding that such quotas are required by Title IX, which thus overrides any rights the men’s teams might otherwise enjoy.
Bader, who used to work in the Office for Civil Rights, which administers Title IX, believes that gender caps are just as unwise as they are unconstitutional: “I think that it would be a grave mistake to apply its standards, which were designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams, to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.” Math and science classes, he noted, “are open to all students, regardless of gender, and are supposed to be gender-blind, not gender-specific or gender-based.” Applying gender quotas to STEM classes “is simply unconstitutional.”
Source:click here
Men,if getting rid of Obama didn't mean that much before this ought to change that way of thinking real quick. It's obvious Obama is against us so the faster we are rid of him the better. Vote Obama out.
Showing posts with label misandric system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misandric system. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The dirty ex-cop and the decoys
Coming clean on 'dirty DUIs' in Contra Costa County
A whistle-blower tells how a private detective arranged for men to be arrested for drunk driving at the behest of their ex-wives and their lawyers —and that entrapment using decoys was only one of many alleged misdeeds.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2011, 8:07 p.m.
Reporting from Martinez, Calif.— David Dutcher met Sharon on Match.com in late 2008, a few months after separating from his wife. "We had a lot in common," he recalled. Sharon loved four-wheel-drive trucks and sports.
They met for coffee, then dinner. Sharon was tall, slender, blond and beautiful. She moaned that she had not had sex in a long time. She told him he had large, strong hands and wondered if that portended other things. She described his kisses as "yummy."
"It felt a lot like Christmas," said Dutcher, 49, a tall, burly engineer with wavy red hair.
On their second date, Sharon suggested they join one of her friends "who was partying because she had closed a real estate deal," Dutcher said. They drove to an Italian restaurant in a suburb near San Francisco. Sharon's friend, "Tash," was a loud and raucous brunet who was pounding down shots.
The women fiddled with Dutcher's tie and massaged his neck and shoulders. The brunet unbuttoned her blouse to reveal generous cleavage. "I am way over my head with these girls," he remembered thinking. "I hadn't been out dating in a while."
Sharon had trouble finishing her tequila shots and asked Dutcher to help, he said. When the women went to the bathroom, two men at the other end of the bar peppered Dutcher with questions.
"Are you a celebrity?" they wanted to know.
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub that Tash was housesitting, Dutcher said. He followed them in his truck. Within a few minutes, a flashing red light appeared in his rearview mirror. The officer said he had been swerving.
Three months later, Dutcher's wife filed a motion in their divorce case, telling the court that her soon-to-be former husband had been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and that she feared for their children's safety. The judge ordered that Dutcher's visits be supervised.
Then, earlier this year, Dutcher received a letter from Contra Costa County Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Harold W. Jewett. It contained a transcript of a police interview with Christopher Butler, a private detective and the subject of a state and federal criminal investigation.
"I hope in some small way this information will help you recoup both rights and dignities lost in one of the most deplorable legal practices I have ever heard of," Jewett wrote.
::
Dutcher had been duped.
The women who'd ogled him worked for Butler's detective agency. Sharon, who told Dutcher she was a divorcee employed by an investment firm, actually was a former Las Vegas showgirl.
A man who once worked for Butler had blown the whistle. He told authorities Butler arranged for men to be arrested for drunk driving at the behest of their ex-wives and their divorce lawyers — and that entrapment was only one of many alleged misdeeds.
Butler, 49, a former police officer, was arrested in February. In addition to setting up at least five DUIs, he sold drugs for law enforcement officers and helped them open and operate a brothel, collecting and delivering the profits, according to prosecutors and a statement Butler gave them after his arrest.
In the March 15 statement obtained by The Times, Butler said his accomplices reasoned that they could shield their illegal businesses because any complaints would be investigated by a state-run narcotics task force, which one of the officers headed.
The alleged crimes implicated three different law enforcement agencies — the San Ramon and Danville police departments and the narcotics task force — and took place in Contra Costa County, a collection of mostly middle-class communities that stretch from the East Bay shoreline opposite San Francisco to upscale suburbs inland.
Jewett called the scandal a "sordid drama" that overwhelmed the resources of the county and raised potential conflicts for police departments being asked to investigate their own.
