If you don’t stand up to the Thought Police, you are part of the problem

Ashe Schow writes at The Washington Examiner about a Columbia oped editor failing to present all the facts in Emma Sulkowicz’s (the woman who carries her mattress around and was invited to the State of the Union address as a result) rape charge.

A former opinion editor for the Columbia Spectator — Columbia University’s student newspaper — has expressed remorse for not being “thorough and impartial” in reporting stories on sexual assault.

Daniel Garisto, a junior at Columbia College (part of CU), responded to a recent expose in the Daily Beast that provided Paul Nungesser’s account of what happened between him and fellow Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz. Sulkowicz has made numerous media appearances claiming she was hit, choked and raped by Nungesser and is carrying a mattress around campus as an art project and effort to get him to leave the school.

Garisto said he was “perturbed” by the Daily Beast article, because of its claim that Nungesser was found guilty in a “trial-by-media.” He explained his role in telling the stories of accusers in an effort to “promote discourse about sexual assault policy.

“But I think we — not just the opinion page, not just Spec — but we, the members of the campus media, failed specifically with Sulkowicz’s story by not being thorough and impartial,” Garisto wrote.

“Instead, campus media’s goal to promote discussion about sexual assault and to support survivors became conflated with a fear of rigorous reporting,” he added. “Personally, I felt that if I covered the existence of a different perspective — say, that due process should be respected — not only would I have been excoriated, but many would have said that I was harming survivors and the fight against sexual assault.”

Garisto explained that it is difficult to get other perspectives when writing about sexual assault, because the accused aren’t forthcoming — especially when they are still anonymous — and others are afraid to comment for fear of backlash. Garisto himself said he fully expects to receive a backlash just for writing his opinion.

And therein lies the biggest problem in the discussion of campus sexual assault. Activists fighting for a broader definition of consent under which nearly all sex could be considered rape,pushing false statistics, claiming that false accusations are so rare as to never be a concern and shaming anyone who dares tell the other side of the story make it impossible to have a rational discussion about a very serious issue.

Yes, rape happens. Yes, false accusations (and the more blurry wrongful or unproven accusations) happen. Yes, accusers deserve support. Yes, the accused deserve due process.

But the media, as Garisto pointed out, does a disservice to the discussion, accusers and the accused.

“Critical coverage isn’t only for the benefit of the accused, but for the public and the survivors themselves. Thorough and impartial reporting can only serve to validate a survivor’s claims, while biased or incomplete reporting can only serve to fuel doubt and mistrust,” Garisto wrote. “The media helps no one by remaining lax in its coverage.”

Garisto did try to alleviate some of the backlash he will receive by claiming he thinks Nungesser is “probably guilty” —breaking the media ethics he spent so much time addressing. But his overall point remains valid, it is not the media’s responsibility to provide only one side of the issue — that makes real reform that protects the accuser and the accused impossible.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Feminism, marriage and the perpetually adolescent male

From The Washington Times

The effects of the ’60s sexual revolution and subsequent rise of feminism on marriage, unwed childbearing, and single motherhood have been chronicled at length.

But additional attention needs to be paid to the impact of feminism on a large segment of the male population: Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood.

My research indicates that from a low of just over 19 percent in 1966, the proportion of all men ages 20 to 54 who are unmarried is now more than one-half.

Among younger men 20 to 34, more than 70 percent are now unmarried, compared with just under 30 percent in this age group in the mid-1960s at the onset of the sexual revolution.

To hard-core radical feminists, this may represent a positive development—not a bug but a feature, as we say in the computer age.

But to the millions of children growing up in fatherless homes aching for a connection to their biological father, it’s another story altogether, a lonely painful story.

Even liberal scholars have pretty much given up trying to paper over the exorbitant costs and consequences of raising children without a father.

Moreover, while today’s mothers are grateful that their daughters have fewer obstacles to achieving their full potential, they are, nevertheless, concerned about the risks and threats their sons face in an educational system and work-a-day world that devalues masculinity and is slanted against males.

It goes without saying that male-female relationships can be risky; from potential false charges of rape to no-fault divorce, the risks — financial and otherwise — of male/female interactions have become very high indeed.

Thus, year by year more and more younger men whose biological age should normally predispose them to take up the responsibilities of job, wife and family — activities which build society — are occupying themselves with computer games, pornography, hook-ups and otherwise wasting their potential to contribute and help build a future.

The percentage of unmarried males ages 20 to 54 who are not in the labor force has also more than doubled in the last 15 years.

