From the National Women’s Law Center blog:
Ending a protracted legal battle, the University of Colorado today settled with plaintiffs in a Title IX suit that accused the university of deliberate indifference to sexual harassment and assault by football players and recruits. […]
Under the terms of the settlement, the university will pay Lisa Simpson $2.5 million, hire a new counselor for the Office of Victim’s Assistance, and appoint an independent, outside Title IX advisor. The advisor will be available to all individuals reporting sexual harassment or assault, will address any concerns with the University’s response to complaints, will review issues relating to sexual harassment and Title IX compliance, and will make recommendations to the university regarding reforms to university programs to prevent future sexual harassment. […]
Ms. Simpson in 2002 filed a complaint against the University of Colorado alleging that she was raped at a football recruiting party in December 2001.
Good on Lisa Simpson!1
One of the odd things about MRAs2 is that we forget how much variance there is within the MRM3. From the perspective of most “Alas” readers, someone like Glenn Sacks seems pretty far “out there” — and justifiably so. Nonetheless, within the spectrum of MRAs, Glenn is actually very far left, since he objects to misogyny on occasion, and also takes positions such as favoring same-sex marriage — for which Glenn was attacked on Men’s News Daily because same-sex marriage “is the final embodiment of N.O.W’s plan for feminist supremacy.”
So it gets a lot nuttier than Glenn Sacks.4 That said, many of Glenn’s views are waaaaay out there. Which brings me to Glenn’s post about the University of Colorado case, which reeks of the MRA’s default assumption that when a man is accused of rape, the woman is probably a liar:
I have no idea whether the two women are telling the truth when they claimed they were raped at the party in 2001. However, it seems strange that with two different alleged victims, prosecutors were unable to get any kind of sexual assault or rape or even plain assault indictments against any of the alleged perpetrators.
It is axiomatic in criminal law that “you can indict a ham sandwich,” yet they could not even get a single meaningful indictment. […]
Perhaps the two women really were victims of a terrible crime. However, the Associated Press article above gives the impression that the real victims here may have been the school officials who lost their jobs and the taxpayers who picked up the tab for the lawsuit.
So although he admits to not knowing for certain, Glenn thinks the women probably weren’t “real victims,” because otherwise there would have been an indictment.
Huh?
DAs can almost always get an indictment, but they often won’t bother if they don’t think there’s enough evidence to win a trial. To suggest that not referring a case to a grand jury means the accusation was false — a position Glenn clearly implies, although he doesn’t quite say it — is lunacy.
The good news here is the court finding allowing Simpson’s lawsuit to go forward. Let’s hope colleges that tolerate rape and harassment have been put on notice by this case. Also good news that Lisa Simpson settled not only money, but for CU taking real steps to improve their campus atmosphere.
UPDATE: It appears that Glenn was relying on a badly-written AP story, which conflated two separate events to give the impression that a grand jury had examined the rape allegations and declined to press charges. See the comments for more.
UPDATE 2: Just reading through the comments on Glenn’s blog, and boy are some of his readers woman-hating sick fucks. A couple of examples:
You know, it should be obvious to anyone what happened here. I can’t believe anyone would want to give any credence to these disgusting perjurers.
I don’t know which is more revolting, the scum who would make false allegations for profit, or those who enable the practice.
You know, it should be obvious that someone who thinks “it should be obvious” that rape accusations against football players can’t be true, is more revolting.
My point in saying this is that if a girl/woman goes out picks up a guy, wines and dines with this guy all night long then agrees to go back to his place or takes him to hers, agrees to the idea of having sex, gets in bed with this guy of HER own free will, removes her clothing or allows her clothing to be removed then when the act is about to happen says NO!!!! how in the world can we say that the guy raped her?
How can we say that? Because she said “NO!!!”
It’s really not that fucking complex. But one of Glenn’s readers — this one — is such a woman-hating, rape-enabling empty-headed git that if a woman “allows her clothing to be removed” he thinks she’s no longer allowed to decline sex.
