~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

band: P!nk

title: Please Don’t Leave Me

plot: Girl and guy’s relationship is ending. He’s walking out of what is presumably her home, which they were presumably living in together up until this point. He falls down the stairs. She stares at him lying helpless on the floor, and she tilts her head as an idea forms in her head. She approaches him, as he fades into unconsciousness. When he awakens she is dressed as a nurse and is stitching wounds, that may have been caused by his fall. He looks over to the dresser by his side, and motions to pick up the telephone. She pulls out a golf club and threatens him to not call for help. He removes his hands from the phone and she takes a swing anyway, breaking his leg. It then skips to her cutting up vegetables for dinner, when she notices him now conscience again and limping towards the door of the house. She tells him not to open the door. He does, and a guard/attack dog begins to maul him. He slips into unconsciousness again, and when he awakens he finds himself tied to a wheelchair with her applying make up on him. He tries to break free; but, she just pushes the chair forward, causing him to tumble along with it over a precipice. It then skips to some time after that where she is naked, after having presumably raped his unconscious body, and notices that he’s escaping again. She pursues him, now clothed and with an ax, as he limps for all he’s worth towards an exit. The story climaxes with her trapping him in a locked room with her hacking away at the door, to break the barricade. He grabs the only weapon he can find, a aerosol can, and he uses it as make shift mace when she finishes making a hole large enough to stick her head through in the door. She is blinded, and she falls over the balcony. When she awakes he has apparently already called 911, and dispatch has already arrived, with him being hauled away on paramedic stretchers and a cop writing up a ticket for her. She takes a look at the audience with the 4th wall now eliminated and blows us a kiss for her ‘performance’.

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eocCPDxKq1o

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

band: Oomph!

title: Beim Ersten Mal Tut’s Immer Weh (“The First Time Always Hurts”)

plot: A guy and a girl are talking in an internet chat room. He asks how old she is. She says 15. He says it works for him. They decide to meet up, and it cuts to them taking a drive together, with interspersed scenes of Oomph! in the backseat of the car making motions that something bad is about to happen to him, such as the lead singer Dero dragging his finger along the guys throat indicating execution. Along with that there are flashes to parts of their online conversation that weren’t shown before, with them talking about whether she has shaved, and if he is horny. After the car drive it cuts to a scene where he in a chair and she standing over him. Foreplay starts, but she is being more aggressive, quickly tearing away his jacket from his hands then proceeding to push his head back, while grasping his hair. He looks at her and she clubs him across his face, knocking him unconscious. She now has a knife in her hand, and she has duck-taped his mouth shut. She cuts him up a little. He eventually awakens, and she has a devilish smile. She place the knife at his neck and he is frightened. He tries to move, but he is tied to the chair. She then uses the knife to cut off his shirt. She licks the knife and he recoils as much as he possibly can as she brings it to his body using it to intimidate him. She brings out a stuffed rabbit and she starts showing him what she intends to do to him, by doing it the rabbit. She cuts off a ear with scissors and then stabs the plush toy at its belly before beginning to cut apart its chest. He’s trembling in terror, and she brings out a metal tray filled with surgical equipment. She puts on rubber gloves, and a sequence of scenes begins where she dissects him alive mostly off-screen, switching from one tool to another. He is hauling in agony, and she gives him a quick smirk and a glance as she begins to start moving the dissection down to where his genitals are. She uses a pair of pliers and removes a testicle, and proceeds to flaunt it in his face by rubbing it along his cheek and then his duck-taped lips. He is near or at comatose state due to the tremendous pain he is in. The scene cuts to her throwing two testicles into some clear solution. It ends with her having another online chat with some new guy asking if they want to meet up, and her replying that of course they should and that she knows a ‘fun game’…

link for original German: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yM8I5ItlM

link for English version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkniopHgd38