The growth in this trend of young males forfeiting the opportunity/responsibility to contribute to society and living a parasitic existence (along with the associated increases in unwed childbearing and single-mother households) cannot be sustained indefinitely, and must at some point reach an upper limit as the weight of the unproductive becomes too much for society to sustain.

Maureen Dowd noted ten years ago, “Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones . . .” Hillary’s perennial quest for the White House will test whether or not Glenn Reynolds has it right when he looks for a pulse and concludes that “Now the corpse is just twitching.”

It remains to be seen whether either one of them has it completely right.

Even if rigor mortis has not fully set in, there is much to indicate that feminism as an ideological movement is a spent force.

Judging from the popularity of the ABC reality show, “The Bachelor,” it seems man-hating is going out of style and now has limited appeal for women in general, its relevance shrinking primarily to its redoubt in the women’s studies programs in American universities.

That doesn’t, however, mean the bitter consequences of feminism’s corrosive values and myths aren’t going to be around for a long, long time due to policies and laws – like no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act’s mandated campus rape adjudication protocols – that were put in place during feminism’s heyday.

Is there any way forward out of the morals-free morass we have let envelop us in the name of being nonjudgmental?

If, after many generations of totalitarian rule, Communist China and Russia can experience extensive sociocultural and spiritual stirrings, if revival can sweep Africa to the point that Anglicans in the United States are reorganizing under the authority of African bishops, then perhaps, just perhaps it will happen here.

If movie goers are enthralled by the idea of the heroic male depicted in “American Sniper” putting everything on the line to be protector of family and country, and if the most popular advertisements of the Super Bowl this year celebrate fatherhood (Nissan, Toyota and Dove), then there really is a glimmer of hope for America to return to its traditional values.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Columbia Student: “I Didn’t Rape Her”

From The Daily Beast

The Columbia University senior vividly remembers the day, in April 2012, when he received a phone call while working in the school’s digital architecture lab. It was the campus Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct, asking him to come in to talk. At the time, he says, he was not particularly alarmed: “I thought initially that maybe they called me in as a witness.”

Instead, Paul Nungesser, a full-scholarship student from Germany, found himself at the center of a sexual-assault case that would eventually receive national media coverage and attract the attention of politicians and feminist leaders. Nungesser’s accuser, Emma Sulkowicz—famous for carrying her mattress on campus as a symbol of her burden as a victim and a protest against Columbia’s failure to expel the man she calls her rapist—has become the face of the college rape survivors’ movement. Sulkowicz’s protest has garnered her awards from the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation; last month, she attended the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

The story Sulkowicz has told, in numerous media appearances and interviews, is nothing short of harrowing. On Aug. 27, 2012, she has said, a sexual encounter that began as consensual suddenly turned terrifyingly violent: Her partner, a man whom she considered a close friend and with whom she had sex on two prior occasions, began choking and hitting her and then penetrated her anally while she struggled and screamed in pain.

By Sulkowicz’s account, she finally decided to file a complaint within the university system several months later when she heard stories of other sexual assaults by the same man—only to see him exonerated after a shoddy investigation and a hearing at which she was subjected to clueless and insensitive questions. What’s more, charges brought against the man by two other women also ended up being dismissed.

In the coverage of Sulkowicz and her battle for redress, her alleged assailant remained, until recently, a shadowy faceless villain. While Nungesser’s name was first made public in May 2014 after Sulkowicz filed a police report, he did his best to keep a low profile until last December, when he spoke to The New York Times for a story that focused on his and his accusers’ conflicting perceptions of the case and on Nungesser’s pariah status at Columbia.

Now, Nungesser has agreed to speak to The Daily Beast and tell his version of the events. This story, partly backed by materials made public here for the first time and corroborated by a former Columbia graduate student who played a secondary role in the disciplinary process, is dramatically at odds with the prevailing media narrative. On one point, however, Nungesser and his supporters agree with the pro-Sulkowicz camp: A grave injustice has been done.

Seated in the same room where he once received that fateful call, now empty on a non-class day, Nungesser looks back on his relationship with Sulkowicz. They got to know each other in their freshman year, he says, mainly as fellow leaders in the Columbia Outdoor Orientation Program (COÖP), a freshman pre-orientation experience with a focus on outdoor activities.

