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 - Pacman7331

Main / Thoughts / Opinions on this?
Feb 14, 2012, 03:33 PM

ASU alum operates anti-bullying program for girls
Posted: February 14, 2012

Severson says that girls are the focus of the program since they are prone to bully using emotional and psychological tactics that can leave lasting scars on self esteem. Photo courtesy of Carrie Severson.

Severson and her cadre of professionals take their mobile program to locations such as Girl Scout meetings where they encourage girls to work on creative arts projects - building a gratitude card or a beautiful box with "power words" of their choosing. Photo courtesy of Carrie Severson.
Carrie Severson knows how it feels to be left out and bullied.

As an adolescent growing up, she was teased because she carried extra weight. Through the years, she learned to value herself through self-expression in the creative arts and finding a healthy relationship with food.

After the Arizona State University alumnus graduated in 2000 with a degree in journalism, she found jobs working for local publications, but felt she wasn't pursuing her true passion in life.

It was time for some serious soul searching. That's when Severson Sisters Foundation was born.

"I decided to create a bullying solutions program for girls, addressing self-esteem issues with creative outlets," she said.

After spending 10 months in research and development, she launched her non-profit that focuses on developing girls' respect for themselves and others in June 2011. The program that was developed by teachers, school counselors, social workers, pediatricians and Severson, uses positive energy and behaviors via creative arts lessons as an alternative to bullying.

"The program combines a series of social circles, journaling, art, movement, dance and cooking to help girls place awareness on their emotions, thoughts, actions and expression in a playful, graceful, educational and inspirational way," she said.

Girls are the focus of the program since they are prone to bully using emotional and psychological tactics that can leave lasting scars on self esteem, she said. 

Severson and her cadre of professionals are based in Scottsdale, but take their mobile program to locations such as Girl Scout meetings where they encourage girls to work on creative arts projects - building a gratitude card or a beautiful box with "power words" (intelligent, creative, etc.) of their choosing.

"While the girls are creating fun stuff, we bring in individuals with backgrounds in counseling to talk about school and things that have hurt their feelings," Severson said. "Then we come up with an action plan."

Heather Sanders' 10-year-old daughter found the experience to be "really positive." Girls had an easier time expressing themselves while they worked on creative projects rather than directly addressing issues like bullying, she said.

"It's light and serious at the same time. It's totally fun," Sanders said.

During her daughter's experience, girls promised to eat with each other during lunch and to play together at school, negating the stress and sadness girls can feel when they don't have anyone to hang out with.

It's also meaningful. Her daughter still has the poster she made with her power words up in her room. Girls make personal promises to themselves about what they want to accomplish and make a "creative objective" such as a vision board or collage of images from magazines that make them happy and illustrate things they want to accomplish as well as characteristics that make them special.

Severson Sisters teach three ways to take on bullies: verbally by saying things like "stop that" or "I don't appreciate it;" non-verbally by simply walking away and repeating affirming statements to themselves; and relying on the power of friends to help shield girls from bullies.

Role playing makes up a portion of the training where girls learn to recognize what bullying is and how to recognize if they are doing it.

Severson is currently working on a customized program for the Girl Scouts for middle-school girls using her program and the scout's aMUSE journey to build self-esteem and combat bullying.

"We have a drop off (in membership) between fifth and sixth grades that has a direct relationship to how girls feel about themselves," said Margaret Spicer, Girl Scouts - Arizona Cactus-Pine Council program manager. "We want to give them the tools so they can build self esteem and battle bullying."

Feedback that Severson has received from girls has been good thus far with 96 percent of those surveyed responding positively after completing the program, she said.

Her work is also receiving complimentary reviews: she's a semi-finalist for the Glamour Magazine and Sally Hansen Best of You contest that honors women who make a difference in the world.

Julie Newberg , [email protected]
Media Relations

I'm going to really put it to the MAM here, and go ahead and confirm everyone's belief about me:
that I'm a woman hater.

This is my propaganda:

I'm going to back it up with a Overprivileged / Overburdened list, which will be a new page on the main website:

The flyer will be backed up by this list (which i'm hoping to get your support and assistance with)

If you have reserves about this, fine. I just do not see any kind of progress being made by being "nice". Futhermore this is no more than feminists do on a regular basis, this is just giving them a taste of their own medicine. Finally... the only thing i'm doing is highlighting inequities, if you are offended, you are probably out of line.

Overprivileged List:

Right to incarcerate opposite sex by simple accusation
Right to lower criminal sentencing in courts of law
Right to female specific societal-wide and government services
Right to be get emotional and receive sympathy and hearing
Right to publicly belittle the opposite sex and be celebrated
Right to reproduction
Right to parenting
Right to shelter from abusive partners
Right to justice and protection from abusive partners
Right to demand special services and receive them
Right to be paid for on a date
Right to expect to be protected by opposite sex
Right to exemption by selective service
Right to receive office or position without as stringent entry requirements Right to be seen as progressive and empowered simply for being female Right to hold men in contempt for imagined past crimes or debts
Right to undermine traditions and institutions by fiat of sexism
Right to loose their own sense of humor and make other people pay for it Right to be held innocent while blaming the opposite sex for everything Right to "ladies first" and chivalrous preference by society
Right to be brought up by the belief that females are superior:
"snips and snails and puppy dog tails..."

Need sources...

Overburdened List:

- Burden of getting verbal consent (unprovable in court) and humiliating to both parties.
- Burden of being publicly defamed across society as a rapist after a simple accusation.
- Burden of facing conviction as a rapist with only a hair of evidence beyond 50% certainty.
- Burden of being forced to ask for sex, but now if you ask in the wrong way are legally punished
- Burden of initiation in chivalrous courtship rituals.
- Burden of constant threat of arbitrary false accusations from sexual assault to sexual harassment to stalking etc etc.
- Burden of living against a court system bias (gynocentism).
- Burden of living against a law bias (gynocentrism).
- Burden of living under constant threat of imprisonment unless can prove sex as consensual (virtually unprovable in court)
- Burden of marriage robs men of property rights and civil rights
- Burden of divorce industry easily lures the most righteous women into violent divorce battles destroying mens lives.
- Burden of ladies nights at bars, universities, etc.
- Burden women only retailers.
- Burden of the shutting down of women's prisons, because culture no longer thinks women should be put in prison for anything.
- Burden of universal approval and awe for women while only regretful resentment for men.
- Burden of UN Food Aid only going to women
- Burden of Women only Parking
- Burden of Women only Busses, and cars in Japan, India, Iran, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Dubui. Men found on such transport will be beaten and thrown off on the the street.
- Burden of Women Only Hotel Floors:
- Burden of Female gender pepped enthusiastic egocentric clothing (love pink)
- Burden of harsher sentencing and punishment in courts
- Burden of providing for misandrist female only government services
- Burden of no reproductive rights
- Burden of no domestic violence shelters
- Burden of protecting women
- Burden of paying for dating women
- Burden of Selective Service
- Burden of Higher institutional entry requirements (police etc)
- Burden of being held in contempt by every minority collective.
- Burden of death for women's survival (titanic etc)
- Burden of Victims of most crime
- Burden of victims of most death in war
- Burden of most deaths in industrial accidents
- Burden of most suicide
- Burden of lower life expectancy
- Burden of unfaithful spouse (women initiate most divorce)
- Burden of loosing child custody (84% of time goes to female)
- Burden of Paternity fraud (and movement to outlaw paternal testing)
- Burden of most of Homless
- Burden of near exclusive victims of capital punishment.
- Burden of no Domestic Violence prevention services
- Burden of Healthcare discrimination
- Burden of Wage and salary discrimination
- Burden of contempt for male hormones. (testosterone, erroneously linked by "scientists" to crime)  
- Burden of never being allowed to express a single critical thing or feeling about women without being censured.