In May, the FBI took over the probe, interviewing Dutcher and other ex-husbands arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. A federal grand jury indicted Butler and two of the officers in August and September. The charges included drug dealing, running a prostitution business and illegal possession of a weapon.
More indictments are expected. A third officer, implicated by Butler in the DUIs, faces state charges of accepting bribes to make arrests.
Stunned prosecutors combed through pending criminal cases and eventually dismissed charges in at least 20 DUI and vice crimes, tainted by the involvement of the accused officers. Two of them had once worked with Butler on the police force of the East Bay city of Antioch.
Butler also apparently hoodwinked reporters. His agency received national attention for employing gumshoe "housewives" who juggled soccer games with undercover spying. People magazine and Dr. Phil did stories. An East Bay magazine reporter who went on a ride-along with Butler later discovered that everything he had witnessed had been staged.
In what prosecutors now call "dirty DUIs," Butler paid his decoys $25 an hour for four-hour minimums. The women worked in pairs. One drank heavily with the target and the other drove.
Butler videotaped the encounters from a nearby table. When the man got into his vehicle, Butler tipped off police. The last DUI setup occurred in January.
Susan Dutcher, a substitute schoolteacher, said in a sworn declaration that she paid Butler $2,500 to obtain evidence that her husband drove while drinking. She insisted she did not authorize Butler to have him arrested because she did not want to imperil his job and his ability to pay child support.
Her lawyer's paralegal, who had recommended Butler, "made this all seem completely legal and as though it was standard practice" in divorce cases, she said.
Once Dutcher got into his truck, Butler called a police officer friend to report Dutcher had been drinking. Butler maintained the officer was not paid by him and did not know Dutcher had been set up. The officer, who has not been charged, later went to work for Butler.
::
Dutcher, an avionics engineer who works on rockets, said he was dumbfounded when he learned what happened. After his arrest, he could not get the heightened security clearance he needed for certain jobs.
Driven by anger and embarrassment, he contacted others he had learned had been set up, including Declan Woods, a contractor arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence in 2007. Woods' ex-wife was represented by Mary Nolan, the same divorce attorney who worked for Susan Dutcher.
Butler told prosecutors the attorney referred him to Susan Dutcher because she was thrilled with his performance in the Woods case. In a sworn court declaration, Nolan denied having anything to do with hiring Butler in the Dutcher case; she could not be reached for comment about Woods' arrest.
Woods' ordeal began with a call for a kitchen remodel estimate. The prospective client turned out to be an attractive, flirtatious brunet. She told him she was new in town, a writer, and wondered what he was doing that night. He said he planned to grab dinner at a local cafe.
"Hey, this chick is picking up on me," Woods joked to his business partner after the two men met with her.
The woman showed up with a friend that evening. They went to a nearby bar, where the three drank lemon drops.
Woods said in an interview that the brunet was so aggressive he twice pushed her off his lap. Calm yourself, calm yourself, he remembered telling her. Looking back, he said, he should have realized something was wrong.
"Things like that don't happen to blokes like me," said the British-born Woods. "But the alcohol kicks in, you are having a good time, and you think, what the hell."
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub. Woods hopped into his truck and followed them. He was pulled over almost immediately. "I have been set up," he remembered telling the officer.
Prosecutors offered to help Dutcher and Woods remove their DUI convictions and approved the dismissal of charges against the three other men. Dutcher obtained a court order last month to expunge his conviction.
Even though the men had been drinking, prosecutors said Butler's stings violated a little-used 19th century law that makes it a felony to conspire to subject another person to arrest. The female decoys have not been charged.
Woods said the arrest hurt his business and cost him thousands of dollars in fines. His ex-wife declined to discuss the case but said she did not authorize Butler to have Woods arrested.
Dutcher has worked long hours seeking vindication. After spending nearly $30,000 on an attorney, he decided to represent himself in an attempt to overturn the divorce and custody agreement he signed last year. He said his ex-wife had him "over the barrel" after the DUI.
M. Pamela Lauser, Susan Dutcher's current lawyer, doubts Dutcher will succeed. "Nobody held a gun to his head," she said of his drunk driving arrest. "Nobody forced him to drink.... The guy was drunk and he was driving. How is that a dirty DUI?"
