Men's Rights Blogs

Feeds

32500 items (32500 unread) in 50 feeds

• A Brotherhood of Man (60 unread)
• An Irishman Against Feminism (57 unread)
• Angry Harry (90 unread)
• Another Day In The Jungle (49 unread)
• Anti-Feminist UK (23 unread)
• Callum Phoenix' Rising (61 unread)
• Captain Save'Aho (10 unread)
• Captain Zarmband (139 unread)
• Carnival of Reaction (240 unread)
• Eternal Bachelor (129 unread)
• Forever Male (25 unread)
• Hawaiian Libertarian (199 unread)
• MarkyMark's Thoughts on Various Issues (433 unread)
• MenAreBetterThanWomen.com (164 unread)
• Men's Hour (13 unread)
• Mensactivism.org - Men's Rights News & Info (3636 unread)
• MIsForMalevolent (116 unread)
• NO MA'AM (157 unread)
• Pete Patriarch's Musings (128 unread)
• The Counter-Feminist (292 unread)
• The Rights Of Man (346 unread)
• 雲隠れ流派－ Kumogakure School. (358 unread)
• A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights (58 unread)
• Gonzo's Bar & Go-Go Grill (288 unread)
• Anti-Misandry Forums (12028 unread)
• American Women Suck Rants (2405 unread)
• Dump Your Wife NOW! (26 unread)
• GlennSacks.com (2287 unread)
• Don't Marry (371 unread)
• khankrumthebulgar (67 unread)
• Eternal Bachelor Archives (450 unread)
• I'm A Desperate Houseboy (124 unread)
• Truth For Men (60 unread)
• Outcast Superstar (260 unread)
• Egghead's Observations (79 unread)
• DontMakeHerMad.com News Articles (82 unread)
• dad4justice (652 unread)
• dads&things (519 unread)
• Rex Patriarch (180 unread)
• Fathers & Families Blog (653 unread)
• Female Misogynist (317 unread)
• The Elusive Wapiti (770 unread)
• Biblical Manhood (102 unread)
• The False Rape Society (646 unread)
• Many Luxury Vacations (85 unread)
• MENZ Issues (302 unread)
• Parental Alienation (550 unread)
• MensRights: what's new online (2367 unread)
• Alpha Dominance (30 unread)
• The Victim Feminists Rogues Gallery (17 unread)

Unread items (10)

dad4justice

• 

  NZBC guidelines for misandry

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 10:01pm PDT by dad4justice

  Australian playwright David Williamson gives his thoughts on writing about women at the Author's Right To Speak seminar at the Sydney Writers Festival. No wonder all we ever hear about in New Zealand is misogyny but never misandry, which is the hatred or oppression of males!
  
  A couple of thoughts from international colleagues in the Fathers Right Movement;
  
  Robert writes;
  
  “Freedom and liberty are not absolutes in today's world. They are subject to interpretation and secret censorship that leaves the population believing they have witnessed and are experiencing unadulterated freedom and liberty.This is not true as this pod cast from New Zealand epitomizes.You will find out how women can be defined in only a certain number of ways and definitely not in others, most interesting.
  
  I have a great deal of sympathy with his views having been on a BBC
  "internal steering committee" where scripts were altered 1 year in advance to get across the message of a planned campaign against men.
  
  This is something that should belong to the Fascist and Soviet era but, no, it is alive and well in 2009. If anything, it reinforces the proposition that a Commissariat is at work in most countries benevolently 'guiding' how we think and what we think.”
  
  Tom writes;
  
  “Worth a listen to re the example of the NZBC guidelines for writing about women and the deliberate feminist agenda (propaganda) behind that push to manipulate NZ citizens."
  