Still need more sources.

I'd really appreciate your help! Looking for any additions to the list, and sources.
THX 10X!!
Main / Occupy Phoenix Misandry
Feb 08, 2012, 12:01 PM
Check this out... It's unbelievable.

Look at the photos.

My input is towards to bottom of the discussion.


Miguelito Wachs : The aesthetics of these might be alienating to people who support the movement but aren't into crust punk.
Yesterday at 10:17am · Like

#OccupyPhoenix There are some other designs as well, and more will be posted soon.
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like

Craig J Slomin : Aesthetics aside, I like the message!
Yesterday at 11:21am · Like

Beucy Williams : so on feb 29th were all going to start our protest of alec at the usual spot cesar chavez park my brothers?
Yesterday at 11:29am · Like

Eleanor Rigby : Everyone should feel free to make their own fliers as well, Some will like this, others won't. The more styles of fliers the better
22 hours ago · Like ·  2

Joya Scott ‎Beucy Williams: There will be a noon rally/press conference at the Capitol, followed by a 3pm march from Chavez Plaza to Freeport McMoran, and then a 5pm march from Freeport to other ALEC corps downtown. Everyone is welcome to attend all of the above or whichever they can! F29: OPhx & AZ Stand Against ALEC! CALL TO ACTION is the event page.
22 hours ago · Like

Sean-Michael Gettys : So far there have been 3 design styles for this particular event because 3 artists have created flyers. The more people create flyers for every event the better! I don't know what crusty punk is LOL but if you click on the folder and not on one of the few pics it shows you might find the text only style more your liking, or the style based on portland's flyer. OR Just make your own
17 hours ago · Like ·  1
Zachary Trey Morris : So you use a Male figure because you think it's OK to demonize a male figure in denouncing corporate greed. But you wouldn't think ever of making that into a female figure, would you?
16 hours ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : Ur just perpetuating the problem, Misandry is really the root of all this social upheaval.
16 hours ago · Like

Eleanor Rigby : Umm Zachary Trey Morris, make your own fliers than. Like Sean-Michael Gettys this is just one of many fliers and not all of them have men on them...but a lot of the 1% certainly is male...more men in congress than women, more men in CEO positions than women. I'm not saying that to demonize men, just an interesting little tid bit
14 hours ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : Eleanor Rigby, Yes you are saying it to demonize men. You say it because it excuses your Misandrist bigotry, you feel justified in demonizing the male sex from your egotistical perspective because it serves you personally, in whatever way it does. You think that since men outnumber women it means men are guilty, but in fact you are quite a spoiled parasite who has no responsibility or contribution.
14 hours ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : Why don't u "man up" and get elected yourself princess? Oh thats right, the evil patriarchy...Were just holding u down... thats how u justify your mediocrity. So you have unlimited freedom to blame and demonize others.
13 hours ago · Like

Zachary Trey Morris :

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women
While women make up 52.1 percent of the U.S. population, they control two-thirds...
See More
13 hours ago · Like ·

Joya Scott : Everyone, in case you bump into him again: Zachary is a leader of the "Men's Rights" group at ASU. He likes name-calling and denouncing feminism, and his group makes really offensive posters and puts them around campus. Well, everyone gets their jollies somehow... :-/
13 hours ago · Like ·  1
Zachary Trey Morris : Thats right lady, your offended probably because you have a hateful ideology towards men yourself. As well it seems for the rest the rest of you Occupiers. You say you represent the 99% you are totally wrong.
11 hours ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : All you feminists do is name call and hate men, such hypocrisy.
11 hours ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : You teach men are to be feared and reviled over at your "Women and Gender Studies Department" promote Misandry through "Vagina Monologues" "V-Day" and False statistics. And then when someone gets up the courage to stand up against you you call it offensive??
11 hours ago · Like

Tio Che : Funny, I've worked for five major corporations over the last 15 years, and all of the executives were men. There is no gender bias here, Zachary, you're punching at shadows in the dark.
2 hours ago · Like ·  1
Zachary Trey Morris : Really, it doesn't matter that men are preponderant in the areas of corporate executives. What you are doing is still demonizing men in those fliers, which is a gender issue not a corporate political issue.
about an hour ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : It's called misandry.
about an hour ago · Like

Eleanor Rigby : Wow Zachary, those are quite a lot of assumptions you made about someone you don't know. And by your language, it seems clear that you either don't know anything about, or understand, the theory of feminsism, of which there are many branches. If you are so offended, make your own damned fliers man. And you know what, I usually don't do this. BUT FUCK YOU. Your language certainly paints the image of you as a woman hater. Perhaps take a look at yourself and see where all this woman hating comes from. I have nothing else to say in this conversation.
41 minutes ago · Like
Zachary Trey Morris : So there are more black men in prision than any other demographic. While one may be technically accurate in depicting blacks as criminals in a flyer like yours as more are in jail than any other demographic, it would nonetheless be a racist stereotype to do so. Not all blacks are criminals, and it would be racist even if most criminals were black or if most blacks were criminals. It's called a racist stereotype, and yours is a sexist one. I wish I did not have to explain that.

Here are a picture of the fliers they are promoting:

Just go to their page and click on the photos at the top.
Makes me sick...

Notice how this Eleanor Character, went straight into ad hominim attacks...

"out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh" - Jesus Christ.
Main / PWNing Micheal Kimmel
Feb 06, 2012, 05:03 PM
I've been pleasantly surprised that Micheal Kimmel has learned of my small and pathetic little group at ASU. Apparently it's enough for him to try to quarrel with me.
Recently he's taken it upon himself to try to attack me via email over the past month.


His strategy is to ferret out my trust, and then hit me with Ad Hominim.
(That is my assumption, as is most common feminist strategy, basically overwhelm your opponent with emotion and taunting until they slip up and react then call them a misogynist, then u win).  :laughing6:

It almost worked, I was going to meet the guy personally (weird but true).
But finally, he refused to meet me on my terms.
And I changed mine, At first I was ready to talk with him on the phone,
But now I've decided that is probably a poor strategy, better to use more calculated responses, he may be a very cunning infuriating person.

I think he is wanting to put me in his territory so he can destroy me.

I refuse to answer personal questions because I know that the feminist strategy is to attack the person not the argument.
Thus I'd like to not even give him a target. Let him do his spy work online if he must.
Furthermore the work i'm doing is not about me, it's about the MRM.
People have a very hard time understanding that, because of their egotism.
"OH he just can't get laid"- U know the rap...

His questions have been almost exclusively personal.

