This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Oh, just pass the popcorn, already. I find it hard to take either group seriously.
The problem with the feminists is that they won everything a reasonable woman could wish for when Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were passed. Instead of turning to publicizing ways people could use their rights, they chose to dig up more grounds for "victimhood," and most reasonable people left the movement.
I know when I left. I was in a doctor's office while I was in law school, and saw a copy of Ms magazine. At one time, I read every issue as it came out. But it had been years, and I'd been busy. An article about child custody drew my attention because I was taking Family law, and so had recently become accustomed to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. I happily set down, to find out all the ways this Act could be used, and how a clever woman could protect herself and her children.
There was no mention of the Act, and no decent advice anywhere in the article. The article was nothing but a bunch of whining about how tough life was for a woman, with no mention at all of the very real tools that had been put into place, or how to use them. I never read Ms again.
At the same time, the Men's Rights movement was just getting started. I could see how men might actually want to see their kids, and maybe even want custody. But that was not what Men's Rights was all about. It always boiled down to reducing their child support and alimony payments. Like the family law judges, I learned to ask "What relief do you seek?" The answer was always "reduce my payments."
We live in a glorious, free country, where any adult is free to arrange their life as they see fit. Yes, men have rights. Yes, women have rights. But anybody bothered enough about the limits this society places on their rights because of their gender is, in my experience, just a little nuts.
I am taking your post at face value and wish to respond to you in a reasonable way, and not just flame you.
I am an MRA. Why? Because I was falsely accused of rape in college - twice. At different colleges it was my misfortune to date two very different women. One a perpetual victim, who I stopped seeing and who, 7 months later, decided that she needed a dramatic story to get attention - and the other who decided that for my daring to stop dating her she'd "teach me a lesson".
I am also an MRA because I believe in PARENTS (to include fathers) rights. Not because I was some guy denied access to my child, but because I am a man, who was a child, who was denied a loving and nurturing relationship with my father because my mother (whom I do love dearly) decided that punishing my father by denying him access was more important than the damage such a move would do.
I am an MRA also because I can't stand double standards, which feminists are ALL about.
What do men have happening that would be a legitimate set of grievances? That's a fair question.
1) Men die, on average, 7 years earlier than women, and there is an office for Women and Girls' Health, but none for men.
2) Men use healthcare services, EXCLUDING pregnancy and reproduction, on average, 40% less than women, but we are mandated, by law, to pay the same premiums - we are subsidizing women's health care - again, even though we die 7 years earlier.
3) Education is geared to how girls learn, and boys are being left behind. In high school graduation rates, in rates if prescriptions for "hyperactivity", and in programs to engage students - girls/women are the focus.
4) Almost 60% of incoming university freshmen are women - and no one cares young men are being disenfranchised. But there are numerous initiatives, programs, and women-only scholarships to give women "a leg up" in many fields - but none for men.
5) Men's universities were excoriated and forced to TRULY open up to women - while the "7 Sisters" colleges admit a token amount of men to these Tier 1 schools - and no one cares.
6) More than ***40,000*** men's sports teams have been disassembled under Title IX - but programs that are female friendly/centric have never had this applied. Generally, men like sports more than women - but all the programs that women like more (whatever they may be from college campus to campus) never face federal lawsuit Title IX challenges.
7) Women-Owned-Businesses are granted special protections and tax breaks, and get preference in contracts - is that equality?
95% of work place deaths are men - and that EXCLUDES the military. No national "Office of Mens and Boys' Health" exists, nor does any feminist seem to care. MRAs do.
9) Over 90% of the homeless are men. If this were reversed it would be a national topic, but tell me the last time (if ever) you saw a news story that highlighted the plight of the homeless that spot lighted the fact it's almost all male.
10) Women do not have to register for Selective Service, but there are set asides in the military so that women get a certain cut of the glamour jobs (pilots & command). So women do not have to go to combat, can fight (but only if they want to), and are given short lists for advancement when they CHOOSE to do this. Must be nice to be able to opt out, or get fast tracked.
11) Male children and men who are raped can, and often ARE sued for child support. Yep, they get sexually molested or sexually assaulted and are then made to pay to their sexual abuser - under the threat of prison. The ONLY debtors prison we have in the U.S., outlawed by the Supreme Court under the Anti-Peonage Act, is for child support.
12) Men who are provably not the father, DNA tests have come a long way, can still be obligated for 18-21 years of "child support" for a child they had nothing to do with conceiving. Women on the other hand can utilize safe haven laws, adoption laws, and abortion - but we talk about "deadbeat dads" and you'll never see a TV special or a national discussion about "deadbeat moms who walk away".
13) Men basically have the choice at hitting 18 - work until you save enough to retire, or starve. For women there are many more options. In case you think I'm exaggerating - you can Google this - of the women who graduated from Harvard Business School in 1980, 1985, & 1990, less than 15% are working full time. Women who were / are the "go-getters" who competed to get into one of the most elite business schools in the country, and of THAT group, less than 15% are working full time, in their PRIME earning years. Must be nice to have that option - men don't.
14) Women initiate over 65% of all divorces - and let's be frank here - you don't initiate a legal proceeding in which you know you'll end up the loser. Women get custody over 80% of the time, and while not paying for child support can land you in jail, denying visitation is a deliciously wicked and satisfying way to hurt your spouse for which you'll almost certainly face no real punishment. That's vile - and while it does happen to some women (and it's equally evil no matter who is doing it) the majority of parents alienated from their children are men.
15) Men being drunk and having sex makes them a predator - women being drunk and having sex makes them a victim. In no other area of law is this blatant divide solely based on gender so glaringly obvious and abused.
16) Women and men who commit the same crimes are often not charged with the same offence, women are allowed to plea to far lower offences and then besides that they get a steep sentencing discount for the same crime.
These are some serious issues - going from childhood to the grave, from education to prison, from healthcare to legal set asides in all stages of life. MRAs have issues with feminist legal initiatives because those programs & initiatives are blatantly bigoted and, largely, never talked about in our society.
Give it some thought.
Read this post.
"When I was a freshman, my sister was in eighth grade. There was a boy in two of her class periods who would ask her out every single day. (Third and seventh period, if I remember correctly.) All day during third and seventh period she would repeatedly tell him no. She didn't beat around the bush, she didn't lie and say she was taken--she just said no.
One day, in third period, after being rejected several times, he said; "I have a gun in my locker. If you don't say yes, I am going to shoot you in seventh."
She refused again, but right after class she went to the principal's office and told them what happened. They searched his locker and there was a gun in his backpack.
When he was arrested, some of my sister's friends (some female, even) told her that she was selfish for saying no so many times. That because of her, the entire school was in jeopardy. That it wouldn't have killed her to say yes and give it a try, but because she was so mean to him, he lost his temper. Many of her male friends said it was "girls like her" that made all women seem like cockteases.