Dutcher agreed he "made a terrible mistake."
A trial date on the divorce settlement is set for Nov. 17.
Source:click here
The decoys weren't charged which just goes to show that the pussy pass is still in effect. If the women are held accountable they might stop fucking men over but if that were to happen the courts,cops and other vultures who depend on the men's money wouldn't be able to get it. One poster on the LA Times site said men would do the same thing if they could. I say bullshit. If men did abuse women white knights would form vigilante groups and go after the bad men. Do the good women do that for men? No,they just side with their misandrist sisters aka bad women. Where can you find these bad women? Probably in the company of a white knight vigilante.
A whistle-blower tells how a private detective arranged for men to be arrested for drunk driving at the behest of their ex-wives and their lawyers —and that entrapment using decoys was only one of many alleged misdeeds.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2011, 8:07 p.m.
Reporting from Martinez, Calif.— David Dutcher met Sharon on Match.com in late 2008, a few months after separating from his wife. "We had a lot in common," he recalled. Sharon loved four-wheel-drive trucks and sports.
They met for coffee, then dinner. Sharon was tall, slender, blond and beautiful. She moaned that she had not had sex in a long time. She told him he had large, strong hands and wondered if that portended other things. She described his kisses as "yummy."
"It felt a lot like Christmas," said Dutcher, 49, a tall, burly engineer with wavy red hair.
On their second date, Sharon suggested they join one of her friends "who was partying because she had closed a real estate deal," Dutcher said. They drove to an Italian restaurant in a suburb near San Francisco. Sharon's friend, "Tash," was a loud and raucous brunet who was pounding down shots.
The women fiddled with Dutcher's tie and massaged his neck and shoulders. The brunet unbuttoned her blouse to reveal generous cleavage. "I am way over my head with these girls," he remembered thinking. "I hadn't been out dating in a while."
Sharon had trouble finishing her tequila shots and asked Dutcher to help, he said. When the women went to the bathroom, two men at the other end of the bar peppered Dutcher with questions.
"Are you a celebrity?" they wanted to know.
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub that Tash was housesitting, Dutcher said. He followed them in his truck. Within a few minutes, a flashing red light appeared in his rearview mirror. The officer said he had been swerving.
Three months later, Dutcher's wife filed a motion in their divorce case, telling the court that her soon-to-be former husband had been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and that she feared for their children's safety. The judge ordered that Dutcher's visits be supervised.
Then, earlier this year, Dutcher received a letter from Contra Costa County Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Harold W. Jewett. It contained a transcript of a police interview with Christopher Butler, a private detective and the subject of a state and federal criminal investigation.
"I hope in some small way this information will help you recoup both rights and dignities lost in one of the most deplorable legal practices I have ever heard of," Jewett wrote.
::
Dutcher had been duped.
The women who'd ogled him worked for Butler's detective agency. Sharon, who told Dutcher she was a divorcee employed by an investment firm, actually was a former Las Vegas showgirl.
A man who once worked for Butler had blown the whistle. He told authorities Butler arranged for men to be arrested for drunk driving at the behest of their ex-wives and their divorce lawyers — and that entrapment was only one of many alleged misdeeds.
Butler, 49, a former police officer, was arrested in February. In addition to setting up at least five DUIs, he sold drugs for law enforcement officers and helped them open and operate a brothel, collecting and delivering the profits, according to prosecutors and a statement Butler gave them after his arrest.
In the March 15 statement obtained by The Times, Butler said his accomplices reasoned that they could shield their illegal businesses because any complaints would be investigated by a state-run narcotics task force, which one of the officers headed.
The alleged crimes implicated three different law enforcement agencies — the San Ramon and Danville police departments and the narcotics task force — and took place in Contra Costa County, a collection of mostly middle-class communities that stretch from the East Bay shoreline opposite San Francisco to upscale suburbs inland.
Jewett called the scandal a "sordid drama" that overwhelmed the resources of the county and raised potential conflicts for police departments being asked to investigate their own.
In May, the FBI took over the probe, interviewing Dutcher and other ex-husbands arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. A federal grand jury indicted Butler and two of the officers in August and September. The charges included drug dealing, running a prostitution business and illegal possession of a weapon.
