Topics

[PULLED OFF THE SHELF]

Yes, we can get the item pulled from the Bon's shelves. Read on to see how....


The manufacturer "David and Goliath" doesn't give a damn, and told me so pretty candidly.

They don't care that this shirt essentially tells people to commit violence against boys, and they told me they would "never" makea shirt that says to "throw rocks" at girls. What a shock, eh?

Now, these people are really starting to piss me off. I think it's damn offensive, and to be told that they "don't care" is really the limit. So, I think it's time to go up the food chain to where people will listen- the corporate offices of the Bon.

To their credit, the Bon was pretty responsive. You can call, write, or email the Bon to get the item PULLED OFF THE SHELF and returned UNSOLD to the manufacturer. And I think that's exactly what we should do. Since the manufacturer "David and Goliath" doesn't seem to give a damn, here's the contact info for the Bon. The lady I spoke with was very sympathetic and said that if people complained, the item would be pulled.

Phone: 206-506-6000

Address:

The Bon
1601 3rd Ave
Seattle WA 98181

Attn: Divisional Customer Office


Email: [email protected]

The very nice lady I spoke with said that every time someone calls, writes, or sends an email, they forward the complaint to the Divisional Customer Office for review. With enough complaints, they will pull this item.

Please, send a message to them and let them know that this kind of merchandise is NOT acceptable, and will not make you want to spend your hard-earned money at the Bon. The Bon is a reputable store, and I believe the Bon will do the right thing- but only if they hear from people.

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 206-506-6000

Postal address:

The Bon
1601 3rd Ave
Seattle WA 98181

Attn: Divisional Customer Office

[Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them]

Call these a**holes today, toll free: 877-633-2843 and tell them that you think this shirt is SICK. It's offensive and an incitement to violence against boys.

"Todd" is the ass that designed this shit. Cindy is the Sales Manager, and she is a total ass that see NOTHING wrong with the message this shirt send. You can talk to them at 877-633-2843.
From Glenn Sacks:

There's a controversy in Seattle over ads for a T-shirt sold by Bon-Macy's, a major department store in Washington state, which says "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" and has a picture of a little boy running away as several rocks come flying at him.

A spokesman for David and Goliath, the company that makes the shirt, told KOMO-TV in Seattle that they have sold millions of shirts with this message and that it's their best seller. KOMO-TV interviewed local 4th graders about the shirts and several little boys looked visibly shaken by them.

As the father of an 11 year-old boy you can imagine how this makes my blood boil. The company says that despite complaints they have no plans to change the message. What can you do?  I'm urging all His Side listeners to call and/or email both David and Goliath and Bon-Macy's and let them know how we feel about them insulting and demeaning our sons.

Below are both company's contact information, and a link to the KOMO-TV news story (video included). Please feel free to CC me on all letters to the companies.

Sincerely,
Glenn Sacks
 

David and Goliath, Inc.
Toll Free 877-633-2843
Email: [email protected]

DavidandGoliathtees.com
 Bon-Macy's
Toll Free 866-464-8787
To Send an Email, click here: http://www.fds.com/contact/bonmarche/service.asp

To Cancel Your Bon-Macy's Credit Card,
click here: https://www.bonmacys.com/service/credit/contactus/index.ognc


KOMO-TV: 'Does This T-Shirt Send The Right Message?'
http://www.komotv.com/news/story_m.asp?ID=28700

 

[The City of New York has actually proposed a bill in the city council that will require places of public accommodation (Translation: The Jackboots are going to come in at gunpoint and fine you or shut you down if you fail to kow-tow to them), which include privately owned establishments, to hold to no less than a 2-to-1 ratio of female to male bathrooms.]

Restroom Equity Bill??
Here Come the Potty Police!

December 10 2003
by Pete Jensen
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/j/jensen/03/jensen121003.htm

An old saying talks about things going from the sublime to the ridiculous.  Gents and Girls, I had thought I had seen it all.  I swear to God, after forty some years on the planet you think that life offers no more surprises, that you have plumbed the depths of human stupidity and something comes along to make you stand aghast.  Only a few short days ago, had someone said, "Pete, I have something here that will give you a spit-take" I would have laughed in their faces.

I stand corrected.  I confess to eye-bugging, jaw-dropping, pure and unadulterated astonishment.

The City of New York has actually proposed a bill in the city council that will require places of public accommodation (Translation:  The Jackboots are going to come in at gunpoint and fine you or shut you down if you fail to kow-tow to them), which include privately owned establishments, to hold to no less than a 2-to-1 ratio of female to male bathrooms.

I shit you not.  And, to draw the circle on the pun, it really pisses me off, and I hope Mayor Bloomburg washes his hands of the matter, and does everything he can to stall the passage of the oh-so-inaptly named "Restroom Equity Bill."

When I read this, I said to myself, "You have got to be kidding me."  I looked out my window.  Snow flurries.  Christmas tree in my living room.  Christmas cards on the wall. The calendar says "December." Why did it feel like April the 1st?  I sat dumbfounded back at my computer screen.  I am STILL nearly speechless.

Did I miss Letterman?  I mean, Jesus H, this is a satirist's wet dream.  This is manna from fricking heaven.  Or maybe he just couldn't stop writing the monologue.  You can't make this up, folks.  It has to be real – fantasy has to make sense.

I hardly know where to start.  Mike LaSalle only gives me so much frickin' room here....

What bonehead came up with this bullshit?  Let me guess – I bet is has a female name and she's a Liberal Democrat.  Anyone wanna take my bet and lay some pledges out while I look this up?  Hmmm ...  Yvette Clarke, Democrat.  Ya'll who bet against me are cordially invited to send my winnings to Mike here at Men's News Daily.

Let me crack my knuckles. I feel a rant coming on.  And you ladies who are thin of skin just need to click the back button right now.  It is not going to be pretty.

Let me get this straight.  Some prissy-assed, chowderheaded clown decides that since she fiddle-faddles around in the john, she and her sisters need double the restrooms of men?  Por Que?  To put lipstick on?  Run their battery-operated-boyfriends in the stalls?  Stand around and gossip?  Preen in the mirror?  I got news, I know of places that have three times the amount of restrooms for women as they do for men, and it still doesn't help.  Here's why.  Women fuck around in the bathroom.

That's it.  There's just no other words for it.  Look, I've dropped trou in a stall, done my business and wiped, and still been out in sooner time than my date, who just went in to squat and piddle.  There's no other reason.  You can't tell me that lifting a skirt and sliding a thong down is rocket science.  I've worn Kilts, and it's really not that God damn hard, so don't even give me that hogswallop about women's clothing being more complicated.  Fugginay, the skirt or dress is damn near a thing of the past, anyway.  And if I can navigate jeans, me, a poor benighted Neanderthal of a male, don't even try to tell me that the self-proclaimed epitome of human evolution, the female, can't.

Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick!  WTF?  Oh, and here's a real winner, I quote from Yvette:  "The bill is a win-win situation for men and women. Men won't have to stand there and hold all our packages while we are waiting in line for the bathroom."

Excuse me?  Since when did I become your cabana boy, woman?  Hold your own goddamn packages.  I don't notice anyone waiting on me hand and foot and holding my packages while I go take a leak.  It's called "Equality", luv.  You should try it some time.  Abe Lincoln freed the slaves a hundred and fifty years ago.  (And, just for the record, this most certainly is NOT an invitation for Miz Clarke to hold my package whilst I relieve myself.  Yech!  Talk about a grave-like chill.)

You know, this to me is proof positive that these morons in elective office are just doing things to do things.  We have what, rampant crime?  Murder, kidnappings, and they're going to put people to work counting TOILETS?  Cops writing tickets for it?  And these people get paid to think this crap up?  And, worse yet, we elect them to do this?  How in the name of all that is holy do these turnips ever get in office?  Now I know why I wouldn't make a good politician.  I'm not stupid enough.  Do you realize there are going to have to be public hearings over this?  Ye Gods and Little Fishies!  Billy Shakespeare himself couldn't find the words

You know why men get in and out of the john so quickly, girls?  We don't go in packs. We don't giggle about our dates.  We don't stand at the mirror exchanging make-up tips, or talking about who is boinking who.  We don't go in there to complain about women.

We go to the john to use the john.  We go to the stall, or the urinal, conduct our business, wash our hands, and leave.  This is why the flow in the men's room is smooth and orderly, because it is the one space in this whole world where we set the agenda, and we don't have to pass it around some committee of hens until they think they've finally reached a "consensus."  This is why the inventors, philosophers, scholars, engineers, and world leaders of note and reknown have been, virtually without exception, men.  And those women who have made it to those august ranks have been male-like in their approach to doing things, namely in a "just do it and get it done because it has to be done" approach to life and living.

And, predictably, guess who is going to wind up paying for this?  Yep.  Men.  It costs money to build a room.  If I want to rip out two urinals to put in a stool, that costs labor and materials.  That's money, but I'm sure Yvette Clarke doesn't worry about that.  It's her agenda that is important, pish-posh on trifles like cost.

This is the type of thing that makes people want to tar and feather feminists in specific, and makes men think of women as vain and shallow creatures who are good for one thing.  This isn't about parity, it isn't about equity, it isn't about fairness, and it isn't about courtesy.  It's about a bunch of sour old broads who can't even bring themselves to admit that women use the crapper for more than what it is designed for, and hence it takes them longer.  Rather than do this, somehow these twisted harpies have to make it the fault of men, and want to send in stormtroopers, armed with a government writ of arm-twisting, to get more stuff for women at the expense of men.

Affirmative action for the can.  I almost expect to see Alan Funt pop out of the closet any time now.

MAIL CALL!

First, I'm kind of amazed that after only a couple of columns here at Men's News Daily I'm getting the load of response back, overwhelmingly positive.  I'd wanted to respond personally to all the letters that roll in, but time prohibits.  Pete has to earn a living in addition to doing any writing here, so I apologize if I don't respond to you – but don't let that stop you from writing.  An appreciative audience is the world's best inspiration, and I thank you all.

Now, let's see  - Doug Lancaster from California writes:

Dear Mr. Jensen,

Thank you for your article "A Feminine Side?"  God, I wish I could write like you (and I have a Master's Degree in Foreign Literature).

Anyway, I love MND and your article brought a few moments of laughter in an otherwise bitter 6-year custody war. I could tell you a few things "the inner woman" can do which are destructive to children, but we all know they just want the ex-husband out and the money rolling in.

Personally, I think a lot of women have lost touch with their feminine side.

I'm going to remember about the exorcism.

Heh.  Doug, all I do is just get a good case of the ass going, and spit it out before it poisons me.  Gotta laugh, or you'll go mad.  And let's hope you never need the bell, book, and candle.

