Show Posts

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.

Topics - PowerMan72

Main / Dental Hell
Oct 27, 2016, 01:08 AM
When it rains it pours. A toothache has led to $2,000 in dental bills. My insurance is covering NONE of it. Please donate a few dollars if you can.

My GoFundMe Page
This is the most amazing article I have seen anywhere in the last TEN YEARS. Wow!

Ladies, It's Time To Take Responsibility For Your Failed Relationships
Nov. 11, 2014 3:45pm
Matt Walsh

Here's an email I received last night from a woman who has identified the source of all her troubles: everyone but herself.


Dear Matt,

I know you've written articles about this before but I'd like to see you write another one not just addressing single men but all of the sh*tty men in general in our country. These men today aren't men...they're boys. They act like little children. Playing video games all day, not interested in careers, can't stay in relationships. I'm only 32 and I'm about to give up even looking! I thought I found real men twice but both of those ended when we were still engaged because I found out they were full of sh*t and not the kind of men I want to be with. There's been plenty of other losers before them and after them. Failed relationships after failed relationship and every single one ended because the man was an assh*le or worse. This is how it is for women today. There aren't any real men left so we have no where to turn. The guys we are left to deal with are either jerks or needy and clingy, non-motivated p*ssies. Men aren't ready to be responsible and reliable anymore. They only put on that front until you get to know them better and then the truth comes out. I know what I deserve as a woman, and it's better than what these men/boys are offering. I guess I'll be single for the rest of my life.

I thought of writing this all to you after this weekend when I went out with a guy I recently met. No manners, no chivalry, he couldn't look me in the eye and have a conversation. He was dressed like a slob and he mumbled too much. Finally we went back to his house and he suggested we watched a movie. He wanted to watch X-Men which shouldn't have been a surprise to me. The next morning he said he couldn't bring me back to my house because he had to go the opposite direction for work (at least this one had a job :\) so I ended up calling a cab. It just seems like this is the only kind of man left. It's a f**ked up situation because women are always forced to settle or just be alone. I'm not needy or demanding but I want a man who is a man. A man who with ambitions and goals and who can be strong for me. Basically, do you have a brother Matt? Seriously why do you think this is happening? Where are all the real men? I'm glad you understand how it is because most men get all offended when you talk about this. The truth is that the dating world is harder for women because so many of these guys suck and we know we deserve better.

Rebecca (a big fan)

PS if you use this in a post please don't use my full name.



You say you're a fan, and I appreciate that. I don't really need fans, only readers, but I'm thankful for your patronage. And I'm sorry that you're about to be severely disappointed by my response.

Now, before I get to alienating another loyal reader, first I'll agree that you are not alone in feeling this way. There are, as you say, many other women out there who blame men for their troubles. There are many women who make sweeping generalizations about men and then use those generalizations to rationalize all of their personal and romantic failures. There are many women who've been divorced multiple times and burned through an infinite number of other less committed relationships, yet still believe that every single doomed coupling can be hung entirely around the necks of those dirty, dastardly men. There are many women who say that there are no 'real men,' but who've never stopped to consider what it takes to be a 'real woman,' and whether they live up to that standard.

Notice, I say 'many' women. Not all or every or most. Many. I'd estimate the number of women in this category probably mirrors the number of men in the category you describe. And the members of both clubs commiserate amongst themselves, pointing their fingers at the other group, wondering why God or the Universe or Whatever External Force chose to saddle them with an existence constantly plagued and encumbered by the myriad shortcomings of the opposite gender. But of course the two clubs still have mixers where they get together and there's a lot of sex and a lot of regret and a lot of blaming. Always blaming. Meanwhile, women who are not in the Blame Men Sorority carry on meeting, forming relationships with, and marrying decent guys, as men not in the Blame Women Fraternity likewise meet, form relationships with, and marry decent ladies. All we outsiders can do is scratch our heads and wonder how we managed to find a romantic partner who supposedly doesn't exist.

I'm not sure precisely how many women belong to the club or how many men belong to the other one, but I do know that, according to this study, women are more likely to blame their significant others for their relationship problems, and even, according to this study, more likey to blame the other driver in a car accident.

Interesting data. I can't say I'm completely surprised.

Now, as you referenced, I have in fact written posts challenging men, including myself, to man up, grow up, and get our act together. I have talked about the struggles and sins of modern men, and I do not regret or retract any of those statements. The post in particular that you seem to have latched onto, this one, came from a very sincere place in my heart, and I'm glad that I wrote it. But I'm not glad that, because of my 'Dear Single Men' piece, I find myself regularly fielding messages just like yours, from women like you, who've found unintended validation in my words.

I've long desired to write a follow up -- one directed at the ladies for a change -- but I've stopped myself every time because I know that whatever I say will be written off as 'paternalistic' or 'misogynistic' or 'sexist' or some other applicable -ic or -ist. But your message has finally prompted me to take this dangerous plunge. Please understand that, although I'm talking to you and addressing your situation specifically, everything I'm saying also serves as a response to the many other emails which I did not or could not address individually.

OK. With that established, here's my three word summarized reaction to everything you said: it's your fault. Also see: get over it and stop finger pointing.

