Vale Professor Roberts.

Men of his academic and social stature need to speak out as clearly as he does.

Men of more modest social standing - like the majority of us here - MUST do the same.

Make YOUR voices heard in 2011.

Abuse industry paves the royal road to the welfare state

Abuse industry paves the royal road to the welfare state
By Carey Roberts

In a little-publicized move, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently approved a bill that creates a new multi-million dollar entitlement. Signed into law during the waning months of his second term, Senate Bill 782 bans landlords from kicking out scofflaw tenants who are victims of domestic violence.

The law defines a domestic violence victim as any person who "has filed a report alleging that the protected tenant or the household member is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking." Note "alleging." No evidence or proof is necessary. If you declare yourself a victim, under the law you are.

So a single unproven accusation serves to keep a person high and dry for a good long time — at the expense of flummoxed homeowners across the state.

As the new California act reveals, our nation's domestic violence system has become a back-door entitlement program marked by broad definitions, loose eligibility criteria, and open-ended benefits.

Here's how the clunky system works: The abuse victim must procure a restraining order before services can be rendered. Such no-contact orders drive a nearly impenetrable wedge between the parties, leading Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk to opine our current approach represents a "government-imposed de facto divorce" system.

Social scientists note that family disintegration is primarily to blame for chronic inter-generational poverty. And as Table 35 of this Justice Department report reveals (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf), crimes of family violence are seven times higher among divorced or separated couples than among persons in intact married relationships.

By promoting family break-up, the self-serving domestic violence industry places victims at greater risk of violence. This guarantees a never-ending supply of grisly 11 o'clock news stories and heart-breaking statistics.

Sadly, it gets worse.

Many states have broadened their definition of child abuse to include the mere witnessing of physical aggression between the parents. Mom slaps dad and junior catches a glimpse, that's child abuse.

Now Child and Protective Services gets into the act. Junior is carted off to a foster home for a couple weeks, if not longer. The stories I've heard about children trapped in the CPS maze, removed from the parents they desperately love, sends my blood pressure skyward.

Then there are the inner workings of the 1996 welfare reform law. Tucked into the back of the law, which goes by the unpronounceable acronym PRWORA, a little-known loophole called the Family Violence Option holds that any domestic violence victim is excused from PRWORA's two-year back-to-work requirement.

How does the federal reform act define domestic violence? According to PRWORA, "mental abuse" is tantamount to physical battering. And how does one go about proving he or she is a victim of mental abuse? Don't be ridiculous. You say you're a victim, you are one. No evidence or proof is necessary.

So each year, taxpayers cough up $63 million to coddle Welfare Queens claiming to be incapacitated by — yes, you guessed it — abusive head games.

Not that breaking up families is enough to satisfy the welfare state. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! So how, the Abuse Mavens ask, can we discourage persons from tying the knot in the first place?

It's simple. First, we launch public awareness campaigns designed to convince women that their beau is a latent axe-murderer. Watch Lifetime TV — you'll probably see a clip about the "cycle of abuse." Pay a visit to the doctor's, the nurse will ask if your boyfriend ever raises his voice. That's considered abuse these days. Go to the office bathroom, you'll see a sticker advertising the local abuse hotline.

Next we pass laws that selectively gut due process and the presumption of innocence. Soon word gets out — get married and the state may plunder your assets, your home, and your children. Marriage, eligible bachelors decide, is not a smart lifestyle option.

Then we slap a $25 abuse shelter fee on marriage licenses, which sends the scary message that you, married person, may end up looking like the back end of a meat grinder!" (No need to remind newlyweds that abuse rates in the intact family are close to zero.)

Finally, we never, EVER admit that women can be abusive, too. (Shhhhh. All the research shows women are just as likely as men to slap, hit, punch, and kick their mates: REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . But we can't let that out. Keep it under your hat!)

The Census Bureau recently reported that, for the first time, there are more people in the prime marrying age (25-34 years) who have never been married than are wed. The portion of adults who are married — 52% compared with 72% in 1960 — is the lowest in history.

So there you have it. Fifteen years after passage of the federal Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence programs have become the hulking engine of marital break-down, a galloping entitlement mindset, and institutionalized welfare dependency.