Sulkowicz also rushed Alpha Delta Phi (ADP), a coed fraternity with a literary and intellectual bent, which Nungesser joined a few months later. By the end of his first year in college in spring 2012, says Nungesser, “we were beginning to develop a very close friendship; it was an intimate friendship where we would hug each other and so on, but always platonic.” That platonic friendship included several sleepovers in Sulkowicz’s room—one of which, he says, eventually turned into a make-out session and ended in sex.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Harvard pushes back against “draconian” sexual harassment policies

From The Wall Street Journal…

The University of Virginia held a two-day conference last February on “Sexual Misconduct Among College Students.” One of the speakers was the Education Department’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Catherine Lhamon, who touted her office’s efforts to compel colleges and universities, under pain of losing federal funds, to adopt draconian policies on sexual harassment and assault.

These policies have raised serious concerns about due process and basic fairness for the accused, and an audience member asked Ms. Lhamon how she planned to deal with such “push-back.” Her reply: “We’ve received a lot of push-back, and we need to push forward notwithstanding.” The recent experience of Harvard Law School demonstrates the value of pushing back.

Both Harvard Law and Harvard College, the university’s undergraduate division, were on the Office of Civil Rights’ list of 55 institutions under investigation for violations of Title IX, the law that is the basis for the OCR’s sexual-misconduct mandate. Effective with the 2014-15 academic year, Harvard’s administration instituted universitywide “Interim Policies and Procedures” designed to satisfy the OCR’s demands.

Most institutions yield to OCR’s pressure without significant dissent. But at Harvard, 28 law professors—including liberal luminaries Elizabeth Bartholet, Alan Dershowitz, Nancy Gertner, Janet Halley, Duncan Kennedy and Charles Ogletree —signed an open letter, published in the Boston Globe, in which they described the new policies and procedures as “inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach.”

Among their complaints: “the absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense”; the designation of a Title IX compliance officer, “rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial,” as investigator, prosecutor and judge; “the failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused,” especially for lower-income students.

The professors also faulted the university for having “apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials,” and law-school administrators listened. They adopted new procedures, independent of the university’s and far friendlier to due process.

Accused students will now have the right to a lawyer and access to financial assistance if they need it. Cases will be adjudicated by an independent panel rather than by the Title IX compliance officer. On Dec. 30 the OCR accepted the new procedures in a settlement agreement with Dean Martha Minow.

The resolution does not address all of the law professors’ concerns. Although the law school has improved its procedures, it is still subject to the university’s policies.

The professors are concerned that these policies define sexual harassment in a way “that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law” and impose “rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated” by alcohol or other drugs, which are “starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents.” Such impairment vitiates an accuser’s consent but is not a defense for the accused.

Dean Minow also agreed to OCR’s demands to modify the procedures in ways that raise further due-process concerns. The law school must include “a statement that complainants have a right to proceed simultaneously with a criminal investigation and a Title IX investigation,” which could make it impossible for an accused student to defend himself in the university proceeding while preserving his right against self-incrimination.

And it must adopt an “explicit prohibition of public hearings in cases involving sexual assault or sexual violence,” so that it will be difficult for the public or the press to monitor the process for abuses.

Still, the law school’s new procedures are a significant improvement over the university’s, and they promise more fairness than the kangaroo-court systems many universities have adopted under OCR pressure. The investigation of Harvard College is still under way, and the university could do far worse than to follow the lead of Harvard Law, the school that pushed back.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The New Rape Rules

From Breitbart

A word of advice, chaps. The next time you head off for a night out on the tiles, don’t forget to take everything you might need with you.

Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly.

Thanks to the newly announced overhaul of how the Crown Prosecution Service should treat rape cases, this is what a typical Friday night out will soon involve for any man who doesn’t fancy facing rape charges the morning after the night before. According to Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the concept of “No means No” just doesn’t hack it anymore.

It turns out that Yes sometimes means No too, particularly when a woman is judged to be too inebriated to be capable of making a conscious decision. If she’s three sheets to the wind, then the new rule is that she is not capable of consenting to get between the sheets.

Even if she has said Yes and has even undressed herself or initiated the sexual advances. Even if she at no point suggested she had changed her mind or asked the man to stop. Even if she blatantly enjoyed herself at the time.

This is patently absurd. And yet this is precisely what the DPP has announced.

Unlike any other offense, where the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime, this puts the responsibility squarely (if not fairly) on the shoulders of the accused to prove that he is innocent. In one fell swoop, Mrs Saunders has turned a fundamental principle of our justice system – the presumption of innocence – on its head.

Instead of requiring evidence of non-consensual sex, the CPS will now look only for the absence of evidence that there was consent. As the DPP said, she wants the police to ask suspects HOW they knew the alleged victim was saying yes, and was doing so “freely and knowingly”.