Wouldn't have killed her to say yes? If a man is willing to shoot someone for saying no, what happens to the poor soul who says yes? What happens the first time they disagree? What happens the first time she says she doesn't want to have sex? That she isn't in the mood? When they break up?
Years later, when I was a senior, I was the only girl in my Criminal Justice class. The teacher, who used to be a sergeant in the police force, told us a story of something that had happened to a girl he knew when she was in high school. There was a guy who obviously had a crush on her and he made her uncomfortable. One day he finally gathered up the courage to ask her out, and she said no.
The next day, during an assembly, he pulled a gun on her in front of everyone and threatened to kill her if she didn't date him.
He was tackled to the ground and the gun was taken from him.
When my teacher asked the class who was at fault for the crime, I was the only person who said the boy was. All the other kids in the class (who were all boys) said that the girl was, that if she had said yes he would've never lost it and brought a gun and tried to kill her. When my teacher said that they were wrong and that this is what is wrong with society, that whenever a white boy commits a crime it's someone else's fault (music, television, video games, the victim) one boy raised his hand and literally said; "But if someone were to punch me and I punched him back, who is at fault for the fight? He is, not me. It's self-defense. She started it, so anything that happens to her is in reaction to her actions .It's simple cause and effect."
Even though he spent the rest of the class period ripping into the boys and saying that you are always responsible for your own actions, and that women are allowed to say no and do not have to date them, they left class laughing about how idiotic he was and that he clearly had no idea how much it hurt to be rejected.
So now we have a new school shooting, based solely on the fact some guy couldn't get laid, and I see men, boys, applauding him, or if they're not applauding him, they're laying blame on women as a whole. Just like my sister's friends did. Just like the boys in my Criminal Justice class did.
This isn't something that's rare. This isn't something that never happens, or that a select group of men feel as if they are so entitled to women that saying no is not only the worst possible thing a woman can do, but is considered a form of "defense" when they commit a crime upon them (whether it be rape or murder-as-a-reaction-towards-rejection).
Girls are being killed for saying no to prom invites. Girls are being killed for saying no to men. They are creating an atmosphere where women are too scared to say no, and the worst part is? They are doing it intentionally. They want society to be that way, they want women to say yes entirely out of fear. Even the boys and men who aren't showing up to schools with guns are saying; "Well, you know, I wouldn't do that, but you have to admit that if she had just said yes ..."
If you are a man and you defend this guys' actions or try to find an excuse for it, or you denounce what really happened, or in any way lay blame on women, every girl you know, every woman you love, has just now thought to themselves that you might lose your shit and kill them someday for saying no. You have just lost their trust. And you know what? You deserve to lose it."
Ok - I have to take serious issue with this 'story'.
"some of my sister's friends (some female, even) told her that she was selfish for saying no so many times. That because of her, the entire school was in jeopardy."
WHERE is the news article about this?! Because when I see stories like this - and they are, sadly, not uncommon, what I read from both men and women is "what a loser" comments. The FEW comments asking "what did she do to piss this guy off" are met with almost universal scorn and repudiation.
The story goes on to say:
"He was tackled to the ground and the gun was taken from him.
When my teacher asked the class who was at fault for the crime, I was the only person who said the boy was. All the other kids in the class (who were all boys) said that the girl was."
I have a very, VERY hard time believing this account. Guy walks into a classroom and threatens a gal, and is tackled - and people blame the girl. Then why did anyone tackle him? Where were the calls of "oh, for crying out loud, just date him." ?!
Not sure where this 'story' came from, but to try to assert that a room full of people, who were facing a possible school shooting, were all instantly "Stockholm Syndrome'd" and instantly identified with the shooter is beyond belief.
And this - THIS is the over the top part that showed me that this 'story' had come from the mind of some very angry anti-male individual who was writing a script for Lifetime and not re-telling an actual event:
"they left class laughing about how idiotic he was and that he clearly had no idea how much it hurt to be rejected." <- - - Give. Me. A. Freaking. Break.
And then the whole "men got together at some secret meeting and planned this campaign of terror plot" patriarchy theory quote is just ridiculous:
"They are doing it intentionally. They want society to be that way, they want women to say yes entirely out of fear."
Men are individual people - not some amorphous blob. We have sisters and wives. We have mothers and daughters. And making up some grade B Lifetime movie plot to "illustrate a point" that indicts all (or most) men is vile.
A very small percentage of men do this - and the vast majority of men excoriate such actions. Most men want to be heroes to the women in their lives.
***LOOK AROUND YOU - at the men you know - which one of them, specifically, are you going to point to and say "YOU would do this." Not so easy to call an actual person a deranged killer is it? But, that's the point - this story is crap - it has a whole "us versus them" mentality that dehumanizes the male gender and makes us into potential serial rapists and murderers.
A very small percentage of women who can't "get the boy" then falsely accuse him of some vile crime to "teach him a lesson" - but I don't blame all women for that. I don't make up some patently ridiculous anecdotes to "show a larger truth" (whatever the hell that is).
Violence within dating relationships is very real - and we, as a society need to address it in every generation and to teach mutual respect and how to accept rejection with grace and class.
This "story" was almost certainly untrue, and it paints a sexist picture of almost all men with a very ugly brush, and does little to address the issue.
Both men AND women do horrible things to each other - we can play the "but yours is WORSE" game all day long and accomplish nothing - OR - we can teach our young folks to have values and ethics and to know mutual respect.
I hope I added to the discussion.
Quotas Limiting Male Science Enrollment: The New Liberal War on Science
by Hans Bader on July 10, 2012
Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that "new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges" spelling out "Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields." These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men's percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes. (Under the three-part Title IX test created by the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work, colleges are allowed to temporarily comply by increasing the number of female athletes rather than cutting the number of male athletes, but the only viable permanent way to comply with its rule is to restrict men's participation relative to women's participation, reducing overall participation.) Thus, as Charlotte Allen notes, the Obama administration's guidelines are likely to lead to "science quotas" based on gender.
Earlier, writing in Newsweek, President Obama celebrated the fact that 25 percent fewer men than women graduate from college, calling it a "great accomplishment" for America. Ironically, he lamented the fact that a smaller gender disparity -- 17 percent fewer women attending college than men -- had once existed before Title IX was implemented. To Obama, gender disparities are only bad when they disfavor women. Under his strange idea of equality, equality means men losing out to women.
Obama hinted that Title IX quotas would soon come to engineering and techology, saying that "Title IX isn't just about sports," but also about "inequality in math and science education" and "a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. I've said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it."
