text:
Constitutional Law
Clearly not.
Perhaps while he is at it he can file a reverse Title IX suit against the Ivy presidents for prohibiting men's football squads from participation in any post-season play championship play. The men's Ivy football teams are the only Ivy teams prohibited from such participation.
Go for it Den. This outrage has been stickin' in my craw for a good while.
Maybe he should fight real discrimination; the whole title IX thing. It's destroying, gymnastics and especially wrestling.
There's a petition one can sign at this time
Why is offering women's studies courses discriminatory? Isn't the study of the whole history of Western culture a men's studies subject?
You go boy!
Family/divorce court seems much more anti-male than anything involving academia.
(1) Women's studies ought to be abolished because it's a quasi-academic subject devoted to the advancement of a narrow set of views on the topic of gender, rather than a subject (like, e.g., political science) in which a range of leading ideas about the topic are presented and openly debated. Taking a course in women's studies at most schools is like taking a course in religion at Bob Jones. Much of what you hear presented as settled truth would be disputed by mainstream, non-ideological biologists, psychologists, historians and economists of both genders. (2) That said, this guy sounds like an idiot and a gross misogynist.
Womens Studies do women no good just like Black studies didn't do anything for African Americans. Gay & Lesbian studies are equally ridiculous. It seems to me that there are adequate Gay, Lesbian, Black and other female writers, scientists and other professionals that their work can easily be included in more normal, English, History, Physics, etc. courses. It is the rigorous standard types of courses that best equip discriminated populations to improve their situations. Feel-good stuff is useless in the real world. I have a close relative who took Womens studies at Mills College. She is still reeducating herself so she can earn a living. Postponing her life and incurring large debt for no good reason, didn't help her any.
I doubt that Meg Whitman, Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton wasted a moment on feminist coursework.
>>>...I doubt that Meg Whitman, Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton wasted a moment on feminist coursework.
I had something to say, but, now that I think about it, this Hollander fellow is nothing more than a ignorant publicity hound and I don't want to dignify his misogynistic nonsense with a comment. Why he feels threatened by women is between he and his mother and I'll leave it at that.
As someone with a women's studies major, I can assure you that feminists are not really out there fighting for our right to "Ladies Night." :)
I suspect that my divorce judge graduated from a pro-woman college program. After a ten-minute discussion, though I was legally innocent, I lost my kids, 18 years of income, and my possessions.
Feminism in America is formidable and not to be underestimated. He's brave and or stupid for taking action against.
LOL Someone is always tilting at windmills.
I can't think of too many normal, straight men who would not applaud his stance to some degree -- silently, of course, to avoid getting hit with a Title VII suit at work or cut off from sex by their wives and girlfriends.
This guy's got cojones! 6:06, he's got some valid contentions. For you to dismiss him out of hand as an "idiot," and label him the much anticipated and dully obvious "misogynist" (a tricky word to spell right -congrats!), does nothing to persuade anyone he is either. Though I do wonder whether he's just another mega-motivated jaded disgruntled male divorcee. Still, guy's got a point. I agree also with 6:23.
I agree with most of the comments above. The guy has got balls. A lot of the social science stuff which gets passed on in serious academia is little more than a load of bull crap. Doesn't help one earn an honest living.
What a loser, seriously.
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Hollander has ever read feminist literature or attended a women's studies class. He seems to be arguing against what he thinks these classes are teaching rather than actually finding out. There is a history with regard to women -- getting the vote, getting the pill, getting to work, etc. There is simply nothing wrong with studying history. Apparently at least 50% of the population (i.e. women) found these causes worth fighting for.
Mark --
You're wife cleaned you out because some judge thought that was an equitable outcome. Don't blame it on her education. Blame your own lack of an education.
Well well, the right wing is indeed alive. For the writers information one of the major reasons we have womens studies is that we women have been plundered and raped at every level. If you look into todays statistics, you will find that the US has the highest rate of rape in the world. Enough said, amen.
I wish he would sue all the restaurants that give "Senior discounts". Seems like age discrimination to me. Imagine a restaurant that gave discounts to those under 50.
What were these NY clubs thinking when they charged men more than women to enter these places of public accomodations. What's next "Men's Night," "Caucasian Night." Of course these type of sex or race-based promotions violate the law - of about 20 states, including New York. Fortunately, some very brave and smart California attorneys have been very succsessful in the last few years in ending the scourge of Ladies Night in California.
Isn't Ladies' Night for the benefit of men? The whole idea of Ladies' Night is to fill the bar with women so men have a better chance. Doesn't seem like anything worth complaining about. This guy is obviously proud to cause trouble for anything women-related, even something meant to benefit men.
Also, plenty of bars have "College Night" - cheap or free cover with student ID. Don't see this guy going after those.
Ladies' Nights are for the benefit of some women, e.g., those whoi prefer to be treated like prostitutes, by having men directly or (indirectly) paying for sex. Most of today's women prefer to be treated as an equal to men. They don't think women inately cannot earn as much money as men, nor do they agree that women are valued by society as little more than sexual bait. And Ladies' Night benefit those men with no game, men who don't have the personality, wit, or succsess to attract women, and instead need to pay women to be attracted to them.
d.knaus - I think that you may have meant the highest rate of reported rape. And I believe that the high number of reported rapes results more from positive elements of gender relations in the U.S. (an actual investigation will be conducted, you won't be stoned to death by your family, etc.) than the actual rate at which men rape women.
He should sue the law school at the University of Iowa for discriminating against heterosexual white males, and favoring lesbians, straight females, gay males and URMs.
I applaud Roy Den Hollander for taking on this legal fight. After examining the Women's Studies entries on the Columbia University site, I cannot make heads or tails of what women are actually studying. But, I do know the result, from similar programs across the country: widespread misandry and unconstitutional rights and privileges for women. Bottom line: Columbia University is sexist against men and must right that wrong.
Finally someone with a common sense. Go Roy!
I am a feminist, yes, and I favor not the reduction of men's rights, but rather, their expansion! Here's the beginning of my "Men's Bill of Rights":
*I would favor men's night: retire those clubbing girls and bring in the good-looking men. Give them half-price drinks too because it takes more alcohol to get the big hot guys drunk enough to hook up with ugly women.
*I favor the right for men to have equality, in the divorce court, that once and for all they can do half the housework, half the child rearing, and pay half the bills (just as their evil female oppressors already have the right to do).
*Instead of women's studies we should have Gender studies so that whiny half-wits like Den Hollander can get degrees from great schools like Columbia and really only be qualified for their MR degree! Most definitely be searching for your sugar-momma, Der Hollander--Gender studies won't make you an I-banker!
*I favor the right of genetically disfavored men like Der Hollander with red, thinning skin to wear makeup to improve appearance. Yes, and they can use copiuous amounts of plastic surgery, too. WSJ, consider a plea from an evil feminist: next time, please use airbrushing on men like this! His skin looks like rotting meat!
*I favor the right for all the men like those on this page who are not satisfied with their total lack of rights and freedoms to LEAVE their wicked female oppressors. Roy Den Hollander and other liberated men on this page: you no longer have to date women! You can create a peaceful all-male utopia where you can frolic with eachother at will! I fully support your rights!
The highest rate of rape is, I believe, in South Africa. The lady who said the USA clearly is ignorant. No other word for it. No excuse for it in this day and age of google.
But, that's what the ghetto of woman's studies does for you.
Is is not odd that the Supreme Court doesn't just abolish Ladies Night? After all, it is discriminatory. It is not as though this sort of discrimination serve any social good.
Imagine if clubs had a 1/2 price night for whites? or blacks?
It seems like a no brainer.
The reason is because the last thing women want is equality with men. Why settle for less?
Is it no coincidence that where feminism is settled there goes cries of "unfair!" and "ruckus!" If the unfairer gender had any say in the matter, the half price nights would go the way of asbestos shingling, but it's the free market that is contrary. A lawsuit as such is contrary to the invisible hand that guides past the velvet rope and so he brings the second, and third action. If Totally Evil Feminist has a point, it is throwing her sex appeal in front of that train, which will not stop, only blowing the whistle "toot toot!"
Laser Haas
Why studying feminity requires demonizing masculinity is best reserved perhaps for another debate. However programs like these, although designed to remedy gender injustice, have done little more over the past few decades than polarize those who support women's studies from those who take issue with its biases.
Would someone just give this guy the hug of which he's so desparately in need?
Women's Studies was the single most instructive class I took in college, and I say that because I took no other class that put out such completely baseless crap, and not just as "the truth," but as The One Truth, and to such a spectacularly gullible audience.
What a nut. And the nuts have come out of the woodwork to agree with him, I see.
Mr. Normal, you are part of the problem.
Looks like the democrats took a lesson from Mr. Hollander and took out their frustrations on Hillary and put in place an unqualified male who place the race and sexist card.
did you check this dudes resume...cravath for 3 years...
I think it is awesome he got his MBA from Columbia...he is suing his graduate alma mater...awesome
To this writer, Mr. Anonymous who does not have the courage to put in his name, "you don't know what you are talking about!" Trust me I am not ignorant. I can read and write, and understand more than you will ever know.
"The highest rate of rape is, I believe, in South Africa. The lady who said the USA clearly is ignorant. No other word for it. No excuse for it in this day and age of google.
But, that's what the ghetto of woman's studies does for you.
Comment by Joel Hammer - August 18, 2008 at 9:26 pm"
According to: http://www.911info.net/dianesintuit_blank.htm
The University of Rochester's Men Against Sexual Assault is an organization which educates the University and the general public about sexual assault. According to their web site today July 2, 2008, "Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan."
Furthermore "1 in 3 sexual assault victims are under the age of 12 (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999) and convicted rape and sexual assault offenders report that 2/3 of their victims were under the age of 18. Among victims age 18 - 29, two thirds had a prior relationship with the rapist. (National Crime Victimization Survey, Criminal Victimization, 1996) 18% of women who reported being raped before age 18 said they were also raped after age 18. (Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)
(Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, 1992) 26% of women with bulimia nervosa were raped at some point in their lives. The mental health costs of sexual assault victims are very high, studies have shown that 25 - 50% of rape and child sexual abuse victims receive some sort of mental health treatment as a result of the victimization. (Miller, 1996)Overall, rape has the highest annual victim cost of any crime. The annual victim costs are $127 billion (excluding child sex abuse cases). This is followed by assault at $93 billion per year, murder (excluding arson and drunk driving) at $61 billion and child abuse at $56 billion per year. (Miller, 1996)".
additional information see:http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
I could go on and on, but that is not what the gist of the original post was about. My intent was to show why women needed studies to let them know what has been going on ad how they are being taken advantage of everyday in the US.
Hey Sean, studying feminity does not, I repeat does not require demonizing masculinity. "However programs like these, although designed to remedy gender injustice, have done little more over the past few decades than polarize those who support women's studies from those who take issue with its biases" And my question to you is how many courses have you take for you to be able to judge how effective the programs are? How many women have you asked about how effective the programs are?