I've been attempting to stand my ground as best I can.
Now I think the battle is pretty much over,
he has not beaten me,  :engel2:
but I don't think i've beaten him either...   :rolle:

However, whatever motivated him to approach me is a signal that his position is weakening and his feminist army is getting desperate and perhaps overconfident. I suspect they are loosing their edge and are running in to straights. Due to the very small advances the MRM has made in the last decade or so. It's pretty absurd for a guy of his status to be talking with me, especially since he is on the opposing side.

Here is our corresponance that has taken place starting with Micheal Kimmel. (Note: The latest email is the top while the oldest is the first, each builds on the previous.)


I read about your group from a link to a story sent by a friend.  I have done a lot fo research on campus-based men's groups, mostly on the other side, of course.  But I'm trying to understand all perspectives and would like to ask for a few minutes of your time, either by phone or in person, to find out about the Men's Rights Movement Group you've organized.  I'll be in the Phoenix area in late February.

Or I can call you any time that is convenient to you.


Michael Kimmel


Dear Micheal Kimmel,

   I've heard about your work, in fact saw a film with you in it called "tough guise" I think it was. I'm honored, that you would have an interest in my group, I would be both willing to meet on campus and or talk over the phone. In fact near the end of February we have a meeting if you would like to attend. It's on the 23rd at 7:00 - 8:30 PM. Let me know which you prefer, if not all.

Zachary Trey Morris
MRMg President.


Michael Kimmel wrote:

Thanks for getting back to me.  I won't be arriving in Phoenix until the 28th, so I would hope to meet you on the 29th sometime.  Would that work for you?  Looking forward to talking with you.


Dear Micheal Kimmel,

   What time did you want to meet on the 29th of Wednesday? How about 12:00 noon - 1PM or so? Or perhaps at 3:30? I suggest we meet on campus, at the MU.

Zachary Morris



I will arrive in Phoenix on the afternoon of the 27th and speak at Brophy College Prep on the morning of the 28th.  I'm free right after that talk, and need to get to the airport by around 1 PM.  I'd be really happy if you wanted to come give my lecture; we could talk afterwards.  I won't have a car, so it will be hard to come to campus.

Michael Kimmel


Dear Micheal Kimmel,

   Looks like your schedule is pretty tight. As is mine. I don't think i'll be able to meet you. If you have any questions about the Men's Rights Movement Group at ASU, please just send me an email, i'll be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Zachary Trey Morris
MRMg Presdient


Yeah, true.  Okay.

First, some background.  How old are you?  Where are you from?  What is your major?

What was your first clue that something was wrong and that men were discriminated against?  

What does "men's rights" mean to you?

Can you give me some idea about why you formed the group?  In what ways do you feel that men are discriminates against at ASU (i.e. not child custody issues)? I mean regular ASU guys.  

In the research for Guyland, I found out, for example, that nationally recognized sororities are prohibited from serving alcohol at parties but that nationally recognized fraternities are permitted to do so.  That would seem to indicate a structural inequality that favors men (men have the party, decide which women are admitted etc.)  Are there any corollaries at ASU that favor women?  

What's the mission of the group?  How many members do you have?  What exactly do you do: meet, protest, newsletter?  If you've produced any materials -- online newsletter, manifesto, etc., please send it to me.

Thanks.  That's my first thoughts about what I wanted to know about.  As questions come to me from your replies, I'll let you know.

Thanks again.


Michael Kimmel

Dear Michael Kimmel,

One way you can find out about some the group goals is by looking at this page:

Also you might check some of these men's advocacy sites or publications which discuss mens rights.
As it is mainly those topics which we focus on.

As of now we have 6 people total including myself, on the group roster.

You can also take a look at the photo album where I share all of the presented presentations in photo format for anyone to look at (note: these presentation photos upload in reverse order). Also there is a archive of used and posted flyers, as well as one giving some examples of misandry.

You may also look at our Video Feed:

Here is our Calendar of Events:

Here is the main page:

Thanks for your interest.

Zachary Morris
MRMg President


Thanks.  These are your public documents, helpful but not what I asked .  I want to understand YOUR experiences, how you got into this, how you feel you've been discriminated against.  I want your story as it were, not the arguments bug how you came to them.  Okay?


Dear Michael Kimmel,

   I would like to keep my personal life, personal.

Zachary Morris
MRMg President


Michael Kimmel wrote:

I'm sorry, you misunderstand.  I'm not interested in personal details about your personal life.  I want to understand how you, a college student, came to the analysis you did.  I'm trying to understand how you see the world, not delve into your personal life.  Public statements about this are fine, but what I want to try and understand is "why you?"  Why not your roommate, or some other guy?  What do you think has been decisive in how you see the world?  I hope that's not being too personal.

Michael Kimmel


Dear Micheal Kimmel,

   Those questions border on where I draw the line.
   I would only suggest to you, that gender warfare is perhaps the major cause of all social problems. That conflict between man and woman, cause conflict in the family (if they have one), that then seeps into all sectors of society, tainting all human relationships, and psychology, and eventually cause problems, and may therefore be the root of pathology. But if cured, will benefit all of society, both collectively and individually . That is pretty much my motivating world view: End Gender Warfare. I would also suggest that I think all people should be equal under the law, without making the assumption that each and everyone of us is the same.

Zachary Morris
MRMg President


Are you willing to do the interview on the phone?

Michael Kimmel


Dear Michael Kimmel,
   I think i'm going to stick with email at this point. It allows a greater time to carefully choose my responses.

Zachary Morris
MRMg President



So let's start off with some easy questions.

How old are you?
Where are you from?
What is your major?
Can you recall what the first time you figured out the men were discriminated against?
Have you ever taken a Gender Studies or Women's Studies course?  If so, which?
Have you ever been discriminated against because you are a man?

These should be relatively straightforward.


Michael Kimmel

Notice the difference between his writing style and mine, his curt style of writing versus my formal style? He need bother himself with respect, i'm just a lower form of life...

Also he signs every one of his emails with this:


Michael Kimmel
SUNY Distinguished Professor
Department of Sociology
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794

LOL this guy is Distinguished!! Better pucker up chap! Brilliant!
(I didn't include his email and phone number)

Anyhow, he's repeating himself by this point, and he already knows that i've seen through his bullshit, and told him where the line is, now comes the facade that he uses in retreat in order assuage himself in hitting that shiny brick wall.


Now Why am I sharing this? Is it just to gossip? No, it's just to show what kind of people we are up against. They are crafty, but they can be defeated, or at least circumvented, if we simply stand our ground, and offer them the least resistance so that they cannot contend with us. These folks are psychic vampires, the best way to defeat a vampire is to politely show them the door.

:sunny:  STAND YOUR GROUND !  :sunny:

I posted a Yahoo Question to see how the collective deals with this stuff.

It's interesting to see, that for the two answers i've gotten, nobody seems concerned.

1st guy) Just get married everything is ok.

2nd guy) Just find a nice girl you'll be fine.

Lol, I can't get over how hypnotized everyone is.
Am I the only person freaking out? I guess so!

Read the question see what you think!
Mind-blowing tyranny!
Members of the University Community,

I am writing to you today in the wake of the events that have taken place at Penn State University.  Events such as those provide opportunities for reflection and a reaffirmation of our commitment to provide a safe and secure learning and working environment.  I wanted to remind you about ASU policies regarding the obligation to report misconduct by ASU employees and inappropriate conduct towards minors.