© Carey Roberts

Phyllis Schlafly talks on failings of feminism


Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of Eagle Forum and a national leader of the conservative movement since the early 1960s, says she's discovered women...

- forthcoming book, "The Flipside of Feminism," which is scheduled for release by WND Books on March 15.

Venker and Schlafly provide readers with a new view of women in America – one that runs counter to what Americans have been besieged with for decades in universities, the mainstream media and popular culture.

Their book demonstrates that conservative women are, in fact, the most liberated women in America and the folks to whom young people should be turning for advice.

The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know and Men Can't Say."

Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic - Phyllis Schlafly - Townhall Conservative

Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic... all of a sudden feminism is being discussed and debated in the mainstream media.

Feminists have been weighing in to dictate their definition of feminism. Modern feminist Jessica Valenti defined it authoritatively in The Washington Post: "Feminism is a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end."

Picturing women as the victims of mean men is the engine of feminism...

Feminist dogma decrees that women can never be successful under our oppressive patriarchy...

The most scholarly book written about the feminist movement by a non-feminist is "Domestic Tranquility" by Carolyn Graglia...

Another contemporary feminist, professor and author Linda Hirshman, set forth a popular definition in the Daily Beast. She wrote that "support for abortion rights and Obamacare were litmus tests for true feminism."

That shows how out of touch the feminists are...

It's clear that feminists never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left, which is why they use the word empowerment so repetitively. The worldview of the women you see on television and in college classrooms is fueled by feminist dogma about men, sex, work, marriage, motherhood and politics.

The female left got Barack Obama to make his first acts as president to overturn the anti-abortion executive order known as the Mexico City policy, to sign the Lilly Ledbetter law to facilitate lawsuits against decades-old alleged employment discrimination and to give women the majority of jobs created by the stimulus.

By November 2009, the feminists were ready to gloat and to reproach Americans for relying on "an outdated model of the American family." They gave fulsome publicity to "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," published by the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress.

The 400-page Shriver Report boasted that we are now living in a "woman's world," and, "Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table, at the head of the table."...

It's time that young women have a handbook that sets forth the real goals and agenda of the feminists plus a non-feminist roadmap to a happy life. My co-author, Suzanne Venker, and I have provided this in our new book, "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know and Men Can't Say."

He's quite right!!!!
But he failed to mention that in the long term, feminism will destroy democratic institutions and replace it with their own fascist tyranny.

NEVO

Carey Roberts column
Women's empowerment programs hurt women

"The Office of the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Women's Empowerment."

No, that's not the clandestine front group from a Tom Clancy spy novel, nor is it a libertarian's bad dream. Rather, it's is a real-life program underwritten by the U.S. taxpayer. A brainchild of Hillary Clinton, the unit's declared mission is to advise the secretary of state on "strategies the Department of State should implement to help empower women worldwide" . . .

Sarah Palin needs to rein in her harsh feminist rhetoric

Sarah Palin needs to rein in her harsh feminist rhetoric

Carey Roberts
February 15, 2011

I applaud Sarah Palin's passion, her adroit sense of humor, and her you-go-girl! gumption. But the more I learn about Sarah Palin, the more I become perplexed by her over-heated gender-bending rhetoric.

I believe we can all agree that men and women should have equal opportunities. But let's not confuse equal opportunities with identical outcomes. Just because a woman has the same right to an education and a decent job, doesn't mean she will pursue the identical career path, toil as long, or work as many years as a man . . .

Panthergate: the politicization of the Justice Department
Panthergate: the politicization of the Justice Department
By Carey Roberts

Recent reports betray a growing culture of deception, arrogance, willful obstructionism, and selective enforcement of the law at the U.S. Department of Justice.

First was a January 18 report that from a victim rights group that documents many of the statements on the website of the DoJ Office of Violence Against Women misrepresent the problem of partner abuse: http://www.saveservices.org/download...ional-Programs.

Then a February 3 USA Today column revealed Attorney General Eric Holder prevaricated when he made the claim that intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death of Black women. The actual causes? Cancer, heart disease, and accidents.