To Marc H. Rudov, why not go a step further and actually call the college and find out what it is that you are not sure about instead of just talking off of the top of your head.
Any body else want to just puff smoke with no solid basis for your rants?
Ladies night is to lure women to clubs. There are clubs men can patronize if they want to be with men.
And why doesn't he just take a women's studies class. I didn't complain in my all male philosophy classes.
Most contemporary feminist theory is pure b.s.So arw Women's Studies programs. What can you do with a degree in that? Besides get a teaching assistant's gig at one of the Ivys, I mean? It sounds like this guy has unresolved issues, in other words, he is a born loser.
Hollander's suit against Columbia University's Women's Studies program is long overdue. Such programs are not much more than training grounds for Fe-ME-ist misandrists. The horrendous consequences of such programs is in the name: woMEN stuDIEs.
The WSJ article and many of the comments here focus more on Hollander than on the merits of his case. Whether he is "disgruntled" or a "misogynist" is irrelevant. How would you like it if someone called Rosa Parks a "trouble maker" for not wanting to sit in the back of the bus?
If anyone thinks that feminism is not anti-men then go into any large bookstore and read a sampling of the titles in the "Women's Studies" section. If you are a new associate at a large law firm your "diversity training" will include a liberal dose of anti-men statements. Female associates will receive special emails sent only to women for workshops open only to women. This kind of thing permeates our society. Two weeks ago I attended the Money Show in San Francisco and at least one session on investing was open only to women under the excuse they will speak up more if there are no men around. The speaker was a man. If this kind of thing is ok then, lets have events for men only.
This creep is on a vendetta against his mail-order Russian bride who ditched him:
Mr. Den Hollander devotes much of his private practice to representing men in civil cases — "antifeminist cases or guys'-rights cases," as he puts it - and said his bitter 2001 divorce from a woman he married in Russia helped tweak his anger toward feminists and laws he sees as favoring women.
Making no comment on the cases filed by this fellow, imho, the WSJ law blog might do itself a favor and appear a bit more that it was actually reporting "news" and a bit less gossip if it did not include e.g., links to an individual's MySpace page.
Best to have it out in the open work with boss or colleague who thinks he harbors no hostility only to have it seep out in less obvious ways, making it more difficult to counteract. My question is are there not enough other course offerings at Columbia to satisfy this needled mind? Also, aren't there still men's clubs for this man to join? I could care less about ladies' night when suing the establishment is just a ruse, and not a subtle one, for him to act out his anger from not being submissively obeyed.
Women, minorities, gays, etc, etc, etc and now men - everyone is a victim in the USA. All victims should be made to go live in a third world country for 1 year and then come back to their 'victim-hood'.
If this "injustice" does persist will it really amount to anything? Is it necessary to go after feminism with such fervor?
What a hoot! This guy is certainly a nutter, but so are the feminazis, so they deserve each other.
I read most of the major feminist writers in the '70s and '80s as it became fashionable, and before womens' studies became an established industry. About 10-20% of what they had to say was trenchant and, ultimately, constituted a reasonable critique of what really did amount to discrimination against the women who did not fit easily within the 'traditional' stereotyped roles -- stereotypes which developed over centuries when differences in physical strength and childbearing roles were paramount in daily life. The problem, of course, was the theoretical framework, which was Marxist or Freudian or (of all things) pseudo-pagan made the other 80-90% of what they wrote simply crap.
To say that you need a separate law to protect women is tantamount to claiming that there are no (adequate) provisions under the currect law to do the job. It's a question of enforcement, not additional legislation. If it takes a quack like this to get people to rethink the way we write laws in this County - viva la duck!
this guy is great.
Men die younger, their life insurance costs more. Women live longer but their pensions are the same as men. Pure discrimination.
Feminism aside, this guy looks like a tool (lots of wacky pro se lawsuits is a telltale sign). And three years at Cravath? Hell, BigLaw is filled with tools (big tools because, perhaps, their actual tools are not as big as their egos).
I do think that his conflation of feminism and bar ladies' nights is pretty misguided - the whole point of the ladies' night is to get a herd of gals so blotto that they just might go home with tools. He should be all in favor of that.
Dear dknaus 749pm
Apparently you listened well in your "women's studies" courses. You have learned the important principle of making up your own statistics. Well done, indeed.
i wonder why the feminazis at the disciplinary committee haven't pulled his website for violating the advertising rules. guess they are too busy being victims
d.knaus 1217am
"Women's Studies" are not college courses. They are subsidized support groups for uptight, Marxist women, who have been so brainwashed that they stay up until midnight to look (online) for men to attack. They also serve as "courses" for professors who are not smart enough to teach real academic courses.
I love all the pissed off feminazi comments on this page.
A. Zarkov, if the Money Show in San Francisco excluded you and other male attendees from an investment seminar because of your sex, then you are sitting on a large class action lawsuit against the producers of this show and the organizer of the investmeent seminar for violating California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 51) and the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 (Civil Code section 51.6), each of which provide for $4,000 in statutory damages per offense and attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs only. For more on these anti-discrimination laws, you may want to look at the 2007 California Supreme Court opinion of Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, where the plaintiffs' attorney did an excellent job in getting a unanimous Supreme Court to reverse a unanimous Court of Appeal opinion that required discrimination victims to first ask for equal treatment before they had a discrimination claim.
Apart from all the invective, what about this lawsuit? Just what is the basis for this guy's standing? Is there really a case or controversy here? Has the WSJ made any attempt to evaluate this self-promoter's so-called legal claims?
About time - I've been waiting to see a lawsuit like this for years! It's time we do away with inherently sexist monikers and belief systems (ie: feminism) to describe a movement that should be fighting for equal rights. Feminism should be superseded by egalitarianism or humanism supported by science instead of one-sided conjecture, and by proactive improvement instead of blame and shame. Feminism is an outdated and outmoded dinosaur and our tax dollars shouldn't be going to support a religion of hate. The fundamental flaw of feminism is not its belief that women should have equal rights. The fundamental flaw of feminism is it does not allow men an equal seat at the table in defining what "equality" means. Instead, it is nothing more then a female-supremacist movement akin to the KKK full of misandry and male/masculine vilification. Every man and woman who is truly in favor of equality should be supporting this guy in his quest to level the playing field in our educational system. Read Glenn Sacks, Wendy McElroy, Warren Farrell, and others: the egalitarian movement is afoot and feminism will change or die.
"Hey d.knaus" – lighten up. Besides condemning people who have valid questions and opinions on the other side of the issue, perhaps you could stick to the debate and share with us how taking classes in women's studies have actually championed the cause for women; prior to asking questions about how many women's studies classes someone has taken or women someone has asked to assess the efficacy of a discipline. No one needs to be blinded with your qualifications or mine on this matter; and may I remind you, there are no prerequisites to simply joining the discussion. But perhaps you have the gall to believe those with a commercial driver's license are incapable of using dishwashers.
Your attempt to bolster your position with the kind of rhetorical questions you've asked of your fellow posters are as polarizing as they are illogical. Assuming you have asked "enough" women yourself about their position on this issue and have accepted the dogma of this movement as gospel, I am led to believe the end product generally yields nothing more than crusaders incapable of engaging in open dialogue objectively, much less proposing a viable counterargument. The "smoke I puff" suggests the course matter, and the minds they edify, do little to solve the valid issues facing women.
Good day.
I think that guy is a little wacko, but I applaud him for taking on the cause. As a bar owner, would I be called racist if I held "Whites night"? Or a dean, and instituted a "White Studies" program at the local university? Of course. End of debate.
It amazes me how ignorant society has become. That this is acceptable because he's "taking on the cause". What cause? It is called Women's Studies because it is about the study of women in society. There are actually men who take Women's Studies courses and aren't discriminated against. It turns my stomach when educated (or supposedly educated people) misuse their intelligence because they just want a bit of the spotlight. He's not taking on any causes. He's doing it because he thinks that feminism teaches women to hate men. In actuality it doesn't. My feminism taught me to believe in equality for anyone and everyone. If his thinking is that feminism = anti-men then his thinking is very narrow.
I think that alot of you are missing the bigger picture. Universities get Federal Funding. That's your tax dollars, so they cannot discriminate against anybody to qualify. Regardless of the reason Mr. Hollander filed this suit, it is in every Americans interest to ensure your taxes aren't given to any group who discriminates. I mean if the KKK was still alive would you want to finance them? Granted they were more open & public about their discriminations, but the bare fact is to deny one group in favor of another is still discrimination. You might want to thank the womens right movement for this lawsuit.
Women's Studies programs are an utter waste of time but what this lawsuit proves is that conservatives can clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits, too.
In a just world, losers would have to pay the legal fees of the prevailing party. Why should Columbia have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to counsel to get rid of this puppy?
DBL: I support his cause (against Womyn's Studies) and I would probably be considered a liberal in your view. This is now a liberal vs. conservative issue. If anything, true egalitarians are MORE liberal and MORE progressive then feminists are. The problem with feminists is they are caught in the dark ages of gender studies. They can't seem to see past their own genitalia and think female/feminine=good and male/masculine=bad.
Sorry, that should have been: this is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue.
DBL, and why should my tax dollars go to support a movement that hates men?
R, feminist's belief in the patriarchy and their steadfast belief that men are privileged (and therefore women can do no wrong) show how much they hate men. You may not realize it...perhaps because you don't see the world through masculine eyes...but feminism=hatred. Feminism of old may have believed in true equality, but feminism of today is all about the power grab..and unfortunately most men are too brainwashed and too chivalrous to realize it and fight back. Thankfully, as this lawsuit shows, men (and the women who love them) are finally beginning to wake up.
I love the post below - so true!
"I am a feminist, yes, and I favor not the reduction of men's rights, but rather, their expansion! Here's the beginning of my "Men's Bill of Rights":
*I would favor men's night: retire those clubbing girls and bring in the good-looking men. Give them half-price drinks too because it takes more alcohol to get the big hot guys drunk enough to hook up with ugly women.
*I favor the right for men to have equality, in the divorce court, that once and for all they can do half the housework, half the child rearing, and pay half the bills (just as their evil female oppressors already have the right to do).
*Instead of women's studies we should have Gender studies so that whiny half-wits like Den Hollander can get degrees from great schools like Columbia and really only be qualified for their MR degree! Most definitely be searching for your sugar-momma, Der Hollander–Gender studies won't make you an I-banker!
*I favor the right of genetically disfavored men like Der Hollander with red, thinning skin to wear makeup to improve appearance. Yes, and they can use copiuous amounts of plastic surgery, too. WSJ, consider a plea from an evil feminist: next time, please use airbrushing on men like this! His skin looks like rotting meat!
*I favor the right for all the men like those on this page who are not satisfied with their total lack of rights and freedoms to LEAVE their wicked female oppressors. Roy Den Hollander and other liberated men on this page: you no longer have to date women! You can create a peaceful all-male utopia where you can frolic with eachother at will! I fully support your rights!"
Go Den! We're rooting for you, brother!