  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/
  David Williamson on writing about women
  
  Listen
  
  Download MP3 (3.5MB, 7:45 minutes)
  http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/06/bsw_20090630_1020.mp3
  
  Who is David Williamson?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Williamson

The Elusive Wapiti

• 

  A Brief History of American Law Enforcement, Part II

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 7:45pm PDT

  In Part I of this two-part series, I introduce an article by legal scholar Roger Roots in which he makes the case that modern-day law enforcement is on shaky legal grounds. I summarize his monograph from a historical perspective. Part I covered two of Roots' points: the role of the citizen in early law enforcement, and how laws were in forced at the time of the Founders. In this second installment, I discuss how modern police have a lower standard of accountability than would citizens in the same role, modern policing has resulted in less freedom, not more, and how modern police are analogous to the bane of the Founders: a standing army.
  
  A Lower Standard of Accountability, More Abuse
  Another point that Roots makes is the superiority of the citizen-based law enforcement model in the area of accountability. As seen above, a citizen remains liable for false allegations, trespassing, and other torts when he violates the rights of others; this vulnerability acts as a natural restraint on the action of a citizen. No such restraint exists for police and other agents of the modern criminal justice system (e.g. district attorneys and judges who grant search warrants based upon flimsy evidence); in fact, the opposite is true...that accountability for police is the exception rather than the rule, and favoritism toward police over ordinary citizens is a commonly accepted practice. Imagine if you would a world where
  

  
  law enforcers were liable for false imprisonment, even where they acted with court permission, if procedures were improper. A deputy was liable for damages to an arrestee whom he arrested outside his jurisdiction. Sheriffs were even liable if their deputies executed civil process in a rude and insolent manner. When executing writs, sheriffs were liable for any unnecessary violence against innocent third persons who obstructed them. Sheriffs and justices who executed arrests pursuant to invalid warrants were considered trespassers (as were any judges who granted invalid warrants). Any person was justified in resisting, or even battering, such officers. Justices of the peace could be held liable for ordering imprisonment without taking proper steps. Nor did state authority provide the umbrella of indemnification that now protects public officers. Sheriffs of the nineteenth century often sought protection from liability by obtaining bonds from private sureties. Their bonds were used to satisfy civil judgments against them while in office. If the amount of their bonds was insufficient to satisfy judgments, sheriffs were liable personally. It was not uncommon for a sheriff to find himself in jail as a debtor for failing to satisfy judgments against him. Even punitive damages against officers - long disfavored by modern courts with regard to municipal liability - were deemed proper and normal under the law of the Framers
  

  
  Such was the world of law enforcement in the days of the Founders. By contrast, very little personal accountability exists for misconduct on the part of law enforcement officers. Theoretically, the State is held accountable for cases of misconduct and violations of rights; in practice, as illustrated by the mere 27 cases of Federal prosecution of police for criminal infractions, rarely are law enforcers held accountable for misconduct. Some of this is due to a shift in jurisprudence...a key legal concept that was introduced into American law in the last 150 years is the "good faith" defense for LEOs in the execution of their duties, which becomes a virtual "get away with what I want to" get-out-of-jail-free-card for all but the most egregious violators. Thus the very evil that the Founding Fathers sought to dispatch at the end of the 18th century, swarms of unaccountable government agents violating the natural rights of citizens, quickly returned with the defense that an officer can rely on a "probably cause" defense in making an arrest, conducting a search, or detaining a citizen. That police abuse this probable cause defense to the detriment of the rights of citizens to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure and detainment is tautological in the days of "testilying" on search warrant applications.
  
