U Not Gonna Like This

This from Men's News Daily:

No Freedom of Speech in Britain: Is This Our Future?

Is this the future of America as well? I hope we can protect our Constitution when Democrats become powerful enough to once again threaten it. This from the Tivy-Side Advertiser:

Man convicted for anti Muslim banner

A protest in London against the publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist incensed an Aberporth man, who painted an anti-Muslim slogan on a white sheet and draped it over his garden fence.

The words in bold red paint stated: “Kill all Muslims who threaten us and our way of life. Enoch Powell was right.”

Father of two Gary John Mathewson, who was arrested for displaying the banner, told a court:

“This won’t stop until there is a Muslim president in the White House.”

And referring to MP Jack Straw questioning whether Muslim women should wear face veils he asked: “Are you going to arrest him?”

When prosecutor Maggie Hughes pointed out that the banner did not mention extremists Mathewson said: “That’s what I meant by those who threaten us and our way of life.’”

This from Men's News Daily:

John Lewis, like most of the power whores who rule the media’s portrayal of blacks, can’t abide the truth. Nothing in the advertisment is false, not one word. The Right Reverend Joseph Lowry is a liar or is misinformed if he can say that Republicans believe either or those two falsehoods, particularly the Liberal propaganda myth that we Republicans favor the rich over the poor. That has never been the case and anyone who makes that claim is a liar, pure and simple.

There is no doubt that King was not a Conservative, favoring as he did socialism over capitalism and while it is true that many of the old Dixiecrats did become Republicans, many refused to, choosing to remain-as stated in the advertisement in question-yellow dog Democrats. Even today there remains in the South, especially among the older voters, a large but gradually shrinking number of voters who vote Democrat because their families have always voted Democrat.

As Mr. Hutchinson says in his very thoughtful article, the ad is not as much of a stretch as conventional Liberal wisdom would have you believe. Sometimes it pays to step outside the rhetoric and take a gander at the facts, they may just surprise you. The truly sad fact is that Reverend Dr. Kings fears were real. The welfare state which accompanied the civil rights movement at the behest of Liberals in Congress and with the blessings of the African-American leadership, failed to follow the warnings of Dr. King and provide the “values training, discipline necessary to prevent what eventually happened. The families were allowed to disintegrate and the welfare checks relegated black fathers redundant.

This from the Federation for American Immigration Reform newsletter:

300 Million and Counting …
Are We On A Path Of Self-Destruction?

Can the U.S. sustain this continued increase in its population or will this growth suffocate a once thriving nation?

The country’s population is growing by nearly 3 million people each year . . . the equivalent of adding another city the size of Chicago to the country each year.

Illegal immigrants generally compete for jobs with America’s most vulnerable population, i.e. those with less than a secondary school degree and has fewer job-market alternatives.

Yet the Bush Administration and Senate continue to push an accelerated process of change by proposing to open the door wider to both immigrants and foreigners, as well as give illegal aliens legal status; the end result: increased immigration.

The impact of this massive population increase is felt everywhere . . .

• overcrowded schools
• quality of childrens' education
• overloaded hospital and emergency rooms
• abuse of social services
• drain on natural resources, i.e. water supplies

. . . And it’s all paid for out of your tax dollars.

So, with a U.S. population of 300 million and counting the time is now for our leaders to act, not talk about true immigration reform.

As the population of the United States passes 300 million, will the nation’s policy makers come to their senses and pause for a moment and think about where the country is headed? Our population was just over 200 million in the 1970 Census and the rate of population increase of about one percent per year indicates that with no change we may add another 300 million residents over the next 70 years.

A continuation of the current trend means that most of the future U.S. population increase will result from immigration. Yet immigration is a discretionary policy — it can be either decreased, as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, and desired by most Americans, or increased, as advocated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In 1970, less than one in every twenty residents in our country was foreign born. In 2006, the comparable level is nearly one in every eight residents is foreign born. This is a trend that will continue if immigration policy and immigration law enforcement do not change. Yet, the White House and the Senate are pushing to accelerate the process of change by opening the door wider to both immigrants and to foreigners coming as nonimmigrants to take American jobs. In contrast, the House of Representatives is focused on the estimated 12 or more million aliens believed to be residing illegally in the country and has voted for changes in immigration policy designed to dry up the influx and decrease that population.