The dictionary definition of feminism is: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." Is that really so radical? Is working to end problems like rape, pay discrimination, domestic violence, etc. really such a problem? My women's studies courses were rigorous, academic, and attended by plenty of men. One of my male friends who became a police officer took a class with me about Rape, Domestic Violence and the Law because he wanted to understand more about these crimes so he could better respond to them in his career. The contention that feminism is about hating men is ridiculous, and I believe that many men who say they hate feminists actually just hate women, and probably themselves.
Anyone wanna hit ladies' night with me?
Actually, under Title IX, not only Columbia University but all universities with Women's Studies Programs but no equivalent Men's Studies Programs could lose all funding from the US Department of Education.
Marjor, unfortunately mainstream feminism left the dictionary definition of feminism behind long ago (ie: about the 70's). Since then it has become a power grab. Take a look at the likes of Glenn Sacks, Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, and others for examples of egalitarians..egalitarians who can't stand mainstream feminists. A prime example of man-hating by the likes of feminists is the Duluth Model (since you mention DV). Fact: women are as likely to be violent in their intimate relationships as men. Fact: men are almost as likely to be seriously injured/killed by a spouse as women. Fact: women are more likely to kill/abuse their offspring. Yet, the Duluth model, built on the false premise that woman=victim/man=perpetrator, does not even recognize the man=victim/woman=perpetrator possibility..even probability. The fact that your cop buddy took women's studies classes scares the heck out of me because he/she has been brainwashed to believe that all men are perpetrators and all women are victims. Keep in mind many feminists look up to Valerie Solanas (author of the misandrist SCUM Manifesto). Mainstream feminism needs to die so that a truly egalitarian movement can take its place.
Gordon, you bring up an excellent point. I'm actually surprised that this guy didn't bring up Title IX. I've been waiting for Title IX to be used as a stick to equilibrate education. The mainstream feminism=religion approach is interesting however. I'll be keeping a close eye on this one.
As a philosophy professor of over 25 years... YES! Much of what is called "feminism" VICTIM feminism, is a religious belief system, and the damage it has done to women is stunning. The degree to which it has led to the extraordinary exploitation of women in the workforce is horrendous. Due to this faith many women believe the only happy woman, is a 45-year old sterile single woman on massive doses of Zoloft who comes home alone only to empty stinking cat boxes every night after putting in an 18 hour day working for the firm... but on the other side of the glass ceiling.
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.
"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
"All men are good for is f_king, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin
If you can't see the misandry in the above feminist statements...then I pity you. These 'leaders' provide the foundations upon which most contemporary "women's studies" classes are based. They speak and teach hatred, and yes, it HAS affected our society.
d.knaus said: "Overall, rape has the highest annual victim cost of any crime"
I contend another crime has a higher cost factor...the false accusation of rape. There are rape hot lines in almost every city. There are no false accusations of rape hotlines anywhere. I am sure the Lacrosse team at Duke University could have used one. It cost each of the defendant over a million dollars to defend themselves but it cost much more then that to many. The one who willfully accused them of a crime she knew they did not do did not even get a slap on the hand. In fact, she got her college paid for by Sharpton who was ready to lynch these men although he was no where to be found when it was shown the only crime committed was by her.
We of course know that far too many women are raped but rape is NOT someone changing their minds after the fact nor is it suddenly rape when one's husband walks in.
Motivations Given by the Women Who Acknowledged They Had Made False Accusations of Rape
Spite or Revenge
To compensate for feelings of guilt or shame
Thought she might be pregnant
To conceal an affair
To test husband's love
Mental/emotional disorder
To avoid personal responsibility
Failure to pay, or extortion
Thought she might have caught VD
Seldom is any false accuser given more then a token slap on the hand although their victims have often lost their jobs, their families, and some have spent decades in prison. Some of the accused have even lost their life.
A Washington Post article, "Unfounded Rape Reports Baffle Investigators" found a wide range of motivations to falsely accuse men of rape. Anger towards boyfriends was common. One woman had her boyfriend spend 13 months in jail before she acknowledged that she lied. One woman accused her newspaper delivery man of raping her at gunpoint because she needed an excuse to be late to work. Neither woman was prosecuted or even reprimanded for lying to the police and attempting to have a man frivolously imprisoned.
All rape accusations need to be considered seriously as no doubt rape does indeed occur. But a balance needs to be maintained between the claims of the accuser against the all-too-often legitimate denial of the accused.
A NOW chapter president in Florida lied about rape and a woman in Milwaukee accused two police officers of rape after they told her to leave a house in which she was causing trouble to the home owner. (she could have been arrested for that) These police officers had to go through the whole nine yards to prove they were innocent although their uniforms were neatly pressed and the GPS showed they were no where near the site the rape was to have taken place and at that very time, their camcorder showed them both making a traffic stop far from that location. When they charged her with making a false report, feminist groups there yelled fowl because she did "the right thing" Since when is falsely accusing someone of a crime...the right thing?
Women who are found to have made a false sexual assault complaint should receive the same jail sentence as the male victim would have received if he had been convicted. That will put the brakes on fake rape.
I do wonder if some of these false accusers have learned how to do this by women study courses?
Radical feminist theologian and author Mary Daly has barred men from
her classes at Boston College for 25 years, saying that "the dynamic
is totally interrupted" with males in the classroom.
She left when a man sued to be allowed in her class room rather then allow men to take her courses. (I wonder what she had to hide)
We hear a lot about misogyn and we do know it exist. I have dealt with many of them in the ministry of Shattered Men and told them that they have become the enemy they say they detest. We seldom hear of the other side...misandry.
Mary Daly applauded Sally Miller Gearhart's comments that men ought to be reduced to 10% of the human population.
This is from a magazine interview:
"Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally
Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is
Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the
strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a
less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female
future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every
culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained
at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think
about this statement?
Daly said: I think it's not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on
this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think
this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result
in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid
to say that kind of stuff anymore.
Personally, I think she should be charged with hate crimes!
It is also my understanding that most women study courses have had The Scum Manifesto
by Valerie Solanas on either the required or recommended reading list.
Some of the strong misandry that comes out of these women study courses from those teaching them would never be tolerated if they were reversed and came from a make professor. One has only to see the results where men have been fired for simply telling a woman they looked good.
Is this what you want your daughters to be learning in college? Is this what you want your son's wife to learn?
What an odd article to find at WSJ - so naive and poorly written. Is the author too young to know the history of these programs? They have been resisted by universities due to their non-academic content and lack of academic worth. In the real world of "Women's Studies" (feminist propaganda), instructors have used state / university resources to carry out political campaigns, etc. - with enough political cover to get away with it sometimes, but not always. This very same problem arose in Sweden where "Women's Studies" programs ended up being established off campus, not affiliated with universities, and not for credit. OK - freedom of speech is alive and well - but there's no right to abuse the education system in support of hate-driven political campaigns.
Wow! It's been a long time since I've read such misogynistic garbage. I guess my male friends aren't as bitter as those who post at WSJ.
What happened to you all that you are so hateful? Get burned in a divorce settlement? Your mother didn't love you enough? All of this rage is completely out of proportion to the issue being discussed.
Clearly gender issues hit a nerve almost as accute as race debates.
BTW, it is not "guilt" to simply acknowledge there are societal inequities. You might feel guilty about them but the inequities don't arise from your guilt, they are the cause, not the result of your feelings.
What I find particularly telling is the feminist response on this page. They don't respond by disputing the positions of the posters they disagree with...they respond by (a) questioning manhood, (b) questioning sexual orientation, (c) calling people ugly, (d) calling people misogynists - one of the most over-used terms in history, (e) calling people bitter, and (f) calling people whiners. All of these tactics are all about shaming true egalitarians into silence and submission. Basically, they are saying shame on you for questioning the feminist establishment, shame on you for not recognizing your privilege, and shame on you for not feeling guilty. The problem is they do not see the world through masculine eyes, so they do not see that it is WOMEN who are privileged at least as much as men if not more so:
(a) the VAST majority of men are no more privileged then women as the VAST majority of men are not CEOs/presidents/whatever.
(b) Women - not men - are the privileged class when you consider male disposability (ie: how many women here have had to sign up for selective service), societal acceptance of violence against men, disproportionate investment in women's health, a far higher dropout rate for boys/men, and a far higher male-suicide rate.
(c) Women - not men - have been and always will be the protected class.
(d) The VAST majority of work-related deaths/injuries are men.
(e) Women outnumber men and therefore it is they - not men - that elect the politicians that are running this country into the ground.
(f) Over 70% of the homeless are men.
(g) Women have reproductive choices, men have very few reproductive choices and all of the responsibilities (ie: whatever the woman wants).
I could go on all day....
Together, these examples demonstrate female privilege...yet feminists don't bring them up or they excuse them as the small price men must pay for the so-called "greater" privilege of men. If this is privilege sister, you can have it...please...take it.
Excellent point "Shattered Men": feminism has embraced the idea of male extermination and subjugation. Why should my tax dollars be going to support this hate? Why is it more acceptable for women to say such things, yet the KKK is banned? Feminists like to say that men hate women, but I think the examples you just noted underscore why it is actually women who hate men. I'm not sure why...is it fear (a la "Dune" and the place women dare not look)? Is it jealousy because they see male privilege yet do not recognize their own (a la the grass is always greener)? I really don't know. One thing I do know though is as long as feminism preaches hate, I will fight it any way I know how. And I'm their worst nightmare: I'm a "recovering feminist." I used to be a self-hating male just as most male feminists are and I've read a lot of their garbage...on top of that, I'm a scientist who can actually critically evaluate their so-called statistics.
Men, and the women who love them, are beginning to wake up too. We egalitarians will be the "new feminists"...we will take their place and spread respect instead of hate. We will extol the virtues of both male and female. We will show that individuals should be respected as individuals and not be judged by what is between their legs. Feminism - as it is today - will die...and we are witnessing the opening salvo.
This is about basic civil rights. He is no loon.
Excellent posts by David2U, Shattered Men, Lance and others, who have the intellectual capacity to see "Women's Studies" for what it is – a misandrist fraud.
Those pressing the opposite side of the argument, the shrill harpies of feminism, such as d.knaus and others, continue to avoid fact and analytical thought, limiting themselves to the whining mewls of victimization. You shrews ARE victims, victims of the feminism movement and "women's studies." Your potential to think and analyze has been sucked out of you by these self-adulating frauds.
Let's put the radical feminists in a room together with the radical Islamics. Both anti-Western, they deserve each other. The radical feminists might want to think about that encounter before they continue with their attack on Western ideas.
I'm a heterosexual white man and I minored in Women's Studies. I don't hate myself or other men. I do, however, prefer the term "Gender Studies" when describing the field. During my studies I never felt discriminated against at any point. I learned some extremely valuable things in the course of my studies and I feel that both the faculty and my peers were happy to have me work alongside them. Feminists do not hate men, nor do they think that men hate women. They do recognize, however, that there are assumptions (leading to patterns of behavior) in our culture that undervalue some people while awarding unequal rights and privileges to others. If you see gender in America as an us vs. them dichotomy you're as much a victim of the dominant culture as the "radical" women of the 1970s who became the bra-burning caricatures trotted out by conservatives to justify shouting down feminine voices in public arenas. It will be a wonderful day when we can stop bickering like children and discuss this as adults and equals. As far as this petty lawyer is concerned: I'm sorry you can't get discounted drinks, my friend. If I ever see you out I'll make sure to buy a round for you and wipe away your tears. Get over yourself, little man.