Well – I said "overwhelmingly positive."  Which means that some idiots do write me, such as "punkgrrrl" from Indianapolis, to wit, or to witless, as the case may be;

i dont see how it does anything for u to b so hateful and mean  theres nothing wrong with having a femine side and u shoudnt talk about it like it were a demin  ur not all that and if u were niccer u might get lade more

Thanks so much for your thoughts, punkgrrrl.  Are you a product of publik skule, or a victim of it?  And nice touch with the no caps or punctuation.  Tell me, are you being unique, just like all your friends?  Here's a bit of advice for you.  In order for shaming language to have any impact, first I have to give a big fat rat's hairy ass what some punk high school girl thinks.  But thanks for playing.


Pete Jensen ([email protected])

[Male contraceptive trial]

Male contraceptive trial
 
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh want to recruit a group of men to help try out a ground-breaking new contraceptive. The invention is a hormone implant which tricks the body into stopping the production of sperm.

The teams want three dozen male volunteers to use the new contraceptive in a year-long trial.

The implants last for 12 months, unlike insertions in previous trials which have had to be replaced every two or three months.

Healthy volunteers

They use a combination of hormones - testosterone and progestin implants - similar to the mix used in a recent successful Australian study.

Testosterone implants trick men's bodies into thinking their testes have made enough testosterone and switch off production of the hormone and sperm.

Progestin, which is found in men's bodies but only in very small amounts, acts as a sperm suppressant.

The scientists in Edinburgh are looking for healthy volunteers aged between 18 and 50.


Prevented pregnancies

The men must be able to travel to Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary once a month for the duration of the study, the experts said.

The methods used in the research will be similar to those used in an Australian study last month, which focused on 55 couples in Sydney.

The New South Wales scientists found that testosterone and progestin prevented pregnancies among all the couples over the 12-month period of the research.

Any volunteers interested in participating in the Scottish study can contact the Contraceptive Development Network at Edinburgh University on 0131 242 6360.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3236678.stm

Millions Seen Wasted on Prostate Tests
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 3, 2003


Washington - Millions of dollars are spent annually to monitor prostate health in men over 75 even though research shows little benefit in screening such men for prostate cancer, a study says.

"There is no evidence that screening men of this age would be beneficial to them, so this may not be the best use of health care resources," said Dr. Siu-Long Yao, a genital-urinary oncologist at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick, N.J. He is the senior author of the study appearing this week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

 
"If you take all elderly men who die and do an autopsy, 30 to 70 percent will have prostate cancer, but they died of something else," Yao said. "Diagnosing the prostate cancer may lead to unnecessary complications in elderly patients who are more likely to die of something else, such as cardiovascular disease."

Yao said the study, based on data extracted from the National Health Interview Survey, showed that men over 75 are more likely to get a PSA (prostate specific antigen) test than a fecal occult test, a screening test that detects symptoms of colon cancer.

Studies have shown that patients who get regular fecal occult tests tend to live longer than those who don't, he said, but there is no such evidence for a PSA test.

However, Dr. Richard G. Middleton, chairman of urology at the University of Utah Medical School and a contributor to the prostate cancer guidelines for the American Urological Association, said the study was "too simplistic." He said a PSA would be useful for a man with a history of prostate problems.

"I object to the idea that it was somehow bad form to order a PSA on an elderly patient," he said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hspros033568723dec03,0,7540010.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

A letter to the British Prime Minister
By fax 0207 925 0918

The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street, London
7 December 2003

Prime Minister

I have seen you quoted in the Times as saying that domestic violence is a crime that is more common than most people think. Can you please tell me:

1. Why you consider domestic violence to be a crime and your authority for such a proposition. Can you find anyone who has ever been convicted of such a "crime"? Please note I do not condone violence in any way shape or form any more than I condone loose terminology from barristers.

2. How common do you think domestic violence is?  What is your authority?

3. How common do you believe I think domestic violence is?

4. If you accept the politically correct figure of one in four women being subject to domestic violence as this is the figure used by many government departments, police forces, and local authorities, can you please give me your opinion of the effect on the operational efficiency of police forces of the Home Secretary's intention to effectively suspend at least one quarter of all serving male police officers?

5. In your Big Conversation film clip, it is suggested that there are more police now. Is there an intention to edit or film this again if the Home Secretary gets approval for his proposed measures?

6. You offer the young girl the chance to sit down and talk with you about her views and then go on to espouse the need for choices and a future fair to all. In this matter of domestic violence 50% of the population are constantly being ignored in all consultations. When do you intend to allow men to sit and discuss the matter with you so that there is at least balance in the argument and not mere propaganda.

7. The importance of getting the issue of domestic violence sorted is quite simple. Increasingly, resident parents or their solicitors are making false allegations of domestic abuse and some even go so far as alleging sexual abuse of a child by the non resident parent in an attempt to defeat orders for contact. This is causing the breakdown in contact between child and one parent. That in turn creates problems in government by way of truancy, anti-social behaviour, low academic achievement levels, and untold psychological damage. It is interesting to note that whilst the Home Secretary's proposals create a strict criminal liability for breaching orders that are often gained ex parte and without evidence, he is not proposing similar measures for the breach of contact orders.

You have stated that it is time for grown up discussion. There are many able and well qualified men who could help you achieve gender neutral policies in this area. All it requires is a Big Conversation on your government's part and that is a conversation that includes listening as well as talking on the Government's part.

The scale of the problem is highlighted by a circular sent to a friend by the National Children's Homes. He has been a significant contributor over the years but ceased all present and future donations when he saw a picture depicting an upset child speaking the words "If  I could change one thing, I would stop Daddy hitting Mommy".

A United Kingdom? No, a divided kingdom caused in part by those who ten years ago stated that they only had women's rights at heart, but who have now cloaked themselves in some correctness by a subtle change to include support of children as a means of furthering their primary aim and gaining the Government's ear in order to receive significant funding.

Yours faithfully

John Humphries

Madison Men's Organization
2001 E Dayton St., Madison, WI 53704, (608) 249-5576

Why white men are voting Republican
It's about far more than the economy
by James Novak

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White men passed all the civil rights laws in this country. White men passed all the laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. White men passed all the public accommodation laws and all the affirmative action laws. White men passed the clean water act and the clean air act. White men have passed every piece of progressive legislation this year, last year, this decade, last decade, this century, last century and the century before. White male dominated Supreme Courts have upheld these laws and often expanded them.

It was millions of white men's bodies that broke the yoke of slavery in this country during the civil war, and it was many more millions of men's bodies that dismantled Hitler's hold on much of the world. And between, it has been white men who have made most of the world's greatest inventions and products that have liberated all people from merely survival from one generation to another to having high levels of leisure for the development of culture and spirituality. White men have ever reason to be proud of their accomplishments in the uplifting of the human race.

I have developed a list of why white men voted Republican in the 1994 election and will probably vote again that way for some elections to come, but only in greater numbers. White men will be joined by many minority men because the issues that have made white men angry are the same issues that affect minority men in a similar if not the same way.

Men's Anger List
[ol]
[li]Feminist women want equality in the military, but will not lobby for women as a matter of civic duty to be obligated to sign uo for the draft or be required to fulfill their obligation of combat duty.

[li]After Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis while he was sleeping and then threw it out the window of her car, many women laughed and made jokes about this mutilating act. They wouldn't have laughed if John Wayne Bobbitt had cut off her breast and thrown it out the window.

[li]Lorena Bobbitt was out of treatment in 45 days after being found guilty. How would John Bobbitt have been treated if he had been found guilty of cutting off Lorena's breast?

[li]Hallmark has a series of greeting cards that say, "Men are Scum." Women would be outraged by, "Women are Bitches" cards.

[li]Capital punishment is a punishment for men. Only one woman has been executed in the past 25 years even though women commit (this does not mean their kill rate, only their conviction rate) 14 percent of the murders in America, but are 1/50th less likely to be executed.

[li]The Dane County Advocate for Battered Women take public money, but will not respond or help battered men. Dane County's District Attorney will not bring charges against them for practicing discrimination.

[li]In 1994, five men called me because they were battered by their wives. Three explained that they did not hit back or even defend themselves. They called the police and on arrival the men were arrested.

[li]One battered man who called Family Services for help was advised to join a group of men who were batterers.

[li]The Wisconsin State Journal mocked James Luscher and Hames Novak as "near candidates for the loony crowd" for filing a discrimination suit holding that giving free drinks to women on ladies night was illegal. The newspaper refused to apologize upon request. After the Court of Appeals upheld Novak and Luscher, the newspaper was silent, but did not editorialize that the Court of Appeals' judges were candidates for the loony crowd.

[li]The U.S. Forest Service rather than hiring qualified white males for numerous positions, decided to drop their advertisements and hire no one.

[li]Playboy murderer Benbemick, with the help of a boyfriend, broke out of a Wisconsin prison and fled to Canada. The boyfriend was promptly extradited, convicted and imprisoned. Benbemick fought extradition, finally came back to Wisconsin, and was released. The boyfriend remains in jail.

[li]Salesman X who works for a Fortune 100 company was assigned to teach a young woman sales. Salesman X never stopped for lunch and followed the same routine that day. Salesman X also spoke about the group of sales people who meet at a bar after their weekly sales meeting. Salesman X was inviting the young recruit into the old boys network. The young woman filed a sexual discrimination suit claiming that she was one month pregnant and that Salesman X's invitation to have drinks with the old boys network was sexual harassment. Salesman X was suspended for 3 days and told he would be fired if any other sexual harassment claim was made against him.

[li]Engineer X asked a secretary (not his) out for lunch. She gratefully accepted and the lunch was congenial. Engineer X asked her out for dinner and she told him she was not interested in developing the relationship. All was fine, except she filed a sexual harassment claim against Engineer X claiming she was "uncomfortable" working with him. Engineer X's boss found the whole topic of sexual harassment too hot to deal with; his boss banned Engineer X to using the back stairs of the building so that Engineer X would not pass the secretary's desk.

[li]Manager J asked Employee C, who was a student, what she was studying at the University. She explained that her major was Women's Studies. Manager J followed up by asking what jobs were available for women with a degree in Women's Studies. That afternoon Employee C filed a sexual harassment complaint with the employer stating that Manager J was denigrating her area of studies. Employee C continued for 2 years to harass the employer into a money settlement.

[li]Men are 50 percent of parents, do about 40 percent of domestic work, but upon divorce receive physical placement only about 10 percent of the time.

[li]The United States has set up a huge bureaucratic apparatus to collect child support for custodial parents; nothing is spent to enforce fathers' rights to parent their children.

[li]Judges do not even enforce their own court orders regarding fathers' parenting time with their children.

