Congressman Matt Gaetz fights back against the accusations made against him

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) plans to burst back onto the scene with guns blazing through a public crusade to take down “RINOs” (“Republicans In Name Only”), along with Democrats, as the feds investigate him for alleged sex trafficking.

Good. I'm glad to see a member of the GOP fight back and stand up to bullies. I hope he mops up the House with them. When he found out the girl was underage he told her what she did was wrong. In other words he was standing up to a woman and displining her when neccessary. That is so awesome. And that she would have to be of legal age to travel with them. IOW she was decepitive and Gaetz rightfully put his foot down. Good for you Congressman Gaetz we at the Men's Rights Blog salute you.

According to Politico, Gaetz is teaming up with far-right extremist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to launch an “America First Tour,” where they’ll rail against “the radical left” and Republicans who they believe aren’t loyal enough to ex-President Donald Trump.

"Far right wing extremist" is commie code for "Patriotic American who loves and values the Constituion" over commie crap like Das Krapital".

The spectacle will reportedly begin on May 7 in Florida at The Villages, a prominent bastion of conservative retirees (and also the site of the viral video Trump retweeted last year in which one of his supporters was seen shouting “white power!”). It is not yet known what other cities will be included in the tour.

And who backs the Dems? Black supremacists like Black Lives Matter and commie scum like Antifa.

“There are millions of Americans who need to know they still have advocates in Washington D.C., and the America First movement is consistently growing and fighting,” Gaetz told Politico.

Damn straight, Congressman. Give them hell.

The GOP congressman is also working to make a comeback on TV, and may soon reappear on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, Politico reported.

Gaetz’s upcoming tour marks an apparent strategy to bombast his way through the ever-growing scandal around his alleged payments to women and a 17-year-old minor for sex, along with allegations that he paid to have the minor travel across state lines. The congressman has not been criminally charged in the federal probe, which also now reportedly includes an investigation into his ties to Florida’s medical marijuana industry.

Gaetz has denied all the allegations.

Meanwhile Creepy Joe is on video feeling up little girls and these same people don't have a problem with it. Not only that but the age of consent laws vary from state to state. Some are 18 while others are 14,16 and 21. If Gaetz was haing sex with an 17 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16 then he broke no laws.

The Republican’s renewed push to aggressively defend Trump’s honor against “RINOs” comes even as the ex-president reportedly keeps Gaetz at arm’s length. CNN also reported earlier this month that Trump had rejected Gaetz’s request for a meeting.

Besides insisting that CNN’s report was “completely false” and that Gaetz had never asked him for a pardon, Trump has said little in defense of one of his number one loyalists.

Is what they say about Donald Trump true? Let me ask you this. Has the media ever said nice things about Trump even when Trump deserved the praise? No,they have not.

Click Here

Rapist Joe goes back to school

The Unofficial Democratic Nominee for President, Joseph Biden, is doing two things: he is only looking for a female for vice-president. Proof that Biden is highly misandric. Also, Biden wants to put back into place the draconian mandate "dear colleague" which destroys the due process rigths of male students accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment on the nation's college and university campuses. Biden wants to destroy the due process rights of young college/university men. The same due process rights he clings to. Apparently, with Biden it is "due process for me but not for thee". Perhaps the men of America should send Joe Biden a message and that is: "because of me the Presidency is not for thee".

female privilege

Speaking of Michael Kimmel.

No more passes for Joe Biden

Democrat Lucy Flores was preparing to give one of her final stump speeches in a race for lieutenant governor in Nevada when she felt two hands on her shoulders. She froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?” Flores wondered.

Flores recounts her experience with Joe Biden in a first-person essay for New York Magazine, describing an incident in 2014 where Biden came up behind her, leaned in, smelled her hair, and kissed the back of her head.

“Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused.”

New York Magazine reached out to a Biden spokesperson, who declined to comment. After the story ran, a Biden spokesman Bill Russo said the vice president and his staff do not recall the incident Flores described.

Flores’s experience isn’t unique. It is no secret in Washington that Biden has touched numerous women inappropriately in public. It’s just never been treated as a serious issue by the mainstream press.