Oh, and I love that Valerie Solanas got everyone's goat. SCUM isn't the work of a feminist it is the work of a provacateur. She was a very unstable person and she eventually shot Andy Warhol over a business dispute. The trolls are getting trolled by second wave feminism. Ha!
To - Nick Heling (or is it Nikki)- Your mewely post is exactly the kind of brain-infecting garbage that the feminazis slobber out in "Women's Studies." Just the fact that you can't call it what it is, and have to resort to "Political Correctness" to disguise the gender-bending agenda as gender studies shows that your brain has been hoovered out, while "EARNING" your minor. I'm sure that your valuable minor has qualified you for a very high pay grade at some puniversity.
Shattered Men, David2U, and Lance, who obviously have the intellectual capacity to see "Women's Studies" for what it is – misandrist fraud, have it just right. The shrill harpies, pressing the militant feminism argument, such as d.knaus and others, continue to avoid fact and analytical thought. It is only fair, however, to feel sorry for them. They are the true victims, and the radical feminism movement and "women's studies" are the victimizers.
I am incredibly insulted that this man calls himself anti-feminist.
Comment by Nick Heling - August 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm
"Feminists do not hate men, nor do they think that men hate women"
Really? Why is it that anytime someone says anything negative about feminism we are called women haters as they prove Lance is right that "misogynists" is one of the most over-used terms in history. In reality, if anyone hates women, it is the radical feminist because they will not hold an adult female as accountable and responsible for their own actions as they do minor boys while at the same time they brag about how females mature earlier.
Nick also said: "Valerie Solanas got everyone's goat. SCUM isn't the work of a feminist it is the work of a provocateur
Was Mary Daly a provocateur and a very unstable person? I did not see any feminist outcry for her statements of support for this misandry.
I see feminist double standards at almost every turn. These feminist want half the pie regardless if what it is about. Well almost. During the Viet Nam war 58 THOUSAND men were killed while EIGHT women were yet we have to talk about the men AND women who died in Viet Nam. Presently in Iraq, we have to give the same homage to women as we do to men and if I remember right, although a third of the US military in Iraq are women, 100 out of 4,000 of those who died there are women. In other words, although only 2.5% of those who have died in Iraq are women, we have to give equal time to them. Now mind you, ANY death is one too many be it a man or a woman but why is it that we have to give the same homage to both genders with a ration of 1 to 40 although when it comes to domestic violence, our society only talks of abused WOMEN when unbiased research shows that half of those who are abused are men? Even the Department of Justice openly states there are 835,000 men are physically assaulted or raped by their intimate partners each year compared to 1.5 million women. This however does not give a good view of the number of abused men because many abused men are the ones arrested because of the "Must arrest" policies of many police jurisdictions which state that if police are called to a domestic dispute where a man and woman are involved, the man has to be arrested. This would tend to throw off the stats would it not?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point out that "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."
I have talked to women who have taken these women study courses and they have verified that there is much misinformation in these courses. Often this misinformation are outright lies.
Those who equate feminism with "feminazism" above come across as shrill, nagging cacklers. Bunch of little girls you all are.
Nick, go on over to feministing and see how many people mark SCUM as a key piece of feminist literature. Recognizing that "women's studies" means different things to different institutions, if you look over the feminist-propaganda reading lists at many (most?) government funded universities you will see that most of them list any number of misandrist screeds as primary literature. Women's studies (feminism) is an ideology - nothing more and nothing less - just like any religion. It is not a scientific concept, it is not scientifically scrutinized, and it is a simple-minded view of the complexities of history and today.
In terms of feminism being man-hating, what many feminists don't understand is blaming all of the world's ills on a flawed concept as a patriarchy is offensive - there is no such thing and it is a far too simplistic view on gender relations. To suggest that all (or even most) men are more privileged then all women in today's world is preposterous. I have yet to see a feminist able to name one, modern-era subject that men are privileged over women, yet I have named half a dozen and I could name more. Yet feminists continue to pontificate about their false victimhood.
Ironically, one of the original tenants of feminism was that individuals should be judged by their actions and abilities regardless of their gender. Yet, it is feminism that strives to codify gender differences by fixating a fundamentally flawed concepts as "the patriarchy" and "male privilege." Further, it was feminism that fought against the concept of chivalry, yet modern feminists have embraced chivilrist laws like the VAWA to make the concept of chivalry the law of the land.
I'll tell you what, when feminists begin to give equal weight to their fight against female privilege as they do in their fight against male privilege, I'll call them egalitarian. Until that time, they are simply an overfunded party of bigots.
Half of what has been written about the patriarchy could just as easily be applied to society in general, yet feminists continue to use an offensive, gender-specific term to describe their enemy. So in summary Nick, feminism's modern fixation on the so-called patriarchy and male privilege (without a concomitant focus on female privilege) is by definition man hating. Couple that with their desire to push down boys/men in favor of girls/women in school and in business, and you can see how much feminism has fallen to the level the likes of the KKK.
Sorry, that should have been: yet I have named half a dozen areas where women are privileged over men and I could name more
The basic feminist principle of equality has already been accepted, if not yet fully implemented. Feminism is of only historical importance to most women at this point, largely because those feminists who remain highly visible have discredited themselves and their movement with their radicalism. When the movement was about equality, it had appeal. When it became about hating men and Western Civilization in general, it lost legitimacy. As the radical Islamics demonstrate, Western Civilization must be defended. With barbarians at the gate, clever but specious anti-Western arguments are not longer a source of amusement.
"Already Dead," good points. I'm not sure if you read Wendy McElroy or not, but she provides an excellent overview of the current state of feminism and its way back to relevance at the link below. Basically her point is: to become relevant and truly progressive again, feminism must do away with male-vilification, and embrace the very legitimate desires men have concerning their equality in the world. "Equality" can no longer defined by women and women alone. Equality must be defined through the eyes of both genders.
This also explains why a surprising number of women are regular and supportive contributors to sites such as glennsacks.com and the like. The majority of of women do not hate men (no more then does a majority of men hate women). Therefore, as misandry has become more and more mainstream in the modern feminist movement, women too are jumping ship. You can only tell yourself "feminism doesn't preach hate...really.." so many times before any intelligent, sympathetic individual begins to question. Unfortunately, feminism (just like any other religion) does not take to questions very well, and their usual answer is to suggest that you are an anti-feminist or a conservative (or whatever).
Women's Studies are the academic front for the feminist political movement to obtain unwarranted privilege. The demonstrated role of academe in advancing feminist ideology is reflected in the "lynching" of Dr. Summers at Harvard for having the temerity to suggest that there are differences in the functioning of the male and female brain that may reflect in work product.
Since this was heresy, the fact that it was true resulted in Dr. Summers being a modern day Galileo, who despite recanting his heresy supporting the ide of heliocentricity, was punished. Galileo was confined to house arrest for life. With feminists not being as well-entrenched politically as the Church was then, Dr. Summers was only ousted from his job.
The complicity of the faculty in engaging in such self-demeaning conduct demonstrates that feminism is ideological rather than being a scientific discipline and should be relegated to self-contained academies based on postulated knowledge not claimed congruent with reality, rather than maintaining the pretense of engaging in scientific inquiry and dissemination of knowledge. The universities demean themselves by supporting colleges engaged in promoting pseudo-science to promote an agenda.
Hiss! Meow! I'll scratch your eyes out you naughty feminists you. Grrhh.
Actually, you can believe fully in womens' rights & really hate Catherine McKinnon. What a waste of a law degree! I also agree w/the writer who said Den Hollander is a tool.
I agree w/One Woman's Opinion. I'm a lawyer who wouldn't waste one second on either McKinnon or Hollander! I do feel sorry for them, though. Cranks of this sort are almost always unhappy people.
So colecci, when is the proper time to start fighting for one's rights? The minute you see that something is amiss, or when they are dragging you kicking and screaming to the gas chamber? Apathy is the true enemy of democracy. Which side are you?
I was extremely shocked when I read the response to this article. Women's studies exists not as a man-bashing gateway for the feminists of this world, but instead it is intended to help extend knowledge about a vast part of our history that is disregarded. African American studies, Women's studies, and gender studies would not exist if they were properly incorporated into our history. Too frequently are issues of race, gender, and sexuality dismissed. If you want to take a "Men's studies" course take any history class that is offered at ANY college around the country. Or better yet, go to the library and pick up a world history book. Radicals, whether they be liberal, conservative, black, white, male, or female should not be used as an example. These are the extremes. If you take the time to consider the real issue at hand it is clear that our society is in need of not less, but more education concerning issues of race and gender roles. There are inequalities. Yeah sure it sucks that men might have to pay at a bar when women don't, but it also sucks to sit in a classroom or in an office and be completely ignored because you are a woman, or aren't the "right" race. As a student at a highly respected women's college it has become increasingly clear the positive impact that women's studies education has. It is not a college of man haters, but one of well rounded, highly educated and motivated individuals. It would be absurd to assert that there aren't issues of gender inequality. The extreme responses above are just another clear example that jumping to conclusions about issues that you have no formal knowledge about, aside from getting the special Y chromosome, leads to nothing but ignorant banter.
Colecci: "I'm a lawyer who wouldn't waste one second on either McKinnon or Hollander!"
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Colecci Of course I do not know what area of law you practice but I doubt it includes domestic violence. If it did, you would be aware of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Joe Bidden and signed into law by Bill Clinton. You would also know it only protects one half of the population although I noted above that half of the victims are...men. Restraining orders play a major role in this and the break up of our families by making sure dad is shown the door, even though he was not abusive. It often keeps him from seeing his children again.
According to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" to "virtually all who apply," and that "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had."
This act comes up for renewal every five years. Each year, only gender feminist who most likely are a product of these women study courses are invited to the table but NO ONE from men's children or family rights are invited. This would be like asking the KKK to help racial relationship laws but not listening to the NAACP.
As the director of Shattered Men, a ministry to help abused men although we never turn abused women away either, I spent a lot of money sending information to our Congress before the last go around for VAWA only to be ignored by most, and a few sent me ..."Thank you for your support of the VAWA"
My letters included the request to make VAWA a gender neutral act, something these women study feminist fought tooth and nail to stop. If they really wanted equality, if they really wanted justice, they would have wanted that too to help ALL the victims but remember...they go around saying stop violence to WOMEN. Why not stop violence PERIOD!?
Our society has been hijacked by gender feminist and I think it is time to take our society back from them. Personally I doubt if Mr. Hollander has a chance in this law suit because we have too many people such as you that "wouldn't waste one second on him" but at least he is doing something about the injustice in our society. He is bringing attention to something that is fueling the things I and others are pointing out here and that our society needs to hear.