What I mean is, 'men' aren't the problem, Rebecca. It's you. You're the one. You're the common denominator. You're to blame. There has been one person conspicuously involved in all of Rebecca's romantic flops, and her name is Rebecca. Maybe you should take a look at her for a change.

Frankly, it seems that when you refer to 'men' you aren't even talking about a group of actual human beings. 'Men' have become an abstract idea, a conceptual manifestation of everything that's wrong with your life. If men exist at all in your world, they exist only as vehicles for your misery.

Consider that, for ritual purification, the Ancient Syrians used to cast a goat out into the wastelands. The literal scapegoat was supposed to carry the sins of the town into the nether regions, where it and its spiritual luggage would die and decay. What you've done with men is just a more efficient, animal-friendly version of this strategy. You've saddled them with your personal baggage and sent them to the desert to perish. You've made a scapegoat of the entire gender.

Let's borrow a recent example from your own life.

You went on a date with a man who, you claim, had no manners. Maybe that's true, or maybe you're so desperate to find fault in every male on the planet that he was fated to be labeled a boorish dolt no matter what he did or said. You also mention that he 'couldn't look you in the eyes and have a conversation.' Maybe. Maybe he was nervous. Maybe he has social anxieties. Maybe he tried to talk to you but he sensed your stand-offish, snobbish demeanor and it made him uncomfortable. I don't know. I wasn't there. Maybe he wasn't as bad as you say, or maybe he actually was a big, awkward, uncouth, stammering warthog. You seem to have come to latter conclusion very early on in the evening, yet you still chose to go back to his place.

What does that say about you, Rebecca? Look in the mirror and ask yourself what it says about you that you came back to this man's house even though you were apparently disgusted by him.

That's a choice you made. You. Not him. You.

He continued to fumble and falter well into the night, committing the unconscionable sin of revealing himself to be a fan of the X-Men film franchise. The uncultured, lethargic lout only succeeded in finding more ways to repulse and offend you as time wore on, yet you were never put off enough to decline the invitation to stay over.

Here's the thing, Rebecca: I was always told that if I want to attract a good woman, I have to be a good man. Admittedly, I managed to attract a good woman despite being a horribly flawed and sinful man, but there is still wisdom in this idea even if it doesn't always hold true. The point is, you have to work on improving yourself if you want to end up with a man who is equally intent on improving himself.

Not all men are desperate, drooling oafs straight out of some cliched beer commercial. There are plenty of hardworking, engaging, dependable, morally upright men out there, but they won't come knocking on your door just because you've announced that you're a 'woman who deserves it.'

Rebecca, you're willing to essentially typecast a man because he plays with video games and watches superhero movies, but have you ever considered that you might be the victim of similar assumptions because you sleep with dudes you just met? Of course, 'victim' isn't the right word. You've earned the assumptions. I'm not saying that you ought to be alone for the rest of your life, but I am pointing out that you are eager to jump to profound conclusions about a man based on the most superficial of flaws, without stopping to consider what conclusions might be drawn about you based on slightly more significant character traits.

Then again, this guy was willing to sleep with you on the first date just as you were with him. He's not innocent in the transaction, and neither are you. It sounds like, right now, you two are evenly matched. You look at him and see yourself, and you hate him for it.

We hear all of the handwringing about the decline of masculinity and the disappearance of 'real men,' yet very little is ever said about the corresponding deterioration of femininity. It's strange that you purport to care about 'manners and chivalry' yet your email was vulgar and overly aggressive, at times coming across like dialogue out of a middle school boys' locker room.

'P*ssy'? Really? A 32-year-old woman using a word like that to describe men while simultaneously complaining that men aren't courteous? I bet the ones who are courteous just get written off as 'p*ssies' anyway, so it's a lose-lose. A lose-lose for you, especially, because in the end you're the only one who has to pay for your extremely unappealing attitude.

By your account, you've had two broken engagements, and both were the fault of the men who were allegedly 'full of sh*t.' Maybe they were. But it is, from a mathematical perspective, almost impossible for one human being to have two failed engagements without being at least partially to blame. In fact, in the history of human relationships, only a very, very, very tiny fraction of them have ever soured or splintered due completely to the actions and choices of one person. It's been my experience, both personally and as a student of history and an observer of people (as creepy as that sounds), that fractured and strained relationships can rarely be broken down into a clear Bad Person vs Good Person dichotomy. And, on the rare occasion when things are actually that simple, it's just as likely to be Bad Woman vs Good Guy as it is to be Bad Guy vs Good Woman.

In short, Rebecca, I'm playing the odds here and assuming that you were probably not the victim of both spoiled engagements, just as you are not the victim of your other fruitless romantic endeavors. You are a participant, a catalyst, a cause.

So where are the Real Men, you ask? All around. Don't look to me as an example -- I'm average on my best day -- but you can look in millions of other places. I have them in my family, I have them as friends, I've had them as coworkers, neighbors, and elected representatives. OK, maybe not elected representatives, but definitely coworkers, neighbors, friends, and family. These are not perfect or flawless men, but they are decent, honest, and kind. You say you cannot find such a guy, yet I come across them every single day of my life.