[li]Fathers despise being considered an outsider or visitor to their children by the courts.

[li]Fathers recognize the term "dead beat dads" as bigotry. The percentage of men who pay child support is six times higher than the percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support. Moreover, most men pay child support and those who do not are mostly unemployed, poor, or denied access to their children.

[li]Women vigorously claim that there is little attention paid to their health care. Yet cancer of the breast research receives 6 times more dollar subsidy than cancer of the prostate even though the rates of cancer are similar.

[li]A man accused of sexual harassment or assault is "guilty until he proves he is innocent" instead of "innocent until proven guilty."

[li]About 3/4 of all charges of sexual abuse to children are known to be and are found to be false. Judges follow a safe path in all accusations by denying a father access to his children. After innocence as been established those same judges use the fathers absence and the children's accommodation to a life without a father as reason for awarding a mother primary physical placement.

[li]Even though statistics and studies show that more than 50 percent of accusations of sexual assault are false, district attorneys will not bring charges against the lying party even though it is a felony.

[li]Men receive 58 percent longer prison sentences for conviction of the same crime.

[li]Paternity fathers are denied the right to physical placement by statute in the state of Wisconsin.

[li]In Bosnia the young women are allowed to leave towns for fear they will be raped. The young men left behind are killed afterwards. The American media are outraged by young who are threatened by rape.

[li]"Women and children first!" Do men's lives not have the same intrinsic value?

[li]Men are first and normally only when it comes to being killed by terrorists or beaten by police.

[li]If women make only 75 cents on the male dollar (which is debatable), then men pay 125 percent of the funding of social security. How is it justice in taxation that men only receive 33 percent of Social Security benefits?

[li]How can it be said that women's health care is neglected when they are the primary users of the health care system and men live on average 7.5 years less than women?

[li]Why is it that even though the city of Madison in Wisconsin has one of the strongest affirmative action programs in America, women will not take good paying jobs with a huge benefit packages as garbage collectors?

[li]Why is it that only about 14 percent of grade school teachers are men and yet this is not an affirmative action issue even though young people are desperately in need for male role models?

[li]Why is it when 10 men die and one woman is injured at a construction site, the newspaper headline will likely read, "Ten Workers Die, Woman Injured"?

[li]Men are disgusted when presented as buffoons on almost every television advertisement related to the home or children?

[li]Men are even more disgusted with all the television comedies in which the audience laughs when men are hit in the balls deliberately by women or other men? What reaction would take place if this same programmed laughing were associated with women being slapped in the breasts?

[li]Much is made of the Korean comfort women during the Japanese occupation; what about the hundreds of thousands of men who survived or died in labor camps or who were simply executed?

[li]If Rodney King had been Roberta King, and beaten as he was, the police officers would have received life in prison. Men are the routine targets of police violence.

[li]Why is rape known about, acceptable, and used as a means of prison control in male prisons, but toleration of it would be abhorrent in female prisons?

[li]Why is it that it is discrimination to charge men lower rates for health insurance in HMO's, but acceptable to charge men higher rates for car and life insurance?

[li]Using a victim-defense for premeditated murder outrages any person with a sense of fairness or civility?

[li]Excusing a woman from crime on the basis of a post partum or PMS defense is defended by pop feminists. Men are told by these same pop feminists that women are just as solid in their judgments to hold high office of a sensitive nature.

[li]Men get tired of listening to women rant and rave about how few women are in political office when so few take the initiative to fun for office and of those who run for office, they have little agenda to offer demonstrating that they care to represent all the people of their district, including men and women.

[li]Women to man: "Your income is family income; my income is mine."

[li]Most men are enraged at being called oppressors and patriarchs. In a society with economic classes where 5 percent of men and women have 50 percent o the wealth, 95 percent of men struggle each day to make a living and are hardly powerful, rich or patriarchs. In fact, the vast majority of white men are not empowered.

[li]Men do not have procreative rights in the United States. They have no choice.

[li]If a man wants a woman to have an abortion and she chooses to have a child, he is enslaved to pay child support for 18 years.

[li]If a man wants a child and the woman aborts the child, he grieves and no one even recognizes his grief as legitimate.

[li]If two young people, both of whom are unskilled and unprepared to be a parent, have a child and the mother applies for welfare, she will be given a welfare check, healthcare, child care, a free education, and food stamps. The young man will be declared a deadbeat dad and imprisoned.

[li]Young men's suicide rate is astronomical and society does not care.

[li]Men at retirement are seven times more likely to commit suicide than women, and nobody cares.

[li]Seventy-five percent of the homeless are men. Ninety-nine percent of the press coverage reads, "Homeless women and children."

[li]Rep. Patricia Schoreder speaks about the brave men and women who fought America's wars. The number of women killed in all of America's wars from an accounting point of view is statistically insignificant.

[li]Every blue collar "most dangerous" job ranks as a category numerically dominated by men. All but one of the white collar "most dangerous jobs" are also numerically dominated by men. Why are dangerous jobs men's jobs and why are men denied extra compensation for doing America's dangerous work where they are disabled and killed at a 19 to 1 ratio to women?

[li]How can marriage be an economic contract when divorce is no fault? Who created the nonsense that a woman can own a man's career in a marriage of moderate duration (10 years in Wisconsin)?

[li]Judges routinely deny parenting time to fathers, and then want to increase child support so that a mother can afford more child care.

[li]The Violence Against Women Act was written and passed with full knowledge that men are the victims of 80 percent of all violence in America.

[li]White men often pay for three families of children: 1. Child support for their first marriage; 2. AFDC children via taxation; 3. Children from their current family.

[li]No baby changing support apparatuses in public men's washrooms.

[li]Men resent being told that the Christian religion is Patriarchal when women represent two thirds of its customers.

[li]Men recognize the inconsistency in being told that God is Patriarchal when women are two thirds of its customers.

[li]Men recognize the inconsistency in being told that God is a she, but with no mention that the devil is also a she.

[li]In Wisconsin a woman who is drunk cannot give sexual consent even if she is not passed out. The next morning, she can charge her lover with rape. However, the same consideration is not given to her lover who also was intoxicated.

[li]Women want to be equal, still they expect men to continue to take the sexual initiative. If they are pleased by the overtures of a man, they are delighted. If they are not pleased because he may be the wrong man or because of his style of responding to general flirtation, they accuse him of sexual harassment.

[li]Men resent that the district attorney in Dane County seems to prosecute almost every case of sexual accusation and domestic violence without intellectually discriminating.

[li]Men resent that women and minorities are "affirmative actioned" into jobs, promotions, and graduate and professional school openings even when they are less competent than white men who are applying for the same positions.

[li]Men resent that those same classes are often excused for their failure to perform adequately in their new "affirmative actioned" positions.

[li]Men further resent the same classes above calling white males "racists," "sexists," or some other kind of "ists" for pointing out that white men are smart enough to recognize that a person without adequate skills or experience has failed.

[li]Men know that every man is not a rapist. Even women know that only a very few men are rapists, yet only a few decent women are standing up to the absurd antimale generalizations of radical feminists.

[li]Men are angry when women continue to deny that women are sexually powerful and that they have power through the control of men's access to sex.

[li]American feminists are reprehensible for their outrage at the use of clitorectomies in Africa while circumcising their sons. Only America is near universal in the sexual mutilation of male infants.

[li]Bar Owner Z has a swinging place where young men and women meet. Bar Owner Z has two ID checkers at all times. Sixteen year old Lolita obtains an almost perfect, near impossible to detect fake ID and gains entrance. Sixteen year old Lolita seduces Bar Owner Z and by evening's end, he takes her home for the night. Lolita's parents come to know the truth of her deceits. They call the district attorney and Bar Owner Z is charged and convicted. Bar Owner Z pays a fine, has his business closed for one week, and spends a month in jail. Nothing happens to Lolita.
[/ol]

Conclusion
White males learn sports at a young age. Sports have highly defined, specific rules. From this experience males learn at a young age to be Just and Fair. It is not unusual to listen to young boys quoting the rules to one another when there is a dispute, and invoking a concept of fairness flowing from those rules.

Sports have prepared males for the responsibility of power decisions in politics and business. When men come into the double standard world of those women who are not Just and Fair in their positions of power, they react. Their reactions are not anxiety but anger with those who do not play by Fair and Just rules.

White males are angry by indiscriminate and subjective judgments not based on identifiable rules but the whim of the female players. White males are expressing their anger, and expressing it in a socially acceptable way. They overwhelmingly voted for traditional and mostly white male Republicans in 1994. I expect that they will vote in even higher percentages for traditional white male Republicans in 1996.

If my predictions are even close to correct, Ellen Goodman and lots of strident feminists should be feeling "anxiety." But they need not get too anxious. White males wrote and passed every significant piece of civil rights and progressive legislation in America.

http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/votemale/novak.html

A Feminine Side?

December 6, 2003
by Pete Jensen

You know, I have heard, just one too many times, how I need to "get in touch with my female side." Happened one day when a discussion of metrosexuals came up. Pressed for my take, I opined that becoming a girly-man was near the bottom of my list of things to do in my life, barely above "Being Viciously Sodomized by a Convicted Serial Killer."

There was a moment of shocked silence, and then a barrage of the usual accusatory questions. No, I don't have more than one type of Shampoo, ma'am, just Denorex. One type of soap, thank you very much. No, I don't even own a blow dryer. Do I have a nail file? Nail files are for sissies. Hell, half the time I use Listerine for after-shave.

Towards the end of the inquisition, some hag looked at me, and in that smug, snotty, and superior tone of voice women use (And guys, ya'll know EXACTLY which one I mean) sneered, "Pete, you just need to get in touch with your inner woman."

I look at her a moment, and then said, "You know, if I even suspected I had an inner woman, I'd go straight to a priest for a goddam exorcism." Let me tell you, you could have heard a pin drop. Had I stood up and crapped on the table, I could not have received a more stunned moment of quiet. As I left, the jaw-dropping looks I received were heart-warming. Dare to get in the face of political correctness, and flip it the bird, and most people don't know how to react.

Of all the suggestions in the world, this is one that goes in the list of "Top Ten Things That Make Pete Want to Vomit." It's a coin toss to see if "Drinking My Own Urine" beats it out. Suggest, if you will, than some woman get in touch with her "Inner Man" and see for yourself if you don't get some snide comment about being an inconsiderate slob in return. This is just yet one more intrusion of the "woman good, man bad" mentality that has poisoned this society. Let me, however, say that having an "Inner Woman" would be like being host to an alien parasite, and I'm a misogynist.

