Society

Young men’s guide to campus secessionism, part 2

by  •  • 1 Comment

by Ron Collins @framersqool
August 31, 2014

An excerpt from this article: http://antimisandry.com/blogs/rof-l-mao-esq/713-young-mens-guide-campus-secessionism-2.html

….Consider an America with each college or university functioning as its own nation-state, where laws and their applications – literally from one side of a street to another – are subject to differing and contradictory authority:

On one side of that street, anywhere in America, a rape is a crime, not only severely punishable under law upon conviction but also requiring (as with all crimes) a system of due process and legal procedures that establish guilt of criminal actions beyond reasonable doubt as found, unanimously, by a jury of private citizens.

On the other side of that street, rape has now been named a civil-rights violation, a kind of interpersonal tort, to be pursued either by the administrators of a school or by its individual students, or by both.

On one side of the street, sexual crime is considered a grievous and horrific criminal violation of criminal law, an offense against both private well-being and public order.

On the other side (in the local chapter of what ought to be called this “New Republic of Higher Education”), sexual assault, rape, stalking and all the other crimes, while still named by each of the States as serious and punishable crimes, are treated as cases in civil law, as rules violations and civil rights encroachments. Schools have no authority to adjudicate criminal law themselves, and what “investigation” they may be able to undertake may well weaken or destroy any future case brought by State prosecutors.

Judging by current conditions as indicated by a nonstop flow of lawsuits against schools around the country, brought both by those alleging wrongful allegations, and by those alleging legitimate complaints handled ineffectively or illegally, one might say that the policy under campus secessionist rule is essentially, “convict first, conduct low-quality investigation later, bypass the rule of law, and let the civil suits fall where they may.”

But at what point, might some stop and wonder, “where are the police and the criminal courts in all this?”

Read the rest HERE: http://antimisandry.com/blogs/rof-l-mao-esq/713-young-mens-guide-campus-secessionism-2.html

Fatherhood

An open letter to fathers who work too much

by  •  • 0 Comments

A very interesting perspective:

Fathers who work too much: I’m sure you know that your family appreciates your hard work. They’re thankful for your sacrifices, and that you provide for them financially.

But they want something much more than the money you earn. They want you.

Your wife and children might not say it often – or at all – but they need you to be a leader in the home, and they need you to be present. They need you to provide stability and strength, to be a role model and mentor.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I know that the cost of living is rising, and I know that you want your family to have a comfortable life. I’m not asking you to be irresponsible, or to neglect your work.

If you have absolutely no choice but to work 50-, 60- or 70-hour weeks to make ends meet, then this letter doesn’t apply to you.

But if your main concern is whether you should buy a bigger car or home – not whether you’ll be able to pay your bills this month – then this letter does apply to you.

You might not feel like you have a choice about how much time you spend at work, but you do. It might cost you a promotion or a pay increase, but you have a choice.

In life, few perfect solutions exist. Instead, we’re confronted with choices, which come with their associated tradeoffs. If you prioritise your career over your family, what tradeoffs are you making? And are those tradeoffs worth it?

Read the entire piece here: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/an-open-letter-to-fathers-who-work-too-much-014914229.html

Daniel Wong is a learning and teen expert, and is also the best-selling author of “The Happy Student”. He offers programmes to help students attain exam excellence while also finding happiness and fulfillment, and to empower parents to motivate their unmotivated teenagers. Download his FREE e-book, “16 Keys To Motivating Your Teenager”. The views expressed are his own.

Fatherhood

Jennifer Cramblett And Her Negro Kid

by  •  • 1 Comment

McKnight-Sperm-Mix-up-842

Fellas, your sperm is valuable. I actually thought about anonymous sperm donation when I needed funds many years ago. I’m so glad I never did it and never will.

It is a really bad choice for men.

1) I didn’t want little Clayshwaans and Claytinas running around without knowing their biological father.
2) I know now that couples like this might SUE YOUR ASS FOR CHILD SUPPORT if their marriage goes south…yes, it’s true.
3) I am glad I actually married the mother of my kids. Whaaat?!? Yup. Being married still matters, especially in family court. Being a baby daddy is not the same as being a husband. If I wasn’t married to her, my journey in family court hell would have been a lot worse.
4) I LOVE my multi-colored kids. Absolutely LOVE them.

If you want Lilly white kids….ADOPT!!!!