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

band: Charlotte Sometimes

title: How I could Just Kill a Man

plot: A guy kisses a a girl’s gloved hand before bidding her farewell and heading out of the house they are both in. Once he has left, she looks at one of his shirts and notices it has lipstick kisses on its sleeve, whereupon she moves to a window and see’s him embracing and then kissing another girl. With a large smile she then sets up a trap at the front door of the house, by creating a pulley system to drop cinder blocks on him when he returns to the house and opens the door. When he returns, the blocks fall, and he is dead with a large pool of blood under his head. It then cuts to a scene where she with what seems to be another guy in a different house. They hug, and while they embrace she picks his pocket, and discovers a love letter from some other girl. After a small cry, she gets that same grin from before and bakes him a pie, for when he returns. Upon his return he finds a note saying that she has retired early for the evening and that she has left the pie and some apples out for him. He bites into an apple, and he collapses onto the table. The apples, and possibly the pie too, were poisoned. A few shots of her crying and then smiling maniacally lead into a new scene, where she, in a car, watches what looks to be yet another man, walking into a motel with another girl. Both of them have hats on indicating that they are trying to conceal their identities, by making their faces harder to see. They walk into an elevator together, and it is revealed that the cables of the elevator were snapped by her, as some metal cutters fall to the ground next to a picture of the guy and the other girl being together. It cuts to the girl smirking in her car, and then it cuts to a series of scenes which show her walking away from the various scenes of her murders, as what appears to be fire form around the houses and the car. It ends with the singer taking a slightly longer look in the audiences direction, while repeating the song’s refrain one last time: “You can’t understand how I could just kill a man”. It fades to black.

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyZeF_DLq4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

band: Maroon 5

title: Misery

plot: A guy falls and hits the concrete of a city road with a thump. A girl then mounts him and starts feeling him up. He looks away while she does this to him, trying to ignore what just happened to him. She begins to pick him up and his face turns to anxious fear as she then thrusts him against a wire fence. She’s still feeling him up, but is being rather aggressive. He tries to reciprocate by grabbing her butt, but she pushes his hand away, and then pulls him to a graffitied wall on the other side of the street, whereupon she continues to fondle him and she bites his lip while smiling. She pushes him away now, and then it cuts to a scene behind some building with her headbutting him. He falls to the ground and then crawls to her legs and grabs her waist but she slaps him and he desists. She starts to pull him up and when he is now erect she knees him in the groin, and he falls again, having to lean on her legs to keep from having his head hit the ground. He starts to try to show his affection for her again, but she just cuffs him. He blinks, not really understand what to do. He moves in one last time to show her his love for her, and when she tries to strike him, he finally blocks it. She then kicks him, sending him flying backwards into the street. At this point, he starts running away from her scared, but he runs into the path of a car, and he gets sent flying again. He picks himself up and keeps on running, but is blocked by her. She has caught him. It then cuts to a scene where they are seated together at some cafe or restaurant. She’s playing with a knife in her hands as he tries to show her that he loves her. He reaches out to her and she retracts. His eyebrows raise and she starts playing 5-finger fillet with the hand he stretched out to her. He starts to look worried and she lets out a scream and rams the knife down hard. He looks at her and then back at his hand. She then throws him onto a table and they embrace. It then cuts to a scene in a public restroom where she slams him into the wall of a stall, and starts to throw him at whatever is hard in the bathroom. She then starts to drown him as the sequence of his abuse continues with him being pushed throw a window by her. A new guy looks at his disheveled body, and then gets hit by a car. It then cuts to a scene where the guy is cornered on the stairs of an apartment high rise. He raises his arms to try to defuse the situation, but she still pushes him over, and he dangles above the ground holding onto a ledge. She stomps on his hands and he falls. A new sequence of scenes proceeds, showing her hurting him back at all of the places that they had shown before in the video. He spits out blood, and as his blurry vision gets better he sees her holding a bazooka, and he starts running. She misses and kills a male pedestrian that he ran past. The sequence continues, with her trying to kill him but continually failing to actually do so. He survives being thrown off a tall building and onto a car parked below, and being pushed off of his motorcycle while driving. She throws the knife from before, but hits another male pedestrian. and the pedestrian collapses. This continues with a molotov cocktail, and a, male pedestrian is shown running while on fire. He just keeps trying to escape, but he just can’t. It ends with him conscience on the paved road, and her walking past him.