To be truly egalitarian, any woman who says they have a male side would be wise to not hold their breath in anticipation of my shoes resting under their bed o' nights. If I wanted to sleep with a man, I'd become gay. Masculine women, and feminine men, in my book, are some of the truly most useless things on the planet, and I think anytime one of them dies, and ceases to use up valuable oxygen, that their death should be recorded under "Public Improvements."

Come on. Why in hell would I want to get in touch "with a feminine side" and be like a woman? How about you be more like a man, honey? Learn to check if the toilet seat is up or down before you try to use it – or is that too mechanical? Instead of the oft' bragged "multitasking" how about exercising a little concentration and focus to execute a task excellently and right the first time? Maybe you could decide how you feel about something before you go around bending the ear of everyone in sight to get validation and approval, hmm?

Feminine side my tuchis. I'll be willing to bet some feminist schnauzer or one of their fem-boy fembots is going to write me a nastygram about how I "need" to stop using such intemperate phrases as the paragraph above. Here's a clue, cheeseball, before you even click that link: I've heard ten times as bad coming out of any given gaggle of hens, and I can walk into any Hallmark shop in the country and find such blatant misandry that if someone were to put out the same garbage except for replacing "man" with "black" they'd be up on charges for hate-speech. I am temperate compared to that crap.

This whole androgyny thing is vile, know what I mean? It's like we're striving to make everyone a hermaphrodite or something. Or at least everything male. A big part of it, to be sure, reflects "Politically Correct Thinking." Politically correct thinking (Hey, I may have to issue a glossary some day!) is that which is demonstrably false through empiric demonstration, but since it serves someone's political agenda it is allowed to be uttered, forced to be accepted, and questioning or examining it is the social equivalent of heresy. It's politically correct dogma that, except for a few external characteristics, men and women are equivalent, and fungible.

Even writing that made my eyes roll so far back my head hurts now. Any schmuck with an ounce of reason can see that men and women are not alike, that they are physically and psychologically dimorphic. Ever seen that movie (And it doesn't matter, the damn scene has been used so much it oughta be stock footage by now) where the woman shoots the intruder, and steps back, her hand going over her mouth, to stifle a sob? The gun drops from her nerveless fingers as she runs weeping for the phone (to call a man, no doubt) for help, then ... well, then said intruder wasn't dead so he has to be killed again.

Know why this scene is never done with a man? It's because about the time the woman drops the gun and dashes for the phone, a man in that position would be slamming his second clip into place. The times I have seen this and muttered, "No, you dumb bitch, at least put a second round into the rat bastard!" is legion. We don't have a scene like this with a man because it would be unbelievable (Well, maybe if we put some left-wing Nancy-boy in there). And we don't have the woman putting a few more bullets in to make sure they guy is dead because it is equally unbelievable. Why is it unbelievable? Because, my dear Watson, men and women are different.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with that at all. I've been saying for years that the Men's Movement has to take step one, namely, defining masculinity for ourselves. Go ahead and love your wives, your girlfriends, your daughters, mothers, and sisters; the fact remains that not a blessed one of them knows diddley or squat about being a man. Why the hell we allow any woman to complete a sentence that begins with "If you were a real man..." Bugger off, sister. I don't work your side of the street, so stay off of mine. You don't know jack about being a real man. And I have zero interest in defining "real womanhood." It's not my job to manage someone else's life, and make it work for them.

I don't want a masculine woman. And time and again it has been shown that despite the coming and going fads for sissies (SNAGs, Metrosexuals, et al) trumpeted in rags like Cosmo, when all is said and done women prefer unfeminized men. We have no problem with women who express distaste for masculine characteristics. And it is well and proper that they reject them, as most women would make ridiculous men. Somehow, though, to reject a "feminine side" is shocking when expressed by a man.

Give me a friggin' break, will ya?

The only possible use I could see for a feminine side would be if it sported it's own set of hooters. Hell, I might never leave the house then. Inner woman? I'll pass, in a big way. If you want one, be my guest. Don't be surprised, though, if I greet you with garlic and a crucifix.


Pete Jensen
[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Jensen is a Computer Engineer and Curmudgeon who lives in the wilds of Southern Indiana. He enjoys satirizing political correctness, and mocking its advocates. If you'd care to write him and talk reasonably he welcomes it. If you'd care to write him and froth at the mouth ideologically, he welcomes that too. You'll be grist for the mill, and know in advance he doesn't regard any such diatribes as privileged communication. That's right, you too can wind up lampooned by his searing wit and insightful barbs in front of millions on the internet."

SCO, MPAA, RIAA jointly sue entire world

Saturday December 06, 2003 - [ 02:15 PM GMT ]      
By: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller

Washington DC and Lindon Utah -- During a fictitious teleconference yesterday, three of America's most active intellectual property litigators announced that they have decided to pool their efforts and jointly file what they're calling "a reverse class action suit against every human being on the entire planet."

The name of the new group formed by SCO, MPAA, and RIAA is ORAMITY, which stands for "Our Rights Are More Important Than Yours."

"We have not ruled out legal action against beings on other planets who may be illegally copying radio or TV transmissions they pick up from their spacecraft or with super-powerful receivers on their home worlds," said ORAMITY spokesperson Hilary McBralenti, "but for now we are confining ourselves to inhabitants of Earth."

According to ORAMITY's Web site, which has now apparently been removed from the Internet since we can't find a URL for it, "Every living human has derived benefit from Linux in one way or another, and since American movies and music are available everywhere in one form or another, all residents of all countries have either viewed or heard them or have illegally used copyrighted phrases taken from movie dialog or song lyrics."

Two of the most popular copyrighted phrases used in everyday speech, according to McBralenti, are "I'll be back" and "Don't worry, be happy."

"The royalties owed on these two statements alone are higher than the entire Gross National Product of Jamaica," noted McBralenti.

A reporter pointed out that "Don't worry, be happy" may be the title of a popular song used in a movie, but the statement was first attributed to mystic Meher Baba, who had nothing to do with either the record or movie business. "Copyright is copyright," McBralenti said. "We paid for that copyright and the politicians who make copyright laws, so our members own it, just as they own 'Happy Birthday.'"

The amount sought by ORAMITY is $63 billion, which is approximately $10 from every living person.

"We feel this is absolutely fair, even a bargain," McBralenti said. "Everyone in the world has benefited in some way from information distributed on the Internet by servers running Linux. That alone justifies our modest financial demand. Add in the pleasure that movies and recorded music have given to us all, not to mention people who sing or act out our members' copyrighted material for their own enjoyment and the millions who run Linux on their home computers without paying for it, and you will surely agree that we could ask 10 times as much and it would still be a reasonable price."

A court date has not yet been determined, nor has ORAMITY decided where the lawsuit will be filed. "We're looking for a country where the legal system and legislature is, shall we say, eager to please major political campaign donors. Our members are certainly that, especially when our interests are at stake."

While McBralenti declined to name specific countries, sources close to the matter said top candidates included Bangladesh and Nigeria, reputedly the world's two most corrupt countries, but that the United States, where SCO, MPAA, and RIAA are all headquartered, may offer an even better political climate for this kind of legal action.

[The changes have had little effect on the numbers of impoverished fathers who have custody of their children. In 2001, 14.7 percent of such fathers, or about 307,000 men, lived in poverty, up from 10.4 percent, or roughly 216,000 men in 1997.]

Poverty down for mothers with custody of kids, unchanged for fathers
 
By Genaro C. Armas
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:11 p.m. December 2, 2003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20031202-1411-mothers-poverty.html


WASHINGTON – The number of mothers with custody of their children and living in poverty fell by almost a third between 1993 and 2001, the Census Bureau said in a report Tuesday.

Roughly 25 percent of all mothers with custody – about 2.8 million women – lived in poverty in 2001, down from nearly 37 percent, or 4.2 million women, eight years earlier.

Experts cite changes implemented in the welfare overhaul of 1996 as the main reason for the decrease, as states cracked down on deadbeat fathers while nudging single mothers off public assistance rolls and into jobs.

More than 45 percent of women due child support in 2001 received the full amount they were owed, about the same proportion as two years earlier.

"That's good news that collections have remained steady" during a period that included the recession of 2001, said Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, a Fredricksburg, Va.-based group.

But the study still doesn't offer the most up-to-date look of the status of such families since unemployment continued to rise last year. Jensen said most of those laid off were single mothers just off welfare who fell victim to the "last hired, first fired" philosophy.

The changes have had little effect on the numbers of impoverished fathers who have custody of their children. In 2001, 14.7 percent of such fathers, or about 307,000 men, lived in poverty, up from 10.4 percent, or roughly 216,000 men in 1997.

The bureau doesn't consider the change statistically significant.

The rate is relatively unchanged from 1993, when 14.9 percent of fathers with custody lived in poverty.

The report showed that mothers with custody of children and due support payments on average were owed $5,138 a year, about $900 more than for fathers with custody.

Jensen said that in general, fathers with custody may be less willing to seek public assistance or see that child support arrangements are enforced.

"There's great deal of reluctancy to do that because of the perception that it's not manly to seek assistance," he said.

Jesus Alaniz, 46, of Laredo, Texas, said he is frustrated by the treatment he gets at social service offices, even though he's had a child support case since 1989. Alaniz, who has since remarried, was awarded custody and child support for two children, now ages 23 and 18.

"When I walk in, they automatically see a stereotype of a deadbeat dad," said Alaniz, who runs an educational and outreach group for parents seeking child support agreements.

The census report was based on a spring 2002 survey, although questions were asked about income and poverty levels in the previous calendar year.

It found an estimated 13.4 million parents with custody of 21.5 million children younger than age 21. About 5 of every 6 parents with custody were women, a proportion unchanged since 1994.

The percentage of parents with custody who hold full-time, year-round jobs has grown from 46 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in 2001. But participation in a public assistance program has declined from 41 percent to 28 percent.

Congress is discussing improvements to child support regulations as it considers reauthorizing welfare laws. Jensen said improvements should be focused on beefing up enforcement of agreements across state lines.

[Among the RIAA's recent targets is retiree Ernest Brenot, 79, of Ridgefield, Wash., who wrote in a handwritten note to a federal judge that he does not own a computer nor can he operate one. Brenot was accused of illegally offering for download 774 songs by artists including Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.]

Wow, now they're evenfiling lawsuits against people who don't have computers, like this 79-year old guy who doesn't even have a computer. Way to go, RIAA? Keep acting like idiots until you completely alienate everyone. What dolts.

Music Industry Targets Even Computer-Less

Wed Dec 3, 6:15 PM ET  Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!
By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON - The recording industry has filed 41 more lawsuits against computer users in at least 11 states it said were caught illegally distributing songs over the Internet, continuing its aggressive campaign against online music piracy.