Biden’s been caught on camera embracing a female reporter from behind and gripping her above her waist, just below her bust. At a swearing-in ceremony for Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Biden put his hands on the shoulders of Stephanie Carter, Carter’s wife, and then leaned in and whispered into her ear. (He’s whispered into many women’s ears.) He’s also touched women’s faces and necks during other photo ops. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for a US senator, he held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

It’s all out in the open. News outlets wrote about these incidents. But the stories ran under light-hearted headlines like, “Photo of famously friendly Joe Biden goes viral” or “Here’s Joe Biden being Joe Biden with Ash Carter’s wife” or “Joe Biden: Sex symbol?,” a piece that I edited and now regret.

Ideological media outlets did write some critical pieces during the Obama era. At the Federalist, Mollie Hemingway questioned whether liberals would tolerate the same conduct from a conservative. At Talking Points Memo, Alana Levinson criticized liberals for giving him a pass.

But, overall, Biden got a pass from the political media.

Times have changed. Reporters now would look twice at a new politician who is handsy on camera. They’d ask questions about it and likely look into his private conduct. And women like Flores are taking big risks and speaking out.

Biden avoided scrutiny in the past, but if he wants to be the next president he’ll face pressure to account for his actions.

Joe being Joe
The Onion satirized Biden in 2009 in a viral article that cemented Biden’s image of a lovable everyman.

Real Biden remembers his working-class Scranton roots. Onion Biden washes his Trans Am on the White House lawn. Real Biden is handsy with women. Onion Biden is a womanizer: ‘Hey, hot stuff, looking good,’ [Onion] Biden told a passing aide. ‘Would you know where I could get a little bucket and sponge action? My mean machine needs to be cleaned.’

The images bled together over the years into the persona of Uncle Joe. When he dropped an F-bomb on a live mic, it was a classic Joe moment. When he made one of his many gaffes, it got added to numerous lists written in good fun. And when he did kind of creepy things to women at public events, well, that was just Joe being Joe, too.

All of those frames made appealing pitches just a few years ago. Editors would be happy to get a “lovable Uncle Joe strikes again” story. The environment is not the same now. Certainly the media is not nearly perfect when it comes to covering gender and power. But in the era of #MeToo, there is far less appetite for a story that makes light of a candidate behaving badly toward women.

As Flores writes, this conduct matters. “I’m not suggesting that Biden broke any laws, but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.”

This is especially true in a context where Biden will be running against several women as well as defending a decades-long record of policymaking that’s involved past positions at odds with current Democratic Party orthodoxy.

Biden once said a woman should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body”
Biden, 76, arrived in Washington at the age of 30. His substantial public record includes a mixed history on women’s issues, a legacy that makes his in-person conduct even more worthy of discussion.

Lisa Lerer unpacked his history on abortion for the New York Times, reporting that Biden, who is now pro-abortion rights, has not been a solid liberal on the issue for his whole career.

In the Reagan era, Biden voted for a bill in committee that the National Abortion Rights Action League called “the most devastating attack yet on abortion rights.” Biden, who is Catholic, said at the time: “I’m probably a victim, or a product, however you want to phrase it, of my background.” He called the decision “the single most difficult vote I’ve cast as a U.S. senator.”

Biden also held the opinion that the Supreme Court went “too far” in deciding Roe v. Wade. In an interview in 1974, he said he did not think a woman should have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

Biden declined to speak with Lerer for her article, so we don’t know exactly how and why he evolved on Roe. A spokesperson for Biden did not respond to an email asking for comment.

In his years in Washington, though, Biden has voted for pro-abortion rights bills. He’s championed the Violence Against Women Act. And he’s spoken forcefully about the problem of sexual violence.

Democrats need to figure out whether they want to clean house
If Biden runs, he’ll occupy a lane in the Democratic primary as the “normal” candidate — a likable white guy who won’t lose it on Twitter, or pander to Russia, or throw children in cages at the border.

As Democrats grapple with the intense desire to beat Trump in 2020, many are anxious that a woman will have a tough time beating him because of sexist attitudes still held by some voters. Perhaps, the thinking goes, it’s better to go with the kind of leader that Americans are used to. Biden, who was in office for eight years under Obama, could fit that bill.

But Biden would still have to present a clear contrast to Trump. While Biden has not been accused of sexual assault (as Trump has a dozen times) and there are no tapes of Biden on the Internet joking about grabbing women by the genitals, there are tapes of Biden behaving inappropriately. One man’s behavior is far worse, but that doesn’t excuse the other.