What am I -- lucky? Have I located the only remaining pocket of Real Men? Are my circumstances that extraordinary?

I'd love to be so special, but I tend to doubt it. I think I'm a normal guy living a normal life, surrounded by other normal guys. Yes, there are jerks and losers, too, but if you find your life completely overrun by those types, then you have to ask yourself two questions:

1) Do I need to reexamine my definition of 'jerk' and 'loser'?
2) Am I flanked on all sides by jerks and losers because I am of their same caliber?

That second question is tough. Don't gloss over it. I know it isn't fun to take stock of oneself, but it is a necessary step towards growth and maturity.

You might feel that I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm just laying out the reality here, Rebecca. In the end, this is all good news. It's good news because it means you are in control and you can change your fortunes.

If men were totally responsible for everything, there would be no hope for you. Clearly you can't fix the male gender any more than you can change the orbit of the Earth. It's fortunate, then, that you don't need to reverse the planet's rotation or find a remedy for the sins of the opposite sex. Your job is much simpler, much easier.

Just change yourself.

That's my recommendation.

For whatever reason, it's very popular to scold men and say, 'women deserve better,' but nobody ever seems to turn to women and say, 'men deserve better.' You spend a lot of time in your email talking about what you deserve and what you want, but have you ever stopped to consider what men deserve and what men want? Love, respect, loyalty, integrity. Did you know that we care about those things, too? Have you provided them in every one of your relationships? Have you woken up each morning and thought 'what can I do to make the person I love happy today'? Or has it always been 'what will they do to make me happy today'?

I can't answer these questions, but you can. And I hope you do so with an open and honest heart.

I can, however, answer the question you asked me: yes, I do have a brother.

But he's still in college so he might be a little young for you.

And I think he likes X-Men.

Thanks for reading,

Main / Most Men Beat Women
Oct 17, 2013, 01:00 PM

So sayeth my 89 year-old grandmother . . .

"Most of the men I know beat women."

Forget about all the men at church, family members, friends and acquaintances, whom she has known for years who DO NOT beat women. Evidently, this includes me. When I asked her directly, her response was "You don't have a wife or girlfriend." And she stuck to her guns and repeated this awful slur when I challenged her on it.

Saturday 08/31/2013
Christina Hoff Sommers -- DOJ Tramples Free Speech & Due Process on Campus
Eagle Forum Radio Shows - Phyllis Schlafly

Link to MP3 File
Oral Sex Study: Can Cunnilingus Ward Off Infidelity?
Posted: 07/03/2013 4:47 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/05/2013 11:35 am EDT

According to a recently published study, one of the reasons men perform oral sex on female partners may be to minimize the risk of infidelity.

The study, published late last month in the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, sought to discover why men perform oral sex on women, since the act does not lead directly to reproduction.

After surveying 243 adult men in heterosexual relationships, the researchers deduced that cunnilingus is used to discourage women from cheating, a theory the authors refer to as a "mate-retention strategy."

The research suggests that men perform oral sex on their female partners in order "to minimize the risk of their partner's infidelity by increasing her relationship satisfaction."

The study has garnered some negative reactions across the web: An article on The Gloss wondered why the researchers aren't "questioning the evolutionary advantage of oral sex for men? Isn't that purposeless, too?" And writer Kate Gilbert pointed out that perhaps men perform oral sex because it's pleasurable: "Sorry science guys -- sometimes things are just meant for fun."
Main / Why Are So Many Births Unplanned?
Jul 25, 2012, 01:40 PM
*** Link to Slate Article ***

Why Are So Many Births Unplanned?
By Amanda Marcotte | Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at 3:00 PM ET

Speaking of how women end up being single mothers, the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has released a new report detailing the surprisingly complex realities of planned and unplanned childbirth. Unplanned births hit a low in the mid-'90s but have been creeping up again and now constitute 37 percent of births. Cohabitating women, who are more likely to have unplanned births than married women, have become a bigger chunk of the overall birth rate, shifting from 14 percent of births in 2002 to 23 percent in the 2006-2010 report.

With contraception's universal popularity (99 percent of women who've ever had sexual intercourse have used it) and the option of abortion (43 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion), one does have to wonder why women keep having so many "oops" babies. Turns out that the situation is complicated, defying the easy "women are stupid" or "women aren't careful"  rationales that have traditionally been so popular:

Researchers asked women who were not using contraception at the time they conceived about their reasons. They found that 35.9 percent said they did not think they could get pregnant. Additionally, 23.1 percent said they would not mind if they became pregnant, 17.3 percent said they had not expected to have sex, 14.3 percent said they were worried about the side effects of using birth control.

Eight percent said their male partner did not want to use birth control himself, and 5.3 percent said their male partner did not want them to use birth control.

It seems strange that so many women think they are infertile, but looking at the combination of social silence on the topic of contraception and a pop culture that portrays people having contraception-free sex with relatively few pregnancies makes it easier to understand. Additionally, it's important to understand that the concept of planning parenthood is a relatively new one, and older magical thinking that puts pregnancy and childbirth in the realm of fate won't just disappear that easily. The belief that women who plan for sex are dirty sluts must also have something to do with why so many women turn up pregnant because they wouldn't prepare for the possibility of sex. And unfortunately, we're still seeing a chunk of unplanned pregnancies resulting from men who reject whatever is going to interfere with their mighty seed, but thankfully that number seems pretty low, comparatively. (And there are of course women and men who are careless.)