Christina Hoff Sommers wrote earlier about this looming liberal war on science. Based on a campaign promise Obama made to feminist groups in October 2008, Sommers foresaw the Obama Administration moving to artificially cap male enrollment in math and science classes to achieve gender proportionality -- the way that Title IX currently caps male participation in intercollegiate athletics. The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America's colleges and universities.
Critics have long argued that the Title IX cap on men's athletic participation is in tension with the Supreme Court's warnings against proportional representation. In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court said that it is "completely unrealistic" to argue that women and minorities should be represented in each field or activity "in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population." (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)). In an earlier ruling, Justice O'Connor noted that it is "unrealistic to assume that unlawful discrimination is the sole cause of people failing to gravitate to jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance." (See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co. (1988).)
But the Title IX athletics regulation mandates proportional representation. It contains three alternatives for compliance, but two of them are illusory in the long run. The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the "underrepresented" sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. In light of this fact, courts have rejected lawsuits by men's teams cut by colleges to achieve proportionality (that is, quotas), concluding that such quotas are required by Title IX, which thus overrides any rights the men's teams might otherwise enjoy. See, e.g., Miami University Wrestling Club v. Miami University, 302 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2002).
I used to work at the agency, the Office for Civil Rights, which administers that regulation, and I think that it would be a grave mistake to apply its standards, which were designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams, to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed. It is one thing to apply gender-based proportionality rules to single-sex teams, which are already themselves intrinsically gender-based. It is quite another to apply them to classes in science and math that are open to all students, regardless of gender, and are supposed to be gender-blind, not gender-specific or gender-based. Doing so is simply unconstitutional.
Courts have generally forbidden state colleges to engage in gender-balancing in areas other than intercollegiate athletics. For example, a federal judge struck down the University of Georgia's use of gender in admissions to promote gender balance, ruling it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. See Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of Georgia, 106 F. Supp.2d 1362 (S.D. Ga 2000). An attempt by the Obama Education Department to impose gender quotas in math and scientific fields would be equally unconstitutional. See Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (FCC's gender preferences for women violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment, despite FCC's appeal to "diversity"); Back v. Carter, 933 F.Supp. 738 (N.D. Ind. 1996) (invalidating gender-balance requirement for government board).
The fact that fewer women than men major in science and engineering is the result of their own voluntary choices, not sexism or sex discrimination by schools, notes researcher John Rosenberg, the proud father of a daughter who got a Ph.D. from CalTech. My daughter is bright, and I'd be happy if she got a graduate degree in engineering (or became a physicist, like her grandfather), but I can't force her to do that if she doesn't want to, and a college shouldn't be deemed liable for sex discrimination against women if women like her don't want to study engineering.
Gender disparities in a major are not the product of sexism, but rather the differing preferences of men and women. The fact that engineering departments are filled mostly with men does not mean they discriminate against women anymore than the fact that English departments are filled mostly with women proves that English departments discriminate against men. The arts and humanities have well over 60 percent female students, yet no one seems to view that gender disparity as a sign of sexism against men. Deep down, the Obama administration knows this, since it is planning to impose its gender-proportionality rules only on the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), not other fields that have similarly large gender disparities in the opposite direction.
Many women are quite capable of mastering high-level math and science, but simply don't find working in such a field all that interesting. As Dr. Sommers notes, many "colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science," rather than discriminating against them. Susan Pinker, a clinical psychologist, chronicled cases of women who "abandoned successful careers in science and engineering to work in fields like architecture, law and education," because they wanted jobs that involved more interaction with people, "not because they had faced discrimination in science." Far from being discouraged by society from pursuing a career in math or science, these women had been strongly encouraged to pursue such a a career: "Once they showed aptitude for math or physical science, there was an assumption that they'd pursue it as a career even if they had other interests or aspirations. And because these women went along with the program and were perceived by parents and teachers as torch bearers, it was so much more difficult for them to come to terms with the fact that the work made them unhappy."
As Susan Pinker notes, "A mountain of published research stretching back a hundred years shows that women are far more likely than men to be deeply interested in organic subjects--people, plants and animals--than they are to be interested in things and inanimate systems, such as electrical engineering, or computer systems."
Women are well-represented in scientific fields that involve lots of interaction with people. As The New York Times' John Tierney noted, "Despite supposed obstacles like "unconscious bias" and a shortage of role models and mentors, women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors, and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.'s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences." By contrast, "They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering," which deal more with inanimate objects rather than people.
These gender-based differences are not the product of discrimination, and manifest themselves at a very early age. As a book on the biology of male-female differences notes, "Girl babies in their cribs are especially inclined to stare at images of human faces, whereas infant boys are likely to find inanimate objects every bit as attractive"; "this difference persists into adulthood: when shown images of people as well as things, men tend to remember the things, and women tend to remember the people."
To the extent that gender disparities result from the differing interests of men and women, they are not "discrimination" by an institution in which they occur. See EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988).
These differences, of course, are statistical averages, and are not true of every individual. (My mother is a math major who is more interested in various kinds of abstractions than I am.) No girl should be denied the opportunity to study a STEM field based on her sex; but that does not mean that colleges should adopt a gender quota for female students in math and science. Since a college cannot force a woman to go into math or science, the only way for a college to satisfy a gender quota will be to cut the number of male math and science students, by turning male students away from their favorite subject.
I hope you all realize that this could easily become a reality.
Since the feminists got their grubby paws on Title IX, and have warped it's original intended use, over ***30,000*** men's sports programs in the U.S. have been terminated.
That's not a typo - over 30,000 of them.
No one touches programs that are stereotypically female, and no one has gone after the "Seven Sisters" colleges for a lack of male education opportunities.
As insane as this sounds, a lot of us may (or may not) be aware of how powerful the PC (and especially feminist) grip is on U.S. campuses - but this is a serious possibility.
I mean - how INSANE is it to hobble our STEM (Science Tech Eng Math) departments by limiting qualified applicants solely on the basis of gender purely to gratify a small but shrilly vocal constituant group.
And be fully aware : the feminist agenda will never stop. That's not hyperbole. Think it through: if they "got everything they wanted", does anyone honestly believe if they got all their wishlists fulfilled, that they'd shut down all the Womyn's Studies Departments, the gov't offices, or the various grievence centers?
If they don't FIND something to complain about they have no reason to get gov't funding. And be clear - the rad feminist movement can't survive without gov't funding.
From Universities to "victims' services" (more an industry to churn out hateful 'soldiers' than to heal) feminist organizations need a grievence to continue to get money.
Notice how feminist organizations have not targeted women's shelters to admit men? That they have not targeted the over **1000** "Womyn's Studies Programs" for equal men's studies programs (not that I want them to)? Or they never seem to worry that currently only 40% of incoming college freshmen are boys/young men? Natch - they don't care about equality - it's about grievence, "revenge", and male bashing.
In every place there is a conflict of want between men and women, they are there to assure not equality but a superior outcome for women. Whenever they can twist facts, they do.
