Feminist Teacher's Lesson Plan -- Discriminate against Boys

From The American Thinker Blog:

Reported recently was that Keller, a kindergarten "teacher" at Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary in Bainbridge Island, Wash., was refusing to let the boys in her class play with Legos during free play time. As the Bainbridge Island Review (BIR) wrote:

In Karen Keller's kindergarten classroom, boys can't play with Legos.

They can have their pick of Tinkertoys and marble tracks, but the colorful bricks are "girls only."

"I always tell the boys, 'You're going to have a turn' — and I'm like, 'Yeah, when hell freezes over' in my head," she said. "I tell them, 'You'll have a turn' because I don't want them to feel bad."

If you're acquainted with the mental illness masquerading as teaching philosophy today, you can imagine this woman's problem.

This woman needs to be sued under Title IX. That would be entertaining.

The unilateral war on college men

From USA Today by Glenn Harlan Reynolds via H/T at Instapundit:

Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.

Another example of the Executive Branch overreaching ......

Prosecutor from Polis’s District: ‘Shadow’ campus system is no solution to sexual assault.

Via H/T at Instapundit:

Although universities adjudicate student discipline, it is a serious mistake to equate investigation and resolution of felony sex assault with cheating on a test or drinking or smoking in a dorm room or the other normal fodder of the university discipline process, where due process on some level is important, but of an entirely different quality than the criminal justice system provides.

We should never tolerate the adjudication of serious felony behavior outside the criminal justice system. There are many reasons:

1. The risk of wrongful conviction is too great. The rigorous due process of the criminal justice system exists for mainly one reason: to make sure society can have confidence that one who is found guilty is, in fact, guilty. Relaxing due process, or having investigations not handled by well-trained professionals can lead to wrongful conviction.

2. The risk of traumatizing victims of sex assault. Interview and handling of victims and witnesses in sex crimes requires skill, sensitivity and time. Clumsy or repeated interviews can be traumatic for victims.

3. Those guilty of serious felony behavior present a societal risk, not just a campus risk. To suggest that sex assault on campus is primarily a campus problem is just plain wrong: it is a societal problem and deserves a societal response through the criminal justice system.

4. The criminal justice system is public and the public can observe, evaluate and criticize the proceedings. University conduct investigations carry the inherent secrecy of the discipline process, which can leave the public questioning the fairness of an investigation and the accuracy of the determinations.

The federal government’s decision to tie campus funding to a one size fits all investigative approach can interfere with criminal investigations. Fair, effective, sex assault investigations take time and cannot be handled by investigators under pressure to rush to a particular conclusion due to financial pressures on the university. Also, “warning letters” or warning bulletins, or campus-based “stay away from each other” orders can, if issued prematurely, prevent law enforcement from determining the truth of alleged criminal behavior. Of course, that only matters if you actually care about justice. If you’re just pushing bureaucratic employment and Hillary-friendly “War On Women” talking points, then who cares what happens to individuals?

errr, maybe the parents of the falsely accused?

YOU are a rapist; yes YOU!

From David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit:

In the Future, all restaurants will be Taco Bell, and everybody will be a Rapist: YOU are a rapist; yes YOU! I don’t think this will help colleges and universities maintain the enrollment levels they need.

Cathy Young has an excellent column in Reason.com about a bill in California that would require universities in that state to use an “affirmative consent” standard for evaluating sexual assault complaints in the campus disciplinary system for complaints involving students. Two obvious questions arise: (1) Why just on campus? If this is a good idea, why not make it part the tort system? If that’s too drastic, let’s start, with say, members of the California legislature. For internal disciplinary purposes, their sexual activity should be governed by the same standard they want to impose on students. What plausible grounds could they have for rejecting application of a standard they would impose on students to themselves? (2) If we’re limiting things to campus, why just students? Why should students be judged under this standard, but not faculty and administrators? It’s hardly unheard of for professors, administrators, and even law school deans to engage in sexual relationships of dubious morality. The answer is that it’s not a good idea, and it’s a product of the current moral panic over the hookup culture.

But at least the affirmative consent standard leaves room for a defense that the complainant provided appropriate non-verbal cues that signified consent. By contrast, the Office on Violence against Women, a U.S. Justice Department subsidiary, informs us on its home page that “sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the *explicit consent* of the recipient.” This is not, in fact, the legal standard in any jurisdiction in the United States, and it’s not because it’s completely absurd. The vast, vast majority of “sexual contact or behavior” is initiated with only *implicit consent.*

I would love to make a constitutional amendment to the Kalifornia Constitution, all new laws must apply only to the Legislature for 10 years, before they will apply to the general public.