Apparently the totally useless "Women's Studies" major can get one into law school. It once took a relevant major.
"Apparently the totally useless "Women's Studies" major can get one into law school"
Professor, given the totally anti-male bias the ABA has been shown recently, I would not be surprised if a Women Studies major was a requirement someday.
If I had to take one of those courses, I am sure I would get an "F" but I sure would enjoy getting it.
Get information on the sites below at:
Get Your Facts Straight,ABA!
RADAR's letter to the ABA president
NEW FLYER: H.R. 6088/S. 1515: Domestic Violence Lies Cost Lives
Special Reports
Summary: Myths of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence
Detailed Findings: Myths of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence
NEW Analysis: DV Volunteer Attorney Act – $55 Million Earmark for Lawyers
Press Releases
Bar Association Spreads False Information on Partner Abuse, Report Says
Gee, Mark, maybe your ex lost 18 years of HER life raising YOUR brats whilst you sat on your ass watching football on the telly.....What about HER income and HER possessions?
Get over yourself, boy. No wonder your poor, long-suffering wife divorced you, you misogynistic wimp.
Apparently the totally useless "Women's Studies" major can get one into law school. It once took a relevant major.
Comment by The Ole Professor - August 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Well, it's obvious you and "ole" Roy boy didn't major in English, but apparently majored in Whining and minored in Daddy making a call.
Hey Shattered Men, if silly, demented misogynistic creeps like you and the other "shattered men" COWARDS didn't waste your pathetic lives taking your many issues out on innocent women and children, and doing something proactive against abuse to ANYBODY, then this world would be a safer place.
But let's face it, YOU don't give a damn. You literally don't care. You just want to play the poor, innocent victim.
Feminazi? Like calling somebody a Nazi Jew. One can only imagine the sickness and hatred in one's tiny little soul to call anybody a Nazi. Have you no idea what the Nazis stood for, you old idiot? Seriously, what sick things did your mother, that band of taunting 13 year old girls in junior high, or your rent a wife from the Far East DO to you to make you such a sick puppy?
But, you'll show em. Show ALL those nasty women. Man, aren't American men such insecure, demented, cowardly misogynists. No wonder the world scorns you insecure losers.
Shattered Men, David2U, and Lance, who obviously have the intellectual capacity to see "Women's Studies" for what it is – misandrist fraud, have it just right. The shrill harpies, pressing the militant feminism argument, such as d.knaus and others, continue to avoid fact and analytical thought. It is only fair, however, to feel sorry for them. They are the true victims, and the radical feminism movement and "women's studies" are the victimizers.
Comment by Y-Chromosomes to the Rescue - August 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Somebody who obviously masturbates to the sick material his daddy and Grandpa left in that tattered old box next to his makeshift room in his parents' basement.
Like, can we say LOSER?
Find a knot in a tree and pump away, Dittoboy.
Lance, like Ole Professor, and the rest of the REAGANAZIS, clearly needs professional help. :)
The uptight feminazis posting on this subject should have signed up for more biology classes and fewer women's studies "courses." Then they would understand why they are such uptight bxll-busters, who can't find a real man or get into law school without the easy-A women's studies majors. What is next – interpretive dance majors in medical school?
Hey Shattered Men, if silly, demented misogynistic creeps like you and the other "shattered men" COWARDS didn't waste your pathetic lives taking your many issues out on innocent women and children, and doing something proactive against abuse to ANYBODY, then this world would be a safer place.
But let's face it, YOU don't give a damn. You literally don't care. You just want to play the poor, innocent victim.
Comment by Shattered men are whiny losers.
New Flash for you. I use my REAL name...I do not hide behind screen names and if you checked out our website you would see that.
Another news flash. I am NOT a victim. I help REAL victims become overcomers...and this includes WOMEN! I have driven over 300 miles to help a woman who was a real rape victim and have stood between her and some that were attacking her. I have asked nothing in return.
We have literally kept over a dozen women from taking their own life, once by calling 911 and working to help them find her which they did and we were informed that she would have died had we not called them. We are now good friends.
You said "doing something proactive against abuse to ANYBODY, then this world would be a safer place."
We HAVE. I do not get a dime as the director of Shattered Men but I have personally spent thousands of dollars trying to make this world a safer place for EVERYONE…not just for women.
Again in reality Ole Professor, gender feminist groups that have demanded that we keep the Violence Against WOMEN Act only protective of WOMEN, are the ones making this world more dangerous for women.
I guess it is far too hard for them to realize that unless we look at BOTH sides, we will not solve the problem, but we will make it worse.
Somebody who obviously masturbates to the sick material his daddy and Grandpa left in that tattered old box next to his makeshift room in his parents' basement.
Like, can we say LOSER?
Find a knot in a tree and pump away, Dittoboy.
Comment by Another sick puppy like Ole Professor
YOU have become the ABUSER.... Did you learn this from your Women Study courses? If so, I am sure you got an A +
Somebody who obviously masturbates to the sick material his daddy and Grandpa left in that tattered old box next to his makeshift room in his parents' basement.
Like, can we say LOSER?
Find a knot in a tree and pump away, Dittoboy.
Comment by Another sick puppy like Ole Professor
YOU have become the ABUSER…. Did you learn this from your Women Study courses? If so, I am sure you got an A +
Comment by Shattered Men - August 24, 2008 at 12:54 am
Ah, angry because your dense conservative feminazi Mother didn't pick up your dirty shorts you left on the basement floor? Uh, it would be Women's Studies, and no, I didn't take it. Get over your INTENSE hatred and ENVY of women, boy.
No wonder why thinking, rational persons take you hateful DittoNazis seriously.
You poor little VICTIM. American men are such weak, simpering COWARDS. WAHHHH!!!
Guess Roy like all of the other ugly Reaganazis can't make it with the "girls"
Guess his rent a wife from Russia dumped him for someone sane and human. :) LOL Only TOO funny......
Am so egakated. Am so. U are gist a GURL and ar jalous of me. WAHHH!!!!!!
Wow, the kid next door shore looks good. But den agen, they's all look good after beeing encarsarated for 10 years.........
Is is not odd that the Supreme Court doesn't just abolish Ladies Night? After all, it is discriminatory. It is not as though this sort of discrimination serve any social good.
Imagine if clubs had a 1/2 price night for whites? or blacks?
It seems like a no brainer.
The reason is because the last thing women want is equality with men. Why settle for less?
Comment by Joel Hammer - August 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm
The right to NOT do ALL the raising of children, work half as hard and get paid twice as much, have all your tax dollars go to support all the police we need on the streets because MALES make going outside dangerous, oh, you are right, you stalwart man of men, Joel Hammer, we womenfolk don't want "equality"
No wonder why his long-suffering wife left him for a buffed liberal. :)
I see that the classy feminists have just gotten home from Sunday morning church service. You "ladies" should have gone fo "finishing school" instead of wasting your time in women's studies classes. You would have learned to be classy, and you might have earned your way into law school, instead of relying on the A/A points. BTW - if you want to debate with the grownups, you should refrain from trying to denigrate your betters by adopting their posting names, and attaching them to your infantile rantings.
As a philosophy professor of over 25 years… YES! Much of what is called "feminism" VICTIM feminism, is a religious belief system, and the damage it has done to women is stunning. The degree to which it has led to the extraordinary exploitation of women in the workforce is horrendous. Due to this faith many women believe the only happy woman, is a 45-year old sterile single woman on massive doses of Zoloft who comes home alone only to empty stinking cat boxes every night after putting in an 18 hour day working for the firm… but on the other side of the glass ceiling.
Comment by jdcarmine - August 19, 2008 at 8:43 pm
For a professor you sure could use a refresher in English.
I bet you are just sad because you come home to your beer cans, Monday night football, and your delusions.
Women have choices, deal with it, boy. You are NO professor, loser. :)
it was only with the recent women's movement that woman STOPPED having babies over 35.
Women have been having babies over 35, 40, even sometimes over 50 for centuries. You know as much about women as you do about grammar, dick. :)
Wow, I step out for a few days, and the feminists (or perhaps just a single bored feminist with no life) have come out in force.
And again we see that their arguments have absolutely no substance. Entertaining really...all they can do is squeal and stomp their feet..call people names...question sexuality (or prowess)..question political affiliations...and so on. Not one has provided any facts to support for the false belief that American women are victims or oppressed. Sounds like a religious ideology to me: strong on "fire and brimstone" and weak on facts. It is fun to watch as they try to shame us into submission... And still they fail and their arrogance will be their undoing.
Just more proof that misandry is alive and well in today's feminist movement. Thanks for supporting our cause sister! Your statements do more to help us then to hinder us!
Lance, we have often seen these gender feminist resort to the very things this one is doing. They can not defend their postion using facts so they start insulting those who disagree with them and we know when we are hitting the nail on the head when they start using slang terms for male body parts for us. It looks like we hit a HOME RUN!
WISC (Women in Science at Columbia) has invited Roy Den Hollander to speak about his lawsuit against the aforementioned university. He'll give a short talk briefing us on the case against Columbia and then answer any questions from the audience. All are welcome.
The talk will be Thursday, August 28 at 1:00pm, on Columbia campus in 209 Havemeyer.
If you use facebook, please feel free to rsvp:
rootneg2, will it be simulcast online? Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to NY.
Rootneg2 - Are both of you gals in WISC married? I have a friend in NYC that is looking for a smart chick. He doesn't care about looks that much. By the way isn't a wisc something you gals use to mix up food? BTW - Do they have a Men in Science at Columbia chapter?
Lance - We are currently obtaining permission from Roy to videotape the lecture and Q&A. If he agrees, we will post the video onto youtube. See the facebook page for a link. If nothing else we will try to get a transcript of the event.
I support Roy 100%. However after reading the ridicule he has received here from from the ignorant, unaware and feminized men, I not sure you are all worth fighting for. You totally miss the big picture. For Roy - You Go Boy!
apologies for the poor video/audio quality; a transcript is still in the works.
I also would like to add that by hosting Roy Den Hollander, WiSC is neither endorsing nor condemning his viewpoints or opinions. WiSC believes strongly in open and honest dialog concerning all forms of gender discrimination in the sciences at Columbia.
He is a brave hero. Any guy who has ever taken a womens study course knows how sexist and hostile it is.
If there was a course that targeted women or minorities in such a fashion it wouldn't last 10 seconds.
But I guess many feel it is ok to discriminate against males.
Well I don't.
Keep up the good work!
