U Not Gonna Like This

An article on education from Angry Harry called:


Well Done Girls

http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm

Men's Aid is a registered charity which has been set up in Milton Keynes (U.K.) to provide free practical advice and support to men who have been abused.

Men's Aid

http://www.mensaid.com

More on the story from the Post Bulliten:


A 52-year-old woman accused of embezzling more than $700,000 from a Cannon Falls business was sentenced Wednesday to nearly four years in prison.





Susan Ann Von appeared in U.S. District Court where Judge Paul Magnuson ordered her to serve 46 months in prison and three years supervised release. She must also pay $688,327 in restitution to Sustane, a division of Natural Fertilizer of America Inc., and $208,240 in back taxes.





Von, who worked as a finance manager at Sustane from 2000 to 2006, pleaded guilty in May to one count each of mail fraud and money laundering and two counts of tax evasion.

More on the story from Saljournal.com:

Woman accused of shocking daughter with a cattle prod

Thompson said her mother shocked her with the cattle prod -- an electric shocking device used to move cattle -- about six times on the leg, arm and side the night of Feb. 14, 2007. Each time, she said, the shock caused her to fall from her chair, and her mother ordered her to sit back on the chair.

But Thompson said that neither the shocks nor the falls left bruises or red marks on her body, and she was in no pain after the incident.

Thompson testified that her mother was angry with her because she had gotten home at 11:30 p.m. on a school night. She had been at a Valentine's Day party at the Starlite Skating Center in Salina. She had told her mother she wouldn't be home until midnight, she said, because she thought the party would be over at 11:30 p.m. However, the party got over half an hour earlier than she expected.

More on this story from SC Magazine:


Florida woman accused of deleting $2.5 million in data from employer



Updated Friday, Jan. 25, 2008, at 4:54 p.m. EST



A Florida woman, fearing she was about to be fired from her job, was arrested this week for allegedly deleting seven year's worth of her employer's architectural data.



Marie Cooley, 41, was arrested after entering the offices of Steven E. Hutchins Associates in Jacksonville, Fla., and deleting $2.5 million in files after seeing an advertisement for a job similar to hers in classified advertisements.



Cooley has been charged with damaging computers in excess of $1,000, a second-degree felony. If convicted, she faces up to five years in prison, according to Ken Jefferson, Jacksonville Sherriff's Office public information officer.



Cooley entered the office to pick up her W-2 file Sunday night when she deleted the data and pulled network cables out of place, Jefferson said.

More on the story from The Journal Times - Racine, Wisconsin:



RACINE -- A woman who wanted a 78-year-old man to give her money is accused of punching him in the face.





Judi R. Hanson, 43, of 1801 Clayton Ave., is charges with aggravated battery of the elderly and attempted robbery with the use of force. She faces up to 21 years in prison if convicted.





According to the criminal complaint, an officer spoke with the victim on Tuesday and saw his left eye was bruised and swollen. When asked what happened, the man said he had been hit by Hanson because he refused to give her money.



Reports said Hanson was told to leave the man’s house by an officer when she started yelling and swearing at him. Later that day she called the man to pick her up so she could come and get her belongings.




Upon returning to the man’s house, Hanson allegedly started yelling again about wanting money. She also started reaching at the man’s pockets and then punched him.





The man told police Hanson lost her job in July and he offered her a spare room because she had no place to go. He said he was just trying to help her, but Hanson has hit him “dozens of times” when he refused to give her money.

I'm wiping the digital dust off of yet another aticle that I've saved on my hard drive from almost ten years ago from the Washington Times.




Scholar sees laws on harassment as feminists' weapon




By Julia Duin



The Washington Times October 1999




Feminism has latched onto sexual-harassment laws as a successful way of bringing men to heel, says a University of Massachusetts professor and sometime feminist in a new book.



In "Heterophobia," Daphne Patai says that sexual-harassment law, once
a useful tool to identify outrageous behavior, is now an albatross.



"Sexual harassment seems often to be little more than a label for excoriating men,"
she writes. "It has become the synecdoche for general male awfulness."



University students are schooled in "the patriarchy" and "compulsory heterosexualism," she says, and schools, such as her own, hire "sexual-harassment consultants" to help them avoid lawsuits. One of her footnotes details how one firm charged her school rates of $1,250 to $1,800 per trainer per day, plus $10,000 for hotel, travel and meals, to offer courses in sexual-harassment prevention and risk management.



Empowered by court rulings and legions of academicians, harassment law
has become a tool for implementing the most bizarre feminist world
views, she adds, such as the suggestion that heterosexuality is not natural.



"I believe that heterosexuality is natural," she said during a recent lecture in Washington, D.C. to the Independent Women's Forum. "Now that seems like a fairly obvious thing to say, doesn't it? I mean, are you wondering why I'm bothering to say it? Isn't that what everyone
knows? Well, no. It's not what you know in women's studies and within feminism."