More indictments are expected. A third officer, implicated by Butler in the DUIs, faces state charges of accepting bribes to make arrests.
Stunned prosecutors combed through pending criminal cases and eventually dismissed charges in at least 20 DUI and vice crimes, tainted by the involvement of the accused officers. Two of them had once worked with Butler on the police force of the East Bay city of Antioch.
Butler also apparently hoodwinked reporters. His agency received national attention for employing gumshoe "housewives" who juggled soccer games with undercover spying. People magazine and Dr. Phil did stories. An East Bay magazine reporter who went on a ride-along with Butler later discovered that everything he had witnessed had been staged.
In what prosecutors now call "dirty DUIs," Butler paid his decoys $25 an hour for four-hour minimums. The women worked in pairs. One drank heavily with the target and the other drove.
Butler videotaped the encounters from a nearby table. When the man got into his vehicle, Butler tipped off police. The last DUI setup occurred in January.
Susan Dutcher, a substitute schoolteacher, said in a sworn declaration that she paid Butler $2,500 to obtain evidence that her husband drove while drinking. She insisted she did not authorize Butler to have him arrested because she did not want to imperil his job and his ability to pay child support.
Her lawyer's paralegal, who had recommended Butler, "made this all seem completely legal and as though it was standard practice" in divorce cases, she said.
Once Dutcher got into his truck, Butler called a police officer friend to report Dutcher had been drinking. Butler maintained the officer was not paid by him and did not know Dutcher had been set up. The officer, who has not been charged, later went to work for Butler.
::
Dutcher, an avionics engineer who works on rockets, said he was dumbfounded when he learned what happened. After his arrest, he could not get the heightened security clearance he needed for certain jobs.
Driven by anger and embarrassment, he contacted others he had learned had been set up, including Declan Woods, a contractor arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence in 2007. Woods' ex-wife was represented by Mary Nolan, the same divorce attorney who worked for Susan Dutcher.
Butler told prosecutors the attorney referred him to Susan Dutcher because she was thrilled with his performance in the Woods case. In a sworn court declaration, Nolan denied having anything to do with hiring Butler in the Dutcher case; she could not be reached for comment about Woods' arrest.
Woods' ordeal began with a call for a kitchen remodel estimate. The prospective client turned out to be an attractive, flirtatious brunet. She told him she was new in town, a writer, and wondered what he was doing that night. He said he planned to grab dinner at a local cafe.
"Hey, this chick is picking up on me," Woods joked to his business partner after the two men met with her.
The woman showed up with a friend that evening. They went to a nearby bar, where the three drank lemon drops.
Woods said in an interview that the brunet was so aggressive he twice pushed her off his lap. Calm yourself, calm yourself, he remembered telling her. Looking back, he said, he should have realized something was wrong.
"Things like that don't happen to blokes like me," said the British-born Woods. "But the alcohol kicks in, you are having a good time, and you think, what the hell."
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub. Woods hopped into his truck and followed them. He was pulled over almost immediately. "I have been set up," he remembered telling the officer.
Prosecutors offered to help Dutcher and Woods remove their DUI convictions and approved the dismissal of charges against the three other men. Dutcher obtained a court order last month to expunge his conviction.
Even though the men had been drinking, prosecutors said Butler's stings violated a little-used 19th century law that makes it a felony to conspire to subject another person to arrest. The female decoys have not been charged.
Woods said the arrest hurt his business and cost him thousands of dollars in fines. His ex-wife declined to discuss the case but said she did not authorize Butler to have Woods arrested.
Dutcher has worked long hours seeking vindication. After spending nearly $30,000 on an attorney, he decided to represent himself in an attempt to overturn the divorce and custody agreement he signed last year. He said his ex-wife had him "over the barrel" after the DUI.
M. Pamela Lauser, Susan Dutcher's current lawyer, doubts Dutcher will succeed. "Nobody held a gun to his head," she said of his drunk driving arrest. "Nobody forced him to drink.... The guy was drunk and he was driving. How is that a dirty DUI?"
Dutcher agreed he "made a terrible mistake."
A trial date on the divorce settlement is set for Nov. 17.