Joel Hammer-- while you make a good argument, the Supreme Court actually canNOT abolish Ladies' Night. As a private organization, a bar can do whatever it wants. S.C. only has jurisdiction over public organizations, and that specifically means those tat receive government funding. (It has nothing to do with whether or not the general public has access to it.) What the lawyer was arguing in this case was that all alcohol-dispensing businesses need to obtain liquor licenses and that in itself constitutes government support. I think the lawyer ultimately had a weak case though because a liquor license doesn't mean the government financially supports bars. In fact businesses have to pay for a liquor license so I'm not sure how he was planning to establish all of that anyway.
d.knaus-- I also have to agree that it doesn't make sense that the U.S. would have the highest rate of rape overall. In fact, one of the cases you cited supports it. You wrote the the University of Rochester found the U.S. has the highest rate of rape *AMONG COUNTRIES WHICH REPORT SUCH STATISTICS*. Countries in Africa certainly do not report such. For the most part, women in the U.S. can go about their day without problems. I mean, I would say as a woman that I feel safe on the streets. On the otherhand, African countries are ravaged by civil wars, corrupt & unstable governments, coup d'etats, genocide, and the increasing use of child soldiers. Those are countries where people are afraid to go outside and in some African countries, there are STILL rumors that if a man with HIV or AIDS has sex with a virgin, he will be cured. The rate of rape in African countries are alarming for a multitude of reasons; there are just no concrete statistics that come out because the continent is in too much chaos.
Glad to see that some men just can't stop choking on their impotence. I'd like to invite Lance or "Ye Olde Professor" to come out for a beer with me. You're buying because I'm a poor grad student. We can talk things over. I live in Brooklyn. I also haven't felt the need to use an alias because I don't live in fear. Facebook me!
Better late than never...
It was quite amusing, in reading through all the comments, to come across (still) the old canard:
Why Do We Need to Study Men -- Isn't History One Big Study of Men?
The most common justification for studying women without studying men is that "history is men's studies . . . women's studies is just an attempt to give women something equivalent to what men already have." True? No. Women's studies questions the female role; nothing questions the male role. History books sell to boys the traditional male role of hero and performer. Each history book is 500 pages of advertisements for the performer role. Each lesson tells him, "If you perform, you will get love and respect; if you fail, you will be a nothing." To a boy, history is pressure to perform, not relief from that pressure. Feminism is relief from the pressure to be confined to only the traditional female role. To a boy, then, history is not the equivalent of women's studies; it is the *opposite* of women's studies.
Women's studies does more than question the female role -- it tells women they have rights to what was the traditional male role. Nothing tells men they have rights to what was the traditional female role -- rights to stay home full-time or part-time with the children while his wife supports him [not to mention the right to be asked out, bought drinks in bars, be paid for on dates, courted, "wooed and pursued", bought diamond rings, etc.]...
Just as, from a girl's perspective, history books are filled with men, from a boy's perspective, school itself is filled with women. It is women teaching him how to be a boy by conforming to what women tell him to do after he's been trained to conform to what his mother tells him to do. On the one hand, history books show him that his role is to be a hero who takes risks and, on the other, his female teacher is telling him not to take risks -- to not roughhouse, not shout out an answer spontaneously, not use swear words, not refer to sex, not get his hair mussed, his clothes dirty. . . . Just as women's studies helped women see they have a right to female teachers in business school, so men's studies will help men see they have a right to male teachers in grade school, fathers in families, etc.
- Dr. Warren Farrell (1992)
That Dr. Farrell has been involved in the study of gender and society for a full third of a century, and yet his ideas are not even brought up in the sorts of classes under discussion, lends credence to the claim that Feminist Studies is quite different from other academic disciplines.
In particular, the first thing it did was outlaw thinking.
Also, wrt "the Supreme Court actually can NOT abolish Ladies' Night. As a private organization, a bar can do whatever it wants" (just above) this is factually
incorrect on several counts. The legal concept of "public accommodation" makes things like restaurants and bars, which are ostensibly open to everyone on equal grounds, entirely different from private/membership clubs. There was a Denver case adjudicated by a civil rights commission about two years ago
which ruled against ladies nights; anyone interested should look into it. The feminist defense then was similar to what's seen here -- namely, just scream hysterically about the guy who brought it being a pathetic loser, misogynist, etc., all of which are irrelevant to case's merits.
The reason that there is a movement of feminism, in all of its forms, is due to the fact that prior to these movements, women were taken advantage of because they didn't have paper-signed rights.
Now, anyone who has taken a theory and criticism class KNOWS that feminism is, occasionally, nazist. Sometimes it discriminates against other women, sometimes it moves forward. The reason for this lies in the truth that feminism is not one pure movement, but the open presentation and discussion of ideas from a gender that, prior to their development in the academic and public venue, had not had ab accessible history to rely upon to create an accurate voice.
Modern feminists, as it stands, of course have many different stances, but nearly all of them agree that feminism means providing equal rights for the sexes, not superior rights for women.
The reason, however, that women still need laws in place to protect them, and classes of Womens' studies to enrich them, is that a) a history of discrimination indicates a pattern of behavior that needs a counteractive and powerful force to create new habits and b) women's studies allows women (and men) to understand the female voice throughout history even though actual female-produced documentation is scarce.
It is hard to know your worth without your history. And it is hard to create history by contributing to society without first having evidence that an individual of your gender was also able to do so in the past.
Incidentally, I believe that Ladies' Night at the clubs is anti-feminist; it encourages rape. So in his pursuit of all things anti-feminist, I believe Dan here made the blunder of suing for a feminist cause.
Well well, the right wing is indeed alive. For the writers information one of the major reasons we have womens studies is that we women have been plundered and raped at every level. If you look into todays statistics, you will find that the US has the highest rate of rape in the world. Enough said, amen.
Comment by d.knaus - August 18, 2008 at,
The shrill harpies, pressing the militant feminism argument, such as d.knaus and others, continue to avoid fact and analytical thought.
"Hey d.knaus" – lighten up. Besides condemning people who have valid questions and opinions on the other side of the issue, perhaps you could stick to the debate and share with us how taking classes in women's studies have actually championed the cause for women; prior to asking questions about how many women's studies classes someone has taken or women someone has asked to assess the efficacy of a discipline. No one needs to be blinded with your qualifications or mine on this matter; and may I remind you, there are no prerequisites to simply joining the discussion. But perhaps you have the gall to believe those with a commercial driver's license are incapable of using dishwashers.
To the rest of you who are not out for an arguement. Please note I did quote my sources, so if you still think that was a rant, be my guest. I am not a shrill person by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I a militant feminist. Never have been never will be. I love men by the way, especially those that respect a woman as an individual. See below for my resources.
The University of Rochester's Men Against Sexual Assault is an organization which educates the University and the general public about sexual assault. According to their web site today July 2, 2008,
Have a wonderful day.
D. Knaus- Who does use her real name on all posts.
Everyone I've ever showed this quote to concerning the Stop the VAWA lawsuit is shocked:
197. Such standards effectively deter or chill a class members' freedom of speech by creating the threat that he may fall prey to bureaucrats steeped in feminist dogma to remake man in the image they desire but not Mother Nature.
I would love some feedback on this.
So let me clear up some of YOUR misunderstandings...I have used the services of VAWA and was very grateful that they were available to me. I do not recall anything in your lawsuit that was in support of women's rights, this lawsuit seems to be an attempt in taking them away. I understand how manipulative an abusive personality can be, I understand being treated like an object. No women should have to put up with this or have rights taken away. In my experience with VAWA, they certainly do NOT victimize the abuser. Their goal is to reach out, educate, offer help to those in need. The abusive person often rejects and fights the help they offer because they choose to stay in denial of their problem. They absolutely resent outside agencies that offer help to the women they are abusing - more than a hint there, Mr. Cardozo. In regards to Mr.. Stockton's actions, I certainly don't know his motivations, but am glad that he brought your lawsuit to light. Once again, I will say, I am against the lawsuit.
I agree that there may be people that use the law to benefit their scam, you find that anywhere, everywhere, with any law that can be broken. But what I cannot get over is you attaching your name to a lawsuit that has such venom towards women helping women, claiming that the VAWA is trying ti punish men like you because you go overseas for brides and don't love "The Feminists." Are your intentions noble, Mr. Cardozo? Give me a friken break! No, absolutely not!
"Domestic violence is of course a problem, and we should do whatever we can to stop it. But our current approach has been a failure. As Angela Moore Parmley, PhD, of the Department of Justice put it, "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women."
Seems like my earlier post was removed.
Miss Elaine: A. Sally is not supporting you! At least that is not the way I read her post from the other day.
My earlier post said something like if Elaine agrees with A. Sally's first post to network with Al Qaeda, The American Nazi Party and start fights the slums (aided by the vice president) it is no surprise to me she supports VAWA.
Let me clear your fog.
Biden's way of dealing with anger was "walk thru the seedy neighborhoods hoping someone would start a fight with him."
Biden's way of dealing with domestic violence as child was to sit there and do nothing as his sister repeatedly beat him and left permanent scars. He felt he should not do anything because she was a girl.
Biden wrote VAWA. Since you love VAWA we can assume you approve of his methods of dealing with his anger and the violence inflicted upon him.
Elaine, I am very glad that VAWA could help you and your family. But tell me, were there no Women Shelters before VAWA? What about the Salvation Army? They have been around forever. What did you get different under VAWA that you would not have gotten say for example in the 1980's had you seeked help. What are our billions of VAWA taxpayers dollars getting us that Salvation Army or Shelters prior to VAWA would not have provided?
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Biden. He feels men should be beaten and do nothing in self defense. That may have something to do with the psychosis against VAWA.
He prowled the ghettos looking for innocent people to beat up. Again, that may have something to do with the psychosis against VAWA.
Elaine - You're right: these go through court hearing just like any other police report, they act like men have their rights taken away; they do not.
Elaine, but what has changed for you under Vawa?
I am very glad that VAWA could help you and your family. But tell me, were there no Women Shelters before VAWA? What about the Salvation Army? They have been around forever. What did you get different under VAWA that you would not have gotten say for example in the 1980's had you seeked help. What are our billions of VAWA taxpayers dollars getting us that Salvation Army or Shelters prior to VAWA would not have provided?
Good point, Rose.
Elaine, what are we getting for our money under VAWA?
20 years ago a friend of mine got all the care she needed from the Salvation Army. And they are privately funded.
Mr. Vice President, I would just like to ask you with whom did you want to get into fights with in these "seedy neighborhoods." Let me put it another way. What was the RACE and COLOR of the people you were hoping would start a fight with you? Let me clarify even further: Were you looking for fights with male adults or women and children?
Joe Biden anti violence crusader by day. At night, prowling the "seedy neighborhoods" looking to engage in violence.
I wouldn't trust VAWA or anything you wrote.
I asked a right wing friend of mine who dislikes Biden, and even he has not heard of this "Biden looking for a fight in the slums rhetoric." Can you direct me toward some resource material for me to look up on this?