They claim that women "earn less" - it's horse pucky. In fact, over 1/2 of the wealth in this country is OWNED by women, and women spend over 75-80% of all the money in this country (hardly slaves begging for crumbs). Over 55-65% of all advanced degrees (depending on field) go to women.
But, it's not enough. There has to be "some injustice" for them to justify their existence with - and this is just the latest.
Oh, and it never occurs to most of us, and certainly not to them, that 1/2 of their OWN CHILDREN are boys - and that those innocent children will pay for their policies while being actively discriminated against in the future. They-Don't-Care.
Give it some thought.
IOWA CITY -- A mother who falsely represents the identity of the father of her child can be sued for fraud and ordered to pay back financial support she received, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court reluctantly opened the door to claims of paternity fraud, a controversial and particularly messy area of litigation that had not been recognized in Iowa. Chief Justice Mark Cady warned litigants to use caution in bringing such cases, saying they would be hard to prove, emotional and embarrassing.
"In the end, it becomes painfully obvious that parties pushed into the justice system over a paternity fraud claim could never leave it unscathed, and the standards of justice will certainly be stretched to their limits, even if justice is attainable," Cady wrote in a concurrence to the 7-0 decision. "This consequence may cause many reasonable, caring people to simply leave the claim dormant for the betterment of others."
The court ruled that Joseph Dier of Grundy Center can sue Cassandra Jo Peters for fraud to try to recover money he spent supporting a daughter born in February 2009 who turned out not to be his. Dier, 28, claims Peters enticed him into believing he was the father to get money and that he supported them for more than two years.
In December 2009, Dier filed a court petition seeking full custody. Last year, Peters claimed Dier was not the father and requested a paternity test after she feared she would lose custody of the child, Dier alleges. Two subsequent paternity tests excluded him as the child's father.
Dier filed a lawsuit last year seeking to recover money he spent supporting Peters, 25, and the child, as well as legal fees he spent on the custody dispute.
Judge David Staudt threw out the case in September, ruling that the "current status of the law demands that this case be dismissed."
Friday's ruling overturns Staudt's decision, sending the case back for a trial. To prevail, Dier would have to prove Peters knowingly lied when she told him he was the father and that he was justified in relying on her claim. Dier can recover only the out-of-pocket expenses he spent supporting them and not legal fees, the court ruled.
Peters' attorney, Lynn Wiese, said Peters and Dier assumed Dier was the father and his client did not commit fraud. He had urged justices to bar lawsuits between misidentified fathers and mothers. He argued instead they should sue the biological fathers, who had gotten off without paying support.
"This sort of case won't come without a price," Wiese said, warning that young children could be forced to testify. "These will not be pleasant lawsuits."
Dier's attorney did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.
Justices said courts in other states have split on whether to allow paternity fraud claims. The Iowa Supreme Court had deadlocked 3-3 in 2004 on the issue, a split that upheld a lower court's decision barring such claims on policy grounds.
Courts in states such as Nebraska have barred the lawsuits by arguing they are too harmful for children and families. Judges in other states, such as Illinois, have found that allowing fraud victims to recover money outweighs the potential harm.
The Iowa justices sided with the latter camp Friday, ruling that paternity fraud claims "fit comfortably within the traditional boundaries of fraud law." Allowing such cases could also deter lying by mothers, they found.
"It is true that Dier's success in the litigation could diminish the resources that Peters has available in the future to support (the daughter), but this would be true of any lawsuit against Peters," Justice Edward Mansfield wrote. "We have never afforded parents a general defense from tort liability on the ground they need all their money to raise their children."
According to Iowa law a man cannot recover past child support he paid once establishing he is not a child's biological father but is relieved from pending and future obligations. Mansfield said that law applies only to court-ordered child support and not voluntary payments, such as the ones made by Dier.
Cady said paternity fraud cases would be extremely difficult, not unlike divorce and custody disputes.
"The proceedings that ultimately unfold in a courtroom are not easy or pleasant for anyone involved," he wrote, "but the court is nevertheless necessary to provide a forum for addressing an alleged wrong that has already occurred within a family unit."
I love how her attorney tries to push the 'make the bio father' pay idea.
The bio father may or may not have had clue one that a child had been conceived, born, and that someone was paying for it.
No, the fraud was perpetrated by the mother. At best she wasn't sure who the father was, at worst she set out to make a wage slave of another human being for the next 18-21 years for an act he did not participate it, wasn't responsible for, and for which he got no input.
She used the violence / enforcement by proxy of the state to get unaccountable, tax-free money that is never traced as to use.
Truly she should not be raising a child - and setting their moral compass considering how little regard she has for the man she tried to enslave.
Seriously, the other human being in this little drama, the defrauded "father" might just might, you know, want to start a family of his own, provide for his own children, and not want to, under threat of prison, spend the rest of his most productive years paying for a child that was not his.
In 2000 the ABB (American Blood Bank) published a study (look for yourself) that showed that of men who wanted to be tested, as opposed to the general population, that 29.7% were not the father. Yes, you read that right.
And for anyone who wails "but, but, but ... she did it for the child" - oh please. If she was that cash strapped she could have put the child up for adoption. In 2010 there were thousands upon thousands of children being adopted from overseas by loving families who wanted a child - hers would have also been adopted.
No, this was purely a selfish and vindictive action carried out without complete disregard to another human being's right of self-determination with the goal of her own comfort and wants (not needs).
Frankly she should be in prison. It's what happens in a society where we punish those that try to steal from us, place us in legal peril, and commit perjury. For heaven's sake, we punish those that commit insurance fraud with more vigor than we do in cases like this. This is clearly a more vile violation of the law and of civilized behavior.
7 Mistakes Women Make with Men
Women are complicated because they have: A) a layer of logic, B) laid across that a mood, and C) on top of that an ever-fluctuating stream of emotion. If men are like checkers, then women are like chess -- except the pieces are all kittens hopped up on catnip with broken glass taped to their paws.
I'm puzzled listening to my female friends tell me they don't understand men. This is like a rocket scientist telling you she can't figure out how a flush toilet works. Men are fairly simple; so how can we be so confusing to such comparatively complex creatures? How can women not already know these things?
1) Sleep with him too soon.
Setting aside moral concerns for the moment, let's talk about when a woman should have sex with a man she views as long-term relationship material. There's actually no wrong answer per se. If the guy is really clicking well enough with you, he's probably going to stick around regardless of whether it happens on the first date or your wedding day.
However, women should understand that after just 3-4 dates, they probably don't really have much of an idea of what's going on in a guy's head. He may be a player who's saying what you want to hear in hopes of getting laid. Alternately, he may be perfectly sincere, but he's just a lot more on the fence than you realize because he's weighing that he thinks you're really hot and sweet against that when you yelled at him last week, it reminded him of his ex -- and he's bored to death with you monotonously reciting to him what you did today. Of course, he's probably not going to come out and just say that and after just a few dates, you won't know him well enough to tell something's wrong.