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g6g2mvItp4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

xy=xx-5;

where xy is the tax that men pay, and where xx is the tax that women pay.

Or, we can just add 5 to both sides, because math is fun!

xy+5=xx

Either way you look at it, xx is not equal to xy in this proposal, or likely in the eyes of the creators of these proposals. To them it seems that xx>xy…

On page 17 of their analysis, stands the proposal to grant women lower taxes than what men have to pay. Their rational is as follows:

An extract of page 17 of the International Monetary Fund's proposal

To help the economies of these countries they should lower taxes to make work less punitive. But, why women only? What on earth is the rational for that? Is it their intention to make it harder for men to work than for women? It’s certainly the effect, when men have to work more hours just to get the same pay. And furthermore, how could increased child-care support possibly be managed in the cash-strapped countries while simultaneously cutting taxes for women-only? Wouldn’t then the answer be to raise taxes to allow for expansions of child-care systems? You can’t get something from nothing, and these governments would likely have to reduce child-care systems’ funding if they reduced taxes. Either that or other key systems in these countries, such as public transport or public health-care. This is beyond half-baked, and incredibly bigoted. Just imagine the International Monetary Fund proposing that, say, whites in the United States get a tax discount just for being white. I could almost see the Watts riots being eclipsed in a single day across the country if that were to happen.

As with most misandric outrages, however, it isn’t getting the attention it deserves as the vitriolic and sexist proposition that is is. An article at the Guardian, one of the United Kingdom’s leading online news sources, supports the measure, even dismissing the sexism of the proposal. The article is ‘Sexist’ tax cut would benefit Ireland as a whole, written by a Ms. Eleanor Fitzsimons. In it, she defends not only the proposal to make women’s taxes lower than men’s; but, she also brings up the Norwegian law, which set a strict gender quota on companies forcing them to deny men jobs if women made up less than 40% of the company’s payroll. She doesn’t care about men or equality. Her sole defense of this and other atrocities of justice is that it will help the economy. In other words, to her, money is far more important than fairness and what’s right. Therefore, why doesn’t she propose a return to slavery, for a 100% tax would surely help economies in the global recession…

The Journal, which is an Irish online news source, conducted a poll to find out how many supported the women-only tax reduction, which can be found here, and had rather sad results. Almost half of respondents supported the measure, putting the two sides at a impasse. The narrow majority against the proposal is the only thing that has brought me some hope over the event; but still, 44% in favor of a such sexism is still incredibly toxic and disgusting.

The Journal's poll of who supports the sexist IMF measure

There have also been a few minor reports that discuss the proposal; but, remain neutral, and place no emphasis on how evil this is. They can be seen here and here, and their silence is our loss. The Journal also had an article, which can be found here; but, it too refused to take a side.

So where is the outrage and the anger? Essentially, only to be found at NewsWhip, with Rory Fitzgerald’s article, Tax Experts: IMF’s “Women’s Tax Rate” discriminatory and illegal; and, the Spearhead, with W.F. Price’s article, IMF Proposes Tax Cut for Irish Women. So, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Price for coming forward and arguing against this insult to equality.

Really, it’s amazing what people will say and do for money. They’ll watch as discrimination and injustice runs rampant, just as long as they can make a few more bucks on the side. I have have no idea if Austria, France, Slovakia, and Ireland will follow this proposal or implement similar measures; but, I hope that none of them do, and seek to be fair to their men, instead of using them for economic gain. Men shouldn’t have to carry more of the tax burden than women.

On September 13, 2010, the media tycoon’s own website announced an interview he had with Mediaite, which he is the publisher of, of course. The interview can be read here. It’s disturbing to a high degree to me. When asked why he chose to write a book about this particular topic, instead of a topic he is a professional in, such as law, he replied by saying that “It started when I read an article on various ways that women are better than men. I found it interesting and honestly didn’t believe some of the examples they cited, so out of curiosity I researched a little to determine how much of it was backed up by actual evidence. While some of the ones from the article were speculative, as I did a little digging, I was surprised at how many serious studies and research reached the same conclusion — that women, as a group, are more thoughtful, efficient, tougher and less likely to make mistakes.”