What's really interesting is that this particular survey engaged the question of ambivalence about getting pregnant, something 23 percent of the noncontraception-using women experienced. Ambivalence is a normal part of all human experience, and many just roll the dice and let chance make decisions for them. Women have absorbed the belief that they shouldn't get pregnant until they're ready--that's how you get 99 percent using contraception at least once--but in practice, it's really hard to know what "ready" means. Yes, society and many politicians tell you that you must have a ring first, at bare minimum, but our culture also has a lot of myths about how a guy who is teetering on the edge of commitment will become the best husband ever if he gets a push. In fact, that notion was directly stated in the New York Times piece about single motherhood, where Jason DeParle wrote, "Marriage, that is, can help make men marriageable."

Feminists often don't like to talk about women who aren't trying but also are not not trying to get pregnant because there's this toxic, misogynistic myth out there about women who want to "trap" men with babies, even though men aren't actually that trappable. But ambivalent pregnancies are a real problem, both in terms of health outcomes for the babies and long-term stability for the mothers (and fathers). Pushing back hard on the idea that it's a woman's responsibility to turn a man into husband material could help women do better in the long run.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one . . .


Dear Prudence,
My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him. Six years ago, when we were in our early 20s and had just fallen in love, after a night of partying and drinking, he woke me up in the middle of the night and started to have sex with me. I was dozing and still drunk and, yes, I took my panties off myself. But when I realized that it was not OK for him to make advances on me in my state, I pushed him away and ran out. He later felt so bad he wanted to turn himself in for rape. I was very confused and thought at times that I was overreacting and at others that I was raped. We painfully worked through this, but the incident made my husband very reluctant about having sex. This led to an agreement that he shouldn't be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. This made us feel better and I felt secure again. However, we just found ourselves in a very similar situation. After coming back from a friend's wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it. Now I am in the same painful spot I was before and I can't fathom how he could have ignored our agreement. Should I just drop it or am I right about feeling abused?

Dear Confused,
I understand the need for colleges to have unambiguous codes of sexual conduct for their young, horny, possibly plastered students. These often require getting explicit permission for every escalating advance. However, if two adults are in love and have frequently made love then each can assume implicit consent to throw such legalistic caution--as well as panties--to the wind. Certainly spouses are entitled to say, "Not tonight" or "Not there," and have such a request respected. But even a married couple who have had sex hundreds of times can enjoy that alcohol might ignite a delightful, spontaneous encounter. Your approach, however, seems to be to treat your sex life as if it is subject to regulatory review by the Department of Health and Human Services. Your prim, punctilious, punitive style has me admiring your put-upon husband's ability to even get it up, given the possibility he'll be accused of rape--or turn himself in for it!--if one of you fails a breathalyzer test. Living in terror that expressing one's perfectly normal sexual desire could end one's marriage, and freedom, is itself a form of abuse. Stop acting like a parody of a gender-studies course catalog and start acting like a loving wife. If you can't, then give the poor sap a divorce.
*** Link to Article ***

Modern divorce: Wiretapped teddy bears, $120,000 in fines
By Nate Anderson

Digital recording tools are so cheap and simple to use that it's easy to deploy them without thinking through the consequences. A Nebraska mother and grandfather found this out the hard way last month when they were hit with a combined $120,000 penalty for wiretapping after sticking an audio recorder inside a young girl's favorite teddy bear.

Though the mother claimed only to be concerned with her child's welfare, the judge found that the indiscriminate use of the recording device had violated the privacy of numerous people, each of whom were entitled to $10,000.

Looking for abuse

Duke and Dianna married in 2001, had a baby girl in 2003, and separated less than four months after the child's birth. They were divorced in mid-2004 by a Nebraska state court, and Dianna received custody of the child. In late 2007, Duke challenged this order and asked that custody be awarded to him; in response, the state court gave Duke "unsupervised parenting time" with the child. A typically messy family breakup quickly became something else.

Just before Duke's first unsupervised visit, Dianna bought a small digital recorder online. Dianna unstitched a bit of her daughter's favorite teddy bear--known as "Little Bear"--and stuck the recorder inside, stitching the animal back up afterwards. The recorder never left the bear's guts after this, except when the animal was washed. With no voice activation feature, the gadget simply recorded everything that happened in its presence, and Dianna periodically unstitched the bear just enough to insert a USB cable and download the audio recordings to her computer.

She did it, she said, suspecting that Duke was abusing their daughter both physically and verbally. The recording took place from January through the middle of May 2008, when a court hearing over the daughter's custody approached. At that point, Dianna burned all of her stored recordings to compact discs and gave the set to her father, Sam, who transcribed them for her. Some of these recordings were unedited, though Dianna admitted in a later deposition that others were selected to show the "most severe and damaging verbal and physical abuse" of the daughter.

