What about women who rape men? Or women who rob, beat or commit other crimes against men? Men are not the only ones who commit crime! And they are not dogs that need to be trained! This is the same man hating mentality as this article. Man I cannot stand Feminazi's!
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Monday, January 23, 2012
Rape in the military
These videos may be a year or so old, but you will notice the usual feminist demonization of men, when men are also raped in the military as well. Why can't they talk in general terms instead of about women only? They could say "when a person is raped," instead of "when a women is raped," etc!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Katherine Heigl stars in 'I Hate Balls' animal rights PSA
Labels: CutOffPenis , Feminism , Video
This is not funny, IMO. They are selling stuff to teach young girls to hate men, and other stuff that has sexual references. Just sick!
11/30/2011
By Kristina Lopez
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The "Knocked Up" actress and former "Grey's Anatomy" star is featured in a PSA advocating for pet owners to neuter their pets. The PSA is part of the Jason Debus Heigl Foundation, which the actress developed with her mother. The foundation has funded spay/neuter programs and also offers financial support for animal rescue organizations.
The foundation is named after Heigl's brother Jason, who died from brain damage in 1986, one week after being in a car accident.
The PSA also has a full website to go along with it called IHateBalls.com which features information about neutering pets and merchandise like "I Hate Balls" T-shirts.
The video shows Heigl holding a dog and also has the actress present reasons why she is not fond of testicles. "Unfortunately I can't cut the nuts off human men...yet. So I've dedicated my time to the neutering of dogs 'cause that's legal," she said in the video, which can be seen below.
Heigl will next appear on the big screen in "New Year's Eve" opposite rocker Jon Bon Jovi, which hits theaters on December 9. Check out Heigl's PSA below.
Warning: The video contains explicit language:
Video Link
Response Video To The Above:
Video Link
Man's Penis Cut Off: What is a Man Worth?
Video Link
Video Link
Response Video To The Above:
Video Link
Man's Penis Cut Off: What is a Man Worth?
Video Link
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Department of Ed rewrites the Constitution, at the expense of men
Labels: DoubleJeopardy , Feminism , National , WronglyAccused
08/27/2011
By Carey Roberts
If college administrators were turning a cold shoulder to rape victims and female students were dropping out like flies, the recent Department of Education sex mandate might begin to make a little more sense.
But here we are. The once-unthinkable has become a Brave New World reality, in which a bewildered Alice quakes before an arrogant Queen proclaiming, "Sentence first — verdict afterwards."
Let's say you're a student at Cal State-Monterey Bay. There, any sexual "innuendoes made at inappropriate times, perhaps in the guise of humor" can get you into trouble with university administrators. At Alabama State University, any "behavior that causes discomfort, embarrassment or emotional distress" is deemed to be harassing.
You may wonder if such vague definitions are constitutional, and indeed they are not.
In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that only behavior that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and...so undermines and detracts from the victims' education experience" can be considered to represent sexual harassment."
Nonetheless, such far-reaching concantations of student misconduct have become the norm. According to a recent survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 67% of top American colleges have enacted speech codes that are unconstitutional under First Amendment standards.
Which means if your son utters a gratuitous "son of a bitch" remark, that could land him in a load of trouble. And a professor teaching a course on 19th century erotic art could be accused of inflicting embarrassment on overly sensitive students — a concern that recently compelled the American Association of University Professors to demand the DED Office for Civil Rights withdraw the regulation.
Or let's say a student and his new-found paramour share a celebratory glass of Pinot Noir and indulge in a frolic of consensual sex. Surprise! The Office for Civil Rights directive astonishingly dictates the woman (or man) is unable to give consent "due to the victim's use of drugs or alcohol."
We're not talking about a drunken lovefest or even getting a little tipsy — the mere "use" of alcohol now renders the person a "victim."
It gets crazier, because university disciplinary committees originally were set up to hear cases of cheating or plagiarism, not adjudicate cases involving potential criminal misconduct that arise from murky 'he-said, she-said' disputes.
So now it's your day in court, so to speak. Knowing that the accusation is utterly baseless, you didn't bother to engage an attorney to argue your case. You plan to cross-examine your former girlfriend on your own behalf.
Sorry, the Department of Education will have none of that. The delicate-as-a-wallflower victim is now deemed too distraught to answer your questions.
In the past, such cases were decided under the "clear and convincing" standard of proof, which means the lay jury needed to be about 75% sure that wrong-doing had occurred. But now, the college must comply with the "predominance of the evidence" standard, which only requires a 51% level of proof.
Fortunately, the disciplinary committee found you innocent of the charges. Now you can go back to your normal routine, hoping your classmates will stop giving you those dirty looks.
Hold on, Joe, because your ex- can still appeal the decision. Double jeopardy is prohibited under criminal law, but in the DED's Alice in Wonderland universe, she gets a second bite at the apple.
Such Kangaroo Court proceedings do not take place in a vacuum.
Student orientation programs alert doe-eyed coeds to the looming specter of date rape. Women's studies programs hold frenzied "Take the Night" marches. Faculty members indulge in diatribes about "rape culture." And at Arizona State University, students are ominously warned to "avoid parties where males greatly outnumber females."
The effects on the falsely accused can be far-reaching. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial lamented, "Not only is he likely to be expelled, but he may well be barred from graduate or professional school and certain government agencies, suffer irreparable damage to his reputation, and still be exposed to criminal prosecution."
In short, the Department of Education DED Office for Civil Rights is working to remove the constitutionally rooted due process rights of the accused.
Fortunately, the solution is simple. We take away their money.
The Office for Civil Rights enjoys a $103 million budget, including a cushy $730,000 for employee awards and overtime. Right now Congress is searching high and low for ways to trim the federal deficit. I say we cut their budget to $50 million.
And for good measure, we'll mandate the remaining OCR employees to take a course in Constitutional Law 101.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
College Rape Accusations and the Presumption of Male Guilt
08/20/2011
By PETER BERKOWITZ
Pressured by the Obama administration, universities abandon any pretense of due process in sexual assault cases.
Late August and early September bring recent high school graduates, bright and eager, to campuses around the country. Carefully planned orientation sessions will impress upon freshmen the paramount importance of sensitivity, of avoiding offensive words and ideas, and—notwithstanding that in recent years approximately 55% of matriculating freshmen nationally have been female—the urgency of maintaining a campus atmosphere friendly to women.
But parents who might expect this orientation to include an introduction to the moral and political purposes of liberal education—including respect for liberty of thought and discussion, and due process of law—will be sorely disappointed.
The neglect at freshmen orientation of the aim of liberal education and how it undergirds and is undergirded by the principles of freedom is not an accident. It is emblematic of college as a whole. Our universities impair liberal education not only by what they teach and do not teach in classrooms but also by the illiberal rules they promulgate to regulate speech and conduct outside of class.
The Obama administration has aggravated the problem. On April 4, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, head of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), distributed a 19-page "Dear Colleague" letter to "provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations."
At the cost of losing federal funding—on which all major institutions of higher education have grown dependent—colleges and universities are obliged under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex) to thoroughly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus, including the felony of rape. They are also obliged, according to Ms. Ali, to curtail due process rights of the accused.
OCR's new interpretation of Title IX "strongly discourages" universities from permitting the accused "to question or cross-examine the accuser" during the hearing. In addition, if universities provide an appeals process, it must be available to both parties—which subjects the accused to double jeopardy.
Most egregiously, OCR requires universities to render judgment using "a preponderance of the evidence" standard. This means that in a rape case, a campus disciplinary board of faculty, administrators and perhaps students serves as both judge and jury. Few if any of these judges are likely to have professional competence in fact-gathering, evidence analysis or judicial procedure. Yet to deliver a verdict of guilty, they need only believe that the accused is more likely than not to have committed the crime.
- So basically, if you are a male and a female accuses you of rape, you are screwed!
This is the lowest standard. It is much less demanding than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is used in the criminal justice system, and the intermediate standard of "clear and convincing proof." Yale, Stanford and many other universities have rushed to comply with OCR's directives.
On campus, where casual sex is celebrated and is frequently fueled by alcohol, the ambiguity that often attends sexual encounters is heightened and the risk of error in rape cases is increased. The consequences for a wrongly convicted student are devastating: Not only is he likely to be expelled, but he may well be barred from graduate or professional school and certain government agencies, suffer irreparable damage to his reputation, and still be exposed to criminal prosecution.
OCR directives reducing critical due process protections on campus carry forward the work of extensive university bureaucracies built to ensure compliance with Title IX. These bureaucracies churn out materials on sexual harassment and sexual violence to train students, faculty and administrators to behave and think properly and to prepare those who serve on disciplinary boards. The materials are likely to include dubious statistics about the incidence of sexual assault; vulgar generalizations that men are controlling, angry and deceitful; and assurances that women neither lie nor make errors in alleging that they have been sexually assaulted.
These teachings—and the disdain for the rights of the accused and liberty of thought and discussion that they sustain—are animated by illiberal convictions shared by many faculty and administrators, as well as the Obama administration Department of Education. Notwithstanding their selective appeal to the relativity of truth to neutralize alternative views, they are convinced that in practice all the hard questions about right and wrong have been finally settled and that faculty and administrators are uniquely in possession of the correct answers. Such dogmatism and imperviousness to evidence are hallmarks of the authoritarian mind.
One might have hoped that in response to OCR's reduction of due process protections some professors and high university officials would come forward to object.
Where are the professors of literature who will patiently point out that, particularly where erotic desire is involved, intentions can be obscure, passions conflicting, the heart murky and the soul divided?
Where are the professors of natural science who will declare that OCR-dictated hearings are antithetical to the spirit of the scientific method, which depends on respect for the facts and testing claims through rational procedures?
Where are the professors of history, political science and law who will insist clearly and in public that due process is a fundamental component of American political institutions and culture, a cornerstone of our legal system, and indispensable in a free society to the fair administration of justice?
Where are the professors of moral philosophy and practical ethics who will stand up and declare that the presumption of innocence rightly gives expression to both the belief in the dignity of the individual and the awareness of human fallibility?
And where are the deans, provosts and university presidents who will explain in no uncertain terms to their campus communities and to the wider public that weakening due process and freedom of speech protections erodes the framework within which free inquiry flourishes?
So far such professors and high university officials are nowhere to be found.
Who then is welcoming our nation's freshmen to campus? And who, for the next four years, will be presiding over the cultivation of their minds?
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)