Democrats are conflicted about what to do about this category of behavior. It’s not the same as what other men of the #MeToo movement have bee accused of, but it’s also not what liberals want to endorse. Sen. Al Franken’s resignation is still controversial for this reason. Some Democrats feel the party is putting itself at a disadvantage against Republicans, who let the president get away with far worse than any accusation Franken faced.

Flores confronts the issue of whether some bad behavior is okay, forcing us to consider what these seemingly small incidents are really like. “The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.”

The Democratic Party is more than half women. More women than ever in history ran as Democrats in the 2018 elections — and won. They outperformed their male peers. They were central to Democrats retaking the House. Women are leading the sustained resistance to Trump. The party should be committed to making sure that women and girls participate in government and politics to their fullest potential. The party needs them.

The question is whether the party needs a president who disrespects them.

Source

This is the same media that gave Trump a bunch of bullshit about touching women inappropriately when he never did but looked the other way when Biden did the same thing. They've falsely accused numerous Republicans and/or conservatives of sexual harassment from Clarence Thomas to Brett Kavanaugh yet when Biden or Teddy Kennedy did it they were given a pass. As Reverend Jeremiah Wright has so famously stated "the chickens are coming home to roost". The Democrats have a conontrom because it is time for Joe Biden to do some reckoning. The democrat who has bullied everyday men for so long now has it thrusted in his face. Let's see how he handles it.

Well well well how sweet it is

An eminent sociologist and high profile women’s rights campaigner has stepped down indefinitely from the board of a gender equality group following allegations of sexual harassment.

Michael Kimmel, distinguished professor of sociology at Stony Brook University in New York, has resigned from the board of Promundo, an initiative that promotes gender justice by engaging men and boys.
Kimmel, a vocal advocate for women’s rights and author of books including Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, also offered to defer the acceptance of a sociology award. He was due to receive the prestigious Jessie Bernard award from the American Sociological Association in recognition of his contribution to women’s equality studies. On Wednesday, ASA’s council voted unanimously to suspend delivery of the award.

In a message to members, ASA also said its working group on harassment, formed last year, will conduct a review of the organisation’s awards policies, nomination and appointment processes, and the process for reporting and responding to ethical violations.

The allegations against Kimmel were first reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, which cited comments by a former graduate student. The former student, who asked to remain anonymous, said Kimmel had suggested they have sex six weeks into her graduate course, and later in her career. She added that he had complimented her appearance, and remarked that she would have to work hard to prove that she had reached her position as a result of her academic talents, and not because she was sleeping with someone.
Following the report, another former graduate student published a detailed account of their time working with Kimmel on the website Medium. Bethany Coston, now assistant professor of gender, sexuality and women’s studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, accused Kimmel of sexist behaviour, such as giving paid work to male students while women were expected to work for free. Coston also accused Kimmel of homophobic and transphobic attitudes, and of a lack of respect for anyone but cisgender heterosexual men.

Kimmel has worked as a consultant for charities and government bodies, as well as lecturing at hundreds of schools, colleges and universities, according to his website. In 2013 he founded the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook.

Promundo said that it was deeply disturbed by the allegations of sexual harassment, adding that it had accepted Kimmel’s temporary resignation from its board of directors.

“We fully appreciate the need to weigh due process along with all the shortcomings of formal sexual harassment complaint procedures and the power inequalities inherent to these processes,” the Promundo said in a statement. “What we can say is that all such allegations must be investigated, those harmed must be protected and supported and accountability and restorative justice must prevail.

Kimmel did not respond to the Guardian’s request for a comment, but said in a statement to the Chronicle of Higher Education: “... I have been informed that there are rumours circulating about my professional conduct that suggest I have behaved unethically. While nothing has been formally alleged to the best of my knowledge, I take such concerns seriously, and want to validate the voices of those who are making such claims. I want to hear those charges, hear those voices, and make amends to those who believe I have injured them.”

source

Sean Hannity accused of sexual harassment

Sean Hannity
No good deed goes unpunished. I'm sure Sean Hannity is finding that out the hard way. He may lose his Fox gig if anymore women jump upon the bandwagon. They did it to Cosby and that gained attention. They did it to Bill O'Reilly and now they are doing it to Hannity. Hannity always played the white knight. When that situation with Ray Rice went down Hannity didn't care about Ray Rices's version Hannity went on the offense against Ray Rice. And now Hannity is getting fucked by a woman and not in the way he wants. Women don't love white knights they despise them. I'm sure Hannity is now finding this out.