California's Absurd Intervention Over Dorm Room Sex

From Cathy Young at Reason via Instapundit:

With all the other drama in the news, the likely passage of a California law ostensibly targeting sexual assault on college campuses—approved by the state Senate on May 29 and by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 18—has gone largely unnoticed. Yet the bill, SB-967, deserves attention as an alarming example of creeping Big-Sisterism that seeks to legislate "correct" sex. While its reach affects only college students so far, the precedent is a dangerous and potentially far-reaching one.

The bill, sponsored by state Senator Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) and developed in collaboration with student activists, does nothing less than attempt to mandate the proper way to engage in sexual intimacy, at least if you're on a college campus. It requires schools that receive any state funds through student aid to use "affirmative consent" as the standard in evaluating sexual assault complaints in the campus disciplinary system.
..........................

In a Slate.com article defending "affirmative consent," feminist writer Amanda Hess stipulates that such laws should be "broad enough to include nonverbal cues." But that would leave fact-finders, in real courts or campus pseudo-courts, to try to decide such questions as: Was a head motion a nod that indicated a "yes"? Does pulling someone closer during an embrace amount to consent to sex? Does a passionate response to a kiss amount to a "nonverbal cue"?
..........................

While these rules are technically gender-neutral, the general assumption in campus activism is that the victim of nonconsensual heterosexual sex is female. Indeed, if there was a sudden rush of male students filing such charges against women who had failed to "ask first," it's likely that the activists would respond the same way battered women's advocates did in the 1990s when their push for mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases led to more arrests of women: by crying backlash and claiming that male abusers are manipulating the system to punish their female victims.
..........................

One would think that the California legislators would have some second thoughts about endorsing a bill that essentially redefines some 95 percent of human sexual encounters as rape (including married sex, since the bill specifically states that a prior relationship creates no presumption of consent). Even the Los Angeles Times, usually strongly supportive of the anti-campus rape campaign, criticized SB-967 in an editorial noting that "it seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely."

Yet another reason to leave this State and make sure no male attends college here.

Good grades, good home gets college student profiled as rapist, claims lawsuit

From Instapundit:

Being a valedictorian from a "good family" helped get a California student blamed for an alleged rape by a bizarre, college tribunal that critics claim is part of an overzealous culture of blaming men for hookups that go awry, according to a lawsuit.

A former Occidental College student known only as "John Doe" has sued the Los Angeles school after it found him "responsible" for an alleged Sept. 8, 2013, rape local police could not substantiate ever happened. The student was expelled after the liberal arts school's investigation, despite offering strong text message evidence that the encounter with another first-year Occidental student was consensual.
.........................

"[John Doe] fits the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and was from a good family," the suit quotes Occidental Sociology Prof. Danielle Dirks, who co-founded the school's Sexual Assault Coalition, telling the woman, who was initially reluctant to accuse the man of rape.

Wow!!! So there used to be racial profiling. What shall we call it now? Success Profiling? Hard Work Profiling?

Gender Profiling. If you're a male, you're guilty! ! ! !

Activists Raise Alarm About California Sex Assault Bill

From the Daily Caller:

Legal experts and higher education activists are issuing warnings about a new bill under consideration in California that would dictate how state schools respond to allegations of sexual assault.

The bill, passed through California’s Senate 27-9 last Thursday, would require any school receiving state money to have an “affirmative consent standard” for their policies regarding sexual misconduct. It must still be approved by the state Assembly.

In other words, a student must have clear-and-express positive consent from another person before initiating sexual contact, or else they may be found liable for sexual assault by the school. This contrasts with the standards used in criminal courts, where consent may be unspoken or implied by contextual circumstances, and finding guilt for rape and other offenses requires further proof that an act was forced upon another.

Some activists say this proposed standard goes much too far.

“What is perhaps worst about the bill is that its consent requirement reaches beyond sex to all ‘sexual activity,’ which is defined by some colleges quite expansively to include mere touching, touching that (unlike sex) is not usually preceded by affirmative permission in the real world,” Hans Bader, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

He said that putting the onus on individuals to get positive consent for every act of intimacy would be both improbable and dangerous to students’ rights. Strictly applying such a standard would make most ordinary couples potentially liable for sex offenses in the eyes of colleges, he said.