All of this material was then turned over to Dianna's lawyers, who submitted it to the state court and waited for a ruling on its legality. In the summer of 2008, the state judge decided that the recordings were not admissible as evidence in the custody trial, since they violated the Nebraska Telecommunications Consumer Privacy Protection Act and were therefore obtained illegally.

On the day the ruling came down, Dianna took the recording device out to her driveway and smashed it to bits with a sledgehammer. She claimed to delete the recordings from her computer, and her father said that he deleted the transcripts from his computer. Problem solved? Not quite.

A right to privacy

Duke was furious about all the surreptitious recording and he eventually sued Dianna and her father Sam in Nebraska federal court, alleging that she had violated not only Nebraska law but the federal Wiretap Act. Federal charges against one's ex-wife--especially charges that involve a teddy bear--aren't common, but the animosity had been building for years after the divorce.

Dianna had previously hired two private investigators to investigate Duke. The first was tasked with finding out where he lived and was asked "to prove he was an alcoholic," as the judge in the federal case put it. The second private investigator was hired in 2007 and apparently placed a GPS device on three different vehicles used by Duke in order to track his movements.

In October 2007, when Duke challenged his ex-wife's custody over their daughter, Dianna "alleged that Duke abused drugs and alcohol and was abusive" towards the girl. To document this "abuse," Dianna had taken a huge variety of home photos of her daughter which were designed to show possible evidence of mistreatment. But Duke hired a doctor to examine more than 200 of these pictures and the doctor concluded, "The fact that this poor girl had to sit through all these photos I find disturbing." According to the doctor, the photos showed common medical issues or the typical bumps and bruises of childhood, but little evidence of any physical abuse.

The bugging of Little Bear, then, was hardly the first time Duke had been the target of surveillance. When Duke filed the federal lawsuit against Dianna in 2009, he also rounded up five other plaintiffs whose conversations had been recorded by the bear. One plaintiff, a cousin of Duke's, at one point had the bear in his van for several days after it was left there accidentally; the cousin, going through his own divorce at the time, was upset that his conversations had been recorded and eventually distributed to people involved with Duke and Dianna's custody case.

Another of the plaintiffs was a social worker who monitored "supervised visits" of children and who had driven the daughter between her parents' houses. The social worker was already unhappy about being involved with the case because Dianna had once tried to "hire someone to follow her outside of visits," but she elected to stay on because the daughter was making "significant progress" during her visits with Duke. Finding out that many of her own conversations had been recorded affected the social worker professionally, as she "stopped taking private cases due to the invasions of privacy caused by this incident."

(The bear also impacted the daughter's life directly, as the daughter left her daycare after the operators learned that the bear had been "bugging" the site.)

In total, then, the case was brought by Duke and five other plaintiffs, all of whom alleged Wiretap Act violations against Dianna and her father. Defense lawyers argued that Dianna could give "vicarious consent" for recording on behalf of her daughter, which would give the recordings at least the consent of one party. But when federal magistrate judge F.A. Gosset III ruled on the case three weeks ago, he pointed out that this was immaterial; the bear had "recorded many oral communications made by each of the plaintiffs" and to which the daughter was not a party. Under federal law, this amounted to a wiretap, and one which the defendants had intentionally tried to use.

The Wiretap Act allows people to file civil lawsuits and to recover either actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000. In this case, the judge hit Dianna with a $10,000 damage award--one payable to each of the six defendants. Her father Sam received the same penalty, for a total payout of $120,000. No punitive damages were awarded, nor was anything given to the plaintiffs for invasion of privacy or mental suffering.

In his ruling, the judge noted that the Wiretap Act has a strict standard which prohibits all wiretapping--even that of a parent looking to hear conversations with her child--unless specifically exempted by the law.

Technology law attorney Evan Brown called the case a tough decision, as "a parent fearing for the safety of his or her child might have strong reasons to resort to eavesdropping to protect the child." Even the judge seemed to agree that there might be some merit to this argument, but he noted that it was for Congress to determine the law, and that the existing law here was clear.

*** Link to the Court's Ruling ***
Event to Spotlight Super Bowl Hoax
Contact: Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608, [email protected]

WASHINGTON / January 24, 2011 - Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? will headline a press conference to be held in Washington, DC on Thursday, January 27, 12:00 - 1:30pm. The conference, "Super Bowl Hoax Anniversary," will reveal how the original domestic violence hoax was engineered, and document how the abuse industry continues to distort the truth of partner abuse.

Other panelists include Philip Cook, author of Abused Men, and Carl Starling, who was himself a victim of a false accusation of domestic violence. Phyllis Schlafly will emcee the panel.

The Super Bowl Hoax, which occurred on January 28, 1993 falsely claimed that more women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year. The disinformation scheme spawned many other myths about intimate partner aggression. A full account of the incident can be seen here:

The event is sponsored by the Eagle Forum and by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), and will be held at the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Washington DC.

"For years, the domestic violence industry has used taxpayer money to scare American women into believing they are safer on the streets than at home," notes Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum. "That's ridiculous, of course. The safest place for women is in an intact, married relationship."