Monkey see monkey do

The CEO of Fox News,Roger Ailes,is accused of sexual harassment. Initially he was accused by Fox news anchor Gretchen Carlson. The timing of the accusations is suspicious. Fox decided not to renew Carlson's contract. I guess this really ticked off Gretchen Carlson because that is when she filed the sexual harassment lawsuit. After that other women have joined in. Fox,along with other media outlets,has been covering the Cosby case because this is starting to mirror the Cosby situation and I'm sure that is by design. Are Cosby and/or Ailes guilty? Who knows,that is why we have a judicial system. To sort these things out. Now I realize there are those out there that believe if you have a penis and you are accused of a sex crime you are guilty. They run amok on college and university campuses. VAWA Joe has seen to that. Court rooms are not that bad. They aren't great but they are better than the shit you get on college and university campuses. Fox has been on cable for the last 20 years with Ailes at the helm. Yet now allegations are being made. If Ailes is this big sexual harasser why did these women wait so long to come forward. Megyn Kelly is the latest Fox personality to join in with Gretchen Carlson in accusing Roger Ailes of sexual harassment. That was the straw that broke the camel's back because that caused Ailes to resign his position at Fox News. Are the same people that are organizing,manipulating and exploiting the Cosby situation be doing this to Roger Ailes. Both Ailes and Cosby are well known conservative men. We live in very misandric times and thanks to gynocentricity the populace is blind to the evil ways of women. The fact that we have Don Quixote white knights proves it. What is the outcome? Who knows. Stay tuned.

Fight back against Dear Collegue

From SAVE Services:

On May 9 the federal government issued a decision that expands the definition of sexual harassment and removes free speech on campus. This has triggered 100 critical editorials.

On June 26 Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to the Department of Justice challenging its recent settlement with the University of Montana.

We fully support the senator's efforts, and we'd like to see more lawmakers follow suit. That's where you come in.

Urge your senators to join with Sen. McCain to restore free speech on college campuses. Call 1-866-220-0044.

Thank you for helping college students all across the country.

teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

www.saveservices.org

From Senator John McCain's website

June 26, 2013

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, today condemned the proliferation of settlement abuses orchestrated by President Obama’s administration. To expose this practice, Senator McCain sent two letters to separate Obama administration officials.

In the first letter, sent to the Department of Justice, Senator McCain expressed concern that the civil rights division under Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez has circumvented the regular rulemaking process and congressional authority by redefining long-standing legal precedent through a settlement agreement with a single university.

In that letter, Senator McCain wrote, “Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.”

June 26, 2013

The Honorable Eric Holder

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I am writing to request more information on the settlement reached between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the University of Montana-Missoula with regard to the enforcement and application of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”). Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.

Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action. In short, Assistant Attorney General Perez and DOJ have used a settlement to effectively change the law, avoiding public accountability for their actions.

The Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Perez, ignored years of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding Title IX when it decided to unilaterally make its new standard. Whereas the Supreme Court held in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education that sexual harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit,” Assistant Attorney General Perez on his own volition, unauthorized and unchecked by Congress, has issued a much broader definition that may compromise the constitutional rights of students and teachers.

According to the Civil Rights Division’s Letter of Findings, DOJ now defines sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” DOJ also requires that universities immediately take actions against students accused of harassment before the completion of any investigation. DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment and its suggested disciplinary procedures are direct hindrances to students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process.

On June 6th Professors Ann Green and Donna Potts, members of the Committee on Women in the Academic Profession of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), wrote a letter to Mr. Perez expressing deep concerns about the broadness of DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment. The letter asserted that the new definition “eliminates the critical standard of ‘reasonable speech,’ and, in doing so, may pose a threat to academic freedom in the classroom.”

Given that the new Title IX sexual harassment standards and suggested disciplinary procedures raise great concerns about the security of constitutional rights, please provide the following information by July 17, 2013.