Ms. Patai spent 10 years in women's studies, bringing to the fore feminist scholars such as law professor Catharine McKinnon, who equates all sexual intercourse with rape. "That was quite a shock to newly married women in my feminist-theory class," Ms. Patai said.



She was often invited to speak at women's studies programs until 1994, when she co-authored "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies."


This internal critique of the feminist movement effectively blacklisted her. This past July 2, she won the dubious honor of being featured in a Chronicle of Higher Education piece about "academic pariah" professors shunned because of their unorthodox views.



"In women's studies, there's very little respect or tolerance for divergence," she says. "There are people who tell me to go to hell or shut up because I am the enemy."



And so Ms. Patai, who is married, dedicates her book "To the men in my life . . . all of them as much sinned against as sinning, who made it impossible for me to abide grotesque caricatures of manhood, even when asserted by feminists."



She adds: "I've met a lot of nice men. There's no way one can agree with the general tenor of the comments made about men in feminist literature -- comments no one could make about blacks or Jews."




Were she to pinpoint the origin of the sexual-harassment "industry,"
it would be during the Senate confirmation hearings and the vote on
Clarence Thomas to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the
period of Oct. 1-15, 1991.



Those hearings, which gripped the nation for several days, were the trigger
of a movement that she says seeks to drive a wedge between women and men.



That, in turn, has led to heterophobia, which has worked itself out in a
hatred of marriage. She remembers one telling incident at a university she visited.



"One day, a member of the group announced she was going to be married," she writes. "There was an absolute dead silence in the room. Obviously as feminists, both lesbian and straight, we were far too sophisticated to shriek and gush happiness, and no one knew what response to make as an alternative.




"So stunned silence for far too long greeted her declaration. She did, incidentally, redeem herself by getting divorced a couple of years later. I have no doubt that if her news had been that she'd fallen in love with a woman and was about to move in with her, the reaction would have been quite different."



This "passionate rejection of men" is the one thing that unites feminists, a group normally splintered by lesser identities: white vs. black, straight vs. lesbian, Western vs. Third World.



Ms. Patai lists Ms. McKinnon, writer Andrea Dworkin and Boston College professor Mary Daly as the most notorious heterophobes because, she writes, "they manifest a pathological aversion to men."



For 25 years, Miss Daly refused to take in male students, a situation the college allowed to transpire until a male student threatened to sue them over it. In response, the college ousted the 70-year-old professor. Thus, "a political movement that holds half the human race in contempt . . . cannot seriously aspire to succeed in the long run," Ms. Patai writes.



What has succeeded are several court decisions that have codified sexual harassment. These include Meritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that established how a working environment may be hostile to women. A 1991 case, Elison vs. Brady, established a "reasonable woman" standard in sexual-harassment cases.



What became at issue was not the man's intent to offend or discriminate, but whatever a "reasonable woman" feels is discriminatory toward her.



"In sexual-harassment law, therefore, the 'authority of experience' has been given a place of honor," Ms. Patai writes. "Such a move should have caused feminists everywhere to rejoice, for a fundamental tool of feminist analysis --the concept of subjective experience -- was thereby elevated to law."



Two Supreme Court cases handed down last year have added to the mix. In Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton, Fla., employers were made liable for sexual misconduct of their employees, even if the employer knew nothing about it.



Then in Burlington Industries vs. Ellerth, the court declared that employers were not liable for on-the-job harassment if the employee had not pursued the right complaint policies.



What these rulings create, Ms. Patai says, is a paranoid atmosphere in the workplace. Employers find themselves prohibiting the most innocent words and deeds and employees, who might have ignored the occasional word or gesture, now feel bound to complain immediately at the slightest hint of harassment.



And the typical university campus is worse, she says, because it offers latter-day versions of the Grand Inquisition, where heretics were tortured for their disagreement with the prevailing mentality.



The result, she says, is not increased freedom for women; it's more the advent of Big Sister ruling over a 20th-century totalitarianism of thought.



"These institutions are trying to change the fabric of our social life," she says. "All this stuff is not treated as fringe ideas, but serious suggestions. I am amazed Americans are voluntarily throwing away precious freedoms in the name of comfort."

When the controversy around an article written by editor Michael Noer entitled "Don't Marry Career Women" erupted, Forbes created a special forum so that readers could comment on the piece. One reader made these comments:


JWatkins


I'm in my mid thirties, have a decent career (I'm a physician), I've got a great house. I enjoy the company of good friends. I enjoy travelling and do so extensively, this summer I've visited no less than three countries. I'm also free to pursue my hobbies, which include photography and literature. I don't have a perfect life, but it could be a lot worse.



Thanks to "women's" sexual liberation, I can enter relationships with as many girls as I want half my age and not be accountable for them if we grow apart, or if they become too clingy or demanding. I don't "use" women, but equally I don't allow myself to be used by them.



All humans seek companionship, but not to the extent that doing so would go against one's instincts. And right now, marriage goes against every single one of my instincts. Having read the article, forwarded to me by a divorced friend of mine, I found myself nodding in agreement to sections of it, but finding it's rhetoric to be tame and missing the point. The article highlighted a lot of the other of my concerns, especially with regards to the average male's health and quality of life after a marriage. There are a few specific points that really put me off from marriage, here are some of them.