Last week SAVE released a report that documents how most abuse programs distort the facts about partner violence. The report, "Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness" concludes that 9 out of 10 abuse education programs fail to meet minimum standards of accuracy:

One such myth is the claim that "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44." According to University of Pennsylvania researcher Richard Gelles, "as good a sound bite as it is, the statement is simply not true." The leading causes of injury to women are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Media representatives who wish to attend the conference, or to interview Christina Hoff Sommers or other panelists, can register here: [email protected] .
Main / Penis Power
Dec 19, 2010, 01:23 PM

You gotta love public access TV.
Main / My son is gay
Nov 09, 2010, 05:27 PM
Out of an abundance of concern for the young man in question, I WILL NOT include the picture attached to this blog post.

*** Link to Blog Post ***

My son is gay

Or he's not. I don't care. He is still my son. And he is 5. And I am his mother. And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don't want to know you.

I have gone back and forth on whether I wanted to post something more in-depth about my sweet boy and his choice of Halloween costume. Or more specifically, the reactions to it. I figure if I'm still irked by it a few days later, I may as well go ahead and post my thoughts.

Here are the facts that lead up to my rant:

   1. My son is 5 and goes to a church preschool.
   2. He has loved Scooby Doo since developing the ability and attention span to sit still long enough to watch it.
   3. Halloween is a holiday and its main focus is wearing a costume.
   4. My son's school had the kids dress up, do a little parade, and then change out of costumes for the rest of the party.
   5. Boo's best friend is a little girl
   6. Boo has an older sister
   7. Boo spends most of his time with me.
   8. I am a woman.
   9. I am Boo's mother, not you.

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the 'making fun' kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

And then the big day arrives. We get dressed up. We drop Squirt at his preschool and head over to his. Boo doesn't want to get out of the car. He's afraid of what people will say and do to him. I convince him to go inside. He halts at the door. He's visibly nervous. I chalk it up to him being a bit of a worrier in general. Seriously, WHO WOULD MAKE FUN OF A CHILD IN A  COSTUME ON HALLOWEEN? So he walks in. And there were several friends of mine that knew what he was wearing that smiled and waved and gave him high-fives. We walk down the hall to where his classroom is.

And that's where things went wrong. Two mothers went wide-eyed and made faces as if they smelled decomp. And I realize that my son is seeing the same thing I am. So I say, "Doesn't he look great?" And Mom A says in disgust, "Did he ask to be that?!" I say that he sure did as Halloween is the time of year that you can be whatever it is that you want to be. They continue with their nosy, probing questions as to how that was an option and didn't I try to talk him out of it. Mom B mostly just stood there in shock  and dismay.

And then Mom C approaches. She had been in the main room, saw us walk in, and followed us down the hall to let me know her thoughts. And they were that I should never have 'allowed' this and thank God it wasn't next year when he was in Kindergarten since I would have had to put my foot down and 'forbidden' it. To which I calmly replied that I would do no such thing and couldn't imagine what she was talking about. She continued on and on about how mean children could be and how he would be ridiculed.

My response to that: The only people that seem to have a problem with it is their mothers.

Another mom pointed out that high schools often have Spirit Days where girls dress like boys and vice versa. I mentioned Powderpuff Games where football players dress like cheerleaders and vice versa. Or every frat boy ever in college (Mom A said that her husband was a frat boy and NEVER dressed like a woman.)

But here's the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to 'make' him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it 'concern.'  Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

It is obvious that I neither abuse nor neglect my children. They are not perfect, but they are learning how to navigate this big, and sometimes cruel, world. I hate that my son had to learn this lesson while standing in front of allegedly Christian women. I hate that those women thought those thoughts, and worse felt comfortable saying them out loud. I hate that 'pink' is still called a girl color and that my baby has to be so brave if he wants to be Daphne for Halloween.

And all I hope for my kids, and yours, and those of Moms ABC, are that they are happy. If a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. If he wants to carry a purse, or marry a man, or paint fingernails with his best girlfriend, then ok. My job as his mother is not to stifle that man that he will be, but to help him along his way. Mine is not to dictate what is 'normal' and what is not, but to help him become a good person.

I hope I am doing that.

And my little man worked that costume like no other. He rocked that wig, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Main / Black Marriage Negotiations
Oct 28, 2010, 03:44 PM

Congress + President > federal courts.
A Joint Resolution signed by the President should do it.

The 2010 Defense of U.S. Military Integrity Act

Section I
The federal courts shall have no authority or jurisdiction to hear or issue rulings on matters pertaining

(A) to the U.S. military policy known as 'don't ask, don't tell' (i.e. DADT); or

(B) to homosexual conduct in the U.S. military generally and all disciplinary action resulting therefrom.

Section II
All actions, decisions, orders, or rulings issued by the federal courts prior to the passage of this Act that qualify under Section (I)(A) or (I)(B) are hereby abrogated and of no force or effect.

Section III
Congress shall have the power to amend, clarify, extend, or qualify this Act through legislation.


Judge orders military to stop enforcing 'don't ask, don't tell'
By Adam Levine, CNN
October 12, 2010 5:15 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, effectively ending the ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' permanent injunction orders the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced" under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members' Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.