The only thing that lends a shred of decency to this whole affair, is that he says that his book is “not an effort to beat up on us guys but it may serve as a wake up call for some.” He is of course referring to the fact that men and boys are doing poorly academically and socially, right now. How he manages to conclude that we are inferior from that; however, is beyond me. If he thinks that berating someone when they are down, is ethical, I can only imagine him going to homeless shelters on the weekends to laugh at those less fortunate, whom, indecently, are 85% male, according to the The United States Conference of Mayors. If he thinks that his insults will help anyone, he is wrong. He is only further hurting male self esteem, in a culture that demeans us so much already. Bigots like Mr. Abrams need to be shown for vile bastards that they are. Imagine a similar book, called something like “Blacks, Forget It: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Whites Are Better Rappers, Drivers, Employees, Athletes, World Leaders, Cooks, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else”. Doubtless, such a book would not be received as well as this one has, and men and boys deserve the same respect that we give to other groups in this country. I will reiterate. Don Imus got fired for much less than what Abrams has just done. Sack the bastard, I say.

If you want to help in telling NBC News what you think of their chief legal analyst spreading hate with their name and reputation attached for the ride, please contact them at:

• NBC News
  30 Rockefeller Plaza
  New York, N.Y. 10112
• Or, you can write an online message at their Contact Us page, located here.

Mr. Elam says that “Voting not guilty on any charge of rape is the only way to remain faithful to the concept of presumed innocence.” Certainly, the assumption of innocence is invaluable in preserving objectivity and fairness in court cases; but, that’s not what we are dealing with here. What we have here is a conviction of innocence. Such bias runs contrary to reason and justice.

Compare his statement to that of the psychotic blithering of Marilyn French, who said “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” These sentiments are two sides of the same coin. One would give unrelenting and unobjective favor to the accuser, and the other would give unrelenting and unobjective favor to the accused. Both extremes are anathema to a decent and just legal system, and both must be extinguished, for the course of justice to carry on unabridged. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, so let us retrieve her blindfold and strike an objective balance. Rather than turn away from evidence, we should examine and reexamine it diligently, for the cost of a mistake in a rape case is the releasal of a rapist back into the streets or the damning of an innocent to the hell that is prison. Only through vigilance can we seek justice. Ignoring evidence creates new crimes.

This kind of callous disregard for fact damages the men’s movement’s image and legitimacy.  It makes a laughing stock out of us, and leaves us vulnerable to mischaracterization. Examples of backlash, because of his article, include pieces by Alysha Bayes and Jesse Powell. As Matthew5sixteen said, “I must voice my disagreement publically so that it would not be said in the future that all men in the Men’s Rights Movement agree with Paul Elam’s statement.” If you’d like to voice your disagreement with me, simply post a comment for all to see on my article or any of the above, so that anyone and everyone can see that we as a movement care about truth. I know I do. I hereby make the following pledge, as a citizen with a conscience who fully believes in the rule of law, that should I ever be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to examine the evidence with much deliberation before coming to a verdict for the defendant.

I had first heard of the site from the then-current editor-in-chief Bernard Chapin, from his vlog “Chapin’s Inferno“. Mr. Chapin was where I first started hearing about men’s issues, and it’s fitting, I suppose, that I fist heard of Men’s News Daily from him too.