This is copied and pasted out of the Wikipedia Bio on Biden. You can go to Wikipidia to read the whole page.:
"On December 18, 1972, a few weeks after the election, Biden's wife and one-year-old daughter were killed in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping in Hockessin, Delaware.[2] Neilia Biden's station wagon was hit by a tractor-trailer as she pulled out from an intersection; the truck driver was cleared of any wrongdoing.[29] Biden's two sons, Beau and Hunter, were critically injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries.[2] Biden considered resigning in order to care for them;[9] he was persuaded not to by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and others and was sworn into office from one of their bedsides.[30] The accident left Biden filled with both anger and religious doubt: "I liked to [walk around seedy neighborhoods] at night when I thought there was a better chance of finding a fight ... I had not known I was capable of such rage ... I felt God had played a horrible trick on me."[31]"
OK - thank you. 2 points though: 1- According to this, he didn't say that he DID go around and pick these fights. It seems as if this were more an expression than actual fact. 2- While I'll admit this is an odd comment, tt sounds as if his anger is justfied, and well, somewhat normal. Which render the misinterpretation by Jones ridiculous. "Joe Biden anti violence crusader by day. At night, prowling the "seedy neighborhoods" looking to engage in violence."
And what in the world does this have to do with the pros and cons of the VAWA?
George Bush just left the presidency with the worst or near the worst rating for a senior politician in History. 20 % approval. Everyone said that was horrible. But wait...! Somebody has him beat! Joe Biden! Everytime Biden seeked the Presidency he received less than 1% approval of his party!
To Jones: So now it's a race issue: OMG!
And Goddammit! Not once does Elaine condone nor try to explain Biden's comments, rage etc. Also, not once does she say that the VAWA provided help that the Salvation Army couldn't. All she's ever said is that she's happy for the help that provided her and her children - and I know they do.
ANYONE that has their wife and child killed is going to have issues, unless Jones is from a different emotional planet. At least Elaine's abusive husband didn't kill the kids, as what does often happen. Then she WOULD have rage like Biden.
Speaking of Goats, you don't seem to realize the significance of a United States Senator prowling seedy neighborhoods unprotected. This man has security clearances. What if something did happen. Even though he was not "on the clock" as a Senator he has a responsibilty to Americans. He has jeapardized our entire national security, placed every American risk. And your tax dollars paying his salary." A senator is still a senator when he or she is off the clock and needs to be responsible. But if you support VAWA, you don't care about tax dollars flushed down the toilet. We are all still waiting to hear what benefits Elaine received under VAWA that would not have been provided by the Salvation Army.
This country is in a very serious recession. We have spent billions of dollars on VAWA. Elaine has had personal experience with VAWA meanwhile she cannot account for one penny of the billions of dollars. If funding was suddenly pulled on VAWA would service would you have lost that would not be provided by The Salvation Army? How can you expect us to support billions of dollars in expenditures when you can't tell us where one penny of that money is going?
Elaine, I am suspicious of you. NOT because you are a woman: This group wants to know what YOU did with YOUR SHARE of OUR SHARE of 1 billion dollars in taxpayers money.
Simply saying it "helped" you and your family does not fly when we are talking a billion dollars.
That is the kind of answer Joe"foot in the mouth" Biden would give. That is what the media has named him because of the amount of times he put his foot in his mouth.
I saw a Body Language expert on the News who came to give an analysis of one of Obama's press conferences.
The first question happened to be on something Biden said.
Well you should have seen Obama cringe! You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to hear what the Body Language expert was going to say! Obama's reaction to hearing another quack remark that Biden said was very predictable.
He grabbed his ear. The expert said that meant he did not want to hear it.
And then he looked up. She said Obama usually looks down when he is thinking. She said he was looking up because he was trying to escape/evade the issue.
Various comments from the Biden foot in Mouth Web Site:
This comment should answer some of Rosalyn's questions on Biden's stance on race:
"You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."
Biden made this comment during the election. People wondered whether he was running with McCain after hearing this one:
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him."
Go to http://wallofshamearchives.blogspot.com/2006/08/joe-bidens-foot-in-mouth-disease.html
The are many boxing gyms, martial arts centers in America in which Biden could have worked out his hostilities in a controled safe environment. The fact the he prowled the streets at night looking for prey puts him in a class of the lowest form of human being. When the time comes to impeach Biden, my signature will be the first on the list.
My signature will be right up there with yours, Jones. We need to remove Biden along with his corrupt VAWA.
Count me in too. He violated National Security as a Senator. These are impeachable grounds. The man is unstable and a high risk.
Yes we need to remove this real life Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde from office and the streets. Passing anti violence laws by day and prowls the streets at night seeking "blood."
My John Hancock will be on the petition.
Rosalyn and Elaine would support VAWA if it was written by Jack The Ripper
Biden demonstrates his knowledge of history. The quote is from the Los Angeles Times
"And last night, in an interview with "CBS Evening News," Biden misspoke when he told anchor Katie Couric that today's leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to a previous national financial crisis.
Declared Biden: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
What's wrong with that, some might ask?
Well, for starters Republican Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed in October 1929. Second, Roosevelt didn't take office until four years later. And, not to be picky, but there were also no televisions in use at the time. Radio was Roosevelt's favored medium."
If we impeach Biden, he might get all depressed and start stalking the slums again. I don't want somebody moving in on my turf!
J Ripper
Mark, there is no question that violence against women world wide is a problem. But you have not addressed VAWA. The question here is if VAWA and the annual billion dollar expenditure is helping. Most experts say not only is it not helping but it has made the problem worse. See various quotes on the blog from experts on this blog. One top official called it a "failure."
Thank you Sally. Not only has Mark not addressed VAWA and the yearly billion dollar expenditure but is Dr. Jeckyl/MrHyde stabile enough to fix the problem?
Elaine said she used VAWA, and she can't even tell us how the money was spent.
I will take youn up on this, and to be fair, will do research. A female friend of mine's husband was charged with violating a protective order in Kansas City. He was given every benefit of the doubt, every continuation to be had and all consideration of fairness imaginable. He plead guilty. But two points linger: 1- Everyone seems positively giddy (especially Sally)that Elaine was abused, and 2-You cannot get past the venomous language and notion of revenge toward women in this suit. It reads like a chapter from a woman-hater's club.
And why are these men blaming the VAWA when their marriage to a woman they chose to purchase off the auction block doesn't work out (duh). I wish there were statistics available for failed marriages among misogynysts and failed marriages among men who maybe just maybe don't look at women as pieces of meat like these 4 men in the lawsuit did.
I am not giddy. I just want to know where our billion dollars is going.
There is nothing wrong with marrying a foreign women. America is a country of immigrants.
VAWA gives these women a choice in the event of divorce. Either throw your husband in jail and claim domestic violence or go back to your old country. Even the most nicest decent woman will chose to send her husband to jail for a chance to live in America. The fault is not with the women. The fault is a corrupt law written by a sick mind.
And speaking of "duh" can't you see how ignorant Biden is. He thinks television was around during the depression. What comes next? Will he tell us George Washington went on the internet before he crossed the Delaware?!
If there is venon in the lawsuit it is because in singles out men as sole aggressors. If you read every statistic online, women are just as likely to commit violence as men. I have seen statistics of 40% and 50%. So why isn't the law called Violence Against People? The reason is because Joe Biden is out of touch with reality.
And Joe Biden wants every man in America to sit there and do nothing while they are beaten. Just like he did.
That is plenty to get men angry.
Men are NOT blaming VAWA for failed foreign marriages. The law needs to provide better options than "throw your husband in Jail or go back to your old country."
Elaine, you are ignorant enough to give a Day Care job to a child molester. A predator has no business writing laws protecting women. Count my name on the impeachment petition.
Thank you Justice. You hit upon the reason why Elaine can't account for our billion dollars. The majority of the money is NOT being used to help abused women. The majority of the money is being used to defraud the US government to grant aliens' citizenship.
Maybe Valerie should start slugging Joe again so they can relive "the good old days!"
It is amazing to me how a man as intelligent as President Obama could pick an imbecile as Biden. A few more months of Biden and we will be begging to have Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney back again. Even tho they are both Republican. I didn't think they could get worse than those two. Biden has Quayle and Cheney beat by 1000 %
If Valerie slugs Joe they will arrest Joe under VAWA. Ha Ha!
Yes, and the money would really pour in when the police come to arrest Joe at the end of show!
Another Biden comment on race. Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia
Biden made remarks during the campaign that attracted controversy. In January 2007, he spoke of fellow Democratic candidate and Senator Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."[129] This comment took second place on Time magazine's list of Top 10 Campaign Gaffes for 2007
Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia, This is a quote from Biden, who as Vice President, is going to help pull us out of the recession:
"Biden stated that he was listed as the second poorest member in Congress, a distinction that he was not proud of, but attributed to being elected early in his career"
Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia on Biden's apparent death. Perhaps he suffered brain damage. That might explain VAWA and his other stupidity:
"In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking;[47][48] the situation was serious enough that a priest had administered last rites at the hospital."
Thanks Jones. I thought Biden was brain dead. We have a Vice President who is a real life Frankenstein Monster. Either near death or brought back from the dead.
We have two great movies here:
Dr. Biden and Mr. Hyde
I think the reality show would make more money.
Hey if Joe sees all these posts, he might wait for us in a dark alley.....
Don't worry, Sally. The last I heard this is America. As long as, God forbid, we never have a President Biden.
We need to impeach Joe ASAP.
Long Live President Obama
This is excerpt from a former INS Agent who has a consulting website:
"The United States Congress obligingly delivered a simple and yet an extremely effective solution to this vexing problem. They enacted the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, and renewed it in 2000, and again in 2005.
Now, all the foreign national has to do, once they are married to their American "spouse" is to allege they are the victim of domestic violence or abuse. That allegation can come the day after the marriage, or even on the same day of marriage. It matters not.
They no longer have to reside with the US citizen, no longer have to pretend to love them, no longer have to interact with the US citizen, and, most importantly, they no longer have to appear for that inconvenient interview before USCIS. There is no conditional permanent residence status necessitating yet another interview in two years. They become a permanent resident alien in an instant.
Virtually all grounds of inadmissibility that would normally prevent a foreign national from getting their green card in a "conventional" marriage based visa scenario, are waived for foreign nationals claiming to have been abused because the foreign national is now a "victim".
Lastly, the VAWA unit of USCIS in Burlington, Vermont, issues a self petitioning foreign national who alleges abuse, a letter granting them "deferred action status" which means they cannot be deported or arrested by ICE. It's the mother of all "Get Out of Jail Free Cards".
At the same time the US citizen is sitting in jail or prohibited from going to his home because of a restraining order, the foreign national spouse cleans out the American citizen's bank account, takes his valuable possessions, and then has the audacity to claim that they, the foreign national, are the "victim".
Meanwhile, the American citizen is forced to hire attorneys to defend himself from the false criminal accusations, and to represent him in the divorce. He faces the bleak prospect of having to give 50% of his property to a con artist who has abused him, taken advantage of him, and has discarded him like yesterday's newspaper. And what is even more distressing is that the American citizen might have to pay her alimony or "spousal support", not to mention the very real possibility of being sentenced to jail or to prison for a crime he did not commit.
And if that wasn't enough, the foreign national "spouse" can go on welfare and the US Government, adding insult to injury, will send the American citizen the bill for this because he was so obliging by submitting an enforceable affidavit of support in connection with his foreign born spouse's immigrant visa application or application for adjustment of status. Isn't "love" grand?