*** MORE HERE ***

College Girl's PowerPoint "Fuck List" Goes Viral

Duke is in an uproar about a highly detailed "fuck list" that a recent female graduate made -- in PowerPoint, complete with penis-size evaluations and dirty talk transcripts. We've got that document, and spoke exclusively to the now-contrite author.

The full document begins at the bottom of the page.

Upon graduating, the author decided to pass on the wisdom she had learned, in thesis format. The subject: "An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal academics." The thirteen subjects are each preceded by a tableau of photos of the men, most of which seem to be pulled from Facebook and athletic action shots. (There are lots of athletes on the list, including many players from Duke's lacrosse team, whose behavior has come under scrutiny in the past, though they were cleared of wrongdoing.)

*** LONG ARTICLE - Click here to read the whole thing. ***
Main / Local group pushes for all-male school
Sep 22, 2010, 11:25 AM

Local group pushes for all-male school
Members say single-sex classrooms have fewer distractions

Published 09/22/10

Members of an Annapolis organization are so concerned about boys' academic performance that they want to create an all-male school.

Brian Tucker of Concerned Citizens for Successful Students approached the county Board of Education last week about tailoring an academic program specifically for male students. It would operate either as an entire school or as an academic initiative geared just toward boys. The plan is in its early stages and the group is discussing it with county officials.

"All children are capable of success, there ... (are) no exceptions," Tucker said. "The face of learning is changing. We can either embrace it or we can go against it. I'm hoping we can embrace it in Anne Arundel County."

In order for this to happen, the group has to work with the county school system's alternative education office, which already handles two all-male programs.

"We can sit down and talk with (Tucker) about what (this program) can look like and what his group's ideas are ..." said Bob Mosier, a county schools spokesman. "The superintendent is certainly willing to look at any program, traditional or otherwise, that would result in increased achievement from students."

There has been an ongoing debate about the value of single-sex education and whether both boys and girls benefit from it equally.

The National Organization for Women opposes such efforts, saying they "increase sexism and exacerbate feelings of superiority toward women," according to the group's website. But officials of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education support the concept, offering training to teachers so they can provide opportunities that do not exist in coed environments.

Anne Arundel County schools already offer programs tailored toward males. The Middle College High School program at the Edgewater campus of Sojourner-Douglass College, for example, provides its male students with laptops and other supplies to improve their academic performance.

A similar program, designed as an alternative to suspension, is offered through the Alternative Center for Education and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, administrators said.

The proposed new all-male effort could look to Prince George's County as an example, Tucker said. There, the Possibility Prep Academy - a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) charter school for boys in sixth through eighth grade - was launched this school year.

Tucker said an all-male environment would cut down on the distractions of daily school life - specifically, girls and the attention young men can't help but give them. Such a program would also give men an opportunity to mentor young students on topics they may be more comfortable discussing without women around.

"Ideally, the younger we start, the better," Tucker said. "If we catch them at the age where they're just starting school, it turns that whole pendulum."

[email protected]
Oh man, this makes me very sad.


Cultural Studies
The Littlest Redshirts Sit Out Kindergarten

Published: August 20, 2010

AFTER all those attentive early childhood rituals -- the flashcards, the Kumon, the Dora the Explorer, the mornings spent in cutting-edge playgrounds -- who wouldn't want to give their children a head start when it's finally time to set off for school?

Suzanne Collier, for one. Rather than send her 5-year-old son, John, to kindergarten this year, the 36-year-old mother from Brea, Calif., enrolled him in a "transitional" kindergarten "without all the rigor." He's an active child, Ms. Collier said, "and not quite ready to focus on a full day of classroom work." Citing a study from Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Outliers" about Canadian hockey players, which found that the strongest players were the oldest, she said, "If he's older, he'll have the strongest chance to do the best."

Hers is a popular school of thought, and it is not new. "Redshirting" of kindergartners -- the term comes from the practice of postponing the participation of college athletes in competitive games -- became increasingly widespread in the 1990s, and shows no signs of waning.

In 2008, the most recent year for which census data is available, 17 percent of children were 6 or older when they entered the kindergarten classroom. Sand tables have been replaced by worksheets to a degree that's surprising even by the standards of a decade ago. Blame it on No Child Left Behind and the race to get children test-ready by third grade: Kindergarten has steadily become, as many educators put it, "the new first grade."

What once seemed like an aberration -- something that sparked fierce dinner party debates -- has come to seem like the norm. But that doesn't make it any easier for parents.

"We agonized over it all year," said Rachel Tayse Baillieul, a food educator in Columbus, Ohio, where the cutoff date is Oct. 1. Children whose birthdates fall later must wait until the next year to start school. But her daughter, Lillian, 4, was born five days before, on Sept. 25, which would make her one of the youngest in the class.

With the wide age spans in kindergarten classrooms, each new generation of preschool parents must grapple with where exactly to slot their children. Wiggly, easily distracted and less mature, boys are more likely to be held back than girls, but delayed enrollment is now common for both sexes.

"Technically, Lillian could go to kindergarten," Ms. Tayse Baillieul said. Moving her up from part-time preschool would allow Ms. Tayse Baillieul to return to work and earn income. But Lillian's preschool teachers counseled her to hold Lillian back. "They said staying in preschool a year longer will probably never hurt and will probably always help, especially with social and emotional development."