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?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

John McCain

Ranking Minority Member

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

To find your Senators click here

We've got a Senator's attention,I suggest we do not waste this moment but instead lobby against the "dear colleague" letter. This is our chance. Let's not let it slip away.

Also it would be a good idea to contact Senator McCain and thank him for tackling this issue. That could go a long way down the road for us so let's do it.

Homeland Security official accused of sexual harassment resigns

Janet Napolitano's aide, ICE chief of staff, resigns amid misconduct claims

Published: September 1, 2012 7:29 PM

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A senior Obama administration political appointee and longtime aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano resigned Saturday amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior lodged by at least three Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees.

Suzanne Barr, chief of staff to ICE Director John Morton, said in her resignation letter that the allegations against her are "unfounded." But she said she was stepping down anyway to end distractions within the agency. ICE, a division of the Homeland Security Department, confirmed Barr had resigned. The Associated Press obtained a copy of Barr's letter. Barr is accused of sexually inappropriate behavior toward employees. The complaints are related to a sexual discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by a senior ICE agent in May.

In her letter to Morton, Barr said she has been the subject of "unfounded allegations designed to destroy my reputation" and is resigning "with great regret."

"Of greater concern however, is the threat these allegations represent to the reputation of this agency and the men and women who proudly serve their country by advancing ICE's mission," Barr wrote. "As such, I feel it is incumbent upon me to take every step necessary to prevent further harm to the agency and to prevent this from further distracting from our critical work."

Barr went on leave last month after the New York Post reported on the lawsuit filed by James T. Hayes Jr., ICE's special agent in charge in New York. Additional employees came forward with their allegations around the same time.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a statement Saturday that Barr's resignation "raises the most serious questions about management practices and personnel policies at the Department of Homeland Security." He said his committee will continue to review the case and personnel practices at DHS.

In one complaint, Barr is accused of telling a male subordinate he was "sexy" and asking a personal question about his anatomy during an office party. In a separate complaint, she is accused of offering to perform a sex act with a male subordinate during a business trip in Bogota, Colombia. She's also accused of calling a male subordinate from her hotel room and offering to perform a sex act. The names of two of Barr's accusers were censored in affidavits reviewed by AP.

Homeland Security's office of professional responsibility and inspector general have been investigating the allegations.

Prior to the lawsuit, there were no complaints about Barr, according to a homeland security official who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

In the lawsuit, Hayes described a "frat house" atmosphere at ICE designed to humiliate male employees under Barr's leadership. Hayes, who was transferred to New York from ICE headquarters in Washington, is asking for more than $4 million that, among other things, would cover compensation he believes he is owed for relocation expenses and financial losses associated with his transfer.

Hayes' lawyer, Morris Fischer of Silver Spring, Md., has declined to comment.

The Justice Department is seeking to dismiss Hayes' lawsuit on the basis that he did not state a claim for retaliation.

Barr, a 1995 graduate of the University of Arizona, was among Napolitano's first appointments after she became secretary in 2009. Barr started working for Napolitano in 2004, while Napolitano was governor of Arizona. Prior to that, Barr worked for Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain.

Source:click here

This is a follow-up to this article which initially broke the story. If it were a man he may suffer the same fate or worse for sexually harassing a female employee. At least the matter wasn't swept under the rug like these female-on-male sexual harassment cases usually are. This goes to show that women can sexually harass men too.

Isiah Thomas

I generally agree with the article,unless otherwise noted.


Isiah Thomas: Guilt by genitalia

By Bernard Chapinweb posted October 15, 2007

Slowly but self-righteously America continues its descent into becoming a land debilitated by political correctness. Today there are more parameters for what constitutes acceptable speech than ever before while the trendy troika of race, class, and sex trump truth on a daily basis. Isms, more than knowledge, fuel our university curriculums and public policy decisions.

One of PC's most essential precepts is that women are morally, vocationally, and intellectually superior to men. The spheres of government have internalized this outlook and their belief in women being an oppressed group colors numerous laws. The bias against men in criminal and civil matters has effectively made female privilege as much a part of our nation as baseball, unfettered immigration, and the media's perpetual frenzy over the comings and goings of celebrities.