So, if he flees the relationship like you just contracted Ebola after you sleep with him and that's going to upset you, well then, you should probably wait a little longer to make sure he intends to hang around. It's also worth keeping in mind that to you, going out with a man three times, sleeping with him, and never hearing from him again may be a disaster, but to him it's probably going to be viewed as a win. Not saying anyone's right or anyone's wrong with that, just noting a big mentality difference
2) Hit below the belt.
Men and women have very different gender-related soft spots and if you're going to hit one of them, it's wise to be VERY careful. Now with men, if you study cultures around the world, contrary to what you hear about gender being a "social construct," you'll find that "masculinity" revolves around the same basic traits everywhere. Yes, they may express themselves a little differently here and there, but the themes are universal:
A) Being productive or having a lot of resources
B) Being capable of fighting
C) Being courageous and tough
D) Being able to attract women
E) Having status
Whether you're talking about Americans, Afghan tribesmen, Aborigines, or the Chinese, males measure themselves as men against these basic standards.
So, if a woman rips on a guy for not having money, being a wimp, being a coward, not being able to get women or please her in bed, or if she suggests he's a nobody -- expect it to be a BIG HAIRY DEAL. It's the equivalent of telling a woman that she's a hideously ugly whore who's a terrible mother to her children. If you do have to bring up this stuff, you need to handle it with the sensitivity of a surgeon removing a blockage from his wife's heart.
3) Treat men like the enemy.
Listen, I don't know what they told you in women's studies classes in college, but most men don't view themselves as part of a patriarchy, they don't want to oppress women, and they are more likely to think the world is slanted AGAINST THEM. If you think a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, then the non-masochistic members of a male population are going to need you the way a bird needs scuba gear. Besides, it's not like men are as tough on females as women are on each other. Have you ever heard women go after other women ? Scratch, scratch, ROWR!
Moreover, do you know what a man thinks when he hears a woman make jokes like this?
How many men does it take to screw in a light bulb? ONE. ... He just holds it up there and waits for the world to revolve around him.
Bitter, man-hating women aren't any more attractive to the opposite sex than angry misogynistic men are to women.
4) Manipulate his emotions.
Men are not as comfortable with their emotions as women. Typically, we don't use our emotions as often or as fully as women, we don't get in as many emotional situations, and we feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of crying or getting choked up.
So, ramped-up drama can take a much harder toll on men than women. For example, men have it drilled into them from the time they're young that they're supposed to protect women. So, if a man says something that makes a woman cry, it may be no big deal for her. Depending on their mental state, there are a lot of women who can break into tears if a waiter brings them the wrong kind of salad dressing. But to a man, a woman crying over something he did means that he FAILED as a man to protect her and worse yet, he did the opposite and inflicted pain on someone he cares about.
This is why men tend to have such a strong reaction to tears. It's also why men tend to do something else that women really hate: just disappearing instead of ending a relationship properly. The very last thing any man wants is to get into an emotional discussion where the woman is crying and he gets emotional, too, in her presence, which he views as a sign of weakness.
Women, who are much more comfortable with emotion, have a tendency to create or even enjoy relationship drama. Men get burnt out on that.
5) Change him.
This is a funny one because the entire romance industry relies on this concept. The woman meets the pirate, rakish lord, cruel businessman, dangerous stranger, etc., etc., wins him over with her charms, and next thing you know, he's blathering on about his emotions, wearing a cardigan, and looking forward to driving their future brood of kids to soccer practice in a minivan.
Now, do women sometimes change men? Absolutely. Haven't you seen Unforgiven ?
The thing is, most men are the way they are for a reason. It's going to be tough to change them. Even if it doesn't SEEM tough and they do make a lot of changes, don't be surprised if the man eventually feels emasculated and backslides, or worse yet, you're no longer as attracted to him. In my experience, no matter how strong they may be, women eventually get bored playing mama to a man who lets her boss him around all the time. So, instead of looking for a man you want to change into the ideal mate, find a man you can live with as is, be open to things getting even better, and make the best of it.
6) Give up hope that good men exist.
There are lots of good men out there and if you don't seem to run across any of them then you're probably doing something wrong. Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place -- like your living room. On the other hand, the local bar probably isn't the best place to run into a guy looking for a long-term relationship either unless you consider "waiting until morning to get dressed" long term.
Then there's always the possibility that you want a "nice guy," but in practice you ignore men like that and chase good looking, arrogant jerks with high-paying jobs. You'd be surprised at how many genuinely decent guys complain that women blow them off to chase men who treat them like rental cars. The idea that women like jerks is, in my experience, a lot of crap, but the nice guys do have a point. Many women will just discount them right off the bat because they think they're weak, boring, fake, etc. So maybe you are meeting good guys and you're not giving them a real chance to impress you.
There is also an unhappier possibility. If you can't find a "good guy," maybe you're making the same mistake that men do when they want a woman who "likes me for ME!" Translation: He wants a supermodel who likes him despite the fact he's boring and unattractive. If all else fails, it's always worth asking if the man of your dreams came along tomorrow and wanted to date, would you be the kind of woman he'd want to date?
Women tend to focus on details more than men and pick up a lot of subtle cues that we miss. Things that are SCREAMINGLY OBVIOUS for a woman may blow past a man like a frisbee in a hurricane. The man you're talking to probably doesn't know what color your eyes or fingernails are, whether your belt matches your shoes, or that some other woman in the room is wearing the same outfit as you. Also, although men do think about relationships and the women they're dating, they don't spend as much time doing it as women. So, they're probably not wondering if the slight pause after your ex-boyfriend's name means you still like him or whether their general disinterest in your story about the lady in accounting who doesn't like your purse will give you the wrong signals about the relationship.
Put another way, there's nothing wrong with analyzing a relationship or making a few leaps based on some limited data. Some people are extraordinarily good at it. However, even those who have an uncanny level of intuition get a lot wrong. This applies not only in relationships, but for meeting people. Men have a well-earned reputation for superficiality when it comes to looks, but women tend to be every bit as superficial about other things. You'll probably never see a man write off a woman as not even worth having a conversation with because she had scuffed shoes or because she doesn't have a lot of money. A little more judging men on their actions and taking them at their word, as opposed to guesswork, could serve a lot of women well.
So, the wage gap is true. Only, it's men who earn less
The Left is still busily trumpeting the fallacy-filled idea of there being a wage gap in favor of men. In fact, the DNC recently sent out an email once again attempting to promulgate this lie, on the 90th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage, no less. Hey, never waste a Crisis ™, real or imagined, and also never waste a chance to totally use women, right, Lefties? Have to keep those women in line! By in line, I, of course, mean completely shrouded in a veil of nanny state neediness and victim-hood.