The latest copyright suits this week bring to 382 filed since the Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) announced its legal campaign nearly six months ago.

The group's president, Cary Sherman, said the group has no plans to cut back, even as media coverage over the continuing lawsuits wanes.

"People who engage in illegal file-sharing should be aware, whether or not they hear about it this month, that doesn't mean the enforcement program has been reduced in any way," Sherman said. "If anything it will be increased."


The recording industry is monitoring popular Internet services where computer users can download song files, searching for people illegally distributing the largest music collections. Court-issued subpoenas compel Internet providers to identify their customers linked to the online accounts used to download songs.

Among the RIAA's recent targets is retiree Ernest Brenot, 79, of Ridgefield, Wash., who wrote in a handwritten note to a federal judge that he does not own a computer nor can he operate one.

Brenot was accused of illegally offering for download 774 songs by artists including Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.

Hey, I know a LOT of 79-year olds who just love Vanilla Ice! ....Brent

Brenot's wife, Dorothy, said she and her husband were stunned by the claims, offended at the suggestion they listened to such music. Brenot was targeted in the previous round of 80 suits the recording organization filed late in October.

Brenot and her husband said their son-in-law briefly added Internet service to their own cable television account while living with the couple because Comcast Cable Communications Inc. said it would add a surcharge to send separate bills to the same mailing address.

"There's a mistake in this case," Dorothy Brenot said. "We're innocent in all of this, but I don't know how we're going to prove it."

The 41 most recent suits were filed against Internet users in Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois and Washington.

The recording industry also said Wednesday that it has reached financial settlements against at least 220 computer users. Defense lawyers familiar with some of the cases have said penalties ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 each.

And they say kids don't earn anything important in college! Almost makes me wish I'd gone to NYU, their curriculum sounds so....stimulating.

Keep the Sex R-Rated, N.Y.U. Tells Film Students
By DANIEL J. WAKIN

Published: December 4, 2003

In October, a film student at New York University pitched an idea for her video-making class: a four-minute portrayal of the contrast between unbridled human lust and banal everyday behavior.

Her professor approved. The student, Paula Carmicino, found two actor friends willing to have sex on camera in front of the class. The other students expressed their support. But then the professor thought he should double-check with the administration, which immediately pulled the plug on the project.

What's more, university officials said they would issue a written policy requiring student films and videos to follow the ratings guidelines of the Motion Picture Association of America, with nothing racier than R-rated fare allowed, according to Ms. Carmicino and her professor, Carlos de Jesus. The association says R-rated films may include "nudity within sensual scenes."

The matter has raised a mini-tempest on campus. Yesterday, the school newspaper, The Washington Square News, published a front-page article about it, as well as an editorial critical of the administration.

Ms. Carmicino and Professor de Jesus say the issue raises far-reaching questions of censorship and academic and artistic freedom. "This is where you unfold as a creative artist," Ms. Carmicino, 21, said. "You need people to bounce your ideas off of, or else you won't evolve as an artist." Ms. Carmicino is a junior in the film and television department at the university's Tisch School of the Arts.

The department head and deans involved in the decision did not respond to telephone messages yesterday, and a spokesman for the Tisch School, Richard Pierce, said they would not be available to comment. He said he doubted the matter had reached the university president, John Sexton.

Mr. Pierce said the school had long had an unwritten policy that student films should follow industry standards and was now considering putting that policy in writing. defending the university, he said N.Y.U. was considered very broad-minded on questions of artistic freedom, but had to draw the line at videotaping real sex before a class of students. He compared that to a filmmaker committing arson for a movie about firefighters.

"Someone give me a list of universities that allow sex acts in the classroom," Mr. Pierce said. "We're not going to be the first."

He also praised Ms. Carmicino as a "serious and valued" student. "The history of art is replete with examples of artists producing great art under limitations," he said.

Christopher Dunn, an associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said there was no First Amendment issue involved because the university is a private institution. But, he said, the decision ran counter to the tradition of academic freedom. "Students should be able to make films, write books or compose paintings without their university acting as a moral censor," he said.

Professor de Jesus said he supported the film from the start. "It did have redeeming values, and it was fine with me, especially having seen her previous work. She's a young woman with lots of integrity." But when he checked with the administration, he said, "All I kept hearing was, `No, no, no, she can't do this.' " Ms. Carmicino said that she then withdrew the idea to avoid putting her professor on the spot.

In Ms. Carmicino's view, the university was censoring a work about how people censor their own behavior. She said her video, titled "Animal," was supposed to depict the contrast between public and private behavior: "The whole concept of it was to compare the normal behavior of people in their everyday lives versus the animalistic behavior that comes out when they are having sex."

She planned to intersperse 30-second clips of passionate sex with scenes of the couple engaged in more mundane activities, like watching television and reading a newspaper.

Simulating the sex would have defeated her purpose, she said. "That's censoring the sex part. My thing is how we censor ourselves during the day when we're not having sex."

LOL:

The Random Kitten Generator
http://www.stupidstuff.org/kitten/

Fathers Not Guilty of Child Abuse

December 3, 2003
by Roger F. Gay


We've known about it for many years. Even before the old media began debating racial profiling, fathers were under attack. No matter what ailment families and society suffered, from divorce and out-of-wedlock births, to government over-spending and poverty, it was fathers and "patriarchy" that were to blame.

Not only that, but with seemingly super-human skill, clever men could commit crimes against women, psychologically manipulate their victims, and avoid prosecution through reliance on a vast male conspiracy. "All men are evil and all women are victims." Through much of the last quarter century, such bizarre social politics gave way to the surrealism of legal reforms aimed at dealing with "the problem."

Probably the most degrading accusation that can be made against a father is the abuse of his own children. It's an odd experience going through the statistics and comparing them with much of the late 20th century propaganda. The relatively high percentages of child abuse by fathers often reported could only be true if a very loose definition of "father" is used; one in which any man in any kind of relationship with the mother is labeled the father. Biological fathers (i.e. real, actual fathers) accounted for an insignificant percent; smaller it turns out than the rate of error in convictions.

Prejudice creates self-fulfilling prophecy. This fact about anti-father propaganda was discovered in a relatively small Norwegian town recently when more than 20 fathers had child abuse convictions overturned, many of them years after their sentences had been completed.

Many of the fathers had been convicted primarily on the testimony of doctors who determined from medical examinations that their children had been sexually assaulted. Review of the cases in light of modern medical knowledge revealed that the conclusions were wrong. Not only were the fathers not guilty, they were convicted in the absence of any real evidence that abuse had occurred.

Attorney and retired judge Trygve Lange-Nielsen called the cases the greatest fraud against the justice system since the witch trials of the 1600s. But this is only the tip of a great ice-burg in an international culture that sports "repressed memory" syndrome, makes arbitrary paternity assignments, and jails fathers because they are unable to meet arbitrarily high "child support" payments. When wives and mothers are murdered, husbands are often the only suspects, because police have no suspects based on real evidence.

Roger F. Gay

Women who won't

----------------------------------------------
Rod Liddle says there may be good reasons for women to stay at home, but a lot of them do it because they are plain idle  
----------------------------------------------

What is it that afflicts our women at the moment? They seem gripped by a terrible lassitude, a paralysis, as though of hemlock, etc., etc. One by one, bourgeois women the length and breadth of the country are turning to their husbands or lovers, and later to their bosses, and sighing a little and saying, 'Do you know, I think I've had enough of this being at work thing. I'd like to cut down. Go part-time. Or maybe — and tell me what you reckon to this — stop altogether.'

And the husbands, lovers, bosses sort of suck their teeth and say, a little ruefully, 'Um, me too, now you come to mention it. Chance would be a fine thing,' and so on. And then they accede, usually. And the women disappear, maybe to the gym or the wine bar or Selfridges, their brains having lapsed into happy desuetude.

Check around your office for a few minutes (if you're deluded enough still to be working in one). How many women there have gone part-time, recently? How many women have given up work altogether? How many women went part-time because they were having a baby but now, four years later, just look — they're still part-time? What's happening to them? Where's that vaulting ambition to break through the infamous and repellent glass ceiling? Where's the bloody work ethic? And how should the men respond?

According to a survey by the Equal Opportunities Commission, only 57 per cent of women work full-time. Fewer than half of married women work, whereas 94 per cent of married men work full-time. What's more, don't think it's just the kiddies who are to blame: only 58 per cent of married women with no children bother to work. Despite four decades of what we might call 'progressive' legislation designed to enforce equality within the workplace, the number of babes plying some sort of trade isn't rising very much. There was no proportional (as opposed to actual) rise in women working between 1993 and 2003, for example. And it's still the case that 82 per cent of part-time workers are women. Because, when they do work, women, they don't like to work for very long.

I rang the Equal Opportunities Commission and said to them, 'Look, women still aren't going to work full-time. Maybe it isn't discrimination in the workplace, sexist attitudes in the home and an unequal distribution of domestic labour, ignorance of pension rights, childcare problems or a deep-rooted, culturally determined socialisation which makes women stay at home. Maybe it's just that women are inherently bone-idle right down to the tips of their lovely little fingers. Why don't you do a study on that?'

They begged to differ, although, crucially, they agreed that they could not rule out the possibility that at least some women, bless them, were inveterately lazy. 'Yes, all right, some might be idle, I suppose,' they concurred, good-humouredly. But largely they blamed other stuff, the sort of things I mentioned above. Yet I'm not sure that those arguments quite add up. Let us accept that there is still sexism in certain sectors of the economy — the City, one imagines, for a start. And maybe plumbing. And let us also concede that successive governments have not helped women into employment through a stoical refusal to embrace decent childcare legislation. And, at present, people who employ nannies are rewarded if they commit tax fraud and themselves encourage tax fraud in the nanny; this is a nonsense and should be stopped. But it doesn't quite explain why this acts as a disincentive solely for women to do a hard day's work.

Luckily, I've done my own case studies, a body of work that may one day be accepted by the scientific community as the definitive research on this controversial and vexing issue. I draw from a sample of three bourgeois women, aged between 34 and 41, and whom I shall refer to as Women A, B and C (as they might do in the Lancet), so as to disguise the fact that they are personal friends. Two of them — of whom one earned much more than her husband — have already given up work. The other one has gone part-time and is finding even that a bit bloody much, frankly. And from exhaustive interviews I have identified the following reasons why women at a certain stage of life, once the kiddies have started going to school and when the working world is open before them, suddenly give up the ghost.