Source:click here
The decoys weren't charged which just goes to show that the pussy pass is still in effect. If the women are held accountable they might stop fucking men over but if that were to happen the courts,cops and other vultures who depend on the men's money wouldn't be able to get it. One poster on the LA Times site said men would do the same thing if they could. I say bullshit. If men did abuse women white knights would form vigilante groups and go after the bad men. Do the good women do that for men? No,they just side with their misandrist sisters aka bad women. Where can you find these bad women? Probably in the company of a white knight vigilante.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Female rapists in Africa
Police in Zimbabwe are on the trail of a group of women who have been raping men, usually at gunpoint, since last year.
Cases of men who have been sexually abused by women are common in the country and hardly a week passes without such a report being made in the media.
The motives of these women are not known, but there is speculation that they may be doing this for ritual purposes.
Indecently assaulting
“We appeal to members of the public to pass any information to the police regarding three women who have gone on a spree of kidnapping and indecently assaulting young men around town,” Harare police boss Angeline Guvamombe said in a statement.
“The women drive in posh cars and offer their unsuspecting victims lifts before spraying some liquid substance on their faces.
“Once the victim is drowsy, he is taken to a secluded place or house where he is forced to have sex,” said Ms Guvamombe. “I want to warn these criminals that their days are numbered,” she added.
On Monday, the Herald reported that two men were kidnapped last week and forced to have sex with women at gunpoint.
In one of the incidents, a 30-year-old man was kidnapped by three women and forced to have sex with them for five days.
In some cases, the women use protection and collect the men’s sperm, leading to speculation that they were in the activity for ritual purposes.
At times, the women are helped by armed men.
Since the strange rape cases began sometime last year, no one has been arrested.
Police have said the women cannot be charged with rape because Zimbabwean law does not recognise that women can rape men.
But they will be charged with indecent assault, which carries a lesser sentence.
Source:click here
Cases of men who have been sexually abused by women are common in the country and hardly a week passes without such a report being made in the media.
The motives of these women are not known, but there is speculation that they may be doing this for ritual purposes.
Indecently assaulting
“We appeal to members of the public to pass any information to the police regarding three women who have gone on a spree of kidnapping and indecently assaulting young men around town,” Harare police boss Angeline Guvamombe said in a statement.
“The women drive in posh cars and offer their unsuspecting victims lifts before spraying some liquid substance on their faces.
“Once the victim is drowsy, he is taken to a secluded place or house where he is forced to have sex,” said Ms Guvamombe. “I want to warn these criminals that their days are numbered,” she added.
On Monday, the Herald reported that two men were kidnapped last week and forced to have sex with women at gunpoint.
In one of the incidents, a 30-year-old man was kidnapped by three women and forced to have sex with them for five days.
In some cases, the women use protection and collect the men’s sperm, leading to speculation that they were in the activity for ritual purposes.
At times, the women are helped by armed men.
Since the strange rape cases began sometime last year, no one has been arrested.
Police have said the women cannot be charged with rape because Zimbabwean law does not recognise that women can rape men.
But they will be charged with indecent assault, which carries a lesser sentence.
Source:click here
Monday, June 11, 2007
Brett Reider
Originally posted by Chris Key
The Brett Reider case is an example of the legal bias that favours female criminals. When a woman kills her spouse, she can claim that he was abusive towards her and that she acted in self-defence. This is known as the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence. It has been used to acquit female defendants who intentionally killed their spouses. Brett was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his mother when he was 15-years-old. He was sentenced to a jail-term of 11-20 years. A review of the case will reveal why Brett is a victim of discrimination.
The facts.
-- Testimonial evidence -- provided by Brett, his sister, and his friends -- indicates that Brett was battered by his mother on a regular basis.
-- Video footage -- filmed by the family -- proves that Brett and his sister were verbally abused by their mother.
-- Brett's father did very little to stop the abuse. Instead, he would remove himself from the house so that he could 'avoid' being around his wife.
-- While Brett was 15, his mother began battering him because she was unimpressed with the 85 score he obtained on a school quiz. During the incident, Brett killed his mother.
Summary.