This past week it was learned that the DoJ has been giving bottom-drawer treatment to Freedom of Information Act requests from conservatives. One of the requestors was Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican, whose FOIA request languished at the DoJ for five months. Deliciously, Wolf was recently named chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the DoJ budget.

But the most explosive revelations center around the DoJ's handling of allegations of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 presidential election.

If you didn't see the riveting video, it features two Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary attire — one wielding a billy club — in front of a Philadelphia polling place. The two were shouting racial epithets and making threatening statements. Knowledgeable observers say the incident represents one of the most egregious violations of the Voting Rights Act they have ever seen.

Here's the improbable sequence of events:

On January 7, 2009, the DoJ Civil Rights Division filed a voter intimidation lawsuit against three men and the New Black Panther Party.

On January 20, President Obama was sworn into office as the nation's 44th president, vowing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Two weeks later Eric Holder was confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General.

The Black Panthers decided to not contest the allegations, and the DoJ was given a May 1 deadline to file for a default judgment. But DoJ Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch, an Obama appointee, decided to look into the high-profile case...

Christopher Coates provided the most damning revelation of all: The DoJ's reversal on the Black Panther case was not an isolated case of bureaucratic bungling. Instead, it represented a broader problem of politicized justice.

Coates testified that in a prior voting rights case involving a White plaintiff, lawyers had refused to work on the case, and one employee who did assist was "relentlessly harassed by Voting Section staff for his willingness as a minority to work on the case...Others assigned to the case were harassed in other ways, such as being badgered and baited about their evangelical religious views or their political beliefs."

On January 27, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released its bombshell report, Race Neutral Enforcement of the Law? The U.S. Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party Litigation. The 210-page document was posted at the Commission's website at: http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/USCCR_NBPP_report.pdf . Concluding there was no "plausible explanation" for DoJ's actions, the report garnered extensive attention at the Washington Times and Fox News — but received little play in the mainstream media.

Because of overlapping terms of office, the CCR members have been predominantly Republican. That situation changed when Obama's appointments recently took effect.

This past Friday, February 11, the newly constituted Commission held its first meeting. As its first order of business, the CCR voted to suspend its probe of the Department of Justice's handling of the New Black Panther Party case and cease printing of the report.

So if you want to read the this-confirms-everything-I-suspected report, don't delay. Download it now. The report may not be on the Commission's website much longer.

And stay tuned. I predict we'll be hearing a lot more about this unraveling story in the weeks and months to come.

Published at: Black Panthers Department of Justice | DOJ politicization | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

© Carey Roberts

Sarah Palin is a feminist


Sarah Palin regards herself a feminist, no doubting the fact. At a May 14, 2010 meeting of the Susan B. Anthony List, she declared herself a "feminist." And in America by Heart, the former vice-presidential candidate announced, "It surprises some people to hear that I consider myself a feminist."

So exactly how does Mrs. Palin view this gender liberation creed?

To some, feminism means men and women should have equal opportunities — and responsibilities — at school, in the workplace, and in society. Presumably, equality should benefit men and women alike. This is what some call "equality feminism."

This squares with the constitutional notion of equal treatment under the law, and most conservatives, I believe, are comfortable with that.

To others, feminism has a radically different design — it means women should equal (or surpass) men, even if it entails government-imposed quotas, set-asides, and other social-engineering schemes. These "gender feminists" do not fret if these programs end up shortchanging men. Girls rule!, the preening rad-fems exclaim.

Which school of feminist thought does Sarah Palin ascribe to?

At first, it would appear that she belongs to the equality feminism school...

But a mere two pages removed from these words comes forth the voice of a different Sarah Palin, a woman whose athletic aspirations can only be satisfied by, yes — a government-backed quota system. ..

So it's hard to escape the conclusion that Mrs. Palin is a gender feminist who welcomes feminist-inspired government policies that have excised equal opportunities for men, in the name of guaranteeing equal outcomes for women.

But the very idea of a conservative icon working to advance a gender-feminist agenda is oxymoronic. It's mind-boggling, really.

The grizzly truth: identity politics and conservativism don't mix

The grizzly truth: identity politics and conservativism don't mix
By Carey Roberts

Sarah Palin has emerged as the nation's foremost advocate of conservative ideals. By design, she has also become the most prominent purveyor of feminist identity politics.