“For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent – by drinking or dressing provocatively for example,” Mrs Saunders explained. “But it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area – in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.”

I’m sure there is a good motivation behind this to ensure that more rapists are brought to justice and that more victims feel confident in coming forward to the police, with only a tiny percentage of rapes ever reported to the police let alone taken through the courts. But this new move does the exact opposite of empowering women. Instead it infantilizes them, and renders them incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Under these new rules, without a legal consent form being signed in front of witnesses (unlikely in most circumstance, I think we can all agree) a drunk man will be held 100% responsible for anything he does during any sexual encounter with a woman. From the first kiss to the zipping up of his trousers, he is culpable for all of his actions – and hers too.

A drunk woman, by contrast, will have zero responsibility and culpability for anything that happens between the two of them simply by virtue of her consumption of alcohol. Now, of course women have the right to get drunk (and wear whatever they want, for that matter) and not get raped, but these new rules ignore the fact that there are consequences to everything that we do.

Just as leaving your front door unlocked doesn’t mean you “deserve” to get burgled, it just makes it more likely, wouldn’t it be a good idea if we stopped telling young women it’s okay to go out and get wrecked and to hell with the consequences? We all know that alcohol makes us less inhibited and more sexually open. That’s why we drink. And we also know that our 2am beer goggles have led to more regretted sex than most of us care to admit.

Indeed, it’s rare to meet a woman these days who does not regret at least one of her past sexual encounters, whether it be the choice of partner, the timing, the circumstance or even just a failure to put a stop to things at third base rather than fourth. But waking up in the morning, regretting what you did and wishing it hadn’t happened, is not the same thing as “being raped”.

It’s just a lesson learned and an embarrassing incident to put down to experience. Most date rapes don’t end in conviction for the simple reason that there is reasonable doubt, mostly due to a combination of a lack of independent witnesses and the woman being drunk.

As the former Crown Court Judge Mary Jane Mowat said last year, rape convictions won’t go up “until women stop getting drunk”, because juries face an impossible task to decide whose version of events is the truth when the woman admits she was too drunk to know what actually happened. Now Alison Saunders wants to take away that reasonable doubt by requiring men to prove they had consent while women, quite unreasonably, won’t have to prove anything but their drinks bill.

If we’re going to start jailing drunk men for having drunken sex with drunk women, then we will soon see millions of men behind bars who have made the foolish mistake of not getting consent in writing and in triplicate before the first kiss.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

From fake rapes to petty ‘microaggressions’

From The Federalist...

For anyone still keeping up with the University of Virginia’s fraternity gang-rape fiasco, this month brought a bit of good news: the Charlottesville Police Department announced it could find no proof that the alleged gang rape had occurred at Phi Kappa Psi. UVA subsequently reinstated the fraternity after having shut it down a few months before.

This is small comfort to a debacle that has been both shameful and injudicious from start to finish. If there is anything good to be had from the entire mess, it is that a slapdash and irresponsible publication has been justly humiliated, and that an incompetent and malicious journalist has been perhaps permanently outcast from the good graces of the Fourth Estate.

So far as I can tell, Sabrina Rubin Erdely has not been heard from publicly since last tweeting at the end of November. That is fine by me; indeed, if she finishes out her career as an obscure copy editor at a small-town bi-weekly, I do not think journalism as a whole will be worse off, even if the small-town bi-weekly suffers.

Yet the Rolling Stone fiasco is on the main depressing and discouraging, if for no other reason than it has starkly highlighted the fundamental hollowness of our institutions of higher learning, saturated as they have become by the often-toxic influence of academic leftism.

A Microcosm of U.S. Colleges’ Sick Culture

Indeed, UVA provided a perfect example of the moral bankruptcy one often finds at the average American college. In the wake of the Rolling Stone article, the university suspended Greek life on campus with no due process whatsoever; a University of Virginia law school student demanded that Phi Kappa Psi be treated as a “criminal street gang” subject to asset seizure by the government; the fraternity house was vandalized; and effectively the entire university lined up against a group of young men who had been viciously slandered in a national media outlet based on the strength of one uncorroborated and unexamined accusation. “The whole [fraternity] culture,” claimed UVA English professor Alison Booth, with no irony whatsoever, “is sick.”

From its administration to its faculty to its studentry, the University of Virginia displayed the aplomb of a sulky teenager unwilling to think critically about even the most basic of ethical considerations.