Brett was a defenceless child. He had no one to turn to for help. He was born into an turbulent situation that he could not escape. He was dependant upon his parents for shelter and food. He couldn't support himself financially as he was only a child. Although I am not an expert on the American law system, I wouldn't be surprised if the state he lived in prohibited 15-year-olds from living away from their parents unless they had their parent's permission, or were taken into child services for health and safety related reasons.
Women who murder their so-called 'abusive' spouses do so even though there are state-funded services that offer refuge to 'battered' women. The law offers a lot of help to women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. Despite of all the services that are offered to 'battered' women, there is a legal defence that women can use to kill their abusive spouses with impunity. It's called 'Battered Women's Syndrome'. A lot of female murderers have been acquitted for their crimes by using the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence.
Based on the fact that murderous women are not held to the same legal standards that Brett was when he was tried, convicted and sentenced, I believe his case is an illustration of the privilege that women hold over men and boys in today's society.
Men's Rights Activists should use Brett's case to highlight the farce that is "Battered Women's Syndrome".
Source: America Uncut Exposed
The Brett Reider case is an example of the legal bias that favours female criminals. When a woman kills her spouse, she can claim that he was abusive towards her and that she acted in self-defence. This is known as the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence. It has been used to acquit female defendants who intentionally killed their spouses. Brett was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his mother when he was 15-years-old. He was sentenced to a jail-term of 11-20 years. A review of the case will reveal why Brett is a victim of discrimination.
The facts.
-- Testimonial evidence -- provided by Brett, his sister, and his friends -- indicates that Brett was battered by his mother on a regular basis.
-- Video footage -- filmed by the family -- proves that Brett and his sister were verbally abused by their mother.
-- Brett's father did very little to stop the abuse. Instead, he would remove himself from the house so that he could 'avoid' being around his wife.
-- While Brett was 15, his mother began battering him because she was unimpressed with the 85 score he obtained on a school quiz. During the incident, Brett killed his mother.
Summary.
Brett was a defenceless child. He had no one to turn to for help. He was born into an turbulent situation that he could not escape. He was dependant upon his parents for shelter and food. He couldn't support himself financially as he was only a child. Although I am not an expert on the American law system, I wouldn't be surprised if the state he lived in prohibited 15-year-olds from living away from their parents unless they had their parent's permission, or were taken into child services for health and safety related reasons.
Women who murder their so-called 'abusive' spouses do so even though there are state-funded services that offer refuge to 'battered' women. The law offers a lot of help to women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. Despite of all the services that are offered to 'battered' women, there is a legal defence that women can use to kill their abusive spouses with impunity. It's called 'Battered Women's Syndrome'. A lot of female murderers have been acquitted for their crimes by using the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence.
Based on the fact that murderous women are not held to the same legal standards that Brett was when he was tried, convicted and sentenced, I believe his case is an illustration of the privilege that women hold over men and boys in today's society.
Men's Rights Activists should use Brett's case to highlight the farce that is "Battered Women's Syndrome".
Source: America Uncut Exposed
Monday, May 21, 2007
This is happening in the U.K. but it could happen anywhere
Warning to unmarried couples over home rights
By JAMES MILLS
Last updated at 23:43pm on 25th April 2007
Unmarried couples were warned yesterday of the financial pitfalls of buying property together after a landmark ruling by the House of Lords.
They were urged to draw up legal agreements to avoid costly legal battles if they break up - as joint ownership is not enough to ensure a simple 50/50 split of the property.
This is the same Law Lords that declared pre-nups void,well I guess only for protecting men and I'm sure they will find a way to fuck men on this too.
The warnings came as five Law Lords ruled that Barry Stack, a 51-year-old father-of-four, was not entitled to an equal share of the family home he had shared with Dehra Dowden, his partner of more than 20 years and mother of his children.
The Lords concluded that Miss Dowden, 49 - who earns twice as much as Mr Stack as an electrical engineer - deserved a larger slice because she had contributed more money to the purchase.
I'm sure if he made more money than her she would still get the larger size because of "all that she did for his career" and "the sacrifices she made" or some other rubbish.
Mr Stack now faces a crippling bill of up to £100,000 after losing his challenge against an earlier ruling that gave Miss Dowden a 65 per cent share of their £750,000 home.