In numerous speeches, Mrs. Palin has proclaimed herself a feminist. In America by Heart the former vice-presidential candidate announces: "It surprises some people to hear that I consider myself a feminist."

Exactly what does this mean?

"Feminism is all about power for the female left," explain Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly in their hot-off-the-press sizzler, The Flipside of Feminism. "Feminism, like communism, depends on hypothesizing an oppressed class."

...Marxist class analysis also gave rise to a patchwork movement that many call identity politics. The term "identity politics" was first coined in the 1970s during the civil rights movement. Before long the women's libbers latched on to the concept, as Zillah R. Eisenstein documents in his book, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.

Exactly who are the Mama Grizzlies?

They are the "new generation of American women leaders, many of whom I've met on the campaign trail and in the towns and cities of America," Palin adumbrates. These women are "strong," "tough," "formidable," "serious," and "confident," in Palin's own words. What's more, these women "ran cattle" and even "ploughed the fields."

If this is beginning to sound like a women's liberation consciousness-raising exercise, that's exactly what it is.

And like any card-carrying feminist, an occasional You-go-girl! shout-out to her female comrades will not suffice. While we're at it, why don't we indulge in a cavalcade of gratuitous gender-baiting and male-bashing, as well? This appears on page 132 of America by Heart:

...But sensible-talking Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schalfly offer a different prescription: "We must stop talking about women's rights, women's needs, women's problems, and progress for women....When we frame the debate in feminist lingo, we foster a war between the sexes. It's time to end the war between the sexes. Men are not the enemy."

Ms.Angry vs. Ms.Andry

Now that two bastions of Misandry (AOL and the Huffington Post) have combined forces, we can look for a lot more male bashing (subtle and otherwise) from this latest propaganda discharge of the left.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>

Reclaiming Feminism

...On the centenary of International Women's Day, I urge you to stop and think.

...Despite the fact that half of the world's population is female, women's rights have become marginalized as a "minority issue."

Many young women feel that the label of "feminist" is, at best, irrelevant to their lives and, at worst, a stigma to be avoided at all costs. Sullied by stereotypes of hairy, arm-pitted man haters,...

... How many have been abused or faced discrimination today?

Annie Lennox is a singer, song-writer and performer

100 Years of Women's Rights--and Wrongs Family Research Council

While the world marks its 100th International Women's Day, plenty of girls won't be celebrating. For them, this is just a painful reminder of the freedoms they don't enjoy. In China, being a woman doesn't mean reveling in motherhood or female empowerment. It means living in fear that a government official will discover you're pregnant with an "illegal" child.
And if you can't pay the fine, as Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) explained, it means knowing that you'll be jailed or your home will be smashed in, and the young child you carry will be killed. Today is the day to remember that "it is a trauma she shares, in some degree, with every woman in China," Congressman Smith warned, "whose intimacy and motherhood is colored by the atmosphere of fear created by the government... to intrude itself in deadly fashion, into the most personal aspects of her life as a woman, a mother, a wife."

And in the United States, the most liberated nation on the planet, we commemorate this day by underwriting these women's oppressors. Since the Obama administration took power, Americans have sent over $100 million to the United Nations Population Fund--one of the biggest cheerleaders for China 's brutal one-child policy.
Until we stop, America is not standing for women. It's celebrating the crimes against them. Contact your leaders and tell them to end the violence by ending the money to UNFPA.

Townhall Magazine wants to sell you a subscription, which is not the purpose of posting this here - but rather to show that AM is not the only one to discuss Misandry (even if they avoid the actual term and call it "Man Hating".

I submit that when you look at who is Actually Opposing Misandry, that it is not those of the the Leftist / LIbertine-ian bent or their Stooges in government and academentia who are doing so; indeed, it often seems that some alleged MRAs are more interested in promoting said Leftist / Feminist / Homosexualist agendas - than exposing and standing up to Real Misandry.

By Contrast - the following ad is about as strong an exposure of the Misandry that Drives this agenda, that I am actually considering a subscription myself.

Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
.................................................. ....................