As I said in my article about the 90th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage, the woe-is-us "wage gap" myth has been shattered, despite the Left's attempt to cover up pesky things like facts and figures and such. Math is hard:QuoteThey've gone so far as to scrub reports from the Labor Department itself that shatter this myth:
CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.
The Labor Department's conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the "raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
How To Offend A Woman Into Bed
Thursday, June 3, 2010
By Amy Alkon
How To Offend A Woman Into Bed
AskMen.com has one of those pickup chicks pieces -- "12 Golden Rules For Picking Up Women" (hit "print" to make it all come up on one page).
So, are these going to charm you out of your panties, ladies -- or will they have another effect?
For example, instead of using pickup lines, you're supposed to use ickup lines like this one:
"I was just noticing how well your shoes show off your calves, and although I'm sure you're already aware of this, sometimes it's nice to get outside confirmation."
I'm particularly interested in what women think of the idea of "negging" -- saying something insulting to women to get them into bed.
For example, "I guess you're trying to join the (insert celebrity name here) club when it comes to hairstyles. I've seen a lot of women with a similar style, but I must say it suits you a lot better than most."
Me? I've never been interested in the kind of guy who is such a loser that he has to trick me into bed. Much better suggestion for picking up girls -- I think -- is developing into somebody interesting and decent who people want to talk to.
For once I'm going to disagree with you, though I am not going to like it.
Your response is sensible, fair, mature, and absolutely wrong.
When I was in H.S. and in college I dated a LOT. I also interned where there were women from around the world - Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia - and the reason I mention all those places is that after I say what I am going to say, the invariable female response is:
"Well, that's the women YOU dated, or from YOUR area, or who YOU associated with in Podunk USA"
And, no, it's really not.
When I was younger I was VERY nice to women. Not kiss ass nice, but I didn't mind game, I was emotionally available, I was upfront and honest, I gave her all the communication she needed, and though confident, I did not try to ignore her wants or needs.
I was treated like a doormat, a stepping stone, a "starter-boyfriend", an emotional vibrator, and was often cheated on with or replaced by a guy who was emotionally unavailable, who got whatever sex he wanted, however he wanted it, and MIGHT emotionally connect with her (but made her work hard for it).
And then I got to college, and flipped the script. Now, I was actually very nice, but would not commit and would not put up with teasing, blue-balling, emotional blackmail, and if she wanted me interested she had to put serious EFFORT into making herself stand out from the crowd.
I went from "who could I date" to "who should I date, and for how long".
While every, and I mean, EVERY woman has several lists of traits of what she wants in a man, each list to be pulled out due to whom she is addressing, several items are common.
"A Sense of humor is the most important trait": Pure unadulterated horseshit. Last time I checked, stand up comedy shows were not mobbed by throgs of groupies whose wet panties were thrown on stage and wild abandon was embaraced for the opportunity to get said referenced comics.
" I want a man who listens to me" Translation: She wants a guy who will listen to each and every detail of her day in excrutiating detail, and does it while he holds her bags while she goes shopping. This is the guy also known as "too good a friend to date" Read: Disposable emotional vibrator who gets lots of practice dealing with blue balls and zero opportunities to live his own fantasies or desires with her.
Good freaking Lord - let me break it down. I'll do it by relating to how women feel. Gals, have you ever had your man paw at you and paw at you - and not just affectionate swats to the buttocks, but groping, pawing, cloying, annoying, non-stop touching that is like nails on a chalk board?
That's how we feel when you won't freaking stop pawing at our emtional insides. Back-the-freak-off. No we don't have to apologize. No means no. Sometimes were not in the mood. And since you rightfully expect us to be law abiding adults and recognize this - do the same. No ifs ands or buts. If it's really a big deal, TELL US DIRECTLY and explain how much it means to you. If it's just emotional neediness call a girlfriend.
The " I just want an honest guy who will commit": Yea, after you've sown your wild oats and done things that are illegal is 32 of 50 states with other men, now you want us to accept ONLY you and your love and your sex, but to take it as vanila as you want to give it.
I didn't hire a maid, and you didn't rent a workhorse to provide for you.
I am morally, ethically, legally, and spiritually tied to you and only. A promise to seek sex with no one else in turn REQUIRES you to make sure that I am getting the best of what you've ever had to offer to the least drunken roll in the hay you had while back in Fort Lauderdale while in college.
If you gave some kinky, interesting, and/or crazy sexcapade to some guy in college who you'd never have face again or ever see again, but think we should get LESS now that we are commited to you and ONLY you for LIFE - you're the one with issues.
If it's not destructive to the relationship and your man wants it in bed, give it up. Psychobabble your whining in another life - you don't want him seeking it elsewhere, and he's promised to only seek it from you. What part of that is difficult?
" I shouldn't have to tell you, you should know because you love me."
Two words: Grow up. If you were so unreasonably demanding and vague with your friends, you'd be friend-less. Simple rule - if you can't treat your friends in the same way, you sure as hell can't treat me that way.
I am not a mind reader, and if YOUR communication skills are so lacking, we can get you a course in communications at a local college and let you practice in front of a video tape. When you look into the camera, if it is not subtly and lovingly reading your mind and "getting it", the problem lies with you - not EVERYONE ELSE.
There - that clears up most of the problems and the bullshit as to "we just want a nice guy" claim.
Amy, I truly respect you - but you gave TERRIBLE advice. Both men and women today have not clue one about long term relationships, communication, fairness, or how to make reasonable demands while at the same time admit when they are wrong.
Your advice will keep that problem going - letting women know, whether it's popular or not, that SPEAKING about what they want, and then being HONEST about what they want, and then being SATISFIED when they get what they asked for will solve a lot of what you describe.
I hope that helped.
It's truly amazing that NO ONE thought to mention the larger issue of the fact that boys/young men are being short changed in our K-12 (and subsequently college) education.
Years of focusing on girls has made boys a "non-issue" and their education and opportunities thereafter have suffered.
But, hey, lets focus on the fact girls are frustrated, how hard it is to find a guy, and me me me.
And the posters here are critical thinkers who graduated from college!?
I wanted to add - if this article was bemoaning the lack of women on college campuses solely from the point of view that "My hand is getting tired" (versus the vibrator is being worn out) and how hard it is on us males - I think some women would be, rightfully so, pretty offended at the self-centered attitude of the men who commented.
I imagine there would be cries of "Denying women the opportunity to excell, get good jobs, old boy club, patriarchy, blah blah"
But it's about the lack of boys and how it affects YOU. Seriously!?