The case could have consequences for millions of others as increasing numbers of couples buy homes and bring up families without getting married.
Partners who stay at home to look after the children, and therefore do not contribute as much financially, could also be forced into legal disputes over their property rights.
The case will serve as a further warning to the growing numbers of friends and relatives who buy property together.
According to the last census in 2001, one in six couples who live together are unmarried - a rise of 67 per cent in ten years. This figure is expected to rise to one in four by 2031.
But there are no clear laws setting out how assets should be split between such couples if their relationships break down as divorce laws do not apply.
In yesterday's judgement, Baroness Hale urged unmarried couples to sign 'declarations of trust' - making their shares in the property clear - in order to avoid expensive legal wrangles.
This is probably the cunt who ruining everything for men in the U.K.
She said: 'In family disputes, strong feelings are aroused when couples split up.
'These often lead the parties, honestly but mistakenly, to reinterpret the past in self-exculpatory or vengeful terms.
'They also lead people to spend far more on the legal battle than is warranted by the sums actually at stake.'
Baroness Hale also expressed concern that too many couples believed the myth of common law marriage, which wrongly assumes that co-habiting couples enjoy the same rights as married couples if they stay together long enough.
Lord Hope added that determining property rights in such cases had 'become an increasingly pressing social problem.'
William Selby-Lowndes, an expert on co-habitation family law, said: 'This is a warning for co-habiting couples that if they do not work out how they own any property together, it can be a very expensive and disappointing exercise when they separate.'
Mr Stack and Miss Dowden's relationship began in 1975 when they were both in their late teens.
They moved in together in 1983 when Miss Dowden bought a house in her name in Kensal Green, North London, for £30,000. She put down a deposit of £8,000 and secured a mortgage for £22,000.
Mr Stack claims that he made a contribution to the deposit which Miss Dowden disputes.
She also claims that he did not want his name on the deeds because 'he did not want the responsibility of the mortgage or household debts and running costs.'
Their four children were born between 1987 and 1991, during which time Mr Stack took a £24,000-a-year building job with a local council, where he is still employed. Miss Bowden earns £42,000 a year as an electrical engineer.
They used childminders and nannies to look after the children.
In 1993 the couple bought a home in both their names in nearby Willesden Green for £190,000. They used £66,000 profits from the sale of their previous home, a £65,000 mortgage and £59,000 of savings.
Miss Dowden repaid £38,000 of the loan while Mr Stack repaid the remaining £27,000.
When they split in 2002, a county court ruled that Mr Stack should get a 50 per cent share of the property. Miss Dowden took the case to the Appeal Court and won a 65 per cent share - £112,000 more than she was previously awarded.
Mr Stack went on to appeal to the House of Lords. During a four-day hearing in February, Miss Dowden said: 'Barry says £30,000 came from our joint savings. This is not true. We did not have a joint bank account.
'All the money was mine. I earned it from working hard at my job.'
Source:here
Sunday, April 1, 2007
"She?" almost got a man's sentence
Article in blue:
In Court, Man turns out to be Woman!
What a story from the Hamilton County, Tennessee courts building; a man charged with molesting a teen, is actually a woman! In court today, Prosecutors revealed that 42 year old Alexander Cross is actually a woman. Her given name is Elaine Cross, she legally changed it to Alexander. How did prosecutors find out Cross was a woman? After she had been in the Hamilton County jail for 10 days in January, someone noticed she was actually a female while she was taking a shower. She was immediately moved to female isolation.
According to news reports, Cross was charged with performing oral sex on a 15 year old victim. And prosecutors said today, that the victim fell in love with Cross, thinking she was a he. The young girl was reportedly stunned to find out Cross was a woman.
Judge Rebecca Stern approved a plea agreement today. One charge was dismissed, and Cross pleaded guilty to felony statutory rape. She received a two year prison sentence, all of it suspended, and will be put on unsupervised probation for six years. She also has to register as a sex offender. Judge Stern also said she must change her driver's license so that it lists her as a female, not a male.
Source: http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=7217
Well,you see. She almost got held accountable for her actions. She went around impersonating a man yet wants the privileges that women have hi-jacked enjoyed proving she would like it both ways. This just proves the system is against men and men only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)