Two posters responded to the above garbage — one to say “If she says no, you have to stop” (a moment of sanity!) and one to say that “No jury in their right mind would call that rape, because the consent is so obvious.” (To this person, when a woman says “NO!!!,” that’s obvious consent.)
Another one of Glenn’s readers suggested that even if the alleged rapes took place, it’s the rape victims who should be blamed:
If anything was wrong all who were drinking should be arrested for under age drinking and the renters the girls in this case that alleged rape should be held more accountable because it was their house or apartment. They did not have to allow any of this to happen. They did not have to have a drinking party. Furthermore, I do not understand how only the girls were taken advantage of because of being lubricated by booze. It would stand to reason that these seventeen year old boys (pre-freshman/high school seniors, potential recruits [and since boys {according to society mature slower than girls} should make them less responsible for their actions than the more mature and older girls] were also lubricated by booze and impaired and made bad decisions because of this.
I don’t judge Glenn by his readers; he seems to pretty much not moderate at all, and for all I know he doesn’t read all the comments. But I think it says a lot about the pathetic state of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) that even on the blog of an unusually reasonable and moderate MRA, the comments are full of woman-hating, rape-denialist venom.
- Simpson was actually one of two plaintiffs in the case, but the other chose not to disclose her identity. [↩]
- MRA = “Men’s Right Activists” [↩]
- MRM = “Men’s Right Movement” [↩]
- IMO, Glenn Sacks and Robin Steele are the two most sane self-identified MRAs. [↩]
I have to agree. I read Sacks’ blog often, and it always strikes me that he’s politically a perfectly normal liberal guy, except when it comes to any issue where he believes men are being slighted, on which he’s absolutely hypersensitive and automatically assumes the worst about the women involved.
This is sad, since I think he does actually raise awareness on some real, actual “PHMT” issues, but there’s just so much perpetual-victim noise coming out that I think it drowns out anything useful.
Forgive me but aren’t women human too? Do they not also lie to achieve their ends?
Accusation is not proof. And settling is cheaper.
No, I don’t know the basics of the case. And it is strange that there wasn’t an indictment. Perhaps the DA was a “loyal Bushie”.
Sacks also ignores the possibility that the DA may have subscribed to the oh-so-popular position that stopping a little sexual harassment and assault isn’t worth damaging the local football program.
Barry writes “To suggest that not referring a case to a grand jury means the accusation was false — a position Glenn clearly implies, although he doesn’t quite say it — is lunacy.”
I think perhaps you wrote this before you had your morning caffeine. The Associated Press article which I referred to and quoted says that the case WAS referred to a grand jury, and that the grand jury wouldn’t indict the alleged rapists. According to the AP:
“No sexual assault charges were filed as a result of the women’s complaints. A grand jury investigation resulted in a single indictment against a former football recruiting aide for soliciting a prostitute and misusing a school cell phone.”
(Obviously the indictment for misusing a school cell phone and soliciting a prostitute are meaningless in the context of this case).
You’re free to call my words “lunacy,” but I think my point is a fair one–it’s reasonable to question whether the crime happened when a grand jury declined to indict anyone for it and the DA doesn’t file any charges. This is particualrly true in a highly-publicized case.
I didn’t proclaim the players innocent and the women liars–I questioned the women’s claims. I still do.
Glenn, it’s not true that “a grand jury declined to indict anyone” for the rapes, because the case was never brought before the grand jury at all. (As far as I know.)
The alleged rapes took place in 2001. By 2002, the prosecutors announced that they weren’t going to press charges; as I recall, they said they didn’t have enough evidence to go to trial. IIRC, the prosecutors never took the rape allegations to a grand jury.
The grand jury investigation you refer to — which led to the indictment for solicitation — wasn’t of the rapes, but of CU’s football recruitment program. It took place in 2004, two and a half years after the prosecutors had decided not to press charges in the rape case. There’s no way you can claim that grand jury was about the accused rapes.
It appears that the AP article you quoted misreported the story. So now that you know that, does that change your opinion of the case?
(Cites: See this timeline, and this article about the grand jury results.)
Barry writes “It appears that the AP article you quoted misreported the story. So now that you know that, does that change your opinion of the case?”