I wonder how the site will be remembered. It was not without it’s controversies. It was accused of infusing conservative politics into the men’s movement. This claim is not entirely unsubstantiated. In 2007, it was rated as one of the top 75 right of center websites by Right Wing News. On the other hand, it has had an extremely libertarian point of view for quite some time, in addition to some relatively new liberal talking points as well. Examples of this can be found in its anti-war articles and commentaries by Fred Reed such as “Thought on an Interview with General Stanley McChrystal“, “Feminist Marine Gets His Kicks Killing Male Chauvinists in Afghanistan“, and “When Glands Trump Minds: Battling Mohammedans with Yahoos and Rubes“. To quote Mr. Reed, “Perhaps the US should recognize that it has a second-rate military at phenomenal cost—an enormous, largely useless national codpiece. It is embarrassing.” Other examples of non-conservative thought include its anti-drugwar and pro-marijuana decriminalization articles and commentaries by Paul Elam, such as “Drugs, War, Money and Blood” and “When Your Kid Smokes Pot“. To quote Mr. Elam, “So the right has pretty much owned the war on drugs since. And for the efforts of these ‘keep the government off our back’ conservatives, they have given us the mammoth sized DEA, a thousand federal regulations, a rainbow coalition of busted heads, overflowing prisons, enough dead bodies to please Pol Pot, a meaningless Constitution and a bevy of government functionaries that are literally out of their minds with power.” To me, it seems that Men’s News Daily was politically diverse, more than anything else. I think that’s why it called itself a “Daily Dose of Counter-Theory”.

Despite the controversies, it played a part in many awareness campaigns about men suffering from domestic violence and about chances to confront misandry. It gave us opportunities to spread that awareness, by pointing out charities for abused men and boys. It reminded us about important days for us guys to remember, like the anniversary of the Titanic sinking and how the ships male passengers were massacred by sexist maritime policies. It celebrated the best inside each of us guys, by helping to sponsor International Men’s Day. For all it’s faults, I know I will remember the site well. In my book, it earned its self proclaimed title of the “Flagship of the Men’s movement”.

There is a Wikipedia article of the site to reference. It will be interesting to see if the article goes through changes, as the website falls out of common knowledge among men’s rights activists. It’s not yet clear to me if there are plans to keep archived versions of all the articles they wrote. I am aware, however, of one archive for the site, though it only has the articles from 2001-2004. It would seem wise to save any articles that you have enjoyed there, while you still can.

For making his amazing and long standing website, on behalf of the entire men’s movement, I thank you Mike LaSalle. May you be just as successful in all your future ventures. You’ve opened my eyes to so much.

I think it’s appropriate to respond in kind. As such, I’d like to start off by addressing the crux of our disagreement, which is whether men’s problems are internal or external in origin. Mr. Baehr is concerned that men may build an unhealthy victim mentality, if we focus on external discriminations, in lieu of internal emotional duresses or short comings. It must be acknowledged that men are victims. Until we come to terms with this, we can’t help ourselves. The first step is admitting our problems. For too long men have ignored what’s ailed them, because of external societal pressure. Males are told “boys don’t cry”, so we’re trained early on to hide our problems, even from ourselves. We’re told to not acknowledge our troubles by letting out tears or emotions. As a result, men become emotionally numb. Men do have emotional issues; but, they stem from repression from the outside world. It will only be when we recognize this, that we will realize that we can cry and express ourselves.

The same holds true for any other men’s issue. Again, I can’t emphasize enough that our problems are external in origin. Take a look at the draft, for example. The reason that’s there is because of Congress, not because of us. No amount of self examination will repeal the Selective Service Act. What will remedy it is a march on Washington or some such action. In my original message to Mr. Baehr, I said, ”Our problems are external in origin, and our answer must be external too. The answer lies not within, but without.” It is political activism that will bring us equality under the law, and it is cultural activism that will bring men to reject society’s warped perceptions of us and its warped expectations on us.

The truth will set you free, and the truth is that males are victims of their society. It is not self destructive to recognize this, rather, it is seeing our predicament with clarity. The numbers should speak for themselves. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 60% of college students are female; but, no affirmative action exists for men. Every other group who doesn’t perform well in academics get’s support. The reason for this is that society cares about those groups, but the group it doesn’t care about is us. According to the American Psychiatric Association, women are 70.7% of nonreciprocal domestic violence perpetrators; but, no shelters exist for battered men. Only two states, California and West Virginia, have been forced to stop turning away men from domestic violence shelters; and, that was through legal action by way of discrimination suit, a external solution. Society doesn’t care, when men are beaten. According to the U.S. Department of Justice,  66.4 percent of men, or 2 in 3, will experience a physical assault in their lifetime. Yet, even with the extraordinary prevalence of men being hurt, no one cares that men are denied help from these shelters. 1 in 6 males have been sexually assaulted before they even reach adulthood; but, many states only define rape as forced penetration of a vagina, such as North Carolina, so men can’t even get the same justice as raped women can get in many areas of the country. In these areas the various Rape Shield Acts don’t even cover males. Society doesn’t care when males are raped and molested. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Health Statistics, men are more likely to die of every major cause of death; but, no Office on Mens Health exists. A Office on Womens Health does exist though. Society doesn’t care when men are ill. According to the The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, 80% of homicide victims are males; but, no Violence Against Men Act exists. A Violence Against Women Act does exist, though. And, this is just a small sampling of the statistics out there. Make no mistake, men are victims. If you think otherwise, I invite you to look at Arlington, the largest mass grave in the United States, filled to the brim with the bodies of dead boys who were forced to fight in war, and used as slave labor for the military.