ASU recognizes that our students and employees will perform their best work when the learning and work environment is safe and secure.  ASU prohibits any act of intimidation, including any menacing and harassing behaviors, threat of violence, and acts of violence against any person in the workplace.  All incidents and allegations of violent or threatening conduct by an ASU employee or student must be reported to the ASU Police Department or the Employee Assistance Office (480/965-7721) immediately.

On September 30th you received, electronically, the University's Annual Campus Crime Awareness Report describing university policies and resources that exist to protect the safety and well-being of you and other members of the university community.  I encourage you to review this report again.  Additionally, complaints or concerns of possible sexual discrimination or harassment should be brought to the attention of the university's Title IX Coordinator, Kamala Green (480/965-9695).

Safety and security does not stop with just our faculty, staff and students.  On any given day, there are hundreds of minor children present on university property.  Some minors are enrolled students at ASU.  Others come to participate in a variety of educational programming offerings.

If you observe inappropriate conduct being directed towards a minor or if a minor tells you that he or she has been the victim of inappropriate conduct, notify the ASU Police Department (9-1-1 or 480/965-3456).  [If you wish to do this anonymously, you may do so through the ASU Hotline (1-877-SUN-DEVL and ).]  This course of action is proper and it is also consistent with established University policy addressing violence in the workplace.  (SPP 814, ACD 204-09 and SSM 104-02)

Michael Crow
Arizona State University

I was hoping an MRA or two could help me do a critical analysis of this letter from the President of ASU: Michael Crow. Who wrote that letter above. And of the PDF file Campus Security Policy. Which includes quite a bit of sexist language such as:

•   As a female, avoid parties where males greatly outnumber females.

R.A.D. is a 12-hour training course designed to maximize the physical defensive abilities of women."

I'm sure there are more hidden gems. Isn't a "minor" by default anyone who is not a white male? Perhaps you all would like to help in this bit of real world campus activism? I'd like to dispute this with them.

Main / "Educating Women Reduces fertility"
Nov 08, 2011, 03:43 PM
OK so I get this one liner allot in my Sustainability classes:

"Educating women reduces fertility, or birth rate"

I find myself thinking: "yea, because it inflates their ego which reduces their attractiveness"

However, I think this idea is directly installed from the "Gender and Women's Studies Department" of universities and society in general, in other words feminist have once again infiltrated. Now everyone in sustainability thinks educating women is a good thing (read feminism) because it helps reduce babies, which is one of the causes of environmental and social problems: too many people.

However the effect of this idea is also interesting (I wonder if it seems familiar to anyone here?)

- Implies women who have children as victims of stupidity.
- Implies women who have sex with men are victims of stupidity.
- Implies women who have beed educated are intelligently avoiding sex, and men.  
- Implies countries outside the US with larger populations need to "educate women"
- Implies that social problems are to be alleviated by the "education of women" or in other words, by  promoting women not become mothers or associate with men but instead focus on rising into positions of societal power.
- Implies that feminism is a good idea and will save the world.

Also I don't know if anyone is familiar with this idea, but it seems a political platform idea, have any of you seen this argument backed up with any reasonable statements? It seems a wild idea to the likes of: "If you are feminist, when you die you go to heaven" or the likes of it.

It almost seems a joke, and IMHO, insults both women and men, but women are happy with it because it gives them power, and subtly influences their choices away from men and towards taking over the world via allegiance to feminist ambitions.
Main / Should sperm banks be illegal?
Nov 04, 2011, 02:23 PM
Radical Feminist male hating lesbians, want to eradicate the male population. I think their only shot is some kind of birth control female selection technology.

That may be possible. Perhaps we should add to the list of goals for the MRM: make sperm banks illegal? That is a form of birth control for men, as long as there is a cache of sperm to supply social engineers, they will want use it to create an all female humanity. Then the male would at least have to be active in that scheme to make only girls, rather than caught off the blind side.
I think sperm banks are just as disempowering as it is to ejaculate itself. Now think of how deadly that act is multiplied to the level of sperm banks? It's an atrocity.
Main / The revoultion
Sep 30, 2011, 06:03 PM
globalrevolution - live streaming video powered by Livestream

The revolution is upon us. I think the MRM should defiantly be supporting it.

Campus Men's Rights Group Kicks, Screams
Students at Arizona State University have been noticing flyers for an organization called the Men's Rights Movement Group. And the group's website claims that "Women have NEVER been systematically oppressed." We talked to the MRMg's president to find out what these collegiate men's rights activists are all about.
Full size
The flyers, visible on the MRMg's website, bear a variety of men's rights messages. One (at left) lists a variety of "privileges and rights that ONLY WOMEN get in society," including "right to incarcerate opposite sex by simple accusation" and "right to be brought up by the belief that females are superior." Others say "Society Has Daddy Issues" and "All Male Students At ASU Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent." They also advertise a series of meetings, beginning September 1. A fuller statement of MRMg's purpose, also available on its website, reads in part,

This is to clear the name of my father and my father's father and my great grandfather and on up the line. Women have NEVER been systematically oppressed by any of my ancestors or their institutions. I take great offense to the defamation of the name of my paternal ancestors at the hands of feminist lies. It is offensive to suggest that men have systemically oppressed women and everyone is offended by it. My ancestors never conspired to hold down and oppress women in any way shape or form, no majority of any human paternal ancestors did so. On the contrary women were tirelessly protected and nourished. Because it was the man who went outside in the morning to do the manual labor only to return at dark. The man held the responsibility of bringing home the bread in a cut throat deadly wilderness. While she stayed indoor with the kids, churned butter and baked biscuits, my forefathers were out there getting attacked by robbers, getting attacked by wild animals, natural disasters, plagues, mental and physical exhaustion you name it. Who was inside sitting next to the fire reading a book? Women. Who was it who risked his life to save the woman and children? Men. Who is it who fends off wild animals of fangs and claws, fends off roving bands of barbarians? Men didn't have time to oppress women. They were themselves oppressed.

When I contacted MRMg president Zachary Morris via email, he explained his motivation for starting the group thus:

I believe gender warfare is the root of all societal problems, and a keen lens from which to understand all human affairs. While there are many women's groups and gender focus on women in college courses and on campus there are none for men. So I decided to start one to give this perspective and knowledge-base a voice.

The group's mission, he says, is "to offer an alternative to feminist party line dogma, open up people's minds to knowledge-base outside the normal conventions of society in lieu of gender and feminist ideological doctrine, allow that it may better serve men, boys, and their own self-image; promote a more male-friendly environment, institution, and world by correcting destructive and false self-serving feminist propaganda and speaking against societal and institutional forms of misandry." Specifically, MRMg advocates for the establishment of a Male Studies Dept. at ASU, and against new standards for prosecution of campus sexual assault cases, which the group feels unfairly favor the accuser. Morris said his group doesn't consider any specific campus women's groups its enemies -- "however, since much of feminism is built on top of falsities and half truths in order to manipulate, women, men and society, and promoting the adoption of an aristocratic vengeful victim mindset against males, natural man, or masculinity, testosterone (you name it), the Men's Rights Movement Group at times will be targeting the feminist political power base and rhetoric in effort for reformation for the benefit of all."