The University of Virginia, in other words, behaved shamefully and with no civic decorum: from its administration to its faculty to its studentry, the entire institution displayed the aplomb of a sulky teenager unwilling to think critically about even the most basic of ethical considerations. UVA’s president, Teresa Sullivan, should be apologizing profusely to the members of Phi Kappa Psi along with the whole fraternity community. Instead, she’s forcing fraternities to adopt pointless new rules on the basis of a single allegation that even the police now dispute.

Would that this kind of illiberal folly were limited simply to the University of Virginia: Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave, and that would be the end of it. But our country’s universities and colleges are steeped in this stuff. From coast to coast, the vanities of progressivism are having a profoundly negative effect on our institutions of higher learning.

Feminism Steps Up to Fill the Place of Eugenics

Unsurprisingly, much of this bankrupt ideology centers on feminism, which has filled the role that eugenics once filled in American universities: a crystalline instance of peak Progressive thought animated by bigotry and pseudoscience. Modern feminism drove much of the witch hunt on UVA’s campus, for instance, and it can be seen at plenty of other colleges, as well.

Sarah Edwards, an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota, recently published a study that purported to show that one in three college men would rape a woman if the word “rape” wasn’t used and if they were told they could get away with it. The study itself cited flawed and disproven data in its opening paragraph, bad enough, but it also surveyed only 86 men at UND, a tiny sample whose results are assuredly not indicative of 30 percent of all men everywhere, or probably even 30 percent of men on UND’s campus. Nine of the young men claimed that, even with the word “rape” thrown in, they would still rape a woman; this may seem shocking until you consider the likely reality that, as Ashe Scow put it wryly, “nine college boys didn’t take the survey too seriously.”

A kind of frantic Progressive paranoia runs through much of academia, a certainty that the world is a brutal and inhumane place—for everyone, that is, except white men. Earlier this month, Harvard’s “Voices of Diversity Project” published a study that claims to express the difficulties women and minorities face on college campuses across the country.

A number of these experiences were stark examples of prejudice, yet many if not most of the researchers’ interpretations of these events are highly subjective, prominent among them “microaggressions.” These undetectable phantom slights, according to the researchers, force these students to “spend a great deal of time in internal dialogue” and “feeling apprehension and anguish” about bringing up the perceived microaggressions out of fear that “they will only be told that they are overly sensitive or even that they are imagining it.”

Click here to read the rest of the article.


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Ten ways men oppress women

From Katherine Timpf at National Review...For the record, this is satire.

By now, you may have heard of “manspreading” — when a guy sits with his legs apart on the subway to assert his dominance — and “manslamming” — when a man doesn’t get out of the way of a woman on the street and they run into each other.

While these are definitely very important women’s issues, there are still so many more we need to be talking about. Here are ten words for even more ways men are constantly oppressing women:

1. Broplimenting

This is when a guy says something nice to you without asking for your consent first. Men should always ask “Do you consent to me complimenting you?” before saying anything nice or else it’s assault. No, nonverbal cues don’t count — he still has to ask for explicit consent before offering that kind of affection.

2. Mansulting

This is when a man says something really mean to you. You know, like, the opposite of a broplimenting. Mansults are worse than insults because each one is another brick being added to the fortress of the patriarchy that surrounds you every day no matter how hard you try to fight it with hashtags on Feminist Twitter.

3. Bropen-mouth chewing

When people see man chewing with his mouth open, most think that it’s just him being rude — but that’s just because most people aren’t educated on women’s issues. Social-justice scholars realize that feeling the need to display the crushing and grinding of food is actually a sign of dominance over the lesser being that you are consuming. Especially if it’s meat because eating meat is sexist because women need to show solidarity with animals because that’s how the world sees us anyway (like animals) and we have to be their friends. (I am only interested in dating vegan men who make sure they have chewed and swallowed all of their food before we return to talking about how many microaggressions there are in the restaurant. It’s so rowomantic!)

4. Mentoring

You’ve heard this word before, but unless you’re as educated and culturally aware as I am, you have probably never thought about how sexist it is. Why isn’t it “women-toring,” huh? I’ll tell you why. It’s because we live in a society where people think men are the only ones who can give advice. Seriously, I hate when like my boss or my dad tries to help me out or give me feedback and acts like it’s because he has more experience when really we all know it’s just because he thinks that he is better than me because he is a man and I am a woman. I fight against this by refusing to take advice or direction from men and smearing anyone who tries to offer it in a Jezebel post. I just did this with my boss, actually, and guess what? He fired me! Just more proof of sexism in the workplace.