Nanny-envy: a massive factor for all three women. The financial iniquities of the childcare system and the high cost of nannies, particularly in London, are an exacerbating rather than a definitive factor here. It's a decidedly more personal thing; indeed, nanny-envy can sometimes teeter over into nanny-spite or a visceral nanny-hatred — especially, it would seem, if the nanny is very young and attractive. Why is this bitch looking after my children? And, worse, why do the children ask, a little wistfully, where she is of a weekend? They can't possibly like her, can they? Do they like her more than me? Do they love her? And then there's the nanny lifestyle. Woman C remembers coming home from a typically enervating day at work on a gloriously hot evening and saying to the nanny, 'Hi, how's your day been?' And rather gallingly, the nanny replied, 'Oh, fine. I've just sat by the pool and watched the children all day.' Within the month, Woman C had given up work and the nanny was jobless. And, indeed, pool-less. Serves the bitch right, no?

Mummy-guilt: allied to the above is the dark foreboding that they are doing the wrong thing by being away from the kids all day. I dare say the EOC would describe this foreboding as a deeply internalised norm, but the women in my little study insist that it is an ineluctable biological thing. And it gets worse when they witness their children emerge from a prelapsarian state and start calling each other uncouth, lower-class things like 'wanker' and 'dickhead' and 'homo'. That's my fault, the women say to themselves, reproachfully. I should have been there. And Woman A remembers how, when she was a child, she envied the children who had mummies at home, rather than mummies at work. 'And there's a special bond, isn't there, between mother and child?' said Woman A. No, there bloody well isn't. Not if we believe what we've been told by 40 years of feminist argument. And, frankly, I do. So, grab your briefcase and clear off to work. And take the bin out, will you, while you're at it.

Yummy Mummy Syndrome: this is an absolutely ghastly phrase and certainly not of my creating. It has been coined to describe affluent stay-at-home mothers who actually don't stay at home but spend all day at the gym or the salon, being honed and rubbed and pampered by dubious Mediterranean-looking men called Paolo. As a result, they have looks to die for, apparently. They are fit, in both the traditional and degraded sense of the word. And the women who work, and consequently look haggard and drawn and embittered, hate them for it. And wish to be them, also.

Taedium Vitae: because work, when it comes down to it, isn't that great, is it? Woman B pronounced it 'tiring', work. Really? Well, blow me down. And of course the women in my little sample group have passed the age where work is a new and vibrant thing full of endless opportunity and has become, instead, a means to an end. And for the three of them, the end — i.e., money — is not a burning necessity. Not if daddy goes to work every bloody hour that God sends. Don't forget that Woman B earns nearly twice as much as her husband. But the praSLURPic rules do not seem to apply. Why is this?

The conclusion we might draw from all of this is that a) there are indeed cultural pressures that contribute to keeping women in the home and b) there are in some cases economic pressures also, but c) a lot of women don't work because they don't like working — for many of the reasons why men don't like working, if we're honest. It's a drudge. It never stops. It is replete with stressful vicissitudes or endless mundanities. And the old arguments that men used to marshal to keep women locked to the kitchen sink (and which, I dare say, a few mutton-headed oafs continue to mouth even now) are increasingly being marshalled by the women to enable them to stay at home. Perhaps one day they will tell us all that 17th-century doctors were absolutely correct to aver that women who thought too long and hard would find their brains exploded all over the floor.

More research needs to be done, of course. I have dealt only with middle-class women and therefore work needs to be done among the proletariat. I don't know many working-class women; they don't seem to like me. They think I'm effete, for some reason.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-11-29&id=3781

Claim:   Hillary Clinton was named after world-famous mountain climber Sir Edmund Hillary.


Examples:   [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a weekend break from official duties on her Asian tour, the first lady escaped already-remote Katmandu and traveled two hours by prop plane, land rover and rowboat to the Tiger Tops Jungle Lodge.

Later, she got to meet Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach Mount Everest's summit in 1953.

Sir Edmund Hillary, a frequent visitor and benefactor of Nepal since his historic trek, had a brief Hillary-to-Hillary handshake at the Katmandu airport before Clinton departed Sunday for Bangladesh.

The first lady said her mother had read about the famous climber and knew his name had two L's.

"So when I was born, she called me Hillary and she always told me, 'It's because of Sir Edmund Hillary,'" Hillary Clinton reported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For her part, Mrs. Clinton confessed that her mother, Dorothy Rodham, had read an article about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a one-time beekeeper who had taken to mountain climbing, when she was pregnant with her daughter in 1947 and liked the name.

"It had two l's, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell Hillary," Mrs. Clinton told reporters after the brief meeting on the tarmac, minutes before her Air Force jet flew past the peak of Everest itself. "So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary."2  
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Origins:   During a stop in Nepal while on a south Asian goodwill tour in April  1995, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a brief (and reportedly coincidental) meeting with Sir Edmund Hillary (who, along with Tenzing Norgay, became the first person to reach the summit of the world's highest mountain, Mt. Everest, in 1953) and told reporters she had been  named after the famed mountain climber.

Plenty of critics scoffed at Ms. Clinton's claim, noting that Edmund Hillary was an obscure New Zealand beekeeper back in 1947 and did not become internationally famous until his ascent of Mt. Everest in 1953, six years after Hillary Clinton was supposedly named for him. But there are some subtleties to the story which need to be explored before it is so quickly dismissed:

One point is that Hillary Clinton said her mother, Dorothy Rodham, "had read an article about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a one-time beekeeper who had taken to mountain climbing, when she was pregnant in 1947 and liked the name." This is plausible in the sense that Edmund Hillary didn't go from unknown Auckland beekeeper one day to world-famous conqueror of Mt. Everest the next — even before World War II he was already a serious mountain climber who had boasted to a friend that "some day I'm going to climb Everest," and by 1947 he was honing the necessary skills on the peaks of the Southern Alps.

It's certainly possible young Edmund was profiled in some publication back in 1947, but how likely was Dorothy Rodham, a Chicago housewife, to have seen an article about a New Zealand mountain climber? We can't say for sure (other than noting that a search of the Chicago Tribune turned up no articles on Edmund Hillary in 1947); the best we could do was to perform a comparative experiment by querying the New York Times historical database to find the earliest mention 'Edmund Hillary' in that publication.

The results revealed that Edmund Hillary's name did not appear at all in the pages of the New York Times until 1953, so it's probably fair to say that the American media paid him little note prior to his successful assault on Mt. Everest that year.

But whether or not Dorothy Rodham might have come across mention of Edmund Hillary in 1947, the story doesn't quite jibe with the circumstances. Depending upon how one interprets Hillary Clinton's claim, either seeing Edmund Hillary's name in print inspired her mother to name her 'Hillary' (even though she came across it being used a surname rather than a first name), or it inspired her to use the less-common spelling of 'Hillary' rather than 'Hilary' when naming her daughter.

However, 'Hilary' (spelled with one 'l') was a common woman's name which Dorothy Rodham would undoubtedly already have seen and heard hundreds of times before reading about Edmund Hillary, and the two-l spelling, while less common, was one she was far more likely to have encountered reading about persons (both male and female) much more prominent than Edmund Hillary in 1947, such as film actress Hillary Brooke and Cornell football and basketball star Hillary Chollet.


Another point is that Hillary Clinton didn't quite claim the story of how she came by her name was literally true; she said her mother told her it was true — a minor but important distinction, especially given how often parents make up harmless little fibs to amuse their children. But if Hillary Clinton thought the story, true or not, entertaining enough to repeat to the press when she met Sir Edmund Hillary in 1995, she's been curiously circumspect about telling it at any other time.

It doesn't appear in any news stories about the First Lady written prior to her 1995 south Asian tour, and every appearance of it in news articles since then refers to that single 1995 account. Moreover, none of the many Hillary Clinton biographies we checked so much as mentioned the story, not even Living History, her recently-published autobiography.

A staggering amount of information has been published about Hillary Rodham Clinton in her lifetime (going all the way back to her days as a Wellesley College graduate in 1969, when she was featured in Life magazine); isn't it odd that a basic fact like how she got her name has been disclosed only once in all that time?

Given all the available facts, it's difficult to view the claim that Hillary Clinton was named after Edmund Hillary as anything but a little white lie concocted for a special occasion. Only her mother, Dorothy Rodham, knows for sure, but so far she hasn't spoken up.

[If a woman in a women's-only restroom is assumed to be a man, there may be real threats to her comfort and even safety,]

U. of C. activists want bathrooms without gender

November 26, 2003
BY LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporter

Transgender, gay and feminist groups at the University of Chicago are asking officials to consider creating more gender-neutral bathrooms, saying some people aren't comfortable selecting a gender-specific facility.

"Persons who are not easily legible as male or female often experience various forms of intimidation in these places. If a woman in a women's-only restroom is assumed to be a man, there may be real threats to her comfort and even safety," warns the Coalition for a Queer Safe Campus, a student group comprised of various organizations supporting equality on campus. "Students have faced gay-baiting comments in our university's sex-segregated bathrooms."

So they're saying that WOMEN might be VIOLENT towards such a person? Goodness gracious, what a dreadful idea! How could such a thing be???? We all know that women are NEVER violent!!

I also notice they're only concerned about women, not a care in the world about what might happen to a man if he was "perceived" to be a woman in a men's bathroom.


The issue is especially of concern to transgenders who attend the university. The coalition said they know of students who don't use the bathrooms at school to avoid any controversy.

Just how many transgenders ARE there wandering around the university? 5? 50? 1,000? I mean, really...is this a serious problem that rears its head every day, or what?


Members of the Feminist Majority, Queers & Associates and the Center for Gender Studies held a panel at the university last week to discuss the issue. Moon Duchin, a graduate student at U. of C. and an adviser to the Queer Safe Campus bathroom initiative, said there is a misperception on campus from some students about the gender-neutral bathrooms.

She said after the panel convened and word spread about the topic, some students posted negative comments on Web sites about the movement.

That's because "Moon" is a stupid, f*ckin' name, and no one will take you seriously if you're named "Moon". I mean really. Give me a break. So there were some negative comments, it's a big ol' world with lots of different people in it., Some of them are bound to be uptight about this kind of thing. Get used to it- it's going to happen.

"This is a hot-button issue with some people who think that we are trying to do away with conventional bathrooms," Duchin said. "But that's not the case. We are trying to create more choices for people."

In the short term, the group wants to change existing bathrooms on one floor of the Joseph Regenstein Library and one floor of Cobb Hall, a popular student hangout. In the future, the group would like the university to consider gender-neutral bathrooms to be included in the plans for new buildings.

"Access to public, single-occupancy bathrooms would be ideal for undercutting this source of intimidation, but converting existing multi-stall bathrooms to gender neutrality is an excellent, and easy, intermediate step," the group writes on its Web site.

University officials said they are willing to look at the buildings to see if more bathrooms can be added.