It does appear that the AP’s description of the grand jury was misleading. If this is the case, it is definitely a point in your favor. Still, with no charges filed and no indictments in a highly-publicized case, as well as “not enough evidence to go to trial,” we’re still a long way from knowing that the alleged rapes actually occurred. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.
To clarify, Glenn, I never said the rapes took place; I never claimed to know either way.
But given that the school settled just a few months after they found out that they couldn’t avoid going to trial, I think it’s more than likely that the school did indeed tolerate an atmosphere of sexual harassment and “entitlement to sex” in its football program. And that’s the sort of atmosphere in which it’s damned likely rapes will take place.
Glenn is very resistant to bringing out the banhammer – as you can see, that has both merits and flaws – his site does get some lively open debate going, but it also gives the utter misogynists a place for hatred. Personally, I like the more open approach.
In response to:
“My point in saying this is that if a girl/woman goes out picks up a guy, wines and dines with this guy all night long then agrees to go back to his place or takes him to hers, agrees to the idea of having sex, gets in bed with this guy of HER own free will, removes her clothing or allows her clothing to be removed then when the act is about to happen says NO!!!! how in the world can we say that the guy raped her?”
In the early 90’s I watched a television program in which a panel of people were discussing feminist philosophy (can’t remember any other details, sorry was a long time ago). One of the women on the panel had a good response to the issue of whether it should be considered rape if the woman is a willing partner up to a certain point. People were arguing that once a line was crossed (and people seemed to be agreeing that this “line” did exist, just not agreeing on where the line was located), then it wasn’t rape even if the woman said “no” at some point.
The woman on the panel responded with this analogy. She said that if a young couple were making out in the young woman’s living room and her father came home unexpectedly the young man would certainly be able to stop, no matter what stage of making out the couple had reached. So how can a man say it’s impossible for him to stop, or that he doesn’t need to stop when the woman herself tells him to stop – no matter what had transpired previously?
There are a couple of aspects about this analogy that bother me, I would like the scenario better if it wasn’t the young woman’s father telling them to stop, but some other person/circumstance – less implication of male ownership of the young woman(‘s sexuality), but the principle is still sound. If young men can stop during a sexual encounter, because they are afraid that if they continue they will get beaten up by a young woman’s father (or because the father tells them to stop when he walks in on them), then the young man can stop if the young woman herself tells him to stop! No means no and it doesn’t matter WHEN the word is uttered.
Very interesting blog! Just made the discovery yesterday and I look forward to reading through the archives! :D
The column by David Usher is unintentionally hilarious. Yes, David, I’m sure you have “written Mr. Sacks several times” and are utterly baffled that Glenn doesn’t share your foaming, ass-clenched hatred of homosexuals.
So what is the answer then, the university should tell these ladies that they weren’t allowed to throw a party at their own residence which was off-campus? And they would enforce that how? Kick them out of the school for throwing the party? I’m sure you’d complain about that as well.
Only wealthy women know what men fear…the lies of those only interested in cash.
Sounds like there wasn’t enough for the criminal case. Civil suits only require a preponderance of evidence. Kinda like an election where one vote means winner takes all.
Settling is still cheaper and most orgs avoid court cases unless there is no other option. Would women lie to gain bucks? Just as much as men do.
Pingback: GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Some Questions about Colorado U.'s $3 Million Payout to Alleged Rape Victims
Uhm…given what rape victims are put through just to bring a perpetrator to trial, I do wonder about Sacks’ willingness to assume that Lisa was lying.
I think the fact that she hung tough and pursued her case suggests that there was indeed a case to be made.
Mythago wrote:
I totally agree — the main reason I included that is because I thought it was hilarious (as well as disgusting).
She said that if a young couple were making out in the young woman’s living room and her father came home unexpectedly the young man would certainly be able to stop, no matter what stage of making out the couple had reached.
Or, say, you’re in the back of your Dad’s station wagon in what you and your girlfriend thought was a deserted forest preserve and are just about to get to the main point when a cop shines a flashlight in and pounds on the window.
That’ll deflate more than your ego, trust me.
Question: I thought Title IX was the means whereby the Feds were trying to ensure equal access to college sports programs for women as well as men. What does it have to do with this (quite laudable) effort?
Thanks for the link and for the wonderful compliment.
I can honestly say you are one of the sanest to ever read my humble blog. Perhaps the ONLY one to actually read and comprehend it. I seem to have founded the new Lunatic Lounge of the MRA. I won’t forget you when I’ve got millions to spread around from my MRA Fundraising Drive featuring the limited edition Hate Poetry of the MRI Volume I for Platinum Donors. Reserve your copy now!
My ex was raped at knifepoint offcampus at CU by CU student Mohammad Zabeeb in 1981. Boulder police refused to even take a report.
I hope that my links don’t reek havoc or overload your server. You may want to tell the tech crew to be on alert:
Glenn Sacks, Robin Steele “two most sane” MRAs
http://womanofsteele.blogspot.com/2007/12/glenn-sacks-robin-steele-two-most-sane.html
This world just gets more absurd by the day. Robin Steele is about as much an MRA as I am a gender feminist. Just because she calls herself one, doesn’t make her one.
I would really like to see evidence of her engaging in any kind of activism in support of men’s rights. All I’ve seen is harassment and accusations based on her own personal twist of people’s words, or based on nothing at all.
Really, Ampersand, why do you think she’s an MRA? I’m honestly curious.
Ms Robin Steele is a strong supporter of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) and Lorena Bobbit sexual violence against men. She’s as much of a “Men’s Rights Activist” as OJ Simpson is an opponent of violence against ex-wives. Ms. Steele is somewhat split personality with several on-line personas that quote each other. She is generally narcissistic and quite misandrist. I wouldn’t call that “sane.”
She’s a trained lawyer (lieyer) and is good with lies and rhetoric, but beneath it all she’s working hard to disrupt and create friction in the Men’s Movement. Her misandrist mission is to act seemingly like a MRA while attacking real activists and causing as much disruption as possible.
Several Men’s web sites have exposed her various lies and frauds. Here is a link to one on Counterfeminism blog: http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/12/detective-story-of-sorts.html
Many men’s rights activists have identified her as a misandrist female who has no sympathy for men. I suggest that you reconsider your comment equating her with Mr. Sacks. Mr. Sacks is sane. Ms. Robin Steele is not a Men’s Rights Advocate and has serious delusions of grandeur in addition to her other problems.
Robin Steele is widely disliked among the MRA blogger community on account of her arrogant, insolent, swaggering attitude. She is considered an interloper and an outsider, and there exists a perception that she is acting as a kind of infiltrating fifth-columnist. It is my personal observation that RS is a chameleon who sometimes doesn’t change colors quickly enough. Whatever game she is playing, she is doing it very BADLY, and she doesn’t fool very many people.
It is very much out of order to compare RS to Glenn Sacks, or to rate them on the same par.
Ampersand: …. and Robin Steele are the two most sane self-identified MRAs
Ampersand, may I ask if you really refer to http://womanofsteele.blogspot.com?
Maybe you could check out the above website and give us a short comment how you got this impression?
Yohan, she clearly identifies herself as an MRA.
Yohan, she clearly identifies herself as an MRA.
This comment was written by Ampersand.
Oh yes, she (he?) clearly identifies her(him)self:
1 –
as a Christian messenger of peace ,
2 –
as a radical feminist defeating the cretins,
3 –
as a Men’s-Rights-Activist…
SHE CLEARLY IDENTIFIES HERSELF!
Great comment, Ampersand, thanks for your brilliant explication.
Happy New Year 2008!
Ms. Robing Steele is a feminist infiltrator who only recently took down her full page adoration of Lorena Bobbit and sexual violence against men. She only removed her multiple applauding links to radical feminist web sites when she started this phony claim to be a “Men’s Rights Advocate.” Her blog has done nothing but attack men’s rights advocates such as Angry Harry, The World According to Bob, and several otehrs. The word “castration” appears frequently in comments she posts on other blogs because sexual violence against men is still her dreamworld. She’s good at smoke and mirrors, but she is a lying feminist, not a men’s rights advocate.
I haven’t comprehensively read Robin’s site, but a front-page canvas shows:
* posts about Robin’s quarrels with various MRAs
* posts criticizing other MRAs for being MRIs (which is clever coinage, Robin)
* posts defending feminism/feminists from MRA criticism
None of which is objectionable, but also none of which seems to have much to do with men’s rights activism. I don’t see any posts talking about (for example) gendered prison/criminal justice issues, or fathers in popular culture, or child support, or the way courts treat moms and dads, or discipline issues related to divorce. Those, by the way, are the most recent five posts at GlennSacks.com, and while I wouldn’t say “Glenn Sacks defines what being an MRA is”, I think he’s a pretty decent first approximation*.
Self-identification is a fairly useless metric where there is controversy about group membership; I self-identify as a gender moderate, but I bet most of you disagree. Robin Steele may well be sane, but there’s very little to indicate to me that she is an MRA.
* Full disclosure, Glenn Sacks cross-posts at my news blog so I am automatically inclined to endorse him ;)
Edited to Add: And by the way, before you go and click at “Bob”‘s site, you might want to be aware that it is pretty vile stuff. Like, Jon-Benet-Ramsay-was-a-little-whore kind of vile stuff. If I were an MRA I would feel the need to explicitly distance myself from Bob; as it is, I feel the need to do that because of our shared species.
Robert writes: …before you go and click at “Bob”’s site, you might want to be aware that it is pretty vile stuff. Like, Jon-Benet-Ramsay-was-a-little-whore kind of vile stuff. If I were an MRA I would feel the need to explicitly distance myself from Bob…
Robert: You are right on the money. That’s one of the points that I’ve been preaching, and that’s what’s brought me under so much fire from the MRIs. I am challenging two types of Men’s Rights Inactivists who are masquerading as MRAs. The first is a group of woman-haters who are not interested in change for the better. They never speak of plan or action because they want men to see themselves as powerless victims… because that justifies their hate and inaction. Guys like Bob who advocate rape & murder do more damage to the MRM than any feminist could ever do.
The other group of MRIs are generally younger, alienated college guys or young fathers shaken by a divorce or breakup who fall under the influence of the haters in forums and on blogs. They hear over and over how hopeless their situation is because of all-powerful feminist oppressors (who are also, somehow, inferior at the same time according to their story). I have stirred things up because I stand up to the first group, and try to encourage the second to strive for change.
You stated that I am not addressing the expected issues everyone else is covering. That’s why I’m NOT covering them. It’s being done. Many are focused on the war over THERE, but few are looking closer to home, at the self-sabotage within our ranks that keep men’s rights from progressing more quickly. I’m sure Glenn’s 5 posts do it better than I could.
Bob and the haters are actively and openly trying to ferret out my identity so they can attack me personally and professionally. They have identified a publicly traded biotech firm they believe I am VP and Legal Counsel for. They have posted links and encouraged fellow MRIs to contact my alleged employers, stockholders, and clients. They make up lies you will find no evidence of on my site or elsewhere. In Bob’s comment above, there are several lies:
– I’m a feminist infiltrator
– I had a full page adoration of Lorena Bobbit
– I attack men’s rights advocates such as Angry Harry
– I advocate sexual violence against men is still her dreamworld
– I am not an advocate for men’s rights
– I am a strong supporter of IMBRA
– I’m a “split personality” whose multi peronas quote each other ?)
– I’m quite “misandrist.”
– I’m “attacking real activists”
While my grandeur may be delusional, who can argue that I’ve built quite a fan club in a couple of short months? Why? Because I’ve hit a nerve. Those who are so aggressive about silencing me are threatened because they are not interested in issues, or change, ideas or activism. They create insular little chat-wombs where they tolerate the most disturbing verbal assaults even on 6 year old girls, but won’t tolerate a word against violence or rape.