Your Mom Goes to Duke
by Mike Adams
Lately, Duke University has been doing more withdrawing than Marion Barry without a crack pipe. Readers will remember that they had to echo Gilda Radner with a giant "Never mind" after they jumped the gun and punished several lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. Now, they've decided to withdraw a promise to provide space for Duke Students for Life to hold an event at the Duke Women's Center.
The planned "Discussion with a Duke Mother" event has now been aborted. This late-term abortion of free speech is entirely unjustifiable according to the stated mission of the Duke Women's Center. It is also at odds with the promises of free expression made by Duke University to all prospective students. Sadly, students at Duke are fraudulently induced to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase an education at Duke under the false promise of tolerance of diversity of thought. It now seems that Duke has taken an official position on abortion with no interest in hearing other perspectives.
As part of their "Week for Life" event held on campus during the week of March 15-19, Duke Students for Life (DSFL), which is an officially recognized student group, planned to feature a Duke student who is a mother. She was to speak about motherhood generally and the challenges of being both a mother and a Duke undergraduate.
Duke Women's Center Gender Violence Prevention Specialist Martin Liccardo was the one who informed the group that the event was canceled because they had "a problem" with it. That problem was, of course, Duke's own ideological intolerance. Liccardo informed the group - via email the very next day - that the event was canceled "due to a conflict." He elaborated later that day telling the students that the "conflict" was ideological. He even said, "We had a very strong reaction" to the proposed events. Translation: He and the feminists had a hissy fit in response to the mere prospect of hearing a different point of view.
Liccardo went even further saying that some Duke students were "uncomfortable" with DSFL using the Women's Center. Why? Because they were "traumatized" by the ultrasound fetal development pictures that the group had displayed previously on the campus. There was no indication as to whether this trauma met or exceeded the trauma associated with water-boarding (opposed by liberals) or partial-birth abortion (approved by liberals).
The 2009-2010 version of The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates states that "Freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas are essential for the fulfillment of the university's mission." Duke's Harassment Policy, promulgated by the Office for Institutional Equity, likewise notes that "Duke University is committed to the free and vigorous discussion of ideas and issues..." But not for those who oppose abortion.
The website of the Women's Center says its mission is to promote "a campus culture that ensures the full participation and agency of women students at Duke." The section entitled "A Feminist Framework" elaborates: "The Women's Center strives to inculcate feminist attributes and goals in every aspect of its programs and administration...We ascribe to a broadly defined, fluctuating and inclusive feminist ideology that welcomes discordant viewpoints from varied experiences." Also, under the heading of "Strategies," the Center lists, "Offering Support - We believe supportive and inclusive communities enable individuals to do more than they can do alone; the collective action of a community can leverage resources, make positive change and give life meaning."
Given all of these beliefs, it would seem that a discussion on motherhood would be acceptable at the Duke Women's Center. But it isn't. A discussion of motherhood is too traumatic for campus feminists. Who says women are emotionally incapable of rational debate? Feminists at Duke seem to think so.
A conversation between members of DSFL and Liccardo made it clear that the Duke Women's Center is not open or welcoming to students with pro-life views on the question of abortion rights, as Liccardo suggested in these lines quoted by DSFL: "A mothering discussion during Week for Life that to me, well, I should not even say to me, but to the students we actually encounter, had a smack of political agenda."
It was not the presence of a political agenda that was Liccardo's problem. It was the prospect of a political opinion different than his opinion.
Atop the Duke Women's Center's homepage is an announcement of an upcoming speech by Jessica Valenti, a well-known pro-choice speaker. Furthermore, the Duke Women's Center advertises that it advises the student organization Students for Choice, which is "committed to reproductive and gender justice, and we plan actions designed to alter anti-choice culture, while promoting understanding of pro-choice ideas to the general public and to anti-choice individuals."
Duke is a private university and is therefore not bound by the First Amendment. But they are bound, morally speaking, to honor their stated commitment to diversity - especially given the high cost of attending Duke University. Students can ill afford to throw away even a single semester learning that the promise to respect divergent views was simply a false promise meant to lure students into an environment where only ideas which produce "comfort" are given support and encouragement.
If Duke intends to officially declare itself a pro-choice university it should do so now. If it intends to recommit itself to "Freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas" it should do so now. It cannot do both.
A 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on 11-14-1965, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.
You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again.
As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then- over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!
You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.
Ed Freeman is coming for you..!!
He's not a Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.
He's coming anyway!
And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board..
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses.
And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!!
He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died in August of 2008 at the age of 80 in Boise, ID
May God Rest His Soul..
Medal of Honor Winner
Here is Freeman's official medal of honor citation.
"Captain Ed W. Freeman, United States Army, distinguished himself by numerous acts of conspicuous gallantry and extraordinary intrepidity on 14 November 1965 while serving with Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). As a flight leader and second in command of a 16-helicopter lift unit, he supported a heavily engaged American infantry battalion at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone due to intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his own life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights had a direct impact on the battle's outcome by providing the engaged units with timely supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, without which they would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life. After medical evacuation helicopters refused to fly into the area due to intense enemy fire, Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing life-saving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers -- some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman's selfless acts of great valor, extraordinary perseverance and intrepidity were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."
Coffee-making naked guy rebuffed by exposure charge
SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Eric Williamson faces an indecent exposure charge after a passerby saw him in the buff in his own home making coffee.
It happened at 5:30 a.m. Monday.
Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.
Williamson, 29, says he didn't know anyone could see him.
"If I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen, it's natural. It's my kitchen," Williamson tells Channel 5.
Williamson says his roommates were not home when he came into the kitchen and made his coffee.
Fairfax County Police say they believed Williamson wanted to be seen naked by the public.
Williamson, a father of a 5-year old girl, said he plans to fight the charge.
"There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he says.
A trial lawyer, who is not connected to the Williamson's case, says the state will have to prove that Williamson knew people were there for them to get a conviction on the charge that carries a one-year jail term and a $2,000 fine.
Exclusive: Wounded U.S. Soldiers Refused to Leave Taliban Fight
Afghan Attacks: Darkness, Smoke Forced Medevac Doctors to Work by Touch
By KAREN RUSSO
KAMDESH, Afghanistan Oct. 5, 2009
ABC News' Karen Russo was the only reporter to get to the scene of this weekend's bloody firefight between U.S. troops and hundreds of Taliban insurgents when she went in on a MEDEVAC helicopter. Here is her report:
Flying into the besieged Afghan base during a night time firefight this weekend was a harrowing mix of overwhelming noise, stomach dropping maneuvers and shadows hurrying through the gloom.
When the chopper lifted off moments later with three wounded soldiers, it left behind others who were wounded but refused to be MEDEVACED out of the combat zone so they could return to fight with their buddies.