The Future Isn't NOW (Top Conservative News, Opinion & Analysis Magazine - Townhall.com

The man-hating, conservative-trashing, government-loving National Organization for Women has one of the most far-Left, progressive agendas in the country. Americans beware.!

Get to know NOW in a way you never have -- up close and personal. The March issue of Townhall Magazine features a detailed look at the organization that has been a leading voice for far-Left, anti-American, socialist propaganda for decades.

Matthew Vadum's full report, "The Future Isn't Now," is available in the most recent issue. Here are some excerpts:

When someone is convinced that imaginary forces are aligned against him or her, that person is sent for professional help. Yet when people sharing the same unfounded beliefs get together and form a nonprofit organization, they often manage to secure government grants.

A case in point is the modern feminist movement whose members carry on about women's rights as if this were the year 1611, not 2011. To them, the so-called patriarchy, a cousin of Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" fantasy, is perpetually in motion denying women their rights.

To remain convinced that women today are little better off than in the earliest days of the American experiment is quite a feat, given that women today enjoy complete legal and political equality, outnumber men on college campuses, serve in the military and law enforcement, occupy top corporate positions and sit in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, feminists trudge on, convinced by their own anachronistic propaganda. Their movement today is dominated by left-wing "gender feminists" and radical feminist Marxists who pump their limitless rage over the injustice of being born female into never-ending political fights.

They are not interested in equal opportunity, but insist on government-mandated equal outcomes for women in all areas in society. The feminist movement in the 21st century sees every statistical disparity between men and women as damning proof of sex-based discrimination. Today's feminists demand government regulations and programs to help end all supposed inequalities.

But even among those out-of-touch "women's rights" groups, there is at least one that stands out for inhabiting its own particularly nightmarish parallel universe in which reactionary phantoms torment well-intentioned progressives.

That would be the 45-year-old National Organization for Women. With the perpetually outraged NOW, down is up, black is white, and it's always midnight in that oppressive, sexist, racist country we call America. ...

So what do the out-of-touch, leftover, 1960s-inspired radicals of NOW believe are the Eye on the Left most pressing issues in America today?

According to NOW President Terry O'Neill, NOW focuses on "advancing reproductive freedom, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women, winning lesbian rights, ensuring economic justice, ending sex discrimination and achieving constitutional equality for women."

Nowhere to be found on the list is the importance of children and the family, national security, economic freedom, national debt and the worrisome size and scope of the gargantuan federal government.

This makes sense because government is the tool feminists use to undermine civil society and the American tradition of limited government. Feminists, like other leftists, believe people must be forced to do what the Left considers to be the right thing. The "nanny state" and the feminist movement work hand in hand.

The flipside of feminism: relief for the discombobulated woman

The flipside of feminism: relief for the discombobulated woman
By Carey Roberts

American women out-vote, out-spend, and out-live their male counterparts. They enjoy an unrivaled array of lifestyle options...

How do we come to terms with this modern-day malady that has no name? The Flipside of Feminism
Book Review:
, authored by Suzanne Venker and conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, incisively diagnoses the problem, prescribes the common-sense cure, and above all, instills hope...

The process begins with women's studies courses that parade themselves as "a training course for radical feminists in radical feminism."

...The result is a hydra-headed social-political movement rooted in Marxist theory with a decidedly narcissistic twist — feminism is "inextricably linked to the individualist message," reveals Dr. Jean Twenge in Generation Me.

The book's juiciest revelations center around arch-feminist Betty Friedan and her childhood traumas... "It was easier for me to start the women's movement than to change my own personal life," Friedan incoherently boasts.

The specter of liberated women blaming men for their personal neuroses would become a leitmotif of American feminism. This pattern would soon evolve into a "full-scale assault on the American male," as Venker and Schlafly put it.

In their chapter on The Expendable Male, the authors document the contemptuousness that defines modern feminism.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd once wrote, "Now that women don't need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around?" And Jessica Bennett crowed in Newsweek how women will one day "rule the world."

Venker and Schlafly end their adumbration of feminist misandry with this sober warning: "no society can thrive — or survive — when half its members believe they're oppressed and the other half are told there is no reason for them to exist."...