  Less Rights, More Power to the State
  In addition to law enforcement officer's de facto immunity from being held accountable, the rights of citizens have also dwindled. No longer may citizens resist warrantless arrest; it is now a crime to resist an arrest by a law enforcer if the officer has probable cause"--which is little more than one man's opinion--that you committed a crime at some point in time in the past. In a further granting of power to the State and its agents, the officer doesn't even have to witness the crime...the word of a "confidential informant"--which may be a figment of the officer's imagination--is sufficient. In a world where freedom to move about at one's will, where freedom from government, not just freedom of government, was once enshrined by Justice Brandeis dictum that the right to be left alone is the most important right undergirding the Constitution, the now archaic requirement that the State have a properly formed warrant for a citizen's arrest for all but the most felonious and time-critical of crimes is a huge loss for the liberty of citizens everywhere. And while early jurisprudence permitted warrantless arrest in some cases seen as inherently prejudicial to public order and safety, at the time of the Founders, only seven crimes qualified for warrantless arrest. Furthermore, the right to self-defense has significantly eroded. Whereas the Second Amendment was conceived as a check on the power of the government--by arming the citizenry to resist the oppression of the State--today it is a crime to resist the State's near-monopoly on firepower, to fight back, even when the police barge into your house in the middle of the night by mistake. It is illegal for a man to defend his home, his castle, with deadly force, even if it is difficult to distinguish the dynamically entering masked law enforcers both in appearance and deed from common criminals. In addition, one's persons and vehicles are no longer secure from warrantless search and seizure as they were at the time of the Founding, "stop and frisk" is the rule of the day, based on the whim of a government agent. One's property rights have drastically dwindled, as personal property is now able to be seized if it were deemed "evidence", and personal papers and diaries, once exempt from search and seizure by law enforcement, is now fair game.
  
  Police as a Standing Army, Contra the Intent of the Framers
  Speaking of masked gunmen indistinguishable from gang-bangers, Roots contends that a paid professional police force is nothing more than the incarnation of the standing army that the Founders hated so much:
  

  
  It is largely forgotten that the war for American independence was initiated in large part by the British Crown's practice of using troops to police civilians in Boston and other cities. Professional soldiers used in the same ways as modern police were among the primary grievances enunciated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The duties of such troops were in no way military but involved the keeping of order and the suppression of crime. Englishmen of the Founding era, both in England and its colonies, regarded professional police as an "alien, continental device for maintaining a tyrannical form of Government"..."Standing armies," according to one New Hampshire correspondent, "have ever proved destructive to the Liberties of a People, and where they are suffered, neither Life nor Property are secure." If pressed, modern police defenders would have difficulty demonstrating a single material difference between the standing armies the Founders saw as so abhorrent and America's modern police forces.
  

  
  Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish between modern police and the modern infantry soldier, and what small difference that does exist is one of degree, not kind. Both wear uniforms, with insignia that demarcates what "unit" they belong to. Both wear their arms on the outside. Both are accountable to a politically distant public official and are thus insulated from accountability to the public for their actions, follow a chain of command, have an insular, authoritarian subculture and consider themselves different and separate (and sometimes better) from the People they serve, referring to non-police or non-military citizens as "civilians". And increasingly, police employ military tactics, are often themselves trained by military units, and recruit many former military members as police officers. I do not think it much of a stretch to state that mindsets of the the soldier and the police officer are nearly identical. The Founders would probably look at our toleration of armed, uniformed, largely unaccountable troops in our midst with shock and horror.
  
  In closing, Roots in this excellent monograph asks the question "are cops constitutional?". Whether they are or not is a question I didn't bother to address. But I did find it illuminating to consider the differences between the intents of the Founders for how we Americans were to enforce our laws, and the practices of the Leviathan that we have delegated our collective powers of law enforcement to. Although I will say that the reversion toward centralized State power, from the brief 150-year period where personal liberty was the concern of every (English) man, toward a more powerful State is consistent with political trends in the West since the mid- to late 1800s. It is this gradual return of power from the individual to the State that has permitted a return of the horrors that an unchecked government may inflict upon its people, one that should make each of us concerned about the long-term viability of the Great American Experiment.

Mensactivism.org - Men's Rights News & Info

• 

  New accounts

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 7:33pm PDT by Matt

  Recenly we tried to re-allows new account registration here at MANN but almost immediately after doing so we got spam posts. So until the issue is resolved, assuming it can be, please send all requests for new accounts to newaccounts@mensactivism.org. Sorry for the inconvenience.

  -- Matt

MensRights: what's new online

• 

  Projection: all the rotten things feminism attributes to men is more accurately applied to women. Men aren't half as bad as women think they are. Women, upon closer inspection, are almost as bad as women think men are.