First there is the blatantly anti-male divorce and welfare laws that effectively provide financial incentive to women who divorce.



A divorcing woman who "gave up" her career to "support" me, would be given a sizeable chunk of my salary, and quite possibly the martial home. The argument would be as she had grown accustomed to a high standard of life, and it somehow remains my obligation to support her, even if I am no longer married to her.



Then there's the attitudes many women have. In my career work more than 70 hours a week, often including tiresome night shifts. I dislike the notion that modern women seem to uphold that I ought to come home to do "my share of the housework".



There's also the anti-male child laws. Men have no say whatsoever in regards to the lives of their children, any say they do have is subject to the position the mother holds the father in. If she dislikes him, she can instigate abuse claims against him, call him a liar, a rapist and discredit his character. A man missing a single child support payment is an imprisonable offense, whereas a mother depriving a father his legal and natural right to spend time with his child in custody arrangements is seen as trivial. Punishing the mother is of course out of the question,



All in all, I'm quite sick of the anti-male hysteria that is generated by the media and by government bodies. I'm told that intercourse with a female under the influence of alcohol is rape, that all men are shallow, weak and clumsy individuals that lack character and backbone - just look at any recent hollywood flick. Male characters seem to be defined by their relationships to women, whereas female characters are portrayed as strong, independent characters.



Many here may feel myself and men like me will succumb to marriage regardless of the anti-male bias in society, but think again. Marriage is an institution that supports and serves women to a much greater degree it supports men. A quick browse of any magazine rack will confirm this, women's magazines are generally orientated towards marriage and relationships, where as men's magazines covering women are about pornography and sex.



Put simple, men are primarily motivated into marriage by sex, and women by relationship. Thanks to the feminist sexual liberation, men no longer need to seek marriage for sex, premartial sex and prostitution are no longer considered taboo.



Anyway, this is the way I live my life, and until I see a dramatic overhaul in the way both government and society views men, I wouldn't touch marriage with a bargepole. I just sincerely hope other men aren't fooled into this sham of an institution known as marriage and wise up until we see a shift in attitudes.



Three of my friends already have been unfortunte enough to marry, two are already divorced and the marriage of the third is already on the rocks. That in itself is enough to discourage me to marry.

More from Outcast Superstar:


Online Dating Rights (ODR) is a group of men and a few women who believe that a new federal law called IMBRA is unconstitutional, immoral, and misandrist (man-hating). IMBRA criminalizes American men (and women) who meet foreign women (and men) via the internet. The law requires a man to have a criminal background check, a sex offender check and an
intrusive report about intimate details of his life prepared and given to a foreign woman stranger (scammer?) BEFORE he can email or call her. This is the first time in US history criminal background checks have been required for two people to communicate.



IMBRA was developed over several years in secret by US Senator Maria Cantwell, D, WA, and Tahirih Justice Center, a radical feminist group whose sexist director claims that American men seeking to date or marry foreign women “are often sexual predators, rapists or even pedophiles…many are premeditated torturers.” The law was hidden behind another bill and passed in a 2005 Christmas rush. No hearings were held on this law, and no international dating companies or mens’ groups were allowed any input into its development.




Even though the purpose of the law as stated by Sen. Cantwell and Tahirih is to protect foreign women from abusive American men, statistics gathered by the INS in a 1999 study show that such relationships are far more successful than American-American relationships.




Other justifications for the law are based on misleading, deceptive and dishonest use of statistics and on personal opinions disguised as fact.



You can read the rest here..

More from M is for Malevolent:



In prior posts we have established (to most men's satisfaction, if not the courts) that Alimony is Slavery based on the Constitution of the United States, and that it was also involuntary and debt servitude based on the US Code, and we have discussed the fact that divorce hugely increases odds of male suicide, and linked that back to the hopelessness of the slavery and theft of ones children and assets that regularly occurs in divorce.



There are a variety of other ways in which the parallels with slavery are interesting.



First of all, apparently men don't have civil rights:


Jessica Weiler, assistant Michigan attorney general indicated that: "A claim of a debtor's prison punishment is not legitimate in a child support case." in a case where a man was claiming that he was being forced into debt-servitude.


You can read the rest of his post by going here..

The story from Swindon Advisor:



Man who drove car over cliff struggled w-child support



Cliff-roll man in child support struggle



A 41-year-old sales manager who rolled himself over the edge of a cliff was struggling to pay child support, an inquest has heard.



Michael Parsons, from Devizes, appeared to be sleeping on the cliff edge in Dorset when he was woken up by a walker closing a gate on a coastal path.



Police found two carrier bags on the cliff near Swanage with a third-full bottle of whisky and a packet of paracetamol tablets with four left.



They also discovered suicide notes in his Mercedes car parked nearby.



He then rolled over twice and fell more than 360ft without making a sound on the evening of July 30 (2006).