In the hopes of "empowering" the fair sex [1] (calling women the "fair sex" is like calling a big guy "tiny") , the state has melded half of the population into sacred cows; mammals now bestowed with rights and advantages wholly unearned (and of which men can only dream). As evidenced by the lynching of the Duke lacrosse players, the word of a woman can even effectively reverse presumption in criminal cases.

Integral to crimes like domestic violence is the concept of male guilt even though, "…contrary to the predictions of feminist theory, domestic abuse (verbal, psychological, and physical) occurs significantly more often among lesbian couples than among heterosexual pairs." [2] Truth has no dominion in a culture paralyzed by dogma.

Nowhere is female privilege more evident than within the star-chamber like confines of the "Sexual Harassment Industry." In this arena, feminist lobbyists have erected a charnel house to exterminate the expression of random, unscripted male behavior in the workplace. It has even created a ludicrous female right not to be offended…by anything said or done in their proximity. This right can be brandished upon men who accidentally forget to don their automaton costumes before punching the clock.

As Daphne Patai explains in her exquisite book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism: "At the present moment, ‘sexual harassment' seems often to be little more than a label for excoriating men…Its real function at this moment, in addition to keeping feminist passions at fever pitch, is to serve as the conduit by which some extreme feminist tenets about the relations between the sexes enter everyday enter everyday life with minimum challenge." [3] The recently concluded Isiah Thomas sexual harassment trial again illustrates the tremendous partiality with which our nation treats women. Allegedly, Mr. Thomas subjected former employee, Anucha Browne Sanders, to crude language—such as the occasional use of the b-word and h-word—while also making sexual advances toward her. As a means to redress his wrongs, the court awarded her over $11.6 million dollars. She may receive more than that though. As of yet, no decision has been made concerning her request for another $9.6 million in compensatory damages.

Luckily for Mr. Thomas, the Madison Square Garden corporation will be the ones required to enrich this young lady as they allowed her "her to work in a hostile environment."

In tears Ms. Sanders stated that her windfall was for "the women who don't have the means and couldn't possibly have done what I was able to do." Oh but here she is very wrong. Her victory was for every woman in America. Many of whom have long known that the law provides a way for them to receive payola in exchange for being subjected to unfiltered speech. A myriad of lawyers would take their cases on a contingency basis as their chances of winning are as likely as the Cubs never appearing in another World Series.

There is no way of knowing—as is the case in all "he said/she said" situations—if there is any truth to her allegations. Yet, even if we accept her version of the story as being valid, it does little more than highlight the tremendous disparity in terms of status and opportunity between the sexes. The right that Mr. Thomas violated—the right not to be insulted—is one our courts have not, and will not, extend to men.

The attempt on the part of the government to protect women from the vagaries of life has launched a juridical theatre of the absurd. Soon our robed masters might add a couple more punch lines by creating offshoots of legal doctrine revolving around "tortuous teasing" or "cacophonous criticism." The state's efforts have only managed to free some women from the burden of becoming well-adjusted, reliable adults. Infantilizing the hardiest members of the population—as female lifespans always surpass those of men—is an assault on reason from which no good can come. Regarding citizens as fragile icicles whose psychological integrity shatters with a light touch benefits no one.

That we are occasionally subjected to the insults of others is part of the human condition and a byproduct of vocalization. It is not one in need of the Leviathan's intervention. Our politically correct culture has even gone so far as to uniquely outlaw the words you can use to describe a woman. Calling them "b's, h's" or "c's" is strictly verboten. Yet no similar censure has been initiated in regards to men. With what words can you not use to impugn a man? There are none.
A man is expected to take it and endure…which is how it should be.(typical conservative blind spot. The author rallies against chivilary or gives that impression and then turns around and practices it. This is also denying men equal access to the law. At first he addresses it then says men shouldn't have the same right but instead "take it like a man". This is a case where conservatives are just as stupid as their liberal counterparts.) Play a weak victim long enough and you will eventually become one. During my daily commute I am occasionally the recipient of demeaning gestures and verbiage from my fellow motorists. This is regrettable but should not give me the right to sue the Illinois Department of Transportation or the Illinois State Police as a means of redress. When I play poker at a casino and a nearby rounder ridicules my play I should not have the right to institute proceedings against the Harrah's Corporation either. What this country needs is equality as opposed to chivalry justice. (I have heard of cases where female employees have ganged up on male employees and created a hostile work enviroment and this guy is comparing it to traffic difficulties? First of all,traffic situations involve strangers you are most like never going to see again meanwhile the anti-male work place is filled with people you see day in and day out. Second,traffic situations last mere SECONDS while the hostile work place lasts HOURS which gives the anti-male torturers who torture men because they are MEN longer than some other motorist is mad at you because you violated a rule of the road they don't care what you look like. Unlike this guy I say courts should definitely look out for male victims.)