Mr. Baehr fears that I am externalizing our problems; but, I fear that he is internalizing them. He quotes Pogo Possum, who said “We have met the enemy and he is us.” After this quotation, Mr. Baehr goes on to add that, “Men control, or potentially control, possible remedies to the rights issues that still face their male constituents today.” To this I must point out that most men are powerless, not powerful. No man can remedy our situation so easily. If we work together we can press for legal reform, but it will not be easy. Every right we fight for and every inch of ground we take will be hard won. Civil rights is an uphill battle, when people don’t care about you. To say that we men have the power to make these things magically happen or that we are the enemy is naive and blaming the victim.

So in summation, the realization of our victim-hood will not be detrimental. It will allow us to finally see things the way they are. With this new insight, we can effect change and move forward. Far from being damaging, this acknowledgement will let us begin the healing process by setting us on a better, more pragmatic, path, that factors into our courses in life that we need to care about ourselves. Imagine a world where boys do cry, and a world where people put a hand on their shoulder and ask how they can help.

After the ordeal, he proceeded to file his claim against British Airways at Slough Country Court. He charged the company with sex discrimination and being harassed by their employees, and he sought compensation for his duress. He argued that their policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act. British Airways, however, denied that the policy was discriminatory, even though they admitted discrimination in Mr. Fischer’s particular case. They have agreed to put the policy under review, though, which a small and tassid step in the right direction. It remains to be seen, though, how the many other cases of males being told where to sit on their planes, is not discriminatory, when they all involve the same policy, being applied the same way- only to males.

Mr. Fischer was apologized to and was awarded a sum of £2,911 for costs and damages, from the company. Upon hearing the news of the court’s decision he donated the money to charity. Obviously this man was indeed a role model for children, and it’s a shame that the boy he was told he couldn’t sit next to was made to be paranoid of his presence. At least the kid may learn to stick up for himself, in the same fashion, from his example. This is a victory for uppity men, everywhere, and I hope we can all learn from his example.

In an interview with the BBC, he said “It is sex discrimination. I want this policy to be substantially changed as it is a matter of principle. Women are not treated like this.” He is correct. None of the staff questioned his wife’s seating next to the boy, even though they were both strangers to the kid. He was picked out because of his gender. He also mentioned to the BBC that he was disappointed that British Airlines only limited its admission to sex discrimination to his case only. He hopes that the precedence of his case will help any other men who faces a similar predicament.

British Airlines is not the only company with a similar policy regarding the seating arrangements of their male passengers. Qantas and Air New Zealand both operate under the same rules. Mark Worsley could tell you of his indignation, when he was forced to change seats, because he wasn’t female.

For the original reports from the BCC, go here and here. For additional commentary go here.

The bill borrows heavily in wording from the federal act, by clearly defining what constitutes an act of “genital mutilation”. The Massachusetts bill will continue to prohibit any cutting or infibulations of the labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris; and, it will add the penis, glans, foreskin, nipple, breast, and vulva to the list of protected organs, thereby granting fundamental and equal protections to babies of both genders.