This bill is clearly aimed at men to satisfy the radical feminist demands to punish men for simply being men.

Duke, Grossly Unfair Again, Is Back in Court

From KC Johnson via Instapundit:

To defend its actions, Duke sent to court Dean Sue Wasiolek, a figure who had a somewhat checkered record in the lacrosse case. Wasiolek lacked the almost casual disregard for due process of one of her superiors, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta, or the personal cravenness of Duke president Richard Brodhead. On the other hand, she urged the lacrosse captains not to tell their parents about the incident, advice that helped explain why they didn’t seek attorneys for several days.

Independent reporter John Tucker covered the hearing, and it seemed as if Wasiolek’s testimony didn’t go very well for the school. She admitted that Duke had never placed the presumption of expulsion in its published student handbook—but suggested this didn’t matter. “It is an understood practice. … We didn’t feel the need to make it public.” How something that’s not public can be an understood as standard must remain a mystery.

And she appeared to concede that Duke doesn’t take seriously Title IX’s promise of not discriminating on the basis of gender. Noting Duke’s finding that a rape occurs when a panel concludes based on 50.01 percent probability that a student had reached an incapacitating level of intoxication that rendered the student unable to give consent to sex, McLeod’s lawyer asked Wasiolek what happened if both students were drunk. In that case, presumably, “they have raped each other and are subject to expulsion.” Not so, stated Wasiolek: “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.” How this policy can be reconciled with Title IX must remain a mystery.

I got a press release from legal entrepreneur John Banzhaf on this yesterday, which suggests to me that the Title IX lawsuits are on the way.

I hope the crush the schools and make them fold the silly gender and ethnic studies separtments. The are not areas of rigid academic studies, but a way to promote unqualified people to Professorships to satisfy the demand form a color blind academia.

What Does a Social DIsaster Sound Like? - The Duke Men's Lacrosse Team winning it's 3rd National Championship in the last 5 years

This blog is primarily about politics and current events, rarely about sports.  But the Duke Lacrosse team is one of the few times where politics, national events, and sports collide.  I have been playing the "fastest game on two feet" for over 30 years and the first time I saw a Division 1 college game was in 1983 when Johns Hopkins was playing Syracuse for the National Championship.  The Johns Hopkins Bluejays beat Syracuse in an exciting game during Memorial Day weekend in 1983 and I have been a Bluejays fans every since.

But there are two other team I will root for during the NCAA playoffs, the Duke Blue Devils and the Bryant Bulldogs.  Why?  Simple.  The Duke Lacrosse team and 3 of their players were nearly destroyed by a false rape charge in 2006 by a mentally unbalance black stripper.  There have been many cases of college athletes committing sexual assault and it does happen too often, but his case seemed fishy from the start.

One of the things, which still disturbs me to this day,  is the activism of the Professors immediately assuming the players guilt and using the case as proof of patriarchy and white privilege on campus.   The case had the explosive combination of race, sex, and money all rolled into one nice package.

Another thing that sill bothers me to this day, after the State Attorney General declared the players INNOCENT  of all charges, there has been no formal apology from the Duke, the Administration, not the Professors, who declared the players guilty.  Unless you consider the settlement with the players and apology.

The reason I cheer for the Bryant Bulldogs is Coach Mike Pressler.  He was the ONLY person fired from Duke regarding the False Rape Hoax.  No professor was fired for presuming the players guilt.  No members of the Administration was fired for their handling of the case.  The only person fired was the Coach of the innocent players.  The Rape Hoax nearly destroyed the man's career and life.  I applaud Bryant University for taking a chance on him and they are seeing the fruit of their efforts.  Bryant made the NCAA Tournament last year and the beat the #2 seated team this year for their 1st tournament win ever.

Please email Karla FC Holloway (karla.holloway@duke.edu) and Wahneema Lubiano (wah@duke.edu) to let them know about the victory. Both these women were prime sponsors of the "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" ad when the Rape Hoax was first getting attention.

Suspended Columbia athlete files federal lawsuit over campus sexual assault conviction

From Legal Insurrection:

Columbia University has been the focus of heated arguments over the university’s handling of sexual assault complaints.