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 7:28pm PDT

  submitted by kanuk876
  [link] [3 comments]

Mensactivism.org - Men's Rights News & Info

• 

  New Jersey law requires $25 of $28 for a marriage license to go to battered women's shelters

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 7:18pm PDT by Matt

  From Jeremy S.: GOOD GOD! How blatant is THAT? What an outrage! I was just going to ask for proof of this: "$25.00 goes to battered women's trust funds". I am stunned and outraged. I can only imagine what monies are transferred and to where in my own country. Everything is possible now. (Seriously this is not a joke.) I stand in disbelief and in renewed earnest solidarity with our American brothers. I need say no more. Let this tell the story.

  37:1-12.1. Additional fee: '1. In addition to the fee for issuing a marriage license authorized pursuant to R.S.37:1-12, each licensing officer shall collect a fee of $25 from the applicants which shall be forwarded on a quarterly basis to the Department of Human Services.'

  37:1-12.2. Trust fund to aid victims of domestic violence: '2. The Department of Human Services shall establish a trust fund for the deposit of the fees received pursuant to section 1 of this act. The moneys from the trust fund shall be used for the specific purpose of establishing and maintaining shelters for the victims of domestic violence, or a. for providing grants-in-aid to such shelters established by local governments or private nonprofit organizations;...'

  Ed. comments: Of course the implication created by attaching a DV shelter-funding provision to a fee collected for marriage licenses speaks volumes of the prejudices underlying the conception of the regulation: that marriage leads to domestic violence so it is marriage that is to be taxed (at the relative rate of 830% as compared to the license fee without the surcharge: 25/3 = 8.33, or 830%). However research shows that such is not the case; DV can and does occur between unmarried and cohabiting and non-cohabiting people all the time. Yet it is marriage license fees are the things that get attached for this funding.

GlennSacks.com

• 

  Christina Hoff Sommers Rips Academic Feminists

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 6:17pm PDT by Robert Franklin, Esq.

  "Feminist misinformation is pervasive."

  So says Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  In this article, she's once again taking on academic feminism in a few of its many guises (AEI, 6/29/09).  Her first example is a law school textbook on domestic violence law edited by Professor Nancy K. D. Lemon.  Sommers gets as far as the first page when she runs into this astonishing locution:

  The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. . . . The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe.

  As Sommers points out, Romulus was a fictional character and the Rule of Thumb had nothing to do with men beating their wives, whatever fantasies to the contrary feminists may choose to indulge in.  My favorite part, which Sommers doesn't mention, is the last sentence in which the writer claims that the English Common Law perpetuated traditions "in most of Europe."  Uh, no it didn't.  English Common Law governed England; the rest of Europe had its own set of laws and traditions.

  As good as Sommers is at skewering this type of inanity, she gives these writers too much credit.  The paragraph quoted above looks more like the effort of a mediocre high school student who waited to write a paper until the night before it was due.  Romulus of Rome?  Can't you just see a group of high school history teachers sitting around the teacher's lounge getting a laugh out of that one?  I can.

  The intellectual dishonesty of feminism has a long and sorry history.  As Sommers points out, there are plenty of feminists whose scholarship is scrupulous.  But there are plenty more who think nothing of producing the most slipshod work imaginable.

  But here's another fact - if we didn't let them get away with it, they wouldn't do it.   There was a time when American academia would have shouted this stuff down with derision. 

  There may have even been a time that journalists were actually expected to know what they were talking about and get their facts straight.  So if someone claimed, as feminist watchdog Katherine Hanson actually did, that over four million women are killed every year by domestic violence (she was off by a factor of about 4,000) the writer or an editor might actually have checked up on the claim and refused to publish it when it turned out to be so wildly wrong. 

  And there might have been a time when Congress didn't just swallow hook, line and sinker claims of, for example, domestic violence advocates that are well-known to be wrong.

  Sadly, it seems those times have passed.

  Parenting Plan Calendar Software Shared Ground (R) is an easy-to-use software program designed for divorced parents to track their parenting plan schedules over many years. Parents, attorneys, arbitrators and mediators can generate equitable parenting plans, which is especially useful for parents seeking fair division of their children's time. MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. Click here for more information.