University officials said they would immediately cave in to this ridiculous special-interest group, no matter how dumb an idea they come up with.


"They have done a great job of raising community awareness of the issue," said Bill Michel, associate dean of the college. "We are in the process of evaluating these two buildings to see if would be possible to create more bathrooms."

Michel said the university already has nine gender-neutral bathrooms but none in the two most popular buildings.

But it is more than just a gay and transgender issue, for some feminists the issue of gender specific bathrooms has been a problem for years.

Oh yeah, years and years. I can't tell you how many years I've worried over this terrible inequity. Something has to be done, and I mean right now!!! (stamping my little feet)


"Some feminists might say that any sex segregation is problematic," said Mary Anne Case, a professor of law at the University of Chicago who has studied the early roots of feminism and the inequality in sex segregated bathrooms.

And some people might say Ann Case is a blithering idiot living in her ivory tower, out of touch with the realities of everyday life. But not me.


Case said that along with creating more bathroom space for women -- a typical problem in public facilities -- the gender-neutral bathroom would also give men and women less reasons to separate in social functions.

Hell yes, lets all go to the bathroom together. Then men can be accused of all sorts of "crimes" because they're in the same bathroom as a -gasp- woman.

["You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown. "That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.]

Bush brother's divorce reveals sex romps
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Posted: 10:15 PM EST (0315 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.

According to legal documents disclosed Tuesday, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.

Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.

"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.

"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.

"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"

"I personally would object to the assumption that they're investing $2 million in me," said Bush, who went on to explain that he knew a lot about business and had been working in Asia for years.

Bush, who inked the Grace deal in August 2002, said he had not yet received any stock from the company, which built a plant in Shanghai that began production in September. He is supposed to consult for the company and be on the board of directors, he said.

He said he joined the Grace board at the request of Winston Wong, a co-founder of the company and the son of Wang Yung-ching, the chairman of Taiwan's largest business group, Formosa Plastics Corp. Bush never mentioned Jiang Mianheng in the deposition.

Wong, he said, also is an investor in his latest venture, Ignite!, an Austin, Texas, educational software firm.

A representative at Grace's U.S. office in California had no comment on the Bush contract.

Brown questioned Bush about numerous other business ventures that paid him well to be a consultant and fundraiser, and, in at least one case, for little work.

Bush said he was co-chairman of Crest Investment Corporation, but worked only an average of three to four hours a week. For that, he received $15,000 every three months.

Bush said he provided Crest "miscellaneous consulting services."

"Such as?" asked Brown.

"Such as answering phone calls when Jamail Daniel, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Bush said.


(Wow!!  $5,000 a month for answering the phone! can *I* get a job like that??)

Bush did not return calls to his Ignite! office and his divorce lawyer, Rick Flowers, was not available for comment.

(Oh, so apparently he isn't even answering the phone. My mistake!)



Bush is the third of five children in the family of former President Bush and wife Barbara.

He was involved in a business controversy in the late 1980s when he was director of Denver, Colorado-based Silverado Savings & Loan, which collapsed at a cost to taxpayers of $1 billion.

(A "business controversy". Ha ha, that's cute. I think the technical term for it was "securities fraud". He swidled tens of thousands of people out of their life savings. Sooooo, yeah, I guess you could call that a "business controversy".)


He denied any wrongdoing, but was sanctioned by the federal government for his part in the failure.

The Bush divorce, completed in April after 23 years of marriage, was prompted in part by Bush's relationship with another woman. He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago.

The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

(Well, shoot, doesn't that happen to ALL of us guys ALL the time? I mean, sometimes I have to bolt the door so that the women can't get in and have sex with me.)



"Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.

"It was very unusual," Bush said.


(Oh man, I give up. He finally said something that was true.)



Other presidential siblings of the past have generated controversy, among them Billy Carter, who marketed "Billy Beer" to cash in on brother Jimmy's presidency, and more recently Roger Clinton, who was accused of trying to broker pardons at the end of President Clinton's administration.


WHAT??? YOU MEAN OUR PRESIDENT'S FAMILIES AREN'T ALL ANGELIC LITTLE INNOCENTS??? Oooooooooh, I feel dizzy.........

Is this scary or what???


[img src=http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20031121/jackson-childhood21/1121jacksonmug2.jpg]

Michael Jackson looks like an alien.

Fathers Protest Unjust Custody Laws

November 18, 2003
by Wendy McElroy


Last month, Spider-Man was arrested in London after spending five days atop a cloud-kissing crane next to the historic Tower Bridge.
In donning the costume of his daughter's favorite cartoon character, 36-year-old David Chick tried to draw attention to the misery of estranged fathers who have been denied access to their children by a family court system he believes is anti-male.

Was Spiderman fighting the forces of evil? Or, by snarling London traffic, did Chick's "frivolity" damage the serious complaints of an internationally surging father's rights movement?

I vote for Spiderman. The mayor of London disagrees, comparing Chick and his tactics to Usama bin Laden.

Between these diametrically opposed responses lies a question: at what point do you give up working within "the system" and step outside of it to achieve change...to demand justice?

That question haunts the most passionate issues of our time. For example, abortion: some pro-life advocates go so far outside the system as to advocate violence against clinics and doctors who provide a legal procedure. For example, protecting molested children: some mothers go so far as to kidnap their own children and live "on the run" rather than return them to abusive situations. At what point do you give up on the possibility of the law providing justice?

People who go outside the system usually do so in the belief that the system has become part of the problem. In other words, the system -- whether you are speaking of family courts, the Child Protective Services, or some other bureaucracy -- is acting to perpetuate the injustice rather than to solve it.

This belief creates a Spiderman who looks at the family court system and perceives no chance of seeing the two year-old daughter from whom he has been estranged for close a year.

Most of those who agree that "the system" is severely broken do not sit on 150-foot cranes in the middle of London. To a large degree, Spiderman's decision was determined by the issue he was confronting. For Chick, there was and is no possibility of compromise or of avoiding conflict.

Other rebels are luckier. They are able to withdraw from the system and provide for their own needs. Homeschooling parents  remove their children from what they view as a hopeless educational system even though they are forced to continue paying for it in taxes. Those approaching retirement privately fund their own futures even though they are forced to pay into Social Security.

Spiderman can't similarly withdraw. Withdrawal means abandoning his daughter. Given the high stakes, confrontation becomes inevitable.

Chick could have confronted the system through letters to the editor, petitions to lawmakers, and appeals to the court. But estranged fathers in the UK and North America have been pursuing those strategies for decades now and they are still estranged.

According to the English Lord Chancellor's Department, mothers are granted custody about four-fifths of the time. Moreover, English courts have become infamous for failing to enforce visitation rights for fathers. In commenting on Spiderman, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips observed, "some senior judges recently acknowledged that with so many...[visitation] orders being flouted by mothers, the law is being brought into disrepute."

The absurdity of Spiderman is nothing compared to the obscenity of a system that deprives fathers of their children and children of parental love. In the same vein as theatre of the absurd, politics of the absurd is emerging on the issue of child custody.

It should be applauded as a benign alternative to the open violence that could easily replace it.

Politics of the absurd began on Dec. 17, 2002 when 200 men in Santa Claus outfits descended on the Lord Chancellor's offices in London to dramatize the plight of "father" Christmas: that is, of fathers who would not see their children over the holidays. Then, last Valentine's Day, fathers dressed as Elvis Presley crowded "Heartbreak Hotel" -- the London family court -- in an attempt to present officials with a 20-foot inflatable heart.

This Oct. 22, hundreds marched to London's Royal Courts of Justice where family law decisions are handed down; the crowd discovered two men, dressed as Batman and Robin, perched atop the structure.

And, yet, the message is far from absurd. Competent fathers want and deserve access to their children.

The message has attracted support from celebrities such as Pierce Brosnan who recently directed and starred in an Irish film, "Evelyn", in which a father loses custody of his three young children after his wife leaves with another man: the movie is based on a true story.

Rock star Sir Bob Geldof has pleaded for mothers and fathers to share equal custody. Speaking from bitter experience after his wife left him for another man, Geldof  declared, "I was handed a piece of paper saying 'you may see your children on this day and every second weekend'. Why? What had I done? I saw them every day, I took them to school, I bathed them, fed them, cooked for them...Why now was the State and all its instruments of justice...aimed at me?"

Commenting on the law restricting a divorced father's access to his children, Geldof added, "This law ridiculed me."

Now divorced fathers are going outside the system to ridicule the law. They should be applauded. Of all possible responses, laughing with scorn in the face of injustice is one of the best. And infinitely preferable to violence.

Wendy McElroy

Abercrombie to your kids: Group Sex Now!

November 17, 2003

by Kevin McCullough

Forty-five specific portrayals of sexual imagery in the first 120 pages, advice to the readers ... this is how the new Abercrombie & Fitch Quarterly titled "The Christmas Field Guide" begins its new quarterly magazine that is targeted to your teens. The 45 images include overt portrayals of group sex, lots of teen and young adult nudity, men kissing, and teens /young adults frolicking in a river engaging in sexual activity in multiple group settings.

Did I mention that the actual clothing doesn't begin being advertised until page 120?

Abercrombie & Fitch are not new to this game and they are taking a huge bet this Christmas season. The wager is ... you won't care enough to do anything about it.

For the last four years a handful of concerned parents and citizens have been waging a miniature war on the popular teen clothier. Each year, the clothier has made hollow gestures at trying to "reform its act." But these attempts are not only insincere, they are laughable. Laughable – but they are not funny.

Each year, thousands of children across America beg their parents to get them the latest t-shirt, jeans, jacket or underwear from "A&F." (Yes they have even marketed a line of thongs for 10-year-old girls made to stick up out of the "low cut" jeans they also sell.) Many of these parents, completely unaware of how "A&F" goes about marketing, plunk down thousands of dollars around the holidays ... and Abercrombie & Fitch continues to profit.

This year will be different. Thousands of consumers are being put on alert as to the marketing methods of the clothier, web-log writers are going to be commenting on it, church and para-church groups are organizing protests, and this year we will even advise investors via direct links to popular business Internet sites like CBS Marketwatch as to the marketing methods the company is willing to use.

After all, they do say, "We don't just sell clothes, we promote a lifestyle!" And what kind of "lifestyle"?

Well, in this year's issue in the "sexpertise" column on page 279, a lady presumably qualified to be referred to as a "sexpert" states that kids going to college this year, "shouldn't be looking for someone to marry." Nope, when it comes to sex, kids should be "focused on getting experience." The "sexpert" is also asked about and gives advice concerning the issue of doing "sex for three." She also advises readers to be willing to "go down" on a date at the movies, "just so long as you do not disturb those around you." And, of course, what kind of column would a "sexpertise" column be if it did not address the issue of self-stimulation.

