How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State
Other Great FindsRepresenting Yourself in Court
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Sunday, March 18, 2012
How the State is Also Responsible for the Powell Tragedy
The tragic death of the two Powell children warrants scrutiny in that little was done to prevent the children from being placed in harm’s way. They were removed from their father at the first whiff of suspicion (which is illegal) and thereafter used as pawns by many adults and the state to pursue their own goals, ultimately placing the boys in grave danger.
When Steve Powell, Josh’s father, was arrested, Chuck Cox, Josh’s father-in-law, seized custody of the children. Josh “temporarily” lost custody and the police, prosecutors and Chuck Cox started working together using the children to provoke him. Was this in the best interest of the children? We think not.
We now had a custody battle being exploited by the police to advance their investigation, and an investigation that was being exploited by Chuck Cox in a custody dispute. It was a double-pronged assault on Josh Powell, deliberately affecting his state of mind, and using the children as the primary weapon.
How did this situation go so horribly wrong?
First, the police and prosecutor shouldn’t have been involved in the custody case. Josh Powell was charged with no crimes in relation to his father’s arrest and it was highly inappropriate to use the custody issue to pressure him in an unrelated matter.
Secondly, if the state were to remove custody, handing the children over to their grandfather, rather than being placed in neutral foster care, was an enormous mistake. Chuck Cox immediately began trying to turn the children into state’s witnesses against Josh Powell in his wife’s disappearance. His feud with Josh should have been reason enough to keep him away from the kids, but he was working with the cops, and they pushed the issue aided and abetted by Judge Kathryn Nelson in Pierce County, and the always accommodating broadcast media.
Finally, ordering the “psychosexual exam” went too far and Judge Nelson who ordered it was a coward. Josh Powell may have been a murderer, but there was no direct evidence to suggest he was a pedophile.
It was just another pressure tactic, again using the children as the excuse, and the humiliation of the test was virtually guaranteed to create a great deal of anger. Having no evidence, the police did everything they could to create an explosive situation, trying to elicit a confession, and they were using the children as the lever.
The pleadings of Sheriff Paul Pastor of Pierce County and the county prosecutor, Mark Lindquist, in one sentence convict Josh Powell of murder, and in the next admit they know nothing about the investigation, but hey, they both got their mugs on the television.
Sometimes when you put enormous pressure on people, they snap, and sometimes you might want them to snap. But when you push them right up to the brink of sanity, and involve innocent children, you bear enormous responsibility for what occurs.
As soon as the state started using the children in the Powell case, it took on some responsibility for their fate. Unfortunately, given contemporary family law, children have become an accepted tool used by the state. If the police had not chosen to use the children in their murder investigation, thus putting them in an explosive situation, they would be alive today.
Josh Powell deserves no sympathy at this point. No doubt, some will exploit this tragedy to their utmost ability to make the situation even more difficult for parents than it already is. I would suggest, however, that this tragic situation should cause some evaluation by the state and some introspection by family law practitioners that pushing parents to the breaking point is not in the best interests of our children.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
AUSTIN, Texas (AVfM) Legislators have changed a law that prevented victims of paternity fraud from challenging child support obligations. The landmark legislation took six years and three congressional sessions to complete.
According to the old Texas law, a man is legally a father if any child is born during his marriage, regardless of whether he is or isn’t the biological father. This resulted in many men paying child support after a divorce for children that were a product of their wife’s infidelity.
No genetic test was required to establish paternity. If fact, paternity tests proving no biological connection between the legal father and the child were considered irrelevant to the issue of child support.
Under the old Texas law, he was forced to support that child financially, and had no course of action to terminate the parent-child relationship even though he was a proven victim of paternity fraud.
The new law changes all this. It allows men to use the results of a genetic test to prove they are not fathers, and to petition Texas courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and child support. Courts will now be mandated to terminate child support orders and end legal sanctions against the victims of paternity fraud.
The law includes a grace period until September of 2012 for men who were victims of paternity fraud to make their cases before the court. Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud after September 1, 2012 will have one year from the time of discovery to petition the courts.
The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.
NICE! Only 49 more states to go! Of course, my cynical side says; "Let;s wait and see if it is upholded AND ENFORCED. Then I'll do the crabby dance!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Action Updates, Featured
Kellett steps in it, big time
As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.
A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.
But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.
Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.
Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.
This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:
“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.
The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.