I talked to Prof. Georganne Scheiner, head of ASU's Women & Gender Studies Department, who disagrees with the notion that women's rights on campus come at the expense of men's. She notes that her department serves men as well as women:

  • ur introductory courses are hugely popular with over 1000 students a year (both in live and on-line classes) and attract a diverse following from members of the Greek community, to LBGTQ students, to feminists, to members of the ASU football team (in fact, we are very popular with a range of student athletes). We attract a wide proportion of male students as well and our surveys are now about 40% male. We have at least 10 male majors and approximately 20% of our minors are male.

    Scheiner is aware of the MRMg, but says,

    Their understanding of what we do in WGS [...] seems limited. For example, they argue that in WGS we teach that because we live in patriarchy, women are automatically oppressed and men are not. Of course we don't believe that and our critique is much more nuanced in that we tend to talk about a hierarchy of oppression and that men can be oppressed by patriarchy as well. They complain about the lack of focus on men in our classes, but they fail to see that we changed the name of our program (as have most Women's Studies) programs to Women and Gender Studies because we are committed to looking at gender, not just women, as a category of analysis.

    And she adds,

    We don't believe that equality is a zero sum game -- that it's us against them -- that in order for women to succeed, men have to fail; that in order for women to have political power, men have to lose theirs. As Mary Wollstonecraft said, "I do not wish women to have power over men, but over themselves."

    Her argument is a far cry from the "aristocratic vengeful victim mindset" Morris describes. However, his rhetoric is in line with that of many men's rights activists online and elsewhere. Though he told me "we are not officially attached to any off-campus men's rights groups, our master is simply the good, the true, and the beautiful," MRMg's website includes a quote from noted MRA Paul Elam and links to and Reddit's Men's Rights subgroup. The Men's Rights Movement Group could be evidence that MRA ideology is trickling down to the college level. On the other hand, it's not trickling very fast -- Morris says his group has "only 3 brave members not including myself."

All in all I must say it's a pussy whipping review of our group, and a cry to denunciation.  But she did at least quote me and not totally distort the message.  :dontknow:


Puts out a newspaper chronicle weekly, this week's feature is the humor of violence against men by women. On the cover is a woman giggling in her tickeled amusement at the fact that she has just stabbed a male college student drinking a beer 7 times with a screwdriver.

Out of the bloody holes that she stabbed in his chest is the swallowed beverage leaking out of his body. The psychotic image of violence is a certain emblem of the "collage times". I have sent a warning to the college times editor publisher art director and others, via email. I've also called them and left a message.

I'm working on behalf of the Men's Rights Movement group, and my personal disgust with these disturbed maniacs that putrefy the society. Im ready to nail these suckers to the wall, and publicly chastise and denounce the college times for their glorification of violence against men.

Main / MRMg @ ASU (student org fair)
Aug 18, 2011, 06:00 PM
Had a great night last night at the student org fair. There was allot of interest for the group, and people were curious and open minded. Even met a girl who is running a women's group, that is antifeminist, and even had Christina Hoff Summer's book "The War Against Boys" on her table. I was pleasantly surprised, and pleased, and the response I got. Allot of friendly people. Nobody was defensive or outraged as far as I could tell. Really enjoyable experience.

So I would like to create a poster Board for the MRMg:

I'm going to be doing a MRMg booth at a Student Org Fair next week the 17th.

I was thinking sections on these most important pressing issues:

1)        Court System Bias

2)   VAWA and DV corruption

3)   Dating and relationships
            (along the lines of:, or sexual harassment / rape hysteria)


I'm here to ask for good sources of info on these topics, or suggestions as to good ones to present on the poster board.

I think i'll only cover three issues on the poster board. So any suggestions as to what those three may be and sources to use for citation would be greatly appreciated.
So i'd like to print a copy of the latest Menz Magazine, to add to my Men's Right Movement Group presentation booth next week. I'd just like to put a copy of it on the table to have people to look through there at the booth.

Does anyone know if there is any possible way to download and/or print the magazine out?

Main / Yes I hate
Aug 03, 2011, 12:36 PM
   I've never quite understood the attempt to criticize by  "you hate women". It's as if it were an automatic think the accused must devote himself 100% to refute. Why? Is it the necessity of being chivalrous for social order? Why does that automatically put men and MRA's on defense? I think by this exploit, women enforce their privilege to chivalry, and men to servitude. Why not just admit: "Yes I hate women"? Does hating women somehow disqualify the hater from possession of reasonable arguments? You may think it does but it does not. "You hate women" is just a unreasonable illogical statement that has no power until the named hater attempts to dodge the claim. It does not render a reasonable argument unreasonable or unproven. Reasonable arguments can be still maintained even in a chaos of emotion. In fact the only thing such a accusation really does is put the spectators into a bias against the situation or individual marked by "you hate women". Indeed it doesn't convict the individual, it in fact convicts the audience of the very irrational emotional view and bias the "hater" is accused of, because once they are convinced the person is "hateful of women" their emotions are raised and reasonability therefore leaves them deaf to further rational argument from that accused hater.  
   Why not just accept the person's judgement "you hate women" and be happy about that? Because if you do not what you are really trying to fight is a futile battle: the battle of what the accuser's opinion of you is. A person's opinion of you is their free will, it is impossible to argue to win their opinion, opinions can be utterly arbitrary.
   AKA: stop caring what other people think about you.  
   I'd recommend that next time someone says "you hate women" try not to resist this. Accept their judgement of you, even if it's all 7 billion people on Earth. It doesn't matter, it is their privilege and will to shut you out for whatever reason or not they choose. But if you fight against that prerogative, it will render you a blithering idiot, and ineffective.
   It's just a monkey wrench, instead of trying to get it unjammed in the gears of your invention, swallow the wrench and run the gears over it until it grinds and turns to dust. Then stay on track with what you were doing and you win.
   "Yes I hate women, and society exploits and enslaves men, because it is a vagina-centric matrix shopping center, and destroys people's livelihood and well-being. Justice should be for all, and that only happens when arbitrary discrimination based on gender is not written in to laws like VAWA, or makes fatherhood or male exclusive social groups illegal, or condones violence against men but condemns it against women" etc. etc.  
   It is difficult however to allow for this, as humans are not a completely rational creature. In fact most often one emotional point is worth 100 rational argument points. But nonetheless we have to begin to socially defuse this ICBM of a argument tactic in order to get people out of their zombie daze and listen to reason.
   Furthermore people are full of hate constantly, weather conscious or not. It is better to be aware of it than not. To say someone "hates women" and expect that to defeat any further arguments from them is a great act of hubris. Because it assumes that the accuser is not hateful themselves, or that a person should be incapable of hate, or that if one feels hateful, one is automatically a bad person. In fact hate is just an emotion, and it is absolutely mundane, society is built on the backs of all emotions, including hate. It is very pretentious and arrogant, to suggest that only your opponent is capable of hate and you are not.
   Society needs to familiarize itself with it's hate, I think it can start with just the response to the accusation thereof by "Yes I hate."
Main / VAWA Reform
Jul 29, 2011, 10:55 AM
So I saw this message on my Facebook News Feed:

The Capitol Hill paper Roll Call is reporting on the need to reform VAWA.  Read the article here (Roll Call, 7/28/11).