Fighting raged at two remote U.S. outpostsnear the Pakistan border this weekend, that left eight U.S. soldiers dead and nine wounded. The battle raged from Friday night through Sunday as hundreds of Taliban insurgents and their allies tried to over the Americans.
During the fighting, the insurgents succeeded in breaching the outer defense of the base at times before being repelled with the help of attack helicopters, fighter jets and drones. It was the bloodiest battle in a year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
During the fight, the MEDEVAC team at a nearby base waited - with both patience and frustration.
MEDEVAC teams are known for flying into some of the most deadly areas in the world to rescue injured soldiers. MEDEVAC helicopters are unarmed so they often need supporting aircraft to protect them, and sometimes the cover of darkness is their only defense.
On Saturday night, the team finally received the go-ahead as the sun set. Within moments of receiving the call, we rushed to the helicopter and quickly sped to the outposts.
As we were flying into the attack space, the MEDEVAC team with one medic and a doctor were preparing for the oncoming patients, setting up IV's, pulling out medical equipment and making other last minute preparations.
Apache helicopter gunships escorted us as we neared the combat zone to ensure our safety as we hovered at 10,000 feet awaiting word to descend. When word came, we plummeted in a corkscrew manner, making the descent in a matter of seconds, landing in a valley at the bottom of steep mountains. It felt very vulnerable to attack.
One of the pilots said that even though he had night vision goggles and ordinarily he can see in that sort of situation, because the fighting was intense there was so much smoke it was actually fogged over and it was difficult for him to see. Fortunately he could make out the landing zone, but it was touch and go.
Doctors in MEDEVAC Chopper Work By Touch
Once on the ground, I hopped out of the chopper, but could see little other than smoke wafting through the moonlight, likely from a fire that was burning much of the base. Then I could make out the shadows of soldiers as they carried the wounded towards the helicopter.
Any noise of the conflict was drowned out by the propellers of the helicopter. The area smelled of burned out pine trees something one solider described as "death and hell."
Three wounded soldiers, one U.S. and two Afghan, were carried down the steep incline and quickly placed on the helicopter.
Some of the injured refused to be MEDEVACED out of the combat zone and continued to fight despite their wounds, according to soldiers at the base. Soldiers told the MEDEVAC crew that troops were donating blood during the battle, so it could be transfused into wounded comrades.
Between the gloom of night and the smoke, it was too dark to see much and the roar of the chopper made it almost impossible to hear commands.
I was quickly sort of touched by a crew member to get on the flight. I hopped on and even before I was on, the medical team was already working on the wounded.
Doctors wore night vision goggles, but still found it difficult to see. One doctor said it was like working by touch.
We were on the ground for a little more than five minutes, but in the chaos of noise and darkness, it felt like it could have been anything from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.
Moments later, the chopper lifted into the air and flew to the nearest medical facility. Despite the heroism of the crew, one of the soldiers died after reaching the facility. It wasn't immediately announced whether the soldier who died was American or Afghan.
What behavior should we criminalize next, Big Brother? Should we start with criminalizing all lying if the lie causes someone to spend time, money or affection that they otherwise wouldn't have spent? Throw spouses in jail if they spend months claiming, "Just pay the bills for a little while longer, honey, I'll start looking for a job soon," but never intended to seek employment?
You can't legislate morality. Yes, it's immoral to cheat and lie about it, not all mistaken paternity is a result of intentional lying: There are plenty of instances where it's a mistake and there was no cheating or lying, just some short-sightedness in not recognizing that all sex partners at the time of conception were potential fathers. But you can't legislate morality.
You can legislate action. Like, say, paternity tests at birth--a wise procedure for more reasons than avoidance of in loco paternis law.
Whoa hold on there cowgirl,
Some of what you say is just plain wrong. To whit:
"What behavior should we criminalize next, Big Brother? Should we start with criminalizing all lying if the lie causes someone to spend time, money or affection that they otherwise wouldn't have spent?"
Nice try, but this isn't just "some lie". This lie makes a financial slave of the other person. He can be jailed for an action he had no knowledge of, no part in, is provably innocent of, and the person who instigated this legal peril is NEVER prosecuted.
And - you're ok with that!?
"Throw spouses in jail if they spend months claiming, "Just pay the bills for a little while longer, honey, I'll start looking for a job soon," but never intended to seek employment?""
Uhh, that's not even germaine to the conversation we're having.
Red herring alert.
Saydrah said: "You can't legislate morality. Yes, it's immoral to cheat and lie about it, not all mistaken paternity is a result of intentional lying: There are plenty of instances where it's a mistake and there was no cheating or lying, just some short-sightedness in not recognizing that all sex partners at the time of conception were potential fathers. But you can't legislate morality."
This isn't legislating morality - it's legislating whether one person has the right to finacially obligate another person for an action they took no part in, had no knowledge of, and was either lied to about it, tricked into it, or just never told of it.
At BEST he was completely ignorant the child isn't his, but the woman HAD to at least know it MIGHT not be his.
And that's the BEST scenario.
Several likely scenarios are:
1) A woman who had many lovers (not judging her on that at all), who NAMED a man with a degree of certainty when she did not HAVE a certainty. She is placing a man in legal peril and making him financially obligated KNOWING it might not be his.
And, funny how the low life bad-boy with no money hardly ever seems to get the bill, hmmmm?
2) A wife betrays her marriage bed, exposing her husband to disease (transfer of fluid, hello?) and KNOWING it might not be his, decides "it's for the best (HER best)" to keep him ignorant of her possibly bringing another man's baby into their relationship.
Women who find out their babies have been switched in the hospital are, understandably, OUTRAGED.
Now, it's sincerely curious to me how women who can see how that MISTAKE should be punished (through civil court and possibly punishment professionally of the health care person responsible), but how a complete lack of emotion or empathy can be drummed up for a dad who has had basically the same thing happen, but it was done on PURPOSE.
How about this - how about if some nurse decides "it would be better" for YOUR baby to live with someone else? I mean, we can't legislate morality ... right? Apples and oranges? The woman who LIED about who the father was, denied the real father any knowlege of his child. And that of course includes any relationship with the child.
Not so "apples and oranges" huh?
What about the walking ATM target she did DECIDE to stick with the responsibility? What? That's "better for the child"? Sure, let's legislate which women can have children, who can keep them, and give that choice entirely up to men - kind of like how this is now in reverse.
What absolutely kills me in this is that women seeing other women having a SWITCHED baby due to an accident can summon up rage, fear, and anguish over that, but be so f*ing blase about what is being done to men on a regular basis.
Satdrah, I am betting you meant well, but seriously, think this over: How could you so lack empathy based solely on gender and consider yourself a balanced person who cannot stand women being called names, but can "understand" and not get freaking outraged at economic slavery and the threat of prison to any man this happens to?
Seriously, smoke that over in your mind and do a re-eval on who you are.