“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.
Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.
Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.
Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.
There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.
There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.
It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.
The time for action is now.
On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.
I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.
I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.
Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.
Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, and I mean NOW.
Contact Maine’s State Attorney General
Contact Governor Paul LePage
Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano
Reprinted with permission from Paul Elam of A Voice for Men
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
August 9, 2011
Manuel Dexter Via A Voice for Men
Letter to a Friend at War
This is a letter written for a personal friend of Manuel Dexter. The man to whom this is written is presently entangled in what is turning out to be a nasty divorce. He is a decent, honest man who unfortunately has not yet taken what we call in the MRM world, “the red pill.” As the author of this piece I have replaced personal references with nonspecific place holders for two reasons; to protect the identity of my friend, and so that others still living in a blue pill reality may hopefully benefit from the story.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Personally I would like to thank Miss Shannon Dingee-Kramer for working this out with Paul and giving a sincere apology for her actions. Thank you Miss Dingee-Kramer.
Here is Paul explaining it all;
Well gents and ladies, it has been a most interesting evening. Grab yourself a cuppa and listen to what you, MRM loyalists, did.
Just about two hours ago I got off the phone with Shannon Dingee-Kramer, the director of customer relations and operations for BlogTalk Radio.
The short version of that talk is that we are back in business at BTR, with an apology for the interruption but the details of the conversation are what you will find most interesting.
The program was interrupted by a complaint about something I said on the air on 6/28/11, in the episode entitled FTSU Big Time. I said, and the quote is approximate, regarding the debut of register-her.com, “Now, if Mary Jane Rottencrotch decides to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence in order to get the upper hand in a divorce, we can publish all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number…even her routes to and from work.”
This remark elicited a complaint to BTR, from an unnamed individual. I asked if it was Jessica Valenti and was told by Dingee-Kramer that she did not know.
I asked because it was immediately after that broadcast that Valenti was caught tweeting her followers, looking for advice on how to erase her existence off the internet.
Apparently the tough as milquetoast creator of Friday Feminist Fuck You is just a scared little girl when someone fights back.
In the next part of the conversation we covered what should have been obvious from the outset. I was making a rhetorical, hypothetical remark about the possibilities of what we could do, using a fictitious character in the process.
Dingee-Kramer’s reaction to the complaint was impulsive and thoughtless for sure.
I threatened no one, speaking only in the realm of possibilities, and the reaction should never have happened. And as anyone visiting register-her.com can see, there is no personal address of anyone listed on that site, much less their routes to and from employment or anywhere else.
No one named Rottencrotch either.
To her credit, that was precisely Dingee-Kramer’s after-the-fact assessment of her own decision, and why she offered what appeared to be a sincere apology.
She also reinstated AVfM Radio while we were on the phone together.
Her explanation of what happened centered around her assertion that they were very short staffed when the complaint came in and that she made a decision spontaneously, without diligent investigation.
All because someone complained about what I said, alleging it was a real threat against an actual human being.
In short, just another feminist telling a lie. And someone else who bought into it without thinking.
Truth tell, I liked speaking with Dingee-Kramer. She was personable, accountable and shared with me that she visited register-her.com and is “100% supportive” of what we are doing there, also relating her feeling that women in this culture can “fall into a bucket of poop and come out of it smelling like a rose.”
It appears she is familiar with the pussy pass.
Jared White recently posted an excellent article on this site, “And then they fight us…”
Of course the partial quote is from Ghandi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
And now, gents and ladies, they are fighting us. And we are winning.
Dingee-Kramer also shared with me that they had been getting a high volume of “hate mail” from fans of AVfM Radio.
People, that was not hate; that was your VOICE. And the world is starting to listen to it. I have absolutely no doubt – NONE - that you broadcasting your righteous outrage crushed the feminist lie and set us back on course.
BTR listened to you.
Oh, and so did Mary Kellett and the Ultimate Men’s Summit and the Bangor Daily News.
And you can bet your ass that no matter how silent they are around AVfM Radio, the feminist hate mongers are listening to you as well.
And it is eating them alive. Too bad for them it only gets worse from there.
Let me tell you what the net result was of a feminist lodging that false complaint against us. We got an apology and a high ranking staff member of BTR that is going to screen future complaints (and they will get them) a lot more carefully and thoughtfully.