That's important.  For almost 50 years, Roll Call has been the source for news about what's doing in the U.S. House and Senate.  It's read by essentially everyone on the Hill including elected officials and their staff.

So the article, by Natasha Spivack, who's Secretary of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is a unique opportunity to acquaint everyone on Capitol Hill with the need to reform VAWA.

And the need is great.  Indeed, it's far greater than anyone in the Senate Judiciary Committee that recently held hearings on VAWA reauthorization realizes.  For starters, the law should be made gender-neutral.  You'd think that would have happened a long time ago, but it hasn't yet.  Male victims continue to be ignored en masse.

Earlier this month, Catherine Becker, 48, allegedly drugged her estranged husband and tied him to a bed. As he awoke,  police said, she took a 10-inch knife to his penis, severed the appendage and tossed it into a garbage disposal.

Bail has been set at $1 million as Becker awaits arraignment on multiple felony charges.

Given the timing and the particularly gruesome nature of the attack, one would have expected that a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act would have featured heart-rending discussions about how similar incidents of gender-motivated violence could be avoided in the future.

But the Becker case was not deemed worthy of mention...

Many studies suggest female-on-male violence has become equal to, or even more prevalent than, the male-initiated variety. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 10 percent of high school girls had hit, slapped or physically hurt their boyfriends in the previous year. In comparison, only 9 percent of boys had been physically aggressive to their female partners.

The name should be changed, but far more importantly, VAWA funding must be changed to reflect gender-neutral policies.

As things stand now, essentially all VAWA resources are directed at female victims and male perpetrators.  As everyone who follows the politics around domestic violence knows, there are some 1,500 shelters for women and not one for men in the entire country.

Hewing closely to the narrative of the DV establishment for which there are no male victims and no female perpetrators, VAWA does essentially nothing for either.  Given that reauthorization is likely to carry a price tag of about $550 million, you'd think that there would be funding for treatment for women who can't control their anger and lash out at husbands, boyfriends and children.  But there won't be.

And speaking of money, there's little information about how VAWA funds are spent and if programs are effective at combatting domestic violence.

Citing a probe by the Department of Justice inspector general that unearthed shoddy accounting practices at 21 of 22 VAWA grantees, Grassley commented tartly: "Simply put, in today's economic environment, we cannot tolerate this level of malfeasance in federal grant programs."

In addition, according to the Office of Management and Budget, VAWA grantees have never promulgated any criteria by which they can be judged.  Stated another way, we don't know much about what they're doing or whether it works.  And we don't know how they're spending our money.

Given that lack of government oversight of VAWA funds, if the system isn't rife with incompetence and corruption, it's the first in history.  Standards, regular reporting and oversight are necessary when the government funds anything, but so far the DV establishment has gotten a pass on all that.

Still on the subject of money, if we defined "domestic violence" in a sensible way, we'd be able to do a lot more with what we spend.  The simple fact is that much of what we call domestic violence is completely non-injurious.  One government study found that 61% of women and 75% of men said they'd received no injury in the incident inquired about.  Other data show that, even when there's an injury, it's usually a minor one, like a small cut or bruise.

That's the type of domestic violence that the vast majority of couples sort out on their own, as they should.  We don't need to spend taxpayer money on incidents of that sort.  What we should spend money on is addressing what's come to be called "intimate terrorism," in which serious injury is done for the purpose of controlling the behavior of the other person.

So VAWA as well as state laws, and the practices of police and prosecutors should be tailored to stop intimate terrorism via treatment and jail time where warranted.  That'll mean narrowing the definition of domestic violence in VAWA in order to deal with truly dangerous situations and not with those that aren't.  

Coincidentally, narrowing the definition of DV in VAWA is just what Texas Congressman Ted Poe endorsed shortly after the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Then there's the problem of false accusations of DV by aliens applying for residency.  That program is riddled with corruption as the Roll Call article says.

Much of the problem arises because the Citizenship and Immigration Services deems a person accused of domestic violence to be a "prohibited source." So the CIS, in Kafka-esque manner, refuses to accept any documentation that might reveal the immigrant to be a criminal, welfare cheat or perjurer.

It's that old "guilty until proven innocent" problem again.  If your wife tells the CIS you're an abuser, you can't produce evidence to the contrary because any information coming from you is "prohibited."  It's an open invitation to fraud.  

Those are scarcely the only problems with VAWA or our approach to domestic violence generally.  We started by conceiving of the problem in ideological terms.  That political ideology ignored the science on DV and predictably got it wrong on what DV is, who does it, why, and how to fix it.  We've been marching in lockstep ever since toward a future that contains much more funding, but little improvement in our DV statistics.

With any luck, the worm is starting to turn.  We may be reaching a tipping point at which tight budgets, the science on DV and popular discontent with our current approach combine to move us toward dealing effectively and fairly with a problem with which we've so far done neither.

My question is, what should we MRAs do here? It appears we need to call someone and demand a few things, and that this is a good time to do it.

To make the law gender-inclusive, we are proposing the law be renamed the Partner Violence Reduction Act. Our changes retain 95 percent of the existing Violence Against Women Act provisions that have done incalculable good, while incorporating the lessons learned since VAWA's original enactment in 1994.

Is that good enough? Shouldn't we MRAs be calling someone or writing letters to help this happen?

Who should we call? Representatives? Senators? Someone else?

I'm surprised i've not seen more talk about this on MRM sites recently.

ON the site of a 17th-century monastery in Cartagena, Colombia, a sort of Illuminati of the business and political worlds  gathered in February for their annual winter rites.

Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
Women backing women: Ann Kaplan, right, a member of Belizean Grove, helped Alexa von Tobel, center, with seed funding for her company. That led to an investment by a venture capital firm where Theresia Gouw Ranzetta, left, is a partner.
Drawn from government, banking, technology and beyond, its members form a rare  -- and global -- power elite. Each has been tapped, in Skull and Bones fashion, by an existing member. Each searches out and grooms new talent --  people who can add to this group's considerable wealth, knowledge and power.

But men need not apply: this exclusive club is women-only.

It is called Belizean Grove, and if you haven't heard of it, you're not alone. Founded 12 years ago, it operates mostly under the radar. The first time it received any real public attention was in 2009, when it became known that Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court justice, was among its 125 or so members. (She has since quit.)

Despite its low profile, Belizean Grove is fast becoming what could be considered the world's ultimate old girls' club. Perhaps that's no surprise, as it is modeled on one of the nation's most exclusive old boys' clubs, Bohemian Grove. That hush-hush group, an extension of the 139-year-old Bohemian Club in San Francisco, has counted so many rich and powerful men among its ranks -- including the presidents Eisenhower, Carter, Nixon and both Bushes -- that it sounds like something out of a Dan Brown novel. Indeed, in 1942, the men of Bohemian Grove, who meet each summer under a canopy of redwoods in Monte Rio, Calif., dreamed up the Manhattan Project.

Some members of Belizean Grove are working on a mission of their own: the White House Project. Its goal is to have a woman elected president.

"Grovers," as the members are known, tend to be in their 50s and 60s, and though most are not household names, they represent a rare confluence of wealth and influence. They serve as directors of companies including Xerox, Procter & Gamble, NYSE Euronext, Nasdaq, Nordstrom, DSW, PetSmart and REI. Some previously held high-level positions at blue-chip companies but then left to form their own businesses.