Other than this being the beginning of equal treatment under the law for men and boys, there are many other reasons to be ecstatic about this bill. For those who don’t know, circumcision is an unnecessary medical procedure, which permanently removes many vital tissues. Included are 24,000 nerve endings that these boys and men will never get back, of which all of the meissner’s corpuscles, which are the fine-touch receptors. Volume 99 Issue 4 of the British Journal of Urology records how much neurological damage is done by circumcision; and, charts the lack of sensitivity in a circumcised penis. Neither the American Association of Pediatrics nor the American Medical Association support routine neonatal circumcision, and for good reason.

It’s hard to imagine how this procedure ever began in this country; but, it’s not that old. Circumcision began to be practiced and advocated for in the late 1870’s, as a “cure for masturbation”. It was out of a hatred for male sexuality that this practice grew and became standard among families. The practice of cutting off large sections of boy’s penises came immediately after the period when parents forced young boys into strange chastity belts to prevent them from so much as touching themselves. Psychiatrists during this period are now famous for declaring that masturbation lead to insanity. Being the sane people they obviously were, they opted for tying babies down to flay them alive.

This Bill is being met with harsh criticism, primarily from religious fundamentalists, who claim that this bill removes their 1st Amendment Rights to free religious practice; but, how could their freedoms be infringed, when it’s neither their body nor the religion of the baby’s, per se? They claim a religious right to the bodies of others. The bodies in question are sovereign beings, who deserve the right to do with their body what they want, and not be forced to have what others want done to it. Not to lean on old clichés; but, his body, his choice. If he wants to be circumcised, he can choose to have the procedure done at the age of adulthood. After all, it’s his body right, or do others own it?

If those, who oppose the bill, continue to claim their religious right to do with his body what they want, then what do we do, when other religions claim ownership of their bodies? The Jews may claim a religious right to take knives to the bodies of babies; but, the Muslims claim a religious right to take knives to the bodies of Jews. Both of these practices are against the secular laws of our nation, and it is more than reasonable to prohibit both, for the same reasons. Religion is not a sufficient reason to maim and assault others, whether a baby or an adult.

To be perfectly blunt, there is no reason sufficient for forcing this upon anyone, and Massachusetts may yet earn great praise in the history books for being the first state to end this abomination. After all, Senate Bill 1777’s very name has historical significance: July 8th of 1777 was when Vermont became the first state to abolish slavery, and adopt male suffrage. It’s a sign that this bill is long overdue, after all, baby boys are not the property of their parents and they deserve a voice too.

The original post can be found here. Enjoy his methodical reasoning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feminism’s War on Objectivity

by Peter Schwartz

While feminists claim to be pursuing justice for women, it is becoming ever more apparent that their actual goal is the obliteration of justice. More precisely, their aim is to eliminate that which makes justice possible: objective standards.

Instead of urging employers, for example, to adopt objective standards of merit in hiring and to apply them consistently to all candidates, irrespective of the (irrelevant) fact of gender, feminists call for the very opposite. They demand the lowering or the suspension of standards, in order to accommodate certain women. They no longer argue that women who meet objective qualifications ought not to be rejected solely on account of their sex (an argument which would merit moral, though not legislative, backing); rather, they declare that females who fail to qualify should be accepted solely on account of their sex.

When faced with the fact that most female applicants were unable to meet the New York City Fire Department’s strength requirements, feminists successfully sued to have the standards changed so that a “sufficient” number of women could pass. They did not care that there is an objective need for stringent physical standards for firefighters. To feminists, gender transcends everything, including reality and logic.

This attitude is evident in the response of women’s groups to two recent news events.

Feminists championed the just-enacted Civil Rights Act of 1991. This law creates a legal presumption of wrongdoing whenever a company’s practices–such as employment tests–have a “disparate impact” by sex (or race or other collectivist criteria). Thus, if proportionately fewer women than men pass a truck-driving test (or if fewer Eskimos than non-Eskimos meet a high school diploma requirement), the employer can be charged with “discrimination.” And while the legislation nominally exempts practices that are “job-related,” this amounts to mere lip-service. For how many employers would risk the time and money to mount a defense, when the legal burden is on them to prove “non-discrimination”–to prove it, that is, to the satisfaction of the same mentality that considers it unjust discrimination to test a prospective firefighter’s ability to lift heavy weights?