We got Bob O’Hara, a respected and competent MRA to volunteer to be the first AVfM News Director. We got yet another technical expert who will be working henceforth with JtO on register-her.com.
We now have Nergal as our new volunteer coordinator to help us organize talent and resources that we can use to keep upping the ante.
We got some badly needed donations that will now allow us acquire VPS services for AVfM for at least the next year AND a damn good start on what I need to build or buy the serious hardware I need to take this to the next level.
All these things became a part of the chain of events because one feminist told a lie and the real MRA’s, all of you, decided they were not going to take it laying down.
Then they fight you, then you win.
Then. you. win.
So to Valenti, or whoever the feminist bonehead was who tried to take us down with one of your filthy lies, THANKS! Please listen to the newly invigorated AVfM Radio more in the future. Contact BTR with phony complaints as often as possible (and for you that is very, very often). We will be back on the air with a Jessica Valenti Special on August 2, 2o11.
Another dozen false allegations and AVfM will get a 50,000 watt radio station.
But seriously, to readers and listeners of AVfM, take a moment after reading this and consider you just dealt a significant blow to the hateful ideologues that want to continue their war on men and boys with your complicit silence.
Look back on the things that have happened just at this website in the past year, from the New York Times to launching our own radio program, to BENEFITTING from the attacks on us.
And then imagine where we will be and what we will be doing a year from now.
These people are not invincible. They are vulnerable, simple minded bigots, and we are going to take them all down.
Again, thanks Miss Miss Dingee-Kramer, and thank you all for what I would gather was a rather large amount of angry emails. You done good!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
In Paul Elam's own words;
I suppose it actually was inevitable.
I just received an email from an AVfM Radio listener informing me that the show has disappeared from the BlogTalk Radio website. Sure enough, an attempt on my part to log on just produced a message that my account there has been disabled.
And of course I found out in the predictable way. No notification, no warnings, no nothing. Just zap, you’re gone.
Typical of the times. Typical of corporate scumbags.
I wonder if they think this is going to shut us up?
Take heart, friends, we are temporarily down but hardly out.
I actually figured out after starting the broadcast out of BTR that there are much more cost effective options out there that do not put me at the mercy of pro feminist corporate forces.
We will be back on the air the MRA way. On our own.
It will take a little time. I need to press BTR for the refund and then sort through the equipment and learning curve for the new set up.
My genuine impression of all this?
Fuck ‘em. There will be much more powerful entities than BTR that will try to shut me down before this is over with. Fuck them, too.
Recently our friend Harry posted that there was a need for a certain amount of MRA’s that were willing to be somewhat vicious in order to push for changes. I could not agree more, and I will add one to that.
Some of us are willing to be more than that.
There are only two circumstances that can possibly result in my being silenced.
Justice or death.
Anyone thinks I am kidding is a fool.
Now, I have an article to finish that I started before this minor inconvenience happened.
Effing pathetic eh?
Don't worry folks, AVfM may be silent for a few, but not permanently! Paul and crew (all those involved in the show in some form or other - including folks who donated) will be back... Even Stronger!
Here is Uncle Bern showing his indignation on this.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
--How's THAT for a 'sentence' eh?--
Anyhow, this new site, called REGISTER-HER.COM, while having some slight overlap with such great sites like The False Rape Society, will cover an abundence of female perps. From rapists to peados, False acusers to murderers... REGISTER-HER.COM will have it all.
Check it out. And don't forget, as Brother Paul says, take the red pill!
Saturday, June 18, 2011
And we all stand by to jump into the fight in form of a full on assault when the moment is right. The mainstream media will not announce the moment for us. We do not have a general to call us to action. But we will know.
Along the way, there are moments and actions that remind us that the fight is still there, is still worth facing, and that our moment of truth and action will come.
Tom Bell reminds us. I am compelled to post in honor of Tom Ball. He fought the good fight. His actions were in the end extreme but he harmed no one. His analysis of the system that destroyed him is accurate. He has left behind a testament to the beast created within our legal institutions.
To read of his actions, go here: http://www.thedailyholden.com/Articles-c-2011-06-17-78443.113122-Holden-man-sets-himself-ablaze-in-front-of-New-Hampshire-Courthouse.html
To read his testament, go here: http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html#
I look forward to the day when we no longer need people like Tom Ball on the front lines of this fight.
Monday, September 27, 2010
And although life is still getting in the way, I felt it prudent to take a few moments to post - for no other reason but to prompt like-minded folks about an idea from a gent that a good many of you are well aware of already. Our own Bernard Chapin, of Chapin’s Inferno.
“Uncle Bern” has put the word out - about a new Facebook group (I know, I know, I hate that damned thing too but...) called The Men's Voting block.
The goals of this new group are simple and outlined as four “planks”. But, instead of attempting to explain them here, I’ll let “Uncle Bern” do it though his YouTube video located here;
We need unity men. We need to get behind someone - or at least behind an idea from someone - that will ensure our voices are heard. I think that Bernard’s attempt here is as good as any place to start.
So, let’s get to it men! Get on your face book accounts and join in! Bernard’s goal is to get 10,000 members. Sounds daunting at first, but I think it is quite possible when you think about how many MRA/FRA’s are out there. Even if you are not an MRA/FRA but agree with the premise that men are being marginalized by today’s socialistic climate, then join in!
Here is the link to the Facebook group;
You have your orders men!
Saturday, May 01, 2010
A little old but still relevant.
American University, Washington D.C. –An opinion piece on Campus censorship in the campus rag The Eagle has turned into a full blown media circus. The Washington City Paper was first to pick up the firestorm, with FOX, NBC, and now CBS’s The Early Show climbing onboard.What’s the entire hubbub about? What’s the big deal about some college kid writing an article for the University’s paper you ask? By now, you have undoubtedly heard of Alex Knepper. If not, read further.
In his initial piece titled Dealing with AU’s Anti-sex Brigade, Alex commented on how “Jeremiah Headen likely lost the vice presidency of the Student Government over a hyperbolic Facebook note.” The comment? An all-caps final sentence “call to raid booty and women from neighboring villages”.
Alex couldn’t see what the issue was. In his opinion, it was most assuredly a “silly” comment, but it really had nothing to do with the content of the total writing.
In his own words, Alex states:
“The comments on The Eagle’s Web site, mostly by Gay Party activists and feminists, condemned Headen for being an “anti-queer misogynist” and for undermining American University’s commitment to being “safe space” for the “gay community.” He was also rebuked for using the term “hermaphrodite” instead of “intersex.”
What a sniveling bunch of emotional cripples! I have never encountered a more insular, solipsistic view of human sexuality than at this college. The rigidity of Pat Robertson has nothing on feminism.”
Knepper further opines on the feminist dogma of “social construct” and the religious like fanaticism with such gems as “Sex isn’t about contract-signing. It’s about spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender). Feminism envisions a bedroom scene in which two amorphous, gender-neutral blobs ask each other “Is this OK with you?” before daring to move their lips any lower on the other’s body.”.
As with anyone that challenges feminism or gays, Alex states that “For my pro-sex views, I am variously called a misogynist, a rape apologist and — my personal favorite — a “pro-date rape protofascist.””
Knepper’s words hit a feverous pitch with his opinion on the feminist Holy Grail, rape. In an attempt to put his prose into prospective, he states;
“Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.
“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!”
One would expect that with his creative words to define feminists and feminist ideology with lines like “Put down the Andrea Dworkin and embrace the fires of sexuality!” he would garner a few dissenting tongue lashings in the comment section, but you would be wrong.
At last view, over seven hundred comments to date is a telling indicator of the can of worms Knepper has opened. At one point, the comments section was closed (somewhere around six hundred) due to issues with “personal attacks” and “threats”. Considering that Knepper was attacked and labeled a ‘rape apologist”, conservative, and in need of psychiatric help, all in the second comment alone, it is no wonder that Alex responded in the third and fourth comment stating;
“Believe it or not, this column went through about five edits to remove remarks deemed too inflammatory.” And “Also, I am not a “conservative” and do not want my viewpoints associated with it.”
Reading further, Knepper is additionally labeled with such shaming words as misogynist, woman hater, metapod, a-hole, insensitive, and the coup de gras, he has ugly cats.
On April 1st 2010, Alex responded to his critics via opt-ed in the Newsbusters titled “Sex, Lies, and Media Bias: A Chronicle of Censorship in Campus”. No, he did not offer up an apology. Nor did he retract his statements. He merely, as with any good journalist, fledgling or not, offered up an explanation, within a chronology of sorts.
The first indication that Knepper had opened the preverbal can of worms was a call on Monday afternoon by Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper. Hess was calling to inquire as to Knepper’s feelings on the fact that hard copies of The Eagle had been gathered up, replaced with signs stating "NO ROOM FOR RAPE APOLOGISTS" and thrown back at the main office of The Eagle.
Upon further investigation, Knepper discovered that members of the cultural-Marxist campus "social justice" organization called Community Action and Social Justice (CASJ) and Women's Initiative were responsible.
Knepper finds this both confusing and humorous. For removing information from public consumption that one doesn’t like is exactly what he was initially speaking of – censorship.
Described as a “classical liberal”, Alex states that the article was “designed to elicit strong responses and spur a spirited debate. But the reaction from the campus left, and feminist groups in particular, has been simply beyond the pale of reasoned debate and does a supreme disservice to the notion of a liberal education. It is an attempt at de facto censorship.”
That evening the CASJ held a special meeting to discuss the “Alex Knepper Question”. Knepper felt that it would be prudent for him to attend along with the thirty or so people – to hear what they had to say and even to answer questions.
Immediately upon arrival, an organizer approached Knepper and asked him to leave for “safety reasons” Alex responded, “Do you think I'm going to hurt someone?” To which she responded: "I think you've hurt enough people already." An attendee, Knepper claims is a feminist, identified herself as a rape victim and asked him to look her in the eyes and tell her that she deserved to be raped. Knepper writes, “Almost in disbelief I told her calmly that this of course was not the case.”
As the meeting progressed, Knepper discovered just how adamant the feminist and CASJ members were about this being a political “talking point” and that someone had to pay, specifically Alex Knepper. Ideological political pressure was abounding.The meeting was filled with questions as to how the editors (women) could allow such a ‘pro-rape’ column to be published, what they had to say to all rape victims, and whether or not Knepper was to be fired.
Within the next 24-hours, the attendees had constructed a list of demands which consisted of firing Alex, print the Sexual Harassment code in the next publication, apologize for the column, removal of the column from the archives, and the resignation of the Editor-in-Chief. Additionally what Knepper found to be odd was that many of the students that under normal circumstances could care less about the paper were also rallying to “take it back”. Admittedly, Knepper doesn’t expound on what “take it back” actually refers to.
In true fashion, Knepper was asked to resign his position. He responded; “I'd sooner be fired than send the message that CASJ has a free-reigning veto over the rest of the campus' behavior.”
In the end – of this chapter anyhow, Knepper has agreed to finish out the semester with The Eagle and to not apply for the columnist position next semester. An agreement he willingly accepted since he was told that new editorial policies would be put in place to “weed out provocative columns”. Again, censorship, the point of Alex Knepper’s articles all along. And something that Alex could not sanction. At the time of this article, The Eagle has suspended all opinion pieces and issued an apology which can be read here.
Knepper cannot decide if the main stream media is indeed bias or stupid but it would appear that the coverage of his statements is out of context. His interviews with NBC, CBS, and ABC have all been shot and he has seemingly seen the to-be-aired version and he claims that they edited the interviews in such a manor that alters the context of what he actually stated.
IF anything comes from this Alex admits that “the fight against campus Stalinism will proceed -- and as more and more media pick up on this, the more we can expose what's happening on college campuses all over America.”
Alex’s Original Article:
The "Apology" from the Eagle:
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Ricardo Martinez is a father. Not unlike many fathers in the 21st century, he is divorced and a father who relishes what little time he is allowed to spend with his children, yet he aches for more.
Although the court has given Martinez ‘joint custody’ of his six and seven-year-old sons, that doesn’t mean he actually gets them fifty-percent of the time. What it really means is that he sees his boys Wednesdays and the occasional weekends, an amount of time he says is not nearly enough.
Martinez adds, “I'd rather be at home with my sons enjoying them," he said. "I've already missed ... years of their lives." That's why he walks; bearing a 12-foot wooden cross - Similarly to that of Jesus Christ of the Christian faith.
Martinez claims that he is carrying the cross to call attention to the plight of fathers that deserve to see their children but are vilified in family court. An apparently religious man, Martinez uses the cross to symbolizing his plight: He states; “As people hurt Christ he too has been hurt and as Christ died for his children Martinez too would do anything for his”.
To exemplify his religious and paternal convictions, he also wears a sign which states, "The question isn't what will he do for his children.” “The question is what wouldn't he do for his children."
Admittedly unemployed, Martinez states that while many show support for his cause, there are those that are insensitive and cruel stating he should get a job or a life. One man stopped and shared his similar plight of child custody while others have stated they are glad that he is standing up for his children.
Ricardo Martinez is an activist of sorts; he is and will always be, a father first. While Martinez is well aware that his activism will most certainly not change his case, he walks to create awareness of future fathers and children.
Friday, February 19, 2010
You want activism? You want to get involved? You wanna blame feminism? All feminists? Just some? Why not blame the feminists (or supporters) that feed bogus information to those that make policy and law? Well, here is your chance.
Welmer over at The Spearhead gives you a great place to start! Here is THE list of all lists!
This list contains most, if not all of the femikook and mangina types that are making men's lives miserable via policy and/or law.
Get them damned pens (keys) ah movin! Share this list! Share it far and wide! if anything, share The Spearhead URL with other MRA/FRA's!
Meet Your Oppressors
Are you one of the millions of men who has seen his life crumble under the treads of the family law system? Did you ever wonder why hatred and abuse directed toward men was so prevalent in school? Maybe you’re an employer who got screwed in a sexual harassment lawsuit, or an employee who was falsely accused.
Maybe your wife had an affair, then received your house plus a hefty alimony judgment and now lives there with her new boyfriend.
After facing terrible injustice, you can’t imagine who would ever create this monstrous, oppressive system that has driven you to ruin and despair. You look around, but you have no idea who is to blame.
Look no more, because The Spearhead has come upon a neatly compiled list of people who are directly responsible for your pain and suffering. Yes, the people listed below are proud to be the source of your affliction, and broadcast their efforts to ruin the lives of more men from their lecterns in our nation’s institutes of higher learning. They write law, indoctrinate students, influence judges, serve as legal advisors to organizations such as NOW, and generally put a great deal of effort into beating down men with the law.
Of course, the following list is not comprehensive, but it’s a good start. It shows where they work, and has links to CVs that detail their experience and affiliations. Those who are interested in activism can use the info to protest the nearest school, or if they are alumni to demand an explanation for why the school is promoting sexist, misandrist female supremacists.
These lists are golden for political purposes, as cross-referencing can easily identify associations that are dedicated to feminism, allowing us to identify enemies and their allies as well as their opponents. They should be widely distributed so that plenty of people can use them.
Albany Law School
American University Washington College of Law
Billie Jo Kaufman
Christine Haight Farley
Nancy D. Polikoff
Boston University School of Law
Brigham Young University School of Law
Bristol Law School
Brooklyn Law School
California Western School of Law
Chapman University School of Law
Francine J. Lipman
City University of New York
Rebecca M. Bratspies
Cleveland State University College of Law
Lolita Buckner Inniss
Columbia Law School
Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
Marcia L. McCormick
Drexel University College of Law
David S. Cohen
Duke University School of Law
Elon University School of Law
Eric M. Fink
Emory University School of Law
Florida Coastal School of Law
Florida International University College of Law
Cyra Akila Choudhury
David D. Walter
Florida State University College of Law
Faye E. Jones
Fordham Law School
George Washington University Law School
Georgetown University Law Center
Golden Gate University School of Law
Gonzaga University School of Law
Mary Pat Treuthart
Hamline University School of Law
Marie A. Failinger
Tom I. Romero
Harvard Law School
Hofstra University School of Law
Elizabeth M. Glazer
Humbolt University Berlin Law Faculty
Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law
Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Susan H. Williams
Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis
Jennifer A. Drobac
John Marshall Law School
Susan L. Brody
Lewis & Clark Law School
Louisiana State University Law Center
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
M. Isabel Medina
Marquette University Law School
Andrea K. Schneider
Jessica E. Price
Lisa Mazzie Hatlen
Michigan State University College of Law
Cynthia Lee Starnes
Kristi L. Bowman
Melanie B. Jacobs
New York Law School
Ann F. Thomas
William P. LaPiana
New York University School of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
Elizabeth L. Inglehart
Ohio State University College of Law
Pace Law School
Alexander K.A. Greenawalt
Andrew C.W. Lund
Emily Gold Waldman
Janet A. Johnson
Leslie Yalof Garfield
Margaret M. Flint
Marie Stefanini Newman
Pennsylvania State University
Rutgers University School of Law – Camden
Rutgers University School of Law – Newark
Suzanne A. Kim
Santa Clara University School of Law