Members also include a Canadian senator and the chief operating officer of the Episcopal Church. Many are Americans, but others are from countries including Colombia, Ecuador, Iceland and New Zealand.

Grovers have capitalized on their network by cutting deals, making multimillion-dollar investments and hiring and mentoring up-and-coming businesswomen. Along the way, the group has become a model for a growing number of women's business networks.

Members say they have worked and invested together and helped one another join corporate boards, but they are hesitant to reveal details of specific deals. Above all, Grovers protect one another's privacy.

FOR four days, members convene at a site, generally somewhere in Central or South America, and stretch out on a beach, drink some wine and talk. Conversation flows freely, from topics like leveraged buyouts and international diplomacy to the problems of simultaneously managing the care of children and elderly parents.

Catherine Allen, a Grove member who is C.E.O. of the Santa Fe Group, a strategic consulting firm, puts it this way: "We leave our egos and business cards at the door. It's about: 'I have this problem. I'm a C.E.O. of a corporation, what should I do?' and this becomes a sounding board because there are other women who have been in similar situations." She adds: "It's about learning from each other, enriching our minds, developing true friendships. There's a real generosity of spirit."

The group emerged informally and without an agenda. The Grovers originally gathered because they otherwise had few outlets for their concerns as they climbed the corporate ladder. But their meetings have led to a continuing dialogue about business, with members gaining access to capital and connections outside their established circles.

Belizean Grove has connected the top women in technology to the top women in finance, to the top women in media, to the top women in law, to the top women in retail, and so on. By reaching horizontally across industries, veteran businesswomen are building critical mass and wielding more influence.

"Women in tech, media and finance have invested together," says Ms. Allen, who has embarked on a secondary consulting business with three other Grovers. "Many sit on the same venture boards. Many got there because of other women who also sit on those boards."

The group's membership process remains confidential. But it is known that one or more members select a candidate and shepherd her through meetings with a membership committee. New members have "big sisters" who make introductions at meetings and retreats. To avoid competition or discomfort, only one employee of any company can join.
Enlarge This Image

C.J. Gunther for The New York Times
"We leave our egos and business cards at the door," says Catherine Allen, a member.

Belizean Grovers also include Edie Weiner, who runs a futurist consulting firm.
"We try to help each other achieve our destinies," says Susan Stautberg, Belizean Grove's founder and president of PartnerCom, which manages advisory boards and conducts searches for C.E.O.'s. "We help each other in jobs, mentor each other's kids and help each other start new businesses." Ms. Stautberg is also a co-founder of WomenCorporateDirectors, which comprises 850 women who serve on more than 1,000 corporate boards worldwide.

WomenCorporateDirectors is a talent bank for businesswomen, and Ms. Stautberg helps many high-ranking women build their sphere of influence, but it takes more than a C-suite title to be considered for Belizean Grove. "Everyone has a phenomenal résumé to get into the Grove," she says. "But it's an organization about heart, soul and spirit."

Some might say the concept of Belizean Grove smacks of elitism. But Grovers would counter that they come from every religion, race, socioeconomic background and political party -- and that in order to build a trusted community, they need to relate to one another. They say that Grovers wrestle with issues that the average woman might never confront, and that the group's advice and support is valuable precisely because its members have had similar experiences.

At Belizean retreats, which are held in January or February, Grovers introduce themselves at an opening dinner and are encouraged to mix with participants they don't know. Two-thirds of the attendees will have roommates. Occasionally, women who have never met will bunk together because Ms. Stautberg thinks they will get along.

They spend mornings in panel discussions based on the retreat's particular theme; in recent years, those themes have included "Complexity," "Shaping Our Future" and "Wisdom and Spirit." At the sessions, Grovers showcase their areas of expertise, opining on issues as diverse as military strategy, marine life, philanthropy and how revolutions in the Middle East may affect the geopolitical balance.

At lunchtime, women break into moderated discussion groups on topics like climate change, managing finances in times of crisis, dream interpretation and "Should I get a facelift?" Afternoons are reserved for free time. In the evenings, the women might attend a reception at the United States embassy with the host country's leading politicians and dignitaries.

"I don't have much time in my life to hang around and talk without a purpose, but here everyone shares," says Davia Temin, a Grover who is chief executive of Temin & Company, which specializes in crisis and reputation management. "You get to really know each other and develop 360-degree relationships."

"I prefer to do business with people whose morals and ethics I trust," she says. "You always know Grovers are going to be good, solid people."

She adds: "Many of us had to shoehorn our way into a completely male world, so there's one level of network that provides solace and comfort." After all, many Grovers have forged ahead despite sexism and discrimination. "But now we're taking it to the next level, which is actually to create value in the world."

As Grovers look ahead, many believe the best way to aid subsequent generations of women is to back female entrepreneurs.

Grovers are not alone in sponsoring up-and-comers, but they have a head start. Five years ago, Belizean Grove formed a group called Today's Already Rising Achievers, or TARA, for women in their 30s and 40s. The TARAs, with a membership of about 45, are invited to join Grovers for the last two days of their retreats and to participate in less formal events throughout the year.

"Leaders give back," Ms. Stautberg says. "We don't want to become irrelevant, so we're thinking about the next generation. We mentor, help raise money for their companies, and get them speaking engagements. But it's a two-way street with the TARAs. They help us with technology, keep our thinking current, and are in positions to hire our kids."

At 27, Alexa von Tobel is too young to be a TARA, but she is still a magnet for women's support. After dropping out of Harvard Business School in 2009 to start LearnVest, a personal finance Web site for women, she received seed funding from three founding members of the Circle Financial Group: Ann Kaplan, a Grover who is a former Goldman partner and a current director of Goldman Sachs Bank USA; Jacki Zehner, a former Goldman partner; and Maria Chrin, a former Goldman vice president. Then they spun their Rolodexes to help rally additional backers.

Amid a flurry of offers for financing from venture capital firms, Ms. von Tobel chose to work with Theresia Gouw Ranzetta, the only female partner in the United States at Accel Partners, a venture capital firm based in Silicon Valley that invests in start-ups across a range of industries. Accel invested $4.5 million in LearnVest.

Ms. Kaplan has held weekend strategy sessions in her home for the LearnVest team, as well as cocktail parties to introduce investors and interested parties to Ms. von Tobel. Ms. Zehner introduced Ms. von Tobel to Janet Riccio, an executive vice president at the Omnicom Group, who became a formal adviser to help build LearnVest's brand.

Now Ms. von Tobel is extending a hand to her peers. Last October, more than 100 women in the technology and start-up worlds of New York met for "Lady Business," a party hosted by Ms. von Tobel as well as Alexa Hirschfeld, a co-founder of Paperless Post, a purveyor of stationery via e-mail, and three other entrepreneurial women.

While Ms. Kaplan has been Ms. von Tobel's primary sponsor, other Grovers are also working to put her on the map. This fall, Ms. Temin gave a presentation on women and money at the Harvard Women's Leadership Board conference and told a room full of female luminaries about Ms. von Tobel and LearnVest.