Is the current high rate of population increase desirable? What does it mean for our growing dependence on petroleum imports — on the rising price of gasoline? What happens when underground aquifers that supply the majority of fresh water supplies in the country begin to run dry because they are being pumped out faster than rain water can refill them? How can the U.S. reduce its greenhouse emissions when we are adding about 3 million more residents a year? And what about the non-quantifiable “quality of life” factors that would be inexorably altered by the kind of dramatic population growth that awaits this country if we do not change our course?

As absurd as it sounds, the United States has no population policy. Even its immigration law, which is one of the most important parts of any population policy, is not rationalized based on an articulated set of objectives. The consequences of immigration are too important to the nation’s future for our policy makers to continue to leave the country operating on auto-pilot. The time is long past due for the nation to have a coherent immigration policy within the framework of an overall population policy. Public debate on those policy issues will further the decisions made by an informed electorate.

If the nation’s policy makers were to decide to try to stabilize the U.S. population, could they do that? A focus on the phenomenon of the ‘baby boom’ generation clearly demonstrates that any policy designed to change demographic dynamics cannot be achieved overnight. The ‘baby boomers’ are just now entering retirement age as their grandchildren are beginning to enter college or the workforce. With life expectancy on the rise, the ‘baby boomers’ are expected to be around and have a major impact on the Social Security system well into the future. While some suggest that we need more immigrants paying into the Social Security system to support today’s retirees, that is simply a time bomb that would explode when those new workers retired. For that reason, it is important that our policy makers focus not only on today’s population dynamics, they also need to focus ahead several generations.

This study does not answer all of the policy questions. It simply describes the role of immigration today in shaping the population of our largest metropolitan areas and how that process has been changing in recent years. Those interested in a glimpse at what this trend is likely to mean for the future population of the Unites States may find that in the study “Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios” published by FAIR in March 2006.

Again from the archives of the Backlash.com:

Work
by Rod Van Mechelen

Rivalry, not cooperation, is the spirit among most women in today's corporate world. They undermine one another and go as far as lying, character assassination, back stabbing, and sabotage.

-- Tara Roth Madden, Women Vs. Women

Factories turned women and men into cogs, and children into the grease and oil of the Industrial Revolution. The Feminine Mystique removed women from these factories and boarded them up in better homes and gardens. From there, the Women's Movement moved them into the offices of commerce where, in the name of liberation, they posted the Seal of Good Housekeeping and, thereby achieved little true liberation, but infected men with their own fifties feminine malaise:

One senior executive woman may decorate her office with a stuffed animal collection; another may enjoy including others in her afternoon ritual of "high tea" served on china. Consider the executive who keeps Alice-in-Wonderland curls and frills, the earth mother who brings her backpack and baby to work on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Soon the executive wing resembles a circus. -- Women Vs. Women, Tara Roth Madden, p 49

In the highly feminized work place, there is little masculine passion left. The gusto is gone, the inspiration swept into neat little piles and discarded like so much unwanted dust. In its place are cute little cubbyholes, some cluttered as a knitting room, others neat as a pin, all quiet and essentially the same. And feminine.

Most men are, by nature, passionate. Not with, as pop-feminists would have us believe, the simple passion of sex -- sex is only one small wave length in the spectrum of "powerful or compelling emotions or feelings" (Random House College Dictionary) that passionately involve men in life.

Men thrive on solving problems and finding new ways to do things. Visions of inventions, team work, exploration and accomplishment inspire boys and motivate men. But, in the muted surroundings of the feminized factories and boutique bureaucracies, women expect men to curb their passions, speak gently, walk softly, avert their eyes to avoid accusations of sexual harassment, and demur to every misandristic dismissal of masculinity.

Like the public school classrooms, such daintiness begs escape. Hence, men run to the fields, forests and stadiums where, with golf clubs and pigskins, or rifles and shotguns, they affirm their masculinity like rams butting heads in contests to prove themselves rams, still.

This is not progress, but discrimination against men. Progress means bringing women and men together in a spirit of harmony, and should the discordant cacophony of our present evolution result in anything less, our society will be no better off than we were 25 years before.

Feminists frequently note women's careers generally don't advance as quickly as men's. A fact some of the more realistic explain without blaming men: "If women generally disappear midmatch, who would seriously bet on them to emerge as corporate champs?" (Women Vs. Women, Tara Roth Madden, p 93) In response, many demand special treatment for women: "They need job protected maternity leave, child care, flextime, and specially tailored career ladders." (A Lesser, Life, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, p 78)

Should we put women back up on the pedestal and give them special treatment? Would it be fair to men? And if we do, will that solve women's problems? Maybe not, because another aspect of female employment is that it's creating a bottleneck: "Qualified women poured into the economy faster than they could be absorbed, adding to the glut in the middle." (Women Vs. Women, Tara Roth Madden, p 101)

Consequently, at a time when no one can afford to concede anything other than gender neutrality, pop-feminists are demanding preferential status for women. Essentially, they are demanding total feminization of the workplace, and the relegation of men to the status of second class citizens. While the increasing employment and leadership of women are, I believe, inevitable and good, oppressing men is not the way to make it happen.

This from This Is London:

Men face rape charge threat unless they can show consent of drunk women
15.10.06


A man may need his partner's explicit consent to sex if she has been drinkingMen who have sex with women who are not fully sober risk being found guilty of rape unless they have their consent, under controversial new proposals.

Ministers want to close a legal loophole which means that thousands of cases fail to reach the courts because victims have been drinking.

At present, women are deemed to be capable of consenting to sex as long as they are not so drunk that they are unconscious.

But under the new plans, which could be unveiled as early as next month, juries will be given the power to decide whether a woman was sober enough to know what she was doing.

The initiative follows concerns about a link between the growing problem of binge drinking and allegations of rape.

Solicitor General Mike O'Brien believes the law needs to be changed to make it easier to jail rapists who deliberately get their victims drunk.

The Metropolitan Police say one in three women who claim they have been raped have been drinking. In many case, police advise women to drop the complaint because they stand little chance of being believed in court.

Fewer than six per cent of rape allegations end in successful convictions.

Under the new plans, the legal definition of consent could be rewritten to make clear that women who are drunk could not have agreed to sex.

It raises the possibility that even if a woman agreed to sex while drunk, a jury could decide she was too inebriated to give meaningful consent.

This places a heavy burden of responsibility on men to ensure that a woman is fully conscious of her actions and has agreed to make love.

Earlier this year, a judge threw throw out a rape case in which the alleged victim was too drunk to remember what happened.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Mr O'Brien said: "In non-stranger rapes, the issue is usually one of consent. There are usually two people involved, one of whom will deny consent and the other who will insist that consent was given.

"The issue becomes particularly difficult when there is alcohol involved. What we have to do is to find ways of ensuring that when a rape occurs, the rapist is convicted, but that we don't create miscarriages of justice."

Mr O'Brien is also looking at plans to show juries video footage of victims giving their first interview to police often hours after the alleged attack has taken place.

It follows concern that some juries have been taken by surprise by the lack of emotion shown by women in the witness box when the give evidence.

He said: "Women are individuals and react in different ways."

Police recorded 14,449 allegations of rape last year, one of the highest figures so far. Only one in 19 men were convicted.

Earlier this year, a rape trial collapsed when a female student from Aberystwyth University admitted she had been so drunk that she could not remember if she had refused or given consent for sex.

In the case at Swansea Crown Court, the judge ruled that 'drunken consent is still consent' - and instructed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict, even if they did not agree.

Opponents of the new proposals fear that they will create a legal minefield and may encourage some women to make allegations of rape when they regret having had sex while drunk.

George McAuley, chairman of the UK Men's Movement, said men may have to resort to obtaining written 'contracts' or using their mobile phones to film their partners consenting to sex.

He said: "Radical feminists within the Labour party have made consensual heterosexual sex a dangerous minefield. The changes in legislation will increase the number of innocent men convicted of rape.

"It means men will have to get a consent form signed, dated and countersigned in triplicate before they make love.

"This legislation is deliberately designed to put more men behind bars."

This from Yahoo! Business Section found at the Don't Marry Forums:

The Cost of Being Married Versus Being Single

Tom Van Riper
Forbes.com

Marriage has a way of making people grow up and think about the future. Nights out with friends and crawling stores for clothes are replaced by eating in together and saving for a house. But while that priority shift eventually creates more stable finances, in the short term, it puts a squeeze on your wallet.

On a month-to-month basis, marriage just doesn't pay. At least not far beyond the honeymoon phase, after which the happy couple invariably decides to leverage its new status into better living quarters, nicer cars and more "mature" spending priorities like insurance and church donations.

Getting hitched does have financial benefits at first. We looked at the monthly expenses of three New York City households; a single person earning $90,000 a year, a childless couple earning $170,000 a year and a family of five whose annual income is just over $500,000, courtesy of New York-based Chestnut Financial. A peek at their actual household expenditures shows, not surprisingly, that a married couple pays substantially less proportionally toward basic living costs than a single person.