Gonzo's Bar & Go-Go Grill

• 

  But of course…

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 5:03pm PDT by The Gonzman

  My Conservative Identity:

  You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

  Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Biblical Manhood

• 

  Recommended Essay

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 4:40pm PDT

  I was troving the MRA blogosphere when I stumbled across a wonderful essay by F. Roger Devlin ("The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution and Its Limitations"). Devlin has written for a publication called Occidental Quarterly and apparently the essay in question was supposed to be published by that journal. The piece is over year old and perhaps some of you have already seen it, but it nonethless gets to the heart of one of things this blog has been trying to fight. That is, the whole neo-chivalrous, "damsel in distress," marriage mandate, Makenite tripe that has gripped the imagination of religious conservatives. Devlin's article busts the stupid myth that women are just precious little angels that need to protected from unscrupulous, immature men.
  
  A juicy quote:
  

  When the sexual revolution began, women imagined that the "slavery" of marriage was unfairly standing between themselves and endless erotic fulfillment. Forty years later, many are imagining instead that the availability to men of sex outside marriage is standing in the way of their wedding. "If other women were not sluts," they reason, "the man of my dreams would be forced to discover my true value and come crawling to me with a diamond ring." One of the interviewees from Shalit's first book, for example, complains: "After three dates when I wouldn't sleep with [a certain man], he dumped me, just like that! If you ask me, it's because it's way too easy for them. Why should they waste time with a girl like me when they can get it for free?" (RM, p. 104)
  
  Now, how does the woman know this is the reason he "dumped" (stopped courting) her? Never once have I heard a woman say: "I am such a pain in the derriere that after just three dates men are charging for the exit." Appealing to the supposed universal availability of sex has become a way for women to avoid facing the reality of rejection. Men break off courtships for all kinds of reasons: they may sense that a particular girl might not be faithful, is not careful with money, has too many bad habits, or just plain is not for them. Holding out for wedding rings is not going to solve these women's problems and allow them to live happily ever after. If we could wave a magic wand and cause extramarital sex to disappear overnight, many women would be shocked to discover that handsome movie stars were still not flocking to their doorsteps with flowers and chocolates. (emphasis mine).

  Devlin's essay is actually a review article of Wendy Shalit, but it could have just easily been a response to Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, certain staff writers for Boundless.org, and the Evangelical Establishment Media to boot. It's a lengthy piece, so don't scan over it and miss the good stuff. Enjoy.

MENZ Issues

• 

  MAYORAL FATHER’S BREAKFAST

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 4:12pm PDT by julie

  Aug

  25

  7:10 am

  Hosted by His Worship, Hon. John Banks, QSO, Mayor Auckland City and chaired by Bruce Pilbrow, CEO Parents Inc.

  Parents Inc. holds a number of one off events throughout the year, the largest being the Auckland Mayoral Fathers’ Breakfast. This event was first launched in 1994 by the then Mayor of Auckland, Les Mills. Over the last 15 years thousands of fathers have attended this hugely popular annual breakfast.

  “Being a Dad is the most important job a man can do, so we’re offering advice and support to fathers so they can do their job better. The breakfast is also really good fun and a great feed,” says Ian Grant.

  Each breakfast has had a star line-up of speakers, such as Nick Farr-Jones, Todd Blackadder, Sean Fitzpatrick, Stephen Tindall and Neil Finn. “The speakers we’ve had at the breakfasts over the years have been from all sorts of professions – sports, business, medicine, entertainment – but they all have one thing in common,” says Ian, “They’re all outstanding fathers.”

  Speakers present their personal experience of fatherhood, sharing the things that have worked and the things that haven’t. The practical nature of the speakers’ advice, combined with the atmosphere generated by more than 700 fathers in a room, makes for a powerful event.

  Venue: Vector Arena; 42 Mahuhu Crescent Parnell, Auckland

  Cost:$55 per person
  $550 per table of 11
  (includes cooked breakfast)

  TO BOOK ONLINE CLICK HERE

  Phone Parents Inc. on 09 524 1387
  Email: fathers.breakfast@parentsinc.org.nz

Anti-Misandry Forums

• 

  Global Dubai: Wealthiest Country in the World?