There is also a comparison column for the hormonally driven young men in the "A&F" readership comparing the "fruits" of biting into "fresh apple right off the tree" vs. the "store-bought variety that sit on the shelf wrinkled and bruised from the handling." This column is not comparing fruit at all but the benefits of teenage men sleeping with perky school girls vs. "sexy" older women, even married ones.

So the plan of action?

This year's is multi-fold:


Read this column and forward it to everyone you know.

Dial the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families (toll free) 888-877-7723.

Add your voice to the growing list of parents, teens and citizens who wish to see sexually transmitted disease rates reduced, and less teen pregnancy by signing the letter of protest at Stop A&F.

And by all means spend no money with Abercrombie & Fitch this year. (American Eagle, H&M and a variety of other clothiers provide clothing that is equally fashionable to the style of Abercrombie & Fitch – but without the unnecessary nudity and sexualization of Americans aged 10 to 18.)

In a day in which more parents than ever are concerned about the likelihood of their daughter getting pregnant, their child being sexually active long before they are mature enough to handle the consequences or the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the "younger than 20" demographic today – it's time to stop Abercrombie & Fitch.

Abercrombie & Fitch is wagering you won't care about what they do, so they've rolled the dice. For me, my money is on the decency of you and the hope you have for the future of your kids.

So ... I'll take that bet!


Kevin McCullough

Feminists Rigging the Elections

November 19, 2003
by Carey Roberts

Before the collapse of the Soviet empire, party officials would handpick the candidates for office. Since all the candidates were members of the Communist party, the outcome of the election was never in doubt.
This way, everyone was happy. The Communist party could maintain its grip on the workings of government. And the Soviet citizens could believe that they had participated in an open and free election.

But when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the perverse notion of rigging the elections did not go away. Because just four years later, the Beijing Women's Conference approved a quota policy that women should constitute a minimum of 30% of elected officials.

Of course, radical feminists preferred to not use the "Q" word, so they used Orwellian euphemisms like "promoting women's participation in the democratic processes" and "assuring that women's voices are heard."

So now, with a wink and a nod from their United Nations sponsors, feminists around the world are pushing hard for election quotas. Their complaint: women represent only 14% of national elected officials.

In some countries, quotas have been installed by individual political parties. For example in Sweden, the Social Democratic Party began to require that its slate of candidates reflect a 50-50 gender balance.

In France, a constitutional amendment was approved in 2000 requiring that 50% of persons nominated by each party be female. In Argentina, 30% of candidates on the slate are required by law to be female.

But gender feminists still were not placated, because this strategy still allows the electorate to vote for the person believed to be most qualified -- 50% female candidates does not necessarily translate into 50% female elected officials.

For example in France, after the 2002 National Assembly elections, women held only 12% of the national seats, even with the constitutional requirement for half female candidates.

And in Islamic countries, male and female voters routinely give the nod to male candidates over their female rivals.

So in true socialist style, feminists now want to require that a set number of seats be reserved exclusively for women. In India, 33% of national positions must now be filled by women, regardless of the candidates' qualifications or voter preference. In Tanzania, the female quota is 20%. In Kosovo, it's 28%. In Pakistan, 33% of seats must be filled by women.

But the problem with election quotas is they rig the election to achieve a pre-determined outcome. They represent the very antithesis of democracy. As the corrupt politician Boss Tweed once put it, "I don't care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating." (link)

There are many good reasons why women do not represent half of all elected officials. All too often, female politicians fall prey to feminist groupthink. And according to a recent Time magazine article, gender quotas are meeting with growing resistance.

In Denmark, several parties had embraced 40% quotas in the 1980s. But later, female politicians objected to the rule, saying it was unnecessary. In 1996 the maternalistic quota was dropped.

Two years ago, East Timor, a neighbor of Indonesia, approved a new election law. Despite heavy pressure from feminists around the world, the law rejected a provision that would have required 30% female quotas.

Maybe the feminist-socialists should pay heed to the time-honored truth that democratic government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."


Carey Roberts

via a friend's email....a news story by Jonathan Kaminsky:

"Don't know if you post or send around pertinent news stories, but a story of mine published today may be of interest to your readers. It's about a child criminal sex case in which the defense lawyer went after the child advocacy center where the alleged victim was interviewed very, and perhaps unprecedentedly, aggressively."

You can find the article at:
http://citypages.com/databank/28/1388/article15637.asp

The Idiot Test!

Are you an idiot? Follow the directions carefully!

http://www.123game.net/game.php?id=985


Lol, send this to your ex and see how they do. :)

The founders of Parental Alienation Awareness Day-April 25
(//www.parental-alienation-awareness.com) would like to help make the public and professionals aware that this upcoming Mother's Day and Father's Day, we'd like to take the opportunity to make you aware that Parental Alienation interferes with the love, joy, appreciation and sharing that every family deserves.

Help us put an end to this problem:


1.  Download the PA Letters from our website:
//www.parental-alienation-awareness.com

2.  Write a  note like the one below:

"This Mother's  day and Father's day, these loving parents will not receive
cards or gifts from their children. This Mother's  day and Father's day,
these children will not receive all of the love and appreciation they deserve. Parental Alienation  is NOT in the best interest of children and
families . Please help us eradicate this problem "

3. Mail the letters, note, and pictures of your children to: courts,
attorneys, and government officials. Some helpful sites might include:
      //www.senate.gov
      //www.house.gov
      //www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/info_court_web_sites.html
      //www.parl.gc.ca
      //www.pm.gc.ca/eng/contact.asp
      //www.judges-juges.ca/en/aboutus/committee.htm

4. We invite you to continue sending in your PA stories under
//www.parental-alienation-awareness.com  (Please make sure there is no
identification content in them, and that they are factual and appropriate
for public viewing. We reserve the right to edit content.)

5. We also invite you to send us appropriate weblinks to government
agencies/officials to place on our website for  easy reference  of
addresses/contacts.

Parental Alienation Awareness
[email protected]

[NEW CAMPAIGN: Move-Away Bill Will Harm Children of Divorce]

From Glenn Sacks.......

NEW CAMPAIGN: Move-Away Bill Will Harm Children of Divorce

April 18, 2006
 

A new bill has been introduced into the California Senate which will make it more difficult for children of divorce to retain the loving bonds they share with both parents. The bill's backers made a sweeping, last minute amendment to the bill in order to slip it through before opponents had a chance to organize.

I want all of you to write the Judiciary Committee members in opposition to SB 1482 by clicking here.

Under SB 1482, which will be voted on by the California Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday (April 25), a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

SB 1482 is an attempt by the extremist Coalition for Family Equity and misguided feminists to reverse the progress made on behalf of California's children of divorce over the past two years. From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, which was interpreted by California courts as conferring unlimited move-away privileges. Under Burgess the bonds between tens of thousands of children and their noncustodial parents were needlessly ruptured.

The California Supreme Court addressed the problem in the LaMusga decision in April, 2004 by making it clear that courts can prevent children from being moved when it is detrimental to their interests. Among the factors deemed important were the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent.

In the summer of 2004 then Senate President John Burton, one of the most powerful people in California, introduced SB 730, a bill which would have granted custodial parents an almost unlimited right to move children far way from their noncustodial parents.

We organized opposition to SB 730, and thousands of you wrote and called Sacramento to oppose the bill. Our campaign gained widespread media attention and was endorsed by numerous mental health and family law professionals. Burton surprised Sacramento insiders by withdrawing the bill a few weeks later.

Today we must again fight to preserve the relationships children of divorce share with their mothers and fathers. To voice your opposition to SB 1482, click here. By filling in the form, you will be both faxing and emailing Sacramento. Also, we suggest you call the members of the committee--the phone numbers are here.

California family law has a huge influence on other states, and parents all over the United States have a large stake in what happens here. I hear every day from devastated parents who lost their children in the aftermath of the misguided Burgess decision. I often hear from parents whose relationships with their children were saved by the LaMusga decision.

The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482. Again, to take action, click here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways
GlennSacks.com

[ShapeTest.com - The Online Personality Test!]

According to this, I'm a lot sicker than I imagined:

ShapeTest.com - The Online Personality Test!

The Shape And Color Test is the result of years of studying and testing objects that had both a shape and a color. Amazing!

http://www.shapetest.com/

Lol, very funny:  "Lying is good, and at BigFibs.com you can even get rewarded for it!"

http://www.bigfibs.com/

A quick follow up on yesterday's message:
http://www.akidsright.org/archive/archive2006/0011.html

I've received a lot of email regarding my upcoming Court appearance at
2 PM on Monday.  If I'm jailed a list message will go out with contact
information for local officials. Obviously, much of what happens will
depend on the public response of other parents.  This is not a one-man
band, we need to act together to achieve the deep changes we desire.
Each one of you can make a real difference in what happens to me.

Monday - Watch and/or take Action
---------------------------------
If you have time to come to Syracuse on Monday you are welcome and I'd
be happy to meet you in the morning and have you present in the
Courthouse. I manage a small family owned business and our Company
offices are in Baldwinsville, NY.  You should show up there around
1030-1100 AM and we can all talk. -- address below:

Software Workshop Inc.
55 E. Genesee St.
Baldwinsville, NY 13027



Take your story to Legislators
------------------------------
Bring a two page summary of your story and how the system treated you
with injustice.  Include a picture of you and your kids.  It would be
great to have a group of parents walk over to the Hanley Federal
Building (about 5 minutes from the Court), and visit the local offices
of Senator Hillary Clinton and Congressman James Walsh.  Leave your
story with them, tell them you love your kids, that Congress needs to
protect the Civil Right of parents to raise their own children. Ask
for Congressional hearings into the need for reform.
http://www.akidsright.org/legislative.htm

Participating in NonViolent Action
----------------------------------
There may be those of you who want to take a strong action yourselves.
If sentenced to jail, I will be 'laying down' as described in the
message above, and taken away.  It would certainly send a powerful
message if other loving parents just laid down in the hallway outside
the Courtroom at the same time and had to be carried out of the
building by security.  No yelling, no anger.   If you are seriously
considering this, make sure to contact me, check what we have at:
http://www.akidsright.org/civil.htm

Contact me
----------
If you think you might try to make it, please call my office phone
number (toll free) 877-635-1968, x-211 and leave me a message with
your name and phone number (cell number if you have one). I will be
checking my messages over the weekend and will call you back.  Please
also check the web site for any last minute changes.
http://www.akidsright.org/support_jm.htm

You can email me at: [email protected]
John Murtari

Lol, you're pregnant: http://www.thepregnancytester.com

Lol, you're dead: http://www.thedeathpsychic.com