WHILE some businesswomen celebrate women-only networks as their own "golf game," others bristle at the idea that gender should inform business alliances. Many senior women say supportive male bosses and mentors have been instrumental in their rise. And because men still hold the keys to power -- 97 percent of Fortune 500 C.E.O. positions and 84 percent of corporate board memberships, to be exact -- some businesswomen are wary of networking in isolation.

"The most successful women I know are not focused on who has what chromosomes," says Karen White, a former senior executive at Oracle who is now a technology investor and executive chairman of Syncplicity, a company that uses cloud computing for file management. "Investing my time in developing a gender-specific business network doesn't make sense. There is an incredibly vibrant network in my industry and that's the playing field I want to be on."

Sometimes, the emphasis on women-only networks can seem overwhelming, even to people who back its ultimate aims. "This fall I had seven huge women's events in seven weeks," Ms. Temin says. "At the end I felt like somebody should give me a shot of testosterone. I asked my husband to talk to me about basketball."

But Ms. von Tobel is grateful for the influence of the Grovers and their brand of networking. "I'm from a tiny town in Florida," she says. "No one in my family went to Harvard, and it's not like I fell off a truck with $1 million in my pocket. I've worked incredibly hard and I've watched women bend over backwards to open doors for me. This was all about people who are connected to other people."  

Medically ignorant school officials traumatize young boy

(NaturalNews) A young "special needs" boy from Queens, NY, recently bore the wrath of public school officials when he began acting up over a mismatched color on an Easter egg he was painting during class. Young Joseph Anderson asked for his mother, Jessica, after becoming visibly upset, and school officials proceeded to call her. But reports say that before Jessica was able to arrive at the school to pick up her son, officials had already called the police, who came and handcuffed Joseph, loaded him in an ambulance, and shipped him off to a psychiatric facility, claiming he was a "danger" to the other students.

A UK Daily Mail report states that the seven-year-old boy had previously been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and that he also speech problems and emotional issues that affected his moods. He had also had previous psychiatric evaluations over his behavior. But Joseph's mother insists he is not a threat, and that what the school did was over the top and highly inappropriate.

"Why handcuff him?" she is cited as asking. "Why get the cops involved? He's only seven."

She went on to add that Joseph is now petrified of ambulance noises, and that he runs and hides every time he hears them or sees a police officer. She also says Joseph is constantly wetting his pants, throwing up, and running to hide under his bed whenever these trigger events occur.

"He's really traumatized," said Jessica. "I don't let him watch the news any more, because if he sees cops, he cries. They (school officials) know that my son is special ed. It's like they're trying to get rid of him, and it worked because I'm not sending him back there."

Officials deny allegations that they acted inappropriately, and a New York Police Department (NYPD) officer defended the actions as well, claiming that the child was "acting in a threatening manner," and was a "danger to himself and others in the classroom."
It has been suggested in the MRM (recently I think by Paul Elam) that the foundation of feminism is chivalry. This is an interesting idea to me. I think it's pretty accurate. Feminism is based on a mutated idea of gender relations, when I think of all it's characteristics. The only word that comes to mind is chivalry. Men taking a high matienence role of protection and service to women.

The main point is this. If feminism is fundamentally based on chivalry. Then feminism is a stack of cards. And can be EASILY toppled. If you think about it chivalry worked back, in the dark ages or whatever time it came because of the social and political climate of the society. Men and warriorship were simply central to the social order. Women were far more disposable than knights and this worked out well because to balance the two the man takes the lower position and courts the lady, thus their two positions can meet. But using it as a basis for today's political loyalties is beyond regressive, it's fucking constipated. Men are not held up in society as central, we are utterly trash and disposable. So really women should be doing the chivalry. But I think that is not going to work, because of laws of nature.

Chivalry I think is based on the idea of men being the initiator of male female relations. This seems based right out of nature. Men are more active women more passive. It's therefore a low resistance to have this general pattern. I'm sure back in days of chivalry when it started, it was not as contrived as it is today.

Today obviously chivalry is not only contrived it has been institutionalized into laws by feminists. The reason nobody has yet challenged those laws, I suppose is:

1) Mainly because so much chaos in society prevents most organized grassroots change.
2) The younger generations who don't support chivalry are not powerful in society yet
3) Chivalry is not yet denounced as the scourge of mankind.

Is it conceivable that all men have to do is eliminate this one memetic, and the house of cards of feminism will come falling down?

I can't think of any better place to start. Changing laws, and institutions will only take place once a significant portion of public opinion supports it. And believe it or not. My generation is not very chivalrous... But feminism is still the law of the land. Nontheless there may be a good opportunity to change things.

The thing is... we should be able to sell this downfall of chivalry to feminists as well. I think feminists even want to remove chivalry in some aspects, but keep it in others. They want to be powerful whores, but get the protection of uncle sam from accountability. The reason people buy this is because of the mindset of chivalry: men bearing the burden women being put on pedestals.  But I think without chivalry as a state of mind in the masses, any future for feminism will be very hard sell.

I think the gangsta rappa modus of gender roles via the destabilization of the black getthos from feminism has already worn away at chilvary very deeply, and changed things for the better in terms of the MRM. Fundamentally I think feminism is a house divided against itself, and will destroy itself in time. But we need to help to speed this process along.

What do you all think?
So I did some tabling today to promote the meeting. Made an announcement in a class also.

Biggest turnout this time. I got at least two people who were genuinely interested and 5 others who were there to cause trouble.

Topics discussed were feminist "Patriarchy Theory" and "chivalry". One attendant walked in and keeping his reserve, he finally spoke up with a message to me and said: the problem with the MRM is "whining". I tried to get more clarity from this seemingly empty statement and  when I asked him if he had any familiarity with the movement he said he did not. So I just moved on.  (I later found out he was a feminist supporter. Thus I will refer to him as mangina for now on.)

So I read orally a couple of MRM articles discussing the idea of Patriarchy. We were having a decent discussion (sortave) between me the mangina and a guy who walked in wearing a dress. And another respectable but quiet individual who sat very well mannered.

Suddenly, an insane maniac female had walked in waving a sex toy and started yelling about how she disagrees with everything about the group. The Mangina then, who was previously involved in discussion had now taken it upon himself to discuss genital issues with the guy wearing a dress. To cut a long story short the wild female just kept amping up the inappropriate behavior, shouting, climbing on the desk, while the mangina advised me to let her "get it all out". I warned them that I'd would seek to have them removed if they did not respect the order of the group.

I was able to silence them once to read a single article on chivalry. But it went nowhere. Back to bickering they went.

I ended up being the first to leave the room. The meeting was well over and our allotted time spent. The crowd of trolls wanted to make themselves miserable and decided to stay and argue with each other like starved cats about things that had no logic or reason whatsoever. It looked like they wanted to crash the event. And indeed it was their intent to make me regret ever promoting my group. They said they hoped I would never do another one again.

I got the attention of the MU receptionist that they may need some assistance and looked into matters about having them removed from being allowed to attend the group. Which is apparently possible.

And that was that. I left a the situation as ridiculous as it had become. Frankly it was so on edge I thought someone was going to start physically fighting. People were cussing at me and telling me to leave...

All in all. Fun stuff. Allot of work, and i'm sure that everyone hates me. But that OK because it's pretty clear that they already hated everything male anyway regardless of what I had done.

Society defiantly has some daddy issues.