High school student trolls feminists into exposing their bigotry

We hear it all the time: feminism is about equality. Feminists do not hate anyone. They want to bring everyone together.

Anyone who spends enough time around feminists knows that this proves to be untrue rather quickly. While all feminists are not unhinged bigots, a significant portion of feminists are intolerant of contrary views. The moment someone expresses a disagreement, these feminists will attack. It typically does not take much to get that response. One high school student proved this point:

Kerby Martin, a high school junior from Cypress, Texas, had been working on a school essay about several myths pushed by feminists about gender inequality, specifically focusing on how third-wave feminism only divides people. So, she tweeted out a picture of herself in an anti-feminist shirt that read “#Meninist” to prove that third-wave feminists were only tolerant towards liberals. Within hours, she was proven right.

She tweeted out the picture of the shirt on Wednesday.

Within minutes she received more than 200 negative responses. Martin told Red Alert Politics that liberals started threatening to egg her car, wishing she’d learn her lesson by getting raped, or telling her to die.

Who did not see that coming? Continue reading

Indian police charge 12 year old with rape for getting an 18 year old girl pregnant

India proves yet again that it is a terrible place for male rape victims. In case that I cannot begin to explain, Indian police charged a 12 year old boy with rape after an 18 year girl gave birth at a hospital:

Kalamassery police have registered a case against a 12-year-old boy and a private hospital here after an 18-year-old girl gave birth to a baby.

While the boy was booked under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for allegedly impregnating the girl two months before she turned 18, the hospital was charged for breaching the POCSO Act by not informing the police.

According to the Juvenile Justice Act, the boy faces a potential three in prison for:

[…] having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering […]

If it seems like you are missing something, you are not alone. I looked up as many articles about this case as I could find, and not one of them explained how anyone determined that the 12 year old fathered the child, let alone why he and not the girl was held responsible. This was the best explanation: Continue reading

Friendship, entitlement, and feminism

What happens when you want to be friends with someone who wants a romantic relationship?

If you are a mature adult, you explain to the person that you only want to be friends and you make an effort to keep the friendship simple so as to not send misleading signals that you may change your mind.

Or you can complain about how friend-zoning is not and rant about how horrible men are for disliking rejection.

Vice published an article in which the feminist author skewered men over the notion of the friend-zone. She claims that it “isn’t a thing”. She attempts to dismantle the idea and take men to task. Instead, she reveals her own sense of entitlement and how ideology blinds one to seeing and understanding other people’s experiences. Continue reading

Britain to implement pre-trial testimony for rape cases

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The above is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. It exists to protect those accused of crimes from being forced to prove their innocence. It is the cornerstone of US law. No one can be compelled to testify against himself. No one can be compelled to testify in his defense. No one can be charged for the same crime twice.

This is followed by the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, this is a fundamental part of the US legal process. No one can be held for long periods of time while awaiting trial (although this is violated frequently with high-profile, juvenile, and murder cases). No one can be prosecuted without being informed of the charges. Most importantly, no one can be tried without knowing who accused him and having the chance to question the accuser.

The right to cross-examination is important because it allows the defendant to challenge the accuser’s credibility directly. The legal definition explains the logic behind this:

[a] court practice, the part of a case, whether civil or criminal, where evidence is elicited from the other side’s witness. Thus, the defence will cross-examine the investigating police officers after the prosecutor has conducted the examination in chief It serves two functions:

(1) to test the veracity of the witness and the accuracy of the evidence;
(2) to obtain evidence on points on which he has not been questioned in chief and which may support the cross-examiner’s case. Failure to cross-examine on any matter generally implies acceptance of evidence on that point.

That is the purpose of the cross-examination. So when I see an effort in Britain to get rid due process and cross-examination in rape cases, I am reminded why the colonists decided to go their own way. Continue reading

Ontario court finds lying about taking the pill is A-okay

Oh,  Canada. The phrase takes on a different meaning considering how often the Canadian government screws over its citizens. In their latest instance of legal stupidity, a court ruled that lying about taking birth control is not grounds for a lawsuit:

In upholding an earlier ruling on the case, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the woman’s behaviour was not enough to open her up to the man’s highly unusual claim for damages.

“I see no basis on which to impose liability on the mother for any net negative impact (he) may consider that he has suffered due to his having fathered the child,” Justice Paul Rouleau wrote for the court.

That is right. Tricking a man into parenthood and essentially raping him by deceiving him into giving consent under false pretenses should result in zero liability. Go on and lie to get someone to have sex with you. Go on and get pregnant and later sue the man for child support. This is apparently legal in Canada.

As the Justice explained:

Allowing the father to recover damages from the mother for the unwanted birth would run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another, Rouleau said.

That is interesting considering that Canada allows mothers sue sperm donors years after insemination, despite the obvious intent of the man to never have any financial or physical responsibility for the child.

Would that not “run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another”? Or does this only apply to men?

The situation in the current case is simple: the woman claimed she was on birth control and the pair had unprotected sex. After they broke up, the woman texted the man (because calling him would have been too hard) to tell him she was pregnant.

The man sued the woman:

for more than $4 million for fraudulent misrepresentation, arguing he suffered emotional harm from his unplanned parenthood. He claimed DD’s deception over her use of the pill had deprived him of the benefit of choosing when and with whom he would become a dad.

“He wanted to meet a woman, fall in love, get married, enjoy his life as husband with his wife and then, when he and his wife thought the time was ‘right,’ to have a baby,” PP said in his statement of claim.