A similar disregard for objective standards was manifested during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas confrontation. There, feminists instantly flocked to Hill’s side, accepting her testimony as undeniably true and condemning those who subjected her to cross-examination in a quest for facts. The feminist complaint was not that Hill was being judged by different stndards than men are–but that she wasn’t, i.e., that because she was a woman accusing a man of an archetypically “male-chauvinist” crime, her veracity should have been indisputable.

These feminists are indifferent to the principle that a process of justice requires objective judicial standards; positive evidence supporting the charges must exist even before the convening of any hearing or trial; the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, since a negative cannot be proved; the accused must be considered inocent unless proven guilty; and the accuser must consequently be intensely scrutinized, doubted and challenged. But feminists maintain that objective standards are immaterial, and objective facts non-existent. To them, the respective genders of accuser and accused in this case reveal who is the victimizer and who is the victim.

This approach represents not a search for “better” standards, but a jettisoning of standards as such–and of objectivity. According to Marxist ideology, there is no objectivity in human reasoning, but only “proletarian logic” and “bourgeois logic,” with one’s economic class determining the contents of one’s mind. Feminism likewise contends that objectivity is impossible. Feminists believe that standards–in jurisprudence, in employment, in any sphere–are the products of a “male power structure.” They maintain that the “class interests” of men compel them to perceive reality from a distorted, prejudiced perspective–that men, by biological necessity, “just don’t get it.”

If there is no objectivity, then the basis for deciding who is entitled to what is not the standards of justice, but the whims of any collective (enforced by the politics of pressure-group warfare). This is why feminists do not insist that one hire a female worker who deserves the job, or believe a female witness because she has earned credibility, or include in a university’s curriculum a female author whose works merit study. Feminism’s essential message–a message demeaning to all rational, conscientious women — is that the female gender needs to be granted the unearned.

Justice is the objective evaluation of individuals. By embracing the non-objective, feminism can pursue nothing but the unjust.

The following is an assortment of misandric words and phrases, which are now standardized and cemented into our vocabularies. Included, will be their etymology, their definition, and why they impact the societal view of males negatively. Since it easier to see double standards and biased attitudes for what they are, when the same standards and attitudes are applied to a different group, female oriented versions of the following terms have been provided, so that it easier to see why they are insulting and demeaning. Hopefully this will allow a great deal of empathy to form.

1. -badguy- This is a phrase to describe a person, who is lacking moral character or one, who has committed some wrong. It implies, though, that all wrongdoers are male, since it is the title for females who lack moral character, or have committed a wrong, as well as the title for males of the same persuasion. The reverse would be to say “badgal”.
2. -girls are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, while boys are made up of snakes, and snails, and puppy dog tails- This is a saying said often to children, that denotes that everything about girls is good, while everything about boys is bad. The reverse would be to say “boys are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, while girls are made up of snakes, snails, and puppy dog tails.”
3. -ladies and germs- This is an old greeting in comic routines towards the audience. It is a pejorative phrase, which implies that men are neither mannered nor cleanly. The reverse would be to say “germs and gentlemen”.
4. -man-made disaster- This is a phrase which means that a catastrophe was started by humans, in some way, shape, or form. It implies, however, that only males are responsible for calamities. The reverse of this would be to say “woman-made disaster“.
5. -mansplaining- This is a neologism that is used to describe what is seen as a male habit of explaining things in a patronizing manner. It is often used to degrade and devalue the statements and beliefs of men in internet forums, by implying that the male speaker doesn’t really know what he is talking about, simply because he is male; and, it furthers and perpetuates stereotypes against men about just that. The reverse of this would be to say “femsplaining“
   
6. -the fairer sex- This is a title bestowed upon the female sex, which claims that they are more graceful, decent, and virtuous than males, simply because of their gender. The reverse of this would be to say that “males are the fairer sex.”
7. -women and children first- This is an ancient maxim and pseudo-law, which reinforces a mandate, in the minds of men, that they are of less value than their female counterparts; and, should sacrifice for them regardless of the situation and regardless of the cost incurred by them. The reverse would be to say “men and children first”.