Go to Forbes.com to view the slideshow

For example, only 9.3% of the couples' $14,200 monthly gross income goes for rent, compared with 23% of the single person's $7,500 monthly pay. The couple also pays less for food (5.6% vs. 8.3%), cable television (1% vs. 1.8%) and the telephone bill (1.2% vs. 2.8%). And auto insurers place married people in a lower risk class, saving them money on car insurance.

The married couple also gets some relief on both federal and Social Security taxes, thanks to the slightly lower tax rates associated with joint filing. They pay out a combined 29% of their salaries, compared with the 35% the single person pays.

"The Republicans have mostly eliminated the marriage penalty, and a higher-earning spouse can effectively shield his or her income from higher taxes," says Chris Edwards, tax policy director at the Cato Institute.

A few other costs also tend to dwindle once a person has succeeded in snagging a spouse.

"Singles tend to spend a lot on gyms, fitness and clothes," says Chestnut Financial's Valerie Adelman, who counsels individuals and families on financial planning.

But once a couple settles into married life, new expenses aren't far behind.

Married couples tend to start saving for retirement early on, while singles generally wait until their 40s. So while wedding bells usually lead to a smoother path to retirement, they produce a more expensive month-to-month life--and they mean less free cash in your pocket.

Newly married couples also tend to purchase a house or condo within a couple of years. This allows them to accrue equity--a positive thing--but also forces them to incur big expenses, like household maintenance, homeowners and life insurance, and furniture. While there are plenty of renting couples and home-owning singles, married people account for 77% of all homeowners, according to the Center for Politics.

Despite the expenses, single people actually do well when they buy a house. Even though affording a down payment is tough for most singles, they stand to benefit more than married people from the tax code. With a standard deduction of $4,750 annually, a single person sees the benefits of itemized deductions like mortgage interest and property taxes before a married couple filing jointly, for whom the standard deduction is $7,950.

There's no doubt singles who make an effort to do financially prudent things--buying homes and opening up retirement accounts early--wind up better off than their married friends.

Add it all up, and Chestnut's married clients shell out practically all of their monthly income on living expenses, scraping to save anything beyond a retirement plan contribution. The single earner, by contrast, socks away more than $300 per month, nearly 5% of his or her pay.

Once children enter the picture, married couples are really in financial trouble: The costs to raise and educate children are staggering.

A third Chestnut client, a married couple with three children, spends $2,400 a month on food and basic household items, triple what the childless couple spends.

The total cost of camps, day care, books, toys and after-school programs? Try $4,000 a month. And that bill more than doubles if the kids go to private school. Families living in areas less expensive than New York City will pay less, of course, but they'll also earn less and pay a similar percentage of their income for those expenses. And all the "family discounts" in the world at ballgames, amusement parks and museums won't put much of a dent in those bills.

It's not all bad news for married couples. A saving grace for the institution is the fact that that two heads are better than one. Like most any issue, finances are more easily worked out with a partner.

"Singles have no one to bounce things off of, while married people tend to work things out together," Adelman says.

More on Sexual Harassment from the archives of Rod Van Mechelen's Backlash.com:


Sexual Harassment
by Rod Van Mechelen
Copyright 1991, 1992 by Rod Van Mechelen

Masculine desire is as much an offence as it is a compliment; in so far as she feels herself responsible for her charm, or feels she is exerting it of her own accord, she is much pleased with her conquests, but to the extent that her face, her figure, her flesh are facts she must bear with, she wants to hide them from this independent stranger who lusts after them.
-- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

The issue of sexual harassment gained prominence during the Thomas-Hill hearings late in 1991. At that time, it became very clear to men they still need to treat female co-workers neither as women nor as equals, but as a specially protected class of sexless work-objects.

On television, in the newspapers and magazines, and in hundreds of "men just don't get it" debates and conversations, women have told men they don't want men using the workplace as a meat market. Yet, most women still consider work the best place to meet and mate men. (True-life Stories about Meeting Men, Lesley Dormen, New Woman, March 1992, p 64) Consequently, despite that men can lose their jobs for making the slightest reference to a woman's sexual identity, women focus on, think about, learn about, and plan how they use makeup, perfume, and clothing to attract the attention of their male co-workers.