In recent days, the names of alleged “rapists” have been scrawled on bathroom walls and in flyers, as reported at The Columbia Spectator, The NY Daily News, and The Columbia Lion, and Jezebel.
.....................

Earlier today in federal court in New York a Complaint was filed by a former Columbia student alleging that he was unfairly found to have committed a sexual assault based upon allegedly flimsy and inconsistent evidence, without due process protections. The Complaint is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The heart of the Complaint is that the sex was consensual, as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous complaint and a delay of 5 months in complaining.

5 months ? ! ? ! ? !

That gives a girl a loooong time to make up her mind.

Kangaroo Court Update - More on Vassar's Rigged Sex Hearing

From K.C. Johnson via Instapundit:

First: the idea that college procedures are wildly tilted against accusers--the basis of the myriad Title IX complaints filed against colleges and universities around the country--is divorced from reality. In the Vassar case, two witnesses that Yu requested be heard were not interviewed by Vassar and did not attend his hearing. Yu received Vassar's investigative file (what amounts to the "discovery" in the case) three days before the hearing--and, as with all Vassar students accused of sexual assault, he didn't have the right to counsel during the college proceedings. He confronted a panel of three faculty members, at the request of Walker, whose father teaches at Vassar. (That a panel confined to colleagues of the accused student's father might be biased does not appear to have troubled the Vassar administration.) Once found guilty, the appeals process was meaningless, since the tape of Yu's hearing was inaudible and the filing claims that Vassar never even gave Yu a copy of the written decision in the case before expelling him.

These one-sided procedures explain what appears to be a one-sided consideration of the evidence. To an even greater extent than the Harris case at St. Joe's, Yu appeared to possess highly exculpatory, written evidence--a series of Facebook messages from Walker that even Vassar's investigator (much later, when under oath) conceded contradicted Walker's version of events. In a passage that commentator Christina Hoff Sommers could use as Example A in her concerns about equating drunken, but consensual sex, with rape, Walker wrote to Yu, "I did not treat you very well, and it was disrespectful on my part to do what I did because I was drunk." ....................

Yet since Vassar (like most schools) holds that sex after a certain level of intoxication constitutes rape, how can the level of intoxication of both parties not be relevant? This would seem to be a Title IX issue of treating females differently than males.

It seems all but certain that in future years, lots of male students will suffer Yu's fate. Parents of future students would be well-served in taking a look at how Vassar treated him.

Six figures for a chance at being branded a rapist in a Kangaroo Court? Not much of a deal. But these procedures seem vulnerable to all sorts of lawsuits, not just limited to Title IX. At some schools they may rise to the level of conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights, and possibly even RICO violations.

I like the idea of bankrupting these schools. Money seems to be the only thing that drives their decisions, good (Federal Dollars) and bad (Lawsuit payouts).

Why Did the Press & Political Establishment (But I Repeat Myself) Only Begin Caring about Boko Haram When They Began Kidnapping Girls?

From Ace of Spades HQ:

Good question. 

When they were slaughtering other children -- boys -- our press and political establishment (but I repeat myself) seemed rather not to care.

This focus on Boko Haram from both the media and the government is an unqualified good. The press arguably increased the pressure on global governments to do something about this backwards group of terrorists. But Boko Haram is not a new phenomenon. It was not long ago that some – including this author – were asking why this group’s atrocities were not generating any attention in the press. On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.
All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy.
Beyond wire reports and a handful of segments on globally-focused outlets like NPR, this atrocity went unremarked upon in the popular news media.
February 25 was not Boko Haram’s first atrocity. By March, more than 1,000 people had been killed in the country’s northeast since the first of the year. Prior to Boko Haram’s shift in tactics, from wholesale slaughter of young men to the kidnapping of young women, the group traveled from village to village where they killed children and razed buildings with near impunity.

I would imagine the answer is fairly simple: The boys and other victims were not in The Victim Class. They were usually Christian -- which is officially an Oppressor Class and not a Victim Class at all. Thus the media and political establishment blesses Boko Haram through silence, as you can't victimize an Oppressor.

Why didn't Hillary's State Department label them as a terrorist organization?

The Other Side of Title IX -- A warning to higher-education administrators.

From James Taranto of Opinion Journal:

Brett Sokolow, director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, has a warning for American college and university administrators: In their efforts to enforce Title IX, he argues, they are running afoul of Title IX.