If you want to give birth naturally, the only way to do this is to get impregnated by ….a….man

A white Ohio woman is suing a Downers Grove-based sperm bank, alleging that the company mistakenly gave her vials from an African-American donor, a fact that she said has made it difficult for her and her same-sex partner to raise their now 2-year-old daughter in an all-white community.

Jennifer Cramblett, of Uniontown, Ohio, alleges in the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court that Midwest Sperm Bank sent her the vials of an African-American donor’s sperm in September 2011 instead of those of a white donor that she and her white partner had ordered.

After searching through pages of comprehensive histories for their top three donors, the lawsuit claims, Cramblett and her domestic partner, Amanda Zinkon, chose donor No. 380, who was also white. Their doctor in Ohio received vials from donor No. 330, who is African-American, the lawsuit said.

Cramblett, 36, learned of the mistake in April 2012, when she was pregnant and ordering more vials so that the couple could have another child with sperm from the same donor, according to the lawsuit. The sperm bank delivered vials from the correct donor in August 2011, but Cramblett later requested more vials, according to the suit.

Cramblett is suing Midwest Sperm Bank for wrongful birth and breach of warranty, citing the emotional and economic losses she has suffered.

Read more HERE and HERE

Relationships, Society

California’s Neo-Victorian Feminism

by  •  • 0 Comments

IMG_6561.JPG
An excerpt from this article:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/californias-neo-victorian-feminism/

California’s Neo-Victorian Feminism

A funny thing happened on the way to sexual liberation: we took a wrong turn back to a new, bizarre, secularized Puritanism. And the leading edge of this Puritanism—not by coincidence—is in the very same dens of louche materialism produced by the Sexual Revolution: the universities.

This turn backward is heralded by a new law passed in California defining what counts as “sexual assault” and can therefore result in expulsion from the California State University system. This has been dubbed the “yes means yes” law, meaning that for a male student to be accused of sexual assault (and it is almost always a man), the young lady does not need to have said “no” to him. Rather, all sexual contact is presumed to be an assault unless the woman gives “affirmative consent”—and such affirmations “must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity,” which presumably means that she has to sign off on every move her lover makes.

Now, part of the purpose of this law was to make it clear that a woman who is incapacitated—by alcohol, of course, since binge drinking is endemic on campus—cannot give consent. Or that a woman who initiates a sexual encounter retains the right to break it off if she changes her mind. But it’s not clear whether such a law would be necessary, given existing statutes and policies, nor does the law restrict itself to those provisions. Instead, it creates a very broad and vague presumption against all physical contact.

Set aside for a moment this statute’s capacity for injustice and abuse, which are covered well here, including the fact that one of the law’s own supporters admitted she has no idea what it means or how to avoid violating it.

What struck me first about this legalistic approach to sex is how unsexy it is. It reduces the act of love to a passionless procedure in which every move has to be negotiated, approved, and signed in triplicate. The article linked to above quotes the reaction of two students at Cal State Long Beach: “‘I feel like their hearts are in the right place, but the implementation is a little too excessive,’ said Henry Mu, a 24-year-old biology major. ‘Are there guidelines? Are we supposed to check every five minutes?’ The remark drew laughter from his friend and fellow 49er, Sue Tang. ‘If you were to do that, it would definitely kill the vibe,’ said Tang, 27.”

There is weird sense of unreality to this law, as if it were drafted by celibate monks. Sex is a physical and spontaneous act, driven by passion rather than legalism. And since I’m stating obvious but politically incorrect truths, I should also point out that a lot of women want a man who is self-confident and assertive. They would find the kind of man who timidly asks, “mother may I?” for every caress to be, well, a little less than masculine. But that’s the kind of man these new rules basically mandate. It all smacks of a prudish neo-Victorianism, in which sexual desire is viewed as suspect and dangerous—but with a modern feminist twist: male sexual desire is suspect and dangerous.

Read the rest here

Fatherhood

When Women Become Men at Wellesley

by  •  • 0 Comments

19transmen1-master675

As a follower of gender politics, I find this article fascinating. It is interesting to see this whole “gender” thing crumble under its own weight.

I am a Howard University graduate. A HISTORICALLY “black” university. That isn’t the case anymore. All kinds of people attend that school. Yes, it is majority brown skinned student body and majority female, but they are not denying an Asian kid or Indian girl from attending.