Regardless, a classroom with an 18-month age spread will create social disparities. "Someone has to be the youngest in class," pointed out Susan Messina, a 46-year-old mother in Washington. "No matter how you slice it." When Clare, her daughter, who is now 9, entered kindergarten at 4, Ms. Messina was aware of widespread redshirting.

"I thought, I'm not breaking the rules, I'm not pushing her ahead, we're doing exactly what we're supposed to do," she said. "Then it dawned on me that in this day and age, there's a move to keep your brilliant angel in preschool longer so they could be smarter and taller for the basketball team. But my daughter doesn't need a leg up. She's fine."

Still, it bothers her that children in the same class are as much as a year and a half older than Clare. "She has friends who are 11 who are going to get their periods this year, and she's still playing with American Girl dolls." Another mother complained that her 4-year-old became hooked on Hannah Montana by her aspiring-tween classmates. A 6-year-old wielding a light saber can be awfully intimidating to a boy who still sleeps with his teddy.

At the other tip of the age span, parents who promote children to kindergarten before 5 are often seen as pushy, "even ogre-ish," Ms. Messina said. But suppose your child is already reading at 4? Do you hold her back where she may be bored to tears in preschool or send her into a classroom of hulking 6-year-old boys? In 1970, 14.4 percent of kindergartners started at age 4. That figure has dropped to less than 10 percent.

The self-esteem movement has inspired parents to care as much about emotional well-being as academic achievement, and with fragile self-images still in the making, the worst fear for parents is setting up their children for failure. One Connecticut mother in Fairfield County sent her October-born son to kindergarten at 4, despite "the informal rule of thumb that everyone holds back their September to December boys." Kindergarten seemed to go well, but when her son entered first grade, she said, "I got hit over the head. They told me he was way behind."

She watched in horror as her son's self-confidence tanked. "He was spinning his wheels just to keep up," she recalled. "He even got pulled out of class for poor handwriting." At the end of a miserable second-grade year, she withdrew him to repeat the grade at a private school. "It's been a long and difficult journey," she said. "I totally regret starting him on kindergarten at 4."

Many parents feel compelled to redshirt by what they see as unreasonable academic demands for 4- and 5-year-olds. But keeping children in preschool, according to both academic research and parental experience, doesn't necessarily offer every advantage. Jennifer Harrison, a mother of two from Folsom, Calif., held her October-born son, Elliott, back so he "wouldn't get labeled as out of control." Over all, she said, it was the right decision. "But his math skills are far above those of his classmates."

How to attend to a child's myriad needs, and which should be the priority? "There don't seem to be any rules," said Rebecca Meekma, a mother of two from Laguna Beach, Calif. "People are saying, 'I want him to be big in high school for sports!' What is that? You can't know who they'll be in high school."

And what about children who aren't Leo the Late Bloomer? "I have met mom after mom who is intentionally holding her child back a year," said Jennifer Finke, a mother of two in Englewood, Colo. "They say they don't want their kids to be the youngest or shortest. Is that right? Is it fair?"

Ms. Finke's son, Benjamin, is soon to start kindergarten at 5. "There will be boys in his class who are a year or more older than him. They'll be bored in class and then the bar will be set higher, and the kids who are the right age will find that they can't keep up." What will happen in gym when the larger boys are picked first for brute force, leaving the pipsqueaks languishing? "I'm afraid my children will feel inferior."

Not all parents can choose when their children begin kindergarten. "Though redshirting is common in the suburbs, in Manhattan, it's the schools -- not parents -- who decide," said Emily Glickman, whose company, Abacus Guide Educational Consulting, advises parents on kindergarten admissions. At New York City private schools, the cutoff date is Sept. 1; in practice, summer babies, particularly boys, generally enter kindergarten at age 6. "It's a ramped-up world," Ms. Glickman said. "And the easiest way for schools to assure that their kids do better is for them to be older and more mature."

Meanwhile, New York City public schools have a firm age cutoff date of Dec. 31. Kindergarten isn't required by the state, so parents could keep their children out, but then they would have to start the following year at first grade. And not everyone can afford two to three years of nursery school or day care.

"Among parents here, there's a tremendous demand for kindergarten earlier," said Eva Moskowitz, founder of the Harlem Success Academy Charter School, which pushed its cutoff back to Dec. 1. "If these parents could start their kids at 2, they would." Not everyone, alas, defines academic privilege the same way.

In an earlier version of this article, there was an incorrect reference to the Malcolm Gladwell  book that contained a study of Canadian hockey players.
Am I the only one who gets creeped out by this sort of thing? I think Mom needs therapy . . . lots of it . . . now.


No, in my opinion it is mostly black women keeping black women single. I checked out of that very unhealthy scene years ago. Many of the black women that I met were immature, angry entitlement princesses. Almost all of them were single moms. Some of them were really unattractive - more personality-wise than physically. Overall, I just found that my stress level dropped dramatically when I stopped dating black women. There was less drama and I was happier. Your mileage may vary.

Years ago I posted a link to a rant some anonymous brother posted on another site - "Why I Don't Date Black Women". I thought he nailed it.