Title IX is a provision of the Education Amendments of 1972 that stipulates: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Under the Obama administration, the Education Department has interpreted this law as requiring colleges and universities to police sexual misconduct involving students, on or off campus, under the broad rubric of "sexual harassment . . . including sexual violence."

In a newsletter to members dated last Thursday, Sokolow reports that "in the last two weeks, I've worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong."

He does not reveal the names of the institutions involved or any other specific details of the cases, presumably because his consultative role entails a duty of confidentiality. But he sums up the problem as follows: "Some [disciplinary] boards and panels still can't tell the difference between drunken sex and a policy violation"--that is, a sexual assault.

Sometimes that is by design. "In a recent case," Sokolow recounts, "the campus policy stated that intoxication creates an inability to consent." That makes it easy to establish a violation--except that in many cases the accuser has violated the letter of the policy as much as the accused has. "If both are intoxicated, they both did the same thing to each other," Sokolow writes. "Why should only the male be charged if both students behave in ways defined as prohibited by the policy?"

It is part of the Feminist's campaign to make being male illegal. They want to make college campuses as hostile to men as possible. A reverse sexual discrimination for past discrimination. They want to make legitimate a sex based apartheid on the top campuses in the country.

Iowahawk -- Tweet of the Month

If we're going to stop labeling little girls "bossy", can we stop labeling little boys with finger guns "psychotic latent mass murderers"?
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) March 11, 2014

Ouch!

A proper dressing down for unchivalrous men.

From the Dalrock Blog:

Somewhere in the world a woman is upset! What are you as lazy men doing to fix this?

Sorry for being so harsh, but you men need to hear this. I know I do. For example, just the other day I was reading about a woman in London who was victimized by modern men’s useless laziness. The article was titled, "Is there a man left under 40 who isn’t a rude, ignorant pig?" I don’t know about you but the title alone really hit home. Now that I think about it, I really am a rude ignorant pig! Why didn’t I even notice? The author of the article is an incredible woman. She is as sassy, strong, and independent as they come; yet even she finds that men are letting her down.

This article follows a path similar to one of my posts a few days ago. What this woman doesn't realize or conveniently ignores,

Feminism has failed in its cause to validate women precisely because it seeks to validate females by competition only in male realms of education, qualifications, science, politics and so forth rather than empowering women to be mothers and partners with men in the grand human scheme.

Feminism would be more accurately termed “masculization for females”. The term feminism is a perfect example of what George Orwell would call Newspeak. A word that appears to have one meaning (with a positive connotation) but in fact carries a negative and socially harmful—even controlling content to it, whilst having nothing to do with what the average person might actually glean from the term on face value.

Nothing in the aims and treatise of feminism works towards more feminine woman, appreciating the feminine energy, or supporting the cause of women who want to be real mothers, wives and ‘all woman’. Rather, women are encouraged to cease feminine pursuits and seek male orientated higher education and careers—or be written off as old fashioned or suppressed. Men never suppressed women, they just operated within natural laws. It’s the feminists that operate unnaturally by trying to shoe horn women into male roles whilst feminizing males.

(H/T raywolf of Return of Kings)

A woman laments the lack of chivalry:

From Instapundit:

Has anyone ever helped pop my bag up into the overhead compartment? Nope. Have I seen any other woman helped? Nope.

This week, an engineer in his 50s just stood there in the aisle, his hands clasped, as I played Olympic weight-lifting with my suitcase right in front of him. Just stood there, looking intently at the sticky carpet. Probably afraid to chip a nail or something.

Has the women’s liberation movement really scared the bejesus out of men this much?

When did it become chivalrous to steadfastly look away and not bother to help?

If a 6am flight is anything to go by, you’d think the concept of a gentleman was well and truly dead.

I promise you, I won’t get angry or defensive or give you attitude, I’ll in fact be super-grateful and flash you an extra-big smile despite the lack of sleep.

Chivalry was a system, which imposed behavioral obligations on women as well as on men. Women were happy to cast their obligations off, yet seem perennially surprised that men haven’t stayed exactly the same.

Instapundit is close, but missed the point. Most modern feminist was it both ways. They want to be chivalry when THEY need it, but are not willing to return the favor. How many times have women dressed down a man for opening a door? or trying to help? The men in Western cultures have been chastised that men are no longer needed, so they are behaving accordingly, you don't need me, so don't expect any help.