5. Sleep Manpnea

Men snore because they have to keep imposing their existence on us even while they are asleep. It is of course different from women’s snoring. When a woman snores, it’s because she has been manterrupted all day and needs some way for her voice to be heard. By the way, if a man ever tells you that your snoring bothers him, what he really means is that he is uncomfortable with the idea of women being heard.

6. Mantroduction

If a man introduces you instead of letting you introduce yourself, that’s because he wants to control your identity. If you are out with a guy and he says “This is my girlfriend . . .,” leave immediately. Sure, he might have just been trying to be respectful, but don’t feel bad for him. That would mean he doesn’t understand his privilege and you don’t want to be with someone that dumb and out of touch anyway.

7. Manspiration

This is when a man tries to inspire you with a story from his own life as if he has any idea what your life is like as a woman. Now, while that’s unacceptable, it’s also past time to recognize that men and women are equal and exactly the same. Sometimes guys say this makes no sense and is contradictory and ask me to explain, but that’s an example of . . .

8. Manterrogating

This is when a man asks you to explain anything or questions anything you say. This is included but not limited to being asked to explain contradicting lines of thought or provide any actual facts or evidence to support your claims. A real man knows the only acceptable thing to do is to blindly accept anything that comes out of a woman’s mouth rather than to continue gender disparities by manterrogatingher.

9. Manpacking

Similar to manspreading, (where men sit with their legs apart on the subway and take up too much room,) this is when men bring large backpacks onto the subway that take up too much room. Before you dare manterrogate me and ask why it’s a gender issue when women can have large bags too, check your privilege and realize that the only reason women have backpacks is for makeup and other items they need to measure up to the standards imposed on her by the patriarchy. If you see a woman with a large backpack taking up space, the only person you should be mad it is yourself for imposing that backpack on her with your unrealistic standards of beauty.

10. Mensoring

This is when men censor their cool partybro bro-time stories around women because they don’t think we can handle anything offensive.

Seriously? Treat us the same! It’s not like we’re easily offended or anything!

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Detroit man ordered to pay for child who’s not his

From ABC 2 in Baltimore…

DETROIT – Carnell Alexander is a wanted man. The reason? He refuses to pay child support for a child that is proven to not be his. As a result, a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

7 Action News told you about Carnell Alexander in October. He said he was looking for help clearing up a terrible mistake.

Alexander says he learned about the paternity case against him during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 90s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, there was a warrant out for his arrest.

“I knew I didn’t have a child, so I was kind of blown back,” said Alexander during an interview in October.

He would later learn this happened because his ex needed help caring for her kids.

“I put him down as father to get assistance,” she told 7 Action News.

She didn’t realize that would start a paternity case. The state would want to get reimbursement for welfare benefits from the child’s dad.

A process server turned in paperwork to the court saying Carnell had been notified of the paternity hearing. The paperwork said the notification happened at a house in Highland Park. Because on paper he had been given notice, when he didn’t show up at court, he was legally listed as father by default.

7 Action News found out there must have been some mistake. On the day Carnell was allegedly served at a house in Highland Park, the Michigan Department of Corrections says he was actually incarcerated for a crime he committed as a young man.

He could not have possibly been served as recorded. It is unknown whether this was fraud or a case of mistaken identity.

By the time Carnell learned about the paternity case, judges told him it was too late. Legally he owes the state more than $30 thousand for assistance paid to care for a child.

“A child that I did not father, that I did not biologically create, that I was not involved in raising,” said Carnell. “It is not fair.”

DNA tests prove the child is not his. The real father was in the child’s life, but the state never pursued him for payment as far as Carnell and the child’s mother know.

Carnell refuses to pay. As a result, the warrant was issued for his arrest. He plans to turn himself in on Friday.

“I will go to jail if I have to because I am tired of the mishandling of the case,” said Carnell.

“It’s not right,” said Murray Davis of the National Family Justice Association.

Davis says there are thousands of men in Carnell Alexander’s shoes because Michigan doesn’t have paternity fraud laws that protect men.

When there is evidence a woman mistakenly or purposefully declares the wrong man as husband, it doesn’t necessarily impact paternity obligations.

Davis did a study a few years back that looked at how many of the men who are declared fathers by default in Wayne County are indeed the father. He says DNA tests found 79% of the time they are not.

“It is so easy to say anyone is the father while applying for assistance,” said Davis.

Attorney Cherika Harris has volunteered to try to help Carnell Alexander. She said she will ask a judge to lift the arrest warrant when he turns himself in Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments