“Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old”

By Nicholas Ballasy at PJ Media

Former Green Party and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader labeled 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “deep corporatist and a deep militarist” who has made peace with the nation’s power structure.

“I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure and she is a deep corporatist and a deep militarist. One can almost forgive the corporatism. She moved to New York with Bill because that’s where the power is and Wall Street but her militarism is absolutely shocking,” he said during a discussion about his new book, Return to Sender, which focuses on unanswered letters Nader wrote to U.S. presidents about an array of issues.
Nader cited the war in Libya during President Obama’s first term to support his position on Clinton.

“She almost singlehandedly did the Libyan war. The Defense Department was against it, [Secretary Robert] Gates, and she persuaded the White House that it was an easy topple without knowing that in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war, sectarian killings spilling into Africa, weapons everywhere, Mali, central Africa and she’s being accused of Benghazi – the big thing is the huge amount of geography that has been destabilized because of the Libyan overthrow,” he added.

Nader, who ran for president in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, said Clinton “never met a weapons system she didn’t like” when she was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“This is the problem of women trying to overcompensate in becoming more aggressive and macho so they are not accused of being soft on the need to kill and war, right? Instead of taking the tradition of women of peace, and turning into a muscular waging of peace of conflict and prevention, she [Clinton] did the reverse, and [Madeline] Albright did the reverse and Anne Marie Slaughter did the reverse and some of Obama’s advisers did the reverse,” he said. “We have to be transcendent on this. We have to really go right to the core of what people are standing for, fighting for and fighting against.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A Title IX Nightmare

From FoxNews.com...

You’d best get out your hip waders, folks – we’re about to wade through a steaming pile of government balderdash.

The controversy surrounds a storage shed built by the baseball booster club at Arbor View High School in Las Vegas. The youngsters needed a place to store their bats and balls and bases.

The boosters had wanted to build a clubhouse for the teenage ball players, but after months of delay they came up with an alternative plan.

One of the parents knew the owner of a company that made precast one-story buildings. The company offered to donate the manpower and materials to build the boys a shed.

Carl Pastrone, whose son is a pitcher and outfielder for the Arbor View Aggies, told me they pitched their plan to school administrators and were promptly given a green light. That was in 2014.

The storage shed was erected last September. Boosters installed doors and gave the shed a coat of paint – nothing elaborate.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

A century of feminism failed us

From The Conservative Woman website

Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this,  for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.” — Belinda Brown

Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War and one of the first men to openly critique feminism,  is right to draw attention to the relentless problems now facing boys and men.

I am sympathetic to his logic that if the women who understand these problems, i.e. those who write for The Conservative Woman (I can say with confidence since he mentioned us in his article)  held political power, our sex might give us the authority to dismantle feminist vanity projects and shine a light and some funding on the serious disadvantages afflicting boys and men.

However I do not think it is traditional politics but something far more radical which holds the key to real social change.

Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm.  Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life.  Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.

So as Neil seems to realise the cogs of the feminist machine will grind relentlessly on to ensure that any attempt to draw attention to men’s issues  will either be re-appropriated and reconfigured (e.g. male suicide becomes a problem of masculinity  but nothing of course to do with the way that women treat men or the loss of male identity) or systematically undermined.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Why men won’t marry you

Originally published at Fox News.

Where have all the husbands gone?

That’s a question Peter Lloyd tackles in a series in London’s Daily Mail about Britain’s marriage rate, which is at its lowest level since 1895. “The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery,” Lloyd writes. “For an army of women, Mr. Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him.”

Things are no better this side of the Atlantic. According to Pew Research Center, the share of American adults who’ve never been married is at an historic high—and men are more likely than women to have never made it down the aisle (23% vs. 17% in 2012).

What gives? Why are men here and abroad avoiding the altar in spades?

1. Because they can: Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.

When more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes. “In a world where women do not say no, the man is never forced to settle down and make serious choices,” writes George Gilder, author of “Men and Marriage.”

Scoff if you wish. Call me a fuddy-duddy. But how’s that new plan working out?

2. Because there’s nothing in it for them: What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of “Men on Strike.” “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.”

Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.

What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms andcommercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.

There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.

Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to “take care of” them — since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism — perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don’t need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one’s taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?

For women, the reason is obvious: kids. Eventually most women decide they want children, no matter how long they put it off to focus on their careers. So they often nab the best guy they can find, usually the one with whom they’re currently sleeping, and convince him to get married.

If the man refuses, we call him, as Smith notes, a “commitment phobe.” But is that fair? Perhaps these men know all too well that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — anywhere from 65-90 percent, depending on demographics. And when they do, they take the kids with them and hang hubby out to dry with the help of a court system that’s heavily stacked in their favor. In the past, Mom got the kids because she was home with them doing the thankless, unpaid, mountainous work associated with that role. Today, neither parent is home, so there’s no reason the default custodial parent should be Mom.

So remind me, why would a man marry today?

No, really. What’s in it for him?

Posted in Uncategorized | 38 Comments

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 | 13 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