With impunity, women still play the dating game where, with a single complaint, they can have the men who displease them fired for sexual harassment. Why the double standard? The most obvious answer is, most women want it both ways. They want to be wild and irresponsible, and if things get out of hand, blame men:

Sometimes charges of sexual harassment are shrouded in shades of gray. One story making the rounds occurred at an out-of-state aerospace company where a woman employee allegedly photocopied her bare breasts and then handed out copies to select co-workers in her department.

One male co-worker, who had not been given a copy of the picture, later walked up to the woman and asked if he could see her breasts (not the photocopy). The woman refused and then filed a sexual harassment complaint against the man, who was later fired from the company. The woman is still employed at the firm. -- No Laughing Matter, Connie Day, Washington CEO, October 1992, p 19

Where only women are allowed to express their sexual nature, all men are vulnerable to biased charges of sexual harassment.

According to the Northwest Women's Law Center in Washington state, the "courts have recognized two types of unlawful sexual harassment: 'quid pro quo' harassment (which is Latin for 'something for something') and 'hostile work environment' harassment."

The courts have held that "a hostile environment exists when an employee can show (1) that he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) that this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." (Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, pp 875 - 876) Further, "EEOC guidelines describe hostile environment harassment as 'conduct [which] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.'" (Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, p 876)

This seems fairly straight forward. But the issues cloud when it comes time to define terms like "unreasonable interference" and "intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." To deal with this, the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a hostile environment is in the eye of the beholder. For that reason, it is determined according to a subjective standard known as the "reasonable woman" standard.

The "Reasonable Woman" Standard

The precedent setting case of Ellison v. Brady established the "reasonable woman" as the new standard for determining whether or not men have committed sexual harassment: "In order to shield employers from having to accommodate the idiosyncratic concerns of the rare hyper-sensitive employee, we hold that a female plaintiff states a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment when she alleges conduct which a reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment."

The reason: "We realize that there is a broad range of viewpoints among women as a group, but we believe that many women share common concerns which men do not necessarily share. For example, because women are disproportionately victims of rape and sexual assault, women have a stronger incentive to be concerned with sexual behavior. Women who are victims of mild forms of sexual harassment may understandably worry whether a harasser's conduct is merely a prelude to violent sexual assault. Men, who are rarely victims of sexual assault, may view sexual conduct in a vacuum without a full appreciation of the social setting or the underlying threat of violence that a woman may perceive."

Given the predilection of the popular press to sensationalize male violence against women, we may wonder just how sensitive a reasonable woman might be to male behaviors. Oddly, however, the facts do not support the Court's contention. As Tara Roth Madden notes, half of both "men and women in the workplace feel they have been sexually harassed." (Women Vs. Women, Tara Roth Madden, p 166)

Men feel just as victimized as women do. What's more, men feel far more threatened within the context of affiliation and intimacy, whereas women feel more at risk within the context of impersonality and "competitive success." (In A Different Voice, by Carol Gilligan, p 42) Hence, there must be some other reason for such hypersensitivity. Particularly since so many women see the workplace as the best place to meet men. (True-life Stories about Meeting Men, Lesley Dormen, New Woman, March 1992, p 64)

Perhaps women feel threatened by men's "sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" not because they perceive any danger of rape or sexual assault, but because attention from "unattractive" men is both common and a nuisance: "(T)he average young woman has so many men with a sexual interest in her that she may feel overwhelmed." (The Other Side of the Coin, by Roy Schenk, p 72 - 73)

Hostile environment sexual harassment provides a convenient way for women to control inconvenient men. Portraying even the kindest comments from men as threats dripping like blood-drenched blades with malicious lasciviousness and a vile carnality requiring the imposition of harsh penalties, they have codified into law the means for socially castrating men who get in their way:

Well-intentioned compliments by co-workers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action if a reasonable victim of the same sex as the plaintiff would consider the comments sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a condition of employment and create an abusive working environment. -- Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, p 875
Compliment or ask a female co-worker out, and you risk a charge of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is a crime and we should treat it as such. But how are men to know what it is? What's the objective standard? "In determining whether sexual harassment is sufficiently severe to be actionable, court focuses on perspective of victim." Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sections 703(a)(1), 42 USCA Section 2000e- 2(a)(1).

That is, the "objective standard" is: it's subjective. What was the perspective of the "victim"? How would a "reasonable woman" feel about it?