Another "unintended consequence" of VAWA is that parties to pending divorce actions routinely falsely accuse the other party of domestic violence for no other reason than to gain an upper hand in negotiations regarding the "equitable distribution" of the marital assets, child custody, and child visitation orders and to prevent the other party from obtaining an equitable divorce settlement."
If Rosalyn and Anonymous thinks Wiped Out's posting is "due process" then maybe they are reading Mein Kampf a little to often.
No one "deserves" to be a victim of crime. That used to to be a man's excuse when he raped a women. "She wore a mini skirt and deserved it."
Such an excuse is unacceptable.
It is just as unacceptable to say a "man deserved what he got" for marrying a foreign bride.
No one "deserves" to be a victim of crime.
Get rid of Biden
This keeps getting better. Here we have a Dr. Jeckyl/Mr Hyde with probable brain damage one heartbeat away from the Presidency and Nuclear Control.
Someone already has the "Impeach Biden Shirts" for sale.
Impeach Biden!
And if you prefer a bumper sticker
Biden demonstrates his math ability. From various posts on the web:
"John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,"
Copied and paste from the Wikipedia. Biden's sends a message to the youth of America on Education:
"He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968,[16] where by his own description he found it to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by"
from a friend of mine:
I've read the sections of VAWA for aliens to find out what exactly they are bitching about. Aliens must go through same due process as American's providing proof of abuse, and still have to go through normal channels to obtain citizenship, but are allowed some lenience on filing deadlines if they can prove abuse kept them from making deadlines. Men married to foreigners are not treated any differently then one married to an American either, they are allowed same rights and considered innocent until proven guilty. The VAWA also sites many other immigration acts that the VAWA must comply with. I did not look up other immigration acts, there maybe something in other acts protecting foreigners. Any man starting a relationship or marriage with any man or woman has to be on guard for someone who is a ruthless con, don't they? I don't think VAWA has done anything to turn men into victims.
I want to know EXACTLY what courthouse has sentenced anyone to jail without benefit of a trial. I want the name of the judge that locked someone merely accused of domestic violence and sentenced him to a jail term without a trial.
Nazi Germany has Courts, Judges and Trials. But how many people that made into the NAZI court system got a fair trial?
The VAWA trials are not what our founding fathers had in mind
typo: instead of "has" meant "had."
Edward: Tens of thousands of men have been convicted and in jail as a result of these VAWA kangaroo trials. Joe Biden and the Women's Organizations are very proud of the amount of convictions and can give you the numbers.
But lets look at the "best" case scenario. Let's say the charges are dropped/Not Guilty and the man only has the "mandatory Restraining Order."
You might every thing is "peachy keen" and this man has received "due process."
Not quite, his troubles are just beginning.
A Conviction is required for US Citizenship under VAWA. In some rare cases the INS will waive this but the foreign woman knows she has to get a conviction.
So, if the girl was not able to get a conviction on the initial arrest she will repeatedly drag the man back to court until she gets a conviction. Something as simple as saying "she saw the man in the street" is enough to get the man convicted on violation of the Restraining Order.
The man becomes a hunted animal for a year and sometimes as much as three years, if he is lucky enough not get convicted.
And what about Restraining Orders? Judges give them out like candy bars because they think they are "only civil and not a conviction."
The sad truth is Restraining Orders are like branding a man a "Registered Sex Offender."
Corporations do background checks when hiring. A Restraining Order is very likely to show up on a background check and cost a man a job the next time he applies for work.
Again, all this is not what the founding fathers of The United States had in mind for the justice system.
My earlier post was removed.
Edward:I emailed Cardoza over the weekend and asked him similiar questions. This was his reply:
"The initial accusation of my wife was I "grabbed her hand." The was no accusation of any hitting or violence at the time of arrest.
Her story changed when we got to court but never the less this should have been a 15 minute open and shut case with no more than a few hundred dollars in legal fees.
The first City Attorney determined fraud. The judge refused to listen to the first City Attorney and later refused to consider the evidence of the second City Attorney and went ahead and issued the first Restraining Order.
Little did he know he was being conned because the Restraining Order was one of the ingredients needed for US Citizenship.
So this was the the beginning of a case that should have lasted 15 minutes and dragged on for over a year due to her I-360 application for US Citizenship under VAWA.
At a later court date I tried to get the Restraining Order removed. I presented so much fraud evidence that the judge said to ex-wife:
"Young lady you have no defense any of the fraud evidence!"
He then said "I chose not to deal with fraud evidence and leave this up to the INS."
The INS refused to look at one piece of evidence because by law of the Self Petition of the I-360 they are not allowed to look at the man's evidence.
So the case dragged on some more.
When the Restraining Order became up for renewal I told the judge I wanted to bring in her mother and daughter to testify that she confessed the entire scam to both of them.
The sister also told me that my wife confessed (to her) the murder of my dog.
Instead of letting me proceed, the judge renewed the Restraining Order for 3 more years.
The case would still be going on today had I not subpoenaed the "mastermind" behind the scam. The person who my wife's "coach" was most likely afraid of the publicity and probably her involvement in similar scams. This forced my wife to settle the next day.
The final cost was over $40,000.00 in legal fees for a case that should have cost a few hundred.
And I should emphasize that it was not the judge who ended the case. He might have dragged it on for many years had I not forced the out of court settlement.
So friends of this website and Richard Stockton, if you think all this was "due process" I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn."
I think Harmon brought up some very interesting answers to your questions. Even if the man is found "Not Gulity." the woman will continue to drag the man into court on "Violation of The Restraining Order" so she can complete her I-360 for Citizenship. There is an excellent chance of conviction/ jail simply on the woman's word that he "was following her and violated the Restraining Order."
The more times the woman drags the man into court on these allegations, the judge may eventually fall for her con job and convict the man.
A friend of mine had her soon-to-be-ex husband arrested for violating a restraining order. The order was slapped on him after countless interviews between a social and her kids. Seems he liked to issue out corporal punishment to her kids. He was arrested while she was at work - her neighbor, an off-duty police officer, caught him trying to break into her house. He has not been sentenced to a jail term without benefit of a trial. In fact, he's had four continuances. This is her response to no "due process."
"oh yeah...BS...you know how difficult it has been for me to get a conviction on J--, they would not even have arrested him if it hadn't been for a witness and will not make judgment until witness testifies...it would have been dismissed a long time ago if it were just my word."
Under present laws, if they see a mark on the skin of the woman, it is a mandatory arrest for the man. A lot of foreign women have no problem with self infliction to gain citizenship. And Rosalyn, you mentioned about "being careful about cons."
It seems you have been conned because you or no one else here can tell us where our billion dollars a year is going.
The biggest problem that faces this country today is the economy. People are getting laid off left and right. Businesses are closing. Houses are being foreclosed. And Roslyn is defending a very expensive program in which she cannot tell us how our money is being spent.
Yes, and the program Rosalyn is defending is not even working. She said her friend is having trouble getting justice. Then where is our billion dollars going?
Maybe Rosalyn's friend needs to take classes from the thousands of foreign women who con the government every year under VAWA. These women have no problem getting convictions in most cases.
Rosalyn, you spoke many time of "brains" here. Do you even know what you are defending? You have been defending VAWA up till now and today you tell us the present laws are not working.
Support the Females as Property Movement.
Save yourself, save society and save the girlies from the tremendous burden they have been required to bear since being allowed to enter general adult society.
Some historians believe the burden commenced in 1920 when females were granted the general country-wide privilege of voting.
Sadly, as females gained various rights and privileges their inability to accept the accompanying responsibilities has harmed those females, males and society as a whole.
The emotion-laden generally irrational female of the human species has fallen short of adult expectations.
We must remove the enormous burden from female shoulders for the good of all.
Admittedly, there IS a very small percentage of females who ARE capable of bearing the burden of adulthood in our modern society so exceptions will be made for those few.
However, easing females out of the requirements of being full-fledged adults and re-assuming their roles of yore will be a blessing in many ways and will assuredly improve the female's general happiness.
CHAPEL HILL -- Cost-benefit analyses of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 suggest the legislation, which provided $1.6 billion for various prevention programs over five years, saved $14.8 billion in net social costs that otherwise would have been incurred.
The analyses, done for the first time, concentrated on costs related to direct property losses, medical and mental health care, police responses, victim services, lost productivity, death and reduced quality of life. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health conducted the study.
I find it not-so-ironic that misoginists and men arrested for wife-beating are the ones whining about their tax dollars being spent on this.
I'd also like to comment on the following quote from A. Sally:
" Yes, and the program Rosalyn is defending is not even working. She said her friend is having trouble getting justice. Then where is our billion dollars going?"
My answer to this is that the VAWA has nothing to do with this court case.
I asked not only a friend of mine who is a police chief in Montana but I also randomly called several police precincts in both rural and urban areas across the country and asked them if the VAWA is putting pressure on them to make domestic violence arrests even when there is no such evidence. They asked where I got such a notion; I replied that it was suggested on a web site. My friend in Montana bristled that NO ONE puts pressure on him to arrest anyone without evidence, and a police lietenant sarcastically commented that he doesn't believe that the VAWA has black helicopters flying over his officer's heads whenever they are called to a domestic violence scene. An officer in Harrisburg commented that officers are put under pressure to arrest ANYONE committing domestic violece.
What I'm getting from some of these insidious comments from men who felt they got burned is that not only do they not want women to seek outside help from abuse but that any woman that goes to the VAWA for assistance is somehow a fraud and a scam artist. Does it not occur to these men that children benefit as well, or do they not want them to receive assistance either? To answer another question on this blog in terms of whether "there were not Salvation Army services to help Elaine," the answer is that in a lot of rural areas, NO, and in a lot of urban areas Salvation Army's are nearly bankrupt.
Incomprehensible VAWA Lawsuit Quote:
30. The process casts a continuing and brooding presence of risk and fear that threatens an American man's right to marry a foreign female when the high failure rate of marriages and the intense desire of aliens to gain admittance to the U.S. are considered.
Can anyone make sense of this?
The Law Blog covers the legal arena's hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It's brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal's staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.
Comment or tip? Write to firstname.lastname@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.com
The insider-trading case against Michael Steinberg may have fizzled out, but the federal prosecutors who brought and later dropped the charges against the former trader are still taking their lumps.
A California judge ruled that a woman may not have a child using fertilized embryos frozen during a marriage to her ex-husband, who sought to block the pregnancy after the couple separated.
How much information is vital to investors depends a lot on who is defining what information is "material" and what is "immaterial."
WASHINGTON—In the fast-paced world of Washington politics, the Supreme Court often seems to move on its own time. That appeared the case Monday when the justices took the bench for their scheduled 10 a.m. argument—and neither clock in the majestic courtroom displayed a correct time.
Jones Day is taking on 10 former Supreme Court clerks this year—nearly a quarter of all the clerks who worked at the nation's high court in the most recently concluded term.
Content engaging our readers now, with additional prominence accorded if the story is rapidly gaining attention. Our WSJ algorithm comprises 30% page views, 20% Facebook, 20% Twitter, 20% email shares and 10% comments.