The #MeToo movement is the latest salvo in a long crusade by feminists to crush male sexuality. It’s been a very long campaign, dating back to 19th century suffragettes whose slogan - "Votes for Women. Chastity for Men!"; linked the political equality of women to controlling men's sex drive.That was just the beginning. Ongoing feminist campaigns saw male sexuality increasingly publicly reviled. Men were endlessly in trouble over sex. Men in trouble for not keeping their trousers zipped, for groping and harassing women, for looking at pornography, or gazing at women in the wrong way. Shame-faced men were paraded in front of jeering chat show audiences and forced to atone for their sins. Any expression of lusty male sexual drive was vilified, particularly on college campuses. Then came #MeToo, an orgy of vengeful women intent on destroying the careers of powerful men. And on the home front, wives have been given licence to shut up shop, with women's lower libido resulting in more sexless marriages and miserable men.
Dehumanization is a spirit-crushing tactic not only used against Black men and boys, but men of all races and ages been effective in the past and still being used now. Awareness could be the key to stopping it for future generations of males. Sonja Schmidt creatively exposes how it works, and its culprits through the telling of one man's dramatic life story and how systematic dehumanizing impacted his life.
Title IX, a civil rights law passed decades ago to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex, has ended up creating a bureaucratic behemoth on college campuses. But can we use Title IX as a weapon against itself and its creators? Is it possible to imagine a future without "diversity bureaucrats," without special privileges and preferences for the female majority on college campuses?
Intimate Partner Violence-Has there been real progress in the provision of services to men since the first publication of “Abused Men-The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence” and even since the second edition in 2009? & update from: Stop Abuse For Everyone (SAFE) recent accomplishments and challenges. The new definitions of rape and the changed sexual/legal landscape. How it happened, who was/is behind it & what it means. Details from “When Women Sexually Abuse Men-The Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment and Sexual Assault” Including some new information about the scope of false allegations. Academia-The new methods to challenge/reform Title IX, will they succeed? What progress has been made in reforming family court systems-is the new wave of shared parenting legislation a harbinger for further reforms? What programs and policies if instituted could further reduce the harm faced by the children of divorce? Is legislation the best way to achieve them? Update on the Federal level game: A brief history of the Coalition For a White House Council on Boys and Men, and where we are today. A summary of seven presidential candidates reactions to the proposal. VAWA reforms will likely be limited. What is our level of support in D.C.? On the increase or in decline?
In 2002, I was a lawyer in the first circumcision (male genital cutting, or MGC) legal case brought as a federal civil rights case. Visiting Judge Bernard Friedman used his full power to orchestrate a favorable result in this case for the defendants, making it impossible for us to get a fair hearing for our federal claims. Last November, a federal judge ruled that a 1996 federal law prohibiting female genital cutting (FGC) was unconstitutional, The judge’s name seemed familiar to me; I realized with a start that the same Bernard Friedman prevented a federal court from protecting males from cutting and then 16 years later blocked them from protecting girls! The cases do differ: males get no protection, while Judge Friedman held that ]”we don’t need a special anti-FGC law to prosecute cutters or their accomplices, though 27 States do have such laws.” Advocates of children's rights need to band together and make clear that the central ethical issue here is the violation of a young person’s bodily integrity without consent, and the exposure of that person's healthy "private parts" to surgical risk without an urgent medical need. Four European cases have held some forms of MGC to be worse than some forms of FGC and found liability. Why were these cases decided in Europe and not the US?