General legal standards are necessary because it is impossible for the courts and legislatures to foresee every situation possible and pass laws to address them all. But such standards must be universal. A law or legal standard that depends on gender is no different from a standard that depends on race: a "reasonable white person" standard, to define unlawful behaviors on the basis of race would clearly be prejudicial, and so is the reasonable woman standard. It's not universal, but discriminates on the basis of sex.

Pop-feminists have persuaded judges, legal scholars, politicians, professors and corporate executives to judge men by anti-male standards. By this cause, the only standard men can rely upon is fear -- their fear of women -- because the segregation of these standards institutionalizes the pop-feminist promulgated fears of men into law, thereby putting all men legally at risk for doing what most women expect and demand that men do -- take the initiative in creating relationships.

Despite all the chatter about equality, most women still expect men to take the initiative. This means men are now caught in a catch-22. Play it legally safe and risk permanent sexual solitude, or risk charges of sexual harassment in their quest for love. Consequently, so long as women don't share the burden of asking for dates or making the first move, some men will continue to engage in behaviors some will call "sexual harassment."

How should men deal with this? Maybe the time has come for men to boycott the initiative, refuse to initiate relationships and sexual-advances until women demand an objective standard, so men can know ahead of time, with certainty, what is legal and what is not. [That's already happening. It's called the Marriage Strike!] Or perhaps men should begin filing sexual harassment suits of their own under the reasonable victim standard.

How can you sexually harass sex-starved men? The same way you harass a person dying of hunger or thirst: by holding they need just out of reach. Essentially, that is what every woman who wears makeup and sexy outfits does. She flaunts her sexuality, then snatches it away when the wrong men respond.

If a "reasonable man" would find that women's provocative dress, makeup and suggestive or flirtatious behaviors are "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," then by the reasonable victim standard, those things would be sexual harassment. Does a woman who wears a short skirt to work make it hard for her male co-workers to concentrate? Then she's guilty of sexual harassment. When she shows a little cleavage, is she tantalizing them with her sensuality? Then she's guilty of sexual harassment.
Most women will almost certainly reject this. But they have no say in determining what sexually harasses men because when the court established a uniquely female reasonable woman standard, it created a uniquely male reasonable man standard, too:

Of course, where male employees allege that co-workers engage in conduct which creates a hostile environment, the appropriate victim's perspective would be that of a reasonable man. -- Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter 2d Series, p 879

It is important for men to know this because sexual harassment will not remain just a workplace issue for long. Soon, women will doubtless be able to sue men for sexual harassment for asking them out for dates because pop-feminists are working to move this issue beyond the confines of the work place, to place men at risk in the public domain, too.

In the Public Domain

Until recently, sexual harassment has been an employment issue. But not anymore. Friday evening, October 11, 1991, on NBC news with Tom Brokaw, Catherine MacKinnon, a Legal Scholar from the University of Michigan Law School and author of Feminism Unmodified and Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, briefly noted that, with Clarence Thomas, we have a case of sexual harassment extending beyond the work-place, beyond the term of Anita Hill's employment as his subordinate.

In this mold, those who would see men bound in all contexts by the hyper- sensitivities of some women are attempting to make specious charges of sexual harassment a risk in all places and times where and when men and women interact.

Could this extend even to a singles' bar or a party? It already includes office parties:

Sexual harassment laws may extend beyond the office situation if the offending behavior on the part of a supervisor or coworker (even though occurring away from the office) contributes to a hostile working environment for the affected employee. -- The Microsoft employee newsletter, Micronews, Vol. XI, issue 26, June 26, 1992, p 8

And pop-feminist organizations, like the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, are working to persuade jurists, politicians, and the public that women should be able to charge and sue a flirtatious or inconvenient man for sexual harassment anywhere:

Over the phone

On the street

At school

At home

At work

At a party or a meeting

Anywhere

How long until men dare not even to look into the eyes of women: "(L)ooking directly at a woman might seem sexual, a display of flirting." (You Just Don't Understand, Ballantine Books Edition: June 1991, by Deborah Tannen, p 269)

Ironically, because "women, far more than men, consider the workplace a social setting" (Women Vs. Women, Tara Roth Madden, p 170), they are as victimized by this pop-feminist created hostility as men are. As is already happening, women are beginning to complain about a new kind of "hostile environment" because their male co-workers will no longer talk to them about anything except business? Hostile, because a growing number of men no longer feel safe around their female co-workers.

This is insane. The time for women to end this nonsense is now, while men are still listening. Tomorrow might be too late.