What happens when my son wants to attend Wellesley? He is certainly all male, but what if he identifies as female at age 17 when he applies to college?

Why can’t a man go to Wellesley?

Radicals at these colleges have taken over. Maybe it is time for people to stop being so damn afraid to speak up and show people how the real world works. There are limits to everything. People who scream for diversity and intolerance are chasing their tail.

Do they keep this as a “women’s school?’

Will men be able to attend because of gender diversity and full equality?

How can they deny anyone from attending? At what point do people say enough?

Will there really be “equality” between the sexes after all or will some sexes be more equal than others?

It was the first day of orientation, and along the picturesque paths there were cheerful upper-class student leaders providing directions and encouragement. They wore pink T-shirts stamped with this year’s orientation theme: “Free to Explore” — an enticement that could be interpreted myriad ways, perhaps far more than the college intended. One of those T-shirted helpers was a junior named Timothy Boatwright. Like every other matriculating student at Wellesley, which is just west of Boston, Timothy was raised a girl and checked “female” when he applied. Though he had told his high-school friends that he was transgender, he did not reveal that on his application, in part because his mother helped him with it, and he didn’t want her to know. Besides, he told me, “it seemed awkward to write an application essay for a women’s college on why you were not a woman.” Like many trans students, he chose a women’s college because it seemed safer physically and psychologically.

From the start, Timothy introduced himself as “masculine-of-center genderqueer.” He asked everyone at Wellesley to use male pronouns and the name Timothy, which he’d chosen for himself.

For the most part, everyone respected his request. After all, he wasn’t the only trans student on campus. Some two dozen other matriculating students at Wellesley don’t identify as women. Of those, a half-dozen or so were trans men, people born female who identified as men, some of whom had begun taking testosterone to change their bodies. The rest said they were transgender or genderqueer, rejecting the idea of gender entirely or identifying somewhere between female and male; many, like Timothy, called themselves transmasculine. Though his gender identity differed from that of most of his classmates, he generally felt comfortable at his new school.

Last spring, as a sophomore, Timothy decided to run for a seat on the student-government cabinet, the highest position that an openly trans student had ever sought at Wellesley. The post he sought was multicultural affairs coordinator, or “MAC,” responsible for promoting “a culture of diversity” among students and staff and faculty members. Along with Timothy, three women of color indicated their intent to run for the seat. But when they dropped out for various unrelated reasons before the race really began, he was alone on the ballot. An anonymous lobbying effort began on Facebook, pushing students to vote “abstain.” Enough “abstains” would deny Timothy the minimum number of votes Wellesley required, forcing a new election for the seat and providing an opportunity for other candidates to come forward. The “Campaign to Abstain” argument was simple: Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

“It wasn’t about Timothy,” the student behind the Abstain campaign told me. “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”

I asked Timothy what he thought about that argument, as we sat on a bench overlooking the tranquil lake on campus during orientation. He pointed out that he has important contributions to make to the MAC position. After all, at Wellesley, masculine-of-center students are cultural minorities; by numbers alone, they’re about as minor as a minority can be. And yet Timothy said he felt conflicted about taking a leadership spot. “The patriarchy is alive and well,” he said. “I don’t want to perpetuate it.”

Read the rest HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/when-women-become-men-at-wellesley-college.html?_r=0

Society

Young Californian men beware: You could be branded a rapist

by  •  • 1 Comment

From The Washington Examiner…

Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., has signed into law the state’s controversial “yes means yes” sexual consent bill for disciplinary procedures at public colleges, which defines consent narrowly and leaves accused students without due process rights.

California’s bill, S.B.967, is the first in the nation to define consent as an “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement,” but also codify into law that a “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.”

Non-verbal consent, such as a nod, is acceptable under the law, but because the law’s text requires consent to be “ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time,” the likelihood that a university could determine signals were misinterpreted is high.

That’s because the law gives no due process rights to the accused. It requires universities provide accusers (labeled “victims,” which itself suggests a bias) with counseling services, but doesn’t offer any services for the accused.

The law also codifies the “preponderance of evidence” standard for campus disciplinary proceedings instead of the “without a reasonable doubt” criminal standard. This is a low threshold for establishing guilt and means that a panel of campus advisers has to be just 50.01 percent sure the accuser is telling the truth.

Read the rest HERE