Silence on Valentine’s Day

From National Review:

Valentine’s Day in the 21st century means fewer heart-shaped candy boxes for college women than they would have received in the 20th century. Some women with steady, longstanding boyfriends may get a treat, but casual sex — the hook-up — has made dating much less common.

Under the hook-up regime, women who want a man’s attention are expected to dress provocatively and show up at a fraternity house or bar. After drinking too much, some guy will suggest they go somewhere and hook up, which can consist of anything from deep kissing to intercourse. The men are not attentive during or after the one-night stand. Less than half the women have orgasms, and the men frequently ignore the hook-up partner entirely if they should meet again on campus.

Most college women are not happy about this state of affairs. This would be clear to any observer who could sit in on my sex-differences seminar during the week when we discuss contemporary courtship or its absence. ...........................

Second, sex ratios matter. Now that women outnumber men on college campuses, they must compete with each other to give men more of what they want if they expect to find male companionship. Where there are more men than women on a campus, on the other hand, it’s men who have to compete, so women can successfully make things move more slowly physically. With sex ratios in college consistently lopsided over the past decade — women earn 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees — men set the mating tone on most campuses.

Oh to be a college age male today, at a school where women out number men.

Make sure you be careful, a false rape allegation is always a possibility. Make sure you follow a few proactive steps as false accusation insurance.

Are Men Irrational For Opting Out Of Education, Careers, And Families?

Following a common theme on this blog, the War on Men and after reading Dr. Helen Smith's book, "Men on Strike", it seems that more and more writers are noticing that men are option out, going Galt, etc, out of Western Society, specifically American Society. Several authors have been writing about this topic, including James Taranto of Opinion Journal.com. Matthew Cochran posted an article about this topic on the Federalist.com:

Instead, our elites have sought to structure the family around child support instead of marriage. The mother has custody of the children, but she receives much of the necessary resources from elsewhere. This could be from her husband, but it could just as easily be from her ex-husband, her boyfriend, or the taxpayer. Where it comes from doesn’t matter so long as the child has resources and the woman is freed from any moral or social obligation towards these men.

.......................

Under our contemporary family court system, it is disproportionately possible (and common) for a wife to take her husband’s home, family, and income away from him for any reason at all.

Rush Limbaugh postulated many years ago that Modern Feminism, not Liberalism, has been one of the driving forces in the societal breakdown of this country. With the Sexual Revolution, birth control, no fault divorces, and the indoctrination in colleges that a woman doesn't need a man. Add to that the Court system that impoverish men and restrict access to their children, is it any wonder why this phenomena is happening?.

Sexual harassment charge for six-year-old who kissed his GF’s hand

From the Daily Caller:

Adorable six-year-old Hunter Yelton was accused of sexual harassment by his school administrators after he kissed his girlfriend on the hand in class.

His permanent record now reflects a sexual harassment charge, even though he doesn’t know what sex is.

..................

This time, other students noticed him giving her a peck on the hand, and reported it to the teacher. Instead of merely instructing the young lovebirds to stop, however, administrators suspended Yelton for a full day.

Canon City school district officials stood by the punishment, and said the six-year-old’s behavior fits the description of sexual harassment.

How does a 6 year possibly sexually harass a girl by giving kissing her hand?

Another example of the War against Men.

The War on Women -- By MSNBC hosts

The Dear Leader, members of his Regime, Drive-By-Media. and the Democratic Party have been trying to sell the idea that there is a Republican "War on Women" So how would they respond id they were asked, "How about MS-NBC hosts 'War on Women'?"

Example 1) - Ed "Sargent" Schutlz, when on a diatribe about Republicans, Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "Right Wing Slut"

Example 2) - Alec Bladwin, his meltdowns are stuff of Hollywood legend. Several years ago, he attacked his own daughter calling her a "a rude, thoughtless little pig. You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being." He has attacked numerous female reporters over the years.

Example 3)- Martin Bashir, who has tried to market himself as an intellectual, based on hm having a British accent, called for someone to defecate and urinate in Sarah Palin's mouth. He of course used substantially more crude language.

Common trait of these men? All unrepentant liberals, all MS-NBC Talk show hosts.

Compare the Media's react to these egregious diatribes to how the same Media reacted, when Rush Limbaugh called out Sandra Fluke as a "slut."