Hearing slurs is the side effect of living around other people. It is not invigorating but it is entirely predictable. Sympathy is not the proper response for Ms. Sanders or anyone else who claims that heated syllables produce deep-seated emotional trauma. We should acknowledge the bizarre privilege that such individuals possess. Happily, most of us are not incapacitated by huge egos which become destabilized upon hearing others express non-affirming views. Ms. Sanders must have led an ornate, bejeweled existence, and empathy for the multi-millionaire is totally misplaced.

Ms. Sanders's position "earned" her $260,000 in salary last year. This figure…ah, is not the norm. The 2006 median annual household income was $48,201, so here, oppressed is to plaintiff as non-controversial is to George W. Bush. There are no words, phrases, names, or finger salutations for which 99 percent of the male population would not endure in exchange for such a bounty. Personally, for that sum, this commentator would put up with being called every name in the Devil's Dictionary. At the end of each pay period I would then thank my oppressors and respond to their taunts by calculating the exact weekly worth of each insult I absorbed.
Yet overcoming obstacles and enduring pain are now deemed archaic notions. A mandate of our therapeutic age is that the process of making money should never require one to put the needs of your employer above your own. Even drudgery equates with dehumanization. "Work" is no longer considered work as it really seems to be more of a personal fulfillment scheme.

Women, in particular, have bought into the idea that labor is more about self-esteem and achievement than getting paid for the completion of tasks. As Ann Coulter noted, "Men always had ‘jobs,' women have ‘careers.'" [4] Apart from those fortunate enough to finagle state financed position at college Women's Studies programs in which projecting personal pathologies onto the backs of others (men, Caucasians, and the United States of America) is considered good form, most of us find work banal and routine. We work in order to survive. Making ends meet is an end in itself. One does not set their alarm for 4:45 am and drive off into a January frost in the hopes of feeling good about oneself.

Of course, the New York Times believed every word of the plaintiff's claims. This is not surprising as the paper consistently advocates for female empowerment. They concluded that "Reality had no voice until Anucha Browne Sanders took the stand. Truth had no visuals until she provided them in court." Remember, they were not there and have no idea if her version of the affair was true or not. What will they say should the decision get overturned? Don't bet on a retraction.

They also suggest that "Thomas added to the Garden's creepy vibe by dismissively treating Browne Sanders as if she were nothing more than a groupie he once charmed during his playing days." What if he did treat her in that fashion? Ms. Sanders was not there to be Mr. Thomas's equal. She was there to work for him. A position of subservience should have been assumed the moment she signed her contract.

Thomas had this to say: "I want to say it as loud as I possibly can. I'm innocent. I'm very innocent. I did not do the things that she accused me in the courtroom of doing. I'm extremely disappointed that the jury could not see the facts ... and I will appeal." Alas, I fear The Times may never have to reconfigure their support for Ms. Sanders because the judiciary and the general population are soundly steeped in the edicts of women's privilege. Fairness is not a consideration should a woman claim to be wronged. If you can show she's been insulted or had her feelings hurt then the only question left is to determine the award sum.

How any man can have faith in our legal system is perplexing. The courts uphold inequity whenever possible and reflexively debase men in the hopes of elevating women. Until corrected, this malignant phenomenon has permanently dispelled justice from the land.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Footnotes:

[1] Some writers may dislike using the term "fair sex" but I am always ready to concede that women are physically more appealing, hence fairer, than are men. As for the other nuances of the idiom, I will not extend judgment here.

[2] Carlson, Allan C. and Mero, Paul T. The Natural Family: A Manifesto. (Dallas: Spence, 2007). Pp. 157-158.

[3] Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998). P.11.

[4] Coulter, Ann. Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. (New York: Crown, 2002). p.39.

Source:here