  Posted: July 3rd, 2009, 2:30pm PDT by bababob

  (The Dubai Waterfront. When completed it will become the largest waterfront development in the world.)
  
  
  
  (All of this was built in the last 5 years, including that island that looks like a palm tree.)
  
  
  
  (The Palm Islands in Dubai . New Dutch dredging technology was used to create these massive man made islands. They are the largest artificial islands in the world and can be seen from space. Three of these Palms will be made with the last one being the largest of them all.)
  
  
  
  (Upon completion, the resort will have 2,000 villas, 40 luxury hotels, shopping centers, movie theaters, and many other facilities. It is expected to support a population of approximately 500,000 people. It is advertised as being visible from the moon.
  
  
  
  (The World Islands . 300 artificially created islands in the shape of the world. Each island will have an estimated cost of $25-30 million.)
  
  
  
  (The Burj al-Arab hotel in Dubai . The worlds tallest hotel. Considered the only ‘7 star’ hotel and the most luxurious hotel in the world. It stands on an artificial island in the sea.)
  
  
  
  (Hydropolis, the world’s first underwater hotel. Entirely built in Germany and then assembled in Dubai , it is scheduled to be completed by 2009 after many delays.)
  
  
  
  (The Burj Dubai. Construction began in 2005 and is expected to be complete by 2008. At an estimated height of over 800 meters, it will easily be world’s tallest building when finished. It will be almost 40% taller than the the current tallest building, the Taipei 101.)
  
  
  
  (This is what downtown Dubai will look like around 2008-2009. More than 140 stories of the Burj Dubai have already been completed. It is already the worlds tallest man made structure and it is still not scheduled to be completed for at least another year. )
  
  
  
  (The Al Burj. This will be the centerpiece of the Dubai Waterfront. Once completed it will take over the title of the tallest structure in the world from the Burj Dubai.)
  
  
  
  (Recently it was announced that the final height of this tower will be 1200 meters. That would make it more than 30% taller than the Burj Dubai and three times as tall as the Empire State Building .)
  
  
  
  (The Burj al Alam, or The World Tower . Upon completion it will rank as the world’s highest hotel. It is expected to be finished by 2009. At 480 meters it will only be 28 meters shorter than the Taipei 101.)
  
  
  
  (The Trump International Hotel & Tower, which will be the centerpiece of one of the palm islands, The Palm Jumeirah.)
  
  
  
  (Dubailand. Currently, the largest amusement park collection in the world is Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando , which is also the largest single-site employer in the United states with 58,000 employees. Dubailand will be twice the size.)
  
  
  
  (Dubailand will be built on 3 billion square feet (107 miles^2) at an estimated $20 billion price tag. The site will include a purported 45 mega projects and 200 hundred other smaller projects.)
  
  
  
  (Dubai Sports City. A huge collection of sports arenas located in Dubailand.)
  
  
  
  (Currently, the Walt Disney World Resort is the #1 tourist destination in the world. Once fully completed, Dubailand will easily take over that title since it is expected to attract 200,000 visitors daily.)
  
  
  
  (The Dubai Marina is an entirely man made development that will contain over 200 highrise buildings when finished. It will be home to some of the tallest residential structures in the world. The completed first phase of the project is shown. Most of the other high rise buildings will be finished by 2009-2010.)
  
  
  
  (The Dubai Mall will be the largest shopping mall in the world with over 9 million square feet of shopping and around 1000 stores. It will be completed in 2008.)
  
  
  
  (Ski Dubai , which is already open, is the largest indoor skiing facility in the world. This is a rendered image of another future indoor skiing facility that is being planned.)
  
  
  
  (Some of the tallest buildings in the world, such as Ocean Heights and The Princess Tower , which will be the largest residential building in the world at over a 100 stories, will line the Dubai Marina.)
  
  
  
  (The UAE Spaceport would be the first spaceport in the world if construction ever gets under way.) http://www.architecturelist.com/2008/03/05/351/