The $4 million suit is ridiculous as it would never be paid. However, given what the man would pay for child support, the amount seems rather tame. And make no mistake, the same system ignoring this clear act of deception would have no problem forcing the man to pay for the child.

In January last year, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell struck the claim without a hearing on its merits after deciding PP had no legal grounds to sue. Perell also banned publication of the couple’s names to protect the child, who might one day discover the “salacious and ignobly pleaded” facts of the case.

Or rather, the judge banned the release of the mother’s name to protect her in case she attempts to rape another man via deception to get pregnant.

Essentially, Perell ruled that fraudulent misrepresentation could only give rise to a claim for financial damages —not for emotional distress. He also decided any emotional harm PP suffered did not amount to a personal injury.

How does discovering you are an unexpected father via deception not cause financial damages? As I noted, this woman is likely to sue for child support. Does that not count?

Secondly, how does one not suffer personal injury from emotional harm? Are one’s emotions not part of a person? Would not damage to one’s emotions damage one’s person? Or does the judge mean physical injury? Is emotional damage prohibited in civil suits?

The judge did concede that the deception was tantamount to rape, but argued that this was immaterial because the suit was about unwanted parenthood.

The man appealed the decision, arguing:

On appeal, PP argued among other things that he should at least have been allowed to take his novel claim to trial, and that he should have been allowed to assert that the unwanted child would harm him financially.

The Appeal Court, however, found that a fraud that causes no loss cannot give rise to a lawsuit for damages, and that PP’s emotional distress didn’t count as a loss. It also said he suffered no physical injury or “pathological” emotional harm.

“The damages consist of the appellant’s emotional upset, broken dreams, possible disruption to his lifestyle and career, and a potential reduction in future earnings, all of which are said to flow from the birth of a child he did not want,” the Appeal Court said.

And the fact that this happened as a result of of someone tricking him into unprotected sex simply does not matter. Again, women can sue anonymous sperm donors for child support and win the suit, yet this man cannot even get the court to acknowledge that he is emotionally harmed by being raped by deception and forced into fatherhood. The court took it one step further:

The court, which looked to Britain and the U.S. to find similar cases, also ruled that DD’s deception about her use of the pill did not expose PP to the risk of serious physical injury during sex he willingly took part in. As a result, the court said, DD did not violate PP’s right to physical or sexual autonomy that could be viewed as an assault.

Except he only engaged in the sex under the false notion that the woman was taking birth control. This circumvents his sexual autonomy via the lie. He would not have had sex with her if he knew she could get pregnant. The woman lied in order to get him to have sex. What part of that is not a violation of his sexual autonomy?

The panel also trotted out the potential for pregnancy even when taking the pill. While this can happen, the risk is rather low, particularly if the pill is taken regularly. This argument then makes no sense outside of trying to excuse this woman’s behavior.

The reason the court rejected this suit is because the victim is male. If the situation were reversed, the man would be financially liable for claiming he was infertile or had a vasectomy if that proved untrue.

Of course, Canada has a long history of ignoring men’s rights, so the decision, as idiotic as it is, comes as no surprise.

Karen Straughan tackles a one-sided CBC interview about men’s rights

I do enjoy when media outlets bring someone on to discuss an issue the person has zero involvement with. The CBC, Canada’s government funded news organization, invited on professor Rebecca Sullivan to discuss the film The Red Pill. The film was to be screened at the University of Calagary, however, the screening was pulled after the Wildrose On Campus (WROC) “sent out an email inviting people to the screening by saying everyone knows ‘feminism is cancer.'”

The CBC decided to interview Sullivan to get an understanding of the men’s rights movement. They could have interviewed Cassie Jaye or a men’s rights activist, as they would have better knowledge about the subject, but that would be logical. It is instead much better to interview someone abjectly opposed to the men’s rights movement and who has not seen the film. This person would provide the most objective analysis.

Karen Straughan points out the utter inanity of the interview and Sullivan’s points in her recent video. I remain mystified by the feminist response to The Red Pill. I doubt that most of the feminists criticizing the film ever saw it. They certainly do not appear to know the points argued by men’s rights activists in the film. It appears that they are reflexively attacking the film because it does not attack the men’s rights movement. Continue reading

Bulletin Board v303

2 Former Penn State Administrators Plead Guilty To Roles In Abuse Scandal — Two former high-level Penn State administrators pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor charges of child endangerment, for their roles in covering up child sex abuse by disgraced assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Former Vice President Gary Schultz and former Athletic Director Tim Curley each took a plea bargain that — if accepted by the judge — will carry a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As part of the plea bargain, the felony charges they originally faced were reduced to misdemeanors.

Battered Men: The Hidden Hurt — Battered men desperately sought help for years in California, but their efforts consistently fell on deaf ears. It took four battered men and a 2008 lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men for the California Supreme Court to recognize that men are entitled to equal protection and advocacy support from domestic violence shelters. Domestic violence accounts for a surprising proportion of violent crime in the United States. Close to one in six murder victims is killed by an intimate partner. Nearly three-fourths of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner.

Dozens Say Christian Leader Made British Boys ‘Bleed for Jesus’ — Having disclosed his “sin” of masturbation, Mark Stibbe, age 17, was ordered to strip naked and lean over a wooden chair in the garden shed of a lavish Hampshire mansion on the southern coast of England. Then came the first blow from a cane, its impact so ferocious that it sent the boy into a state of paralysis that lasted through at least 30 more strokes that left him collapsed on the floor, blood oozing down his legs. Continue reading