Margaret M. Russell
Stephanie M. Wildman
Seattle University School of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
Rachel D. Godsil
South Texas College of Law
Southern Methodist University School of Law
Rose Cuison Villazor
Southwestern Law School
Sung Hui Kim
St. Thomas University School of Law
Stanford Law School
State University of New York at Buffalo
Athena D. Mutua
Stetson University College of Law
Suffolk University Law School
Frank Rudy Cooper
Kate Nace Day
Syracuse University College of Law
Kevin Noble Maillard
Temple University School of Law
Texas Southern University School of Law
Deana Pollard Sacks
Texas Tech University School of Law
Jennifer S. Bard
The University of Chicago
Mary Anne Case
Thomas Cooley Law School
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Meredith R. Miller
Tracy L. McGaugh
Tulane University Law School
University of Alabama School of Law
Kimberly Ann Bart
Montré D. Carodine
University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law
Theresa M. Beiner
University of Baltimore School of Law
University of British Columbia Faculty of Law
Susan B. Boyd
University of California at Irvine School of Law
Dan L. Burk
University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall
University of California Davis School of Law
Lisa R. Pruitt
University of California Hastings College of Law
University of Cincinnati College of Law
University of Colorado School of Law
University of Dayton School of Law
Vernellia R. Randall
University of Denver College of Law
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Julie St. John
University of Florida College of Law
Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol
University of Houston Law Center
Nancy B. Rapoport
University of Idaho College of Law
Elizabeth B. Brandt
University of Illinois College of Law
Sara R. Benson
University of Kansas School of Law
University of Kentucky School of Law
Sarah N. Welling
University of Louisville School of Law
University of Manitoba Faculty of Law
Jennifer L. Schulz
University of Maryland School of Law
Martha M. Ertman
University of Miami School of Law
Caroline Mala Corbin
University of Michigan Law School
University of Minnesota Law School
Dan L. Burk
Mary Louise Fellows
University of Missouri-Kansas City
University of Nebraska College of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
University of New Mexico School of Law
Margaret E. Montoya
University of North Carolina School of Law
University of Oregon School of Law
University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Anita L. Allen-Castellitto
Anne E. Kringel
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
University of San Diego School of Law
University of San Francisco School of Law
University of South Carolina School of Law
Danielle R. Holley-Walker
Kim Diana Connolly
University of Southern California Law School
Mary L. Dudziak
University of Tennessee College of Law
Becky L. Jacobs
Joan MacLeod Heminway
University of the Pacific School of Law
Miriam A. Cherry
University of Toledo College of Law
University of Victoria Faculty of Law
University of Virginia School of Law
Vanderbilt University Law School
Beverly I. Moran
Vermont Law School
Villanova University School of Law
Michelle Madden Dempsey
Wake Forest University School of Law
Margaret H. Taylor
Washington & Lee University School of Law
Susan D Franck
Washington University in St. Louis
Wayne State University Law School
Linda M. Beale
Western New England College Law School
Willamette University College of Law
William and Mary Law School
William Mitchell College of Law
Again, I take zero credit, none, nunka for this great list. All kudos go to Welmer over at The Spearhead.
And the 64K question of the day is...
Notice anything odd about this list? Anyone? Beauller?
Saturday, February 06, 2010
MRA John Dias of Misandryreview.com has put together a sterling collection of animated banners to get the word out all over the blogosphere about the upcoming Symposium on Male Studies.
Choose one or two of these banners an place them on your home page. Write other MRM bloggers and ask them to join you.
Do the same with other blogs that are political in nature, or educational, or religious. They need not be MRA oriented to understand the value of the OSI objective.
In an act as simple as putting a banner on a website, you can help spread this critical message across the MRA world and beyond in these last 8 weeks before the conference. Oh, and once you have the banner installed on your site, go ahead and click through and register for the online stream of the conference. It will be the best $15.00 you spend this year.
After two weeks have passed, if you see a men’s rights website or blog that does not have one of these banners, please write them respectfully and ask them why they aren’t supporting the greatest opportunity in forty years to further the cause of men and boys.
And if your next move is not to grab a banner and the URL from this page, the allow me to ask respectfully:
What are you waiting for?
Just click through any of the four images located HERE to see the full animated version and to download. Be sure to direct them only to:
Thank you in advance for getting on board to make this a success.
TMOTS Says: Ditto!