I am deeply disturbed by the imbalance in the family court system, the need for fairer treatment of men and fathers in particular, and in the lack of progress toward those goals. Men’s Rights is not simply a man’s issue not responsibility. The families suffering are composed of both genders. MRAs can’t move forward with the MRIs dragging them down.
Robin Steele
Men’s Rights Activist
Robert Writes “Full disclosure, Glenn Sacks cross-posts at my news blog so I am automatically inclined to endorse him.”
Maybe I’m dense but I don’t know what Robert is referring to–I don’t cross post at his blog.–GS
Blogger News Network (www.bloggernews.net). Different blog, sorry. If I put that one in the website field, Amp’s site nukes my comments. You might not be the one cross-posting, I believe it’s your publicist who contacted us. (And we’re very glad to have you.)
Robin Steele: Bob and the haters are actively and openly trying to ferret out my identity so they can attack me personally and professionally. They have identified a publicly traded biotech firm they believe I am VP and Legal Counsel for.
Why are you so afraid to disclose your identity, ‘Robin Steele’?
You said several times, that there is nothing wrong with your blog…so what is the problem about?
Check out Ampersand, and you will see, he is not anonymous…or Glenn Sacks…or Hugo with his blog…
Yes, several people you are calling to be ‘inactive’ are very busy now to check about your identity.
Which is called outing. And is a threat. You won’t bring it up here again, Yohan.
Agreed. Threatening to out someone’s real identity — or to try to — is a serious violation of netiquette. It’s also scummy.
I’m not anonymous because I have no reason to be; my employer is a small non-profit run by a volunteer board of directors who are supporters of free speech. However, obviously some people do have good reasons to be anonymous, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Slander is not protected speech. This is for sure true even in the USA, if you are the owner of a website.
To post a comment anonymous is OK, but there are limits about what you are allowed to post…
The owner of a blog is responsible for what is on his (her) website, including comments from others.
A person who feels to be a victim of slander, regardless if living inside or outside the USA has the right to request professionals to look into this matter and to file lawsuits against such a webmaster located within US-territory.
There are plenty of strange and questionable actions going on over the internet. – For sure to claim to have a right to remain anonymous ‘because I have a good reason to do so’ will not always work…
Yohan:
I think you mean “libel” which is written. “Slander” is speech. Both are forms of “defamation”
Libel is when you make an untrue statement – that you know to be untrue – as if it is a fact that causes damage to a company’s or person’s reputation. “Tortious interference” is when someone willfully tries to disrupt a business relationship between others. Both of these are the case in the efforts on antimisandry.com, mens-rights-board.blogspot.com and other forums in supposedly “outing me” and contacting the company I supposedly work for. The irony is that you folks are attacking the wrong Robin Steele, and one who is a prominent attorney and officer of a multinational biotech firm. I don’t know which is more impressive: your accuracy in shooting yourself in the foot, or your speed at reloading.
There are different reasons for anonymity. Mine is pretty obvious when you consider the violent and amoral nature of my detractors. But the views I write on my blog are the exact same views I voice in my daily life – at work or with friends. I do not post anything as fact I can’t substantiated, and do not use anonymity as an opportunity to add to the hatred, stupidity and ignorance all too rampant on the Internet.
Robin Steele
http://womanofsteele.blogspot.com
Thanks, Mandolin & Ampersand, for the outing warning
“Ms Robin Steele is a strong supporter of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA)..”
Bob’s words appear to be accurate when considered in light of an earlier blog post which RS wrote. This post (later altered beyond recognition ) contained the statement “IMBRA was just the beginning”, followed by the statement “Defeat the cretins”. Maybe I am jolly thick, but I feel certain that “defeating the cretins” was understood to be a continuation of the same campaign that began with the passage of IMBRA in the first place.
That is, those “cretins” whom RS targets for defeat, would appear to be the same group of people who were initially targeted by the IMBRA legislation – which it seems was “only the beginning” of the things which RS proposes to be done to “the cretins” in order to consummate their “defeat”.
For want of any plausible argument to the contrary, I would venture that all of this strongly implies that RS supports (or supported) IMBRA. If in fact RS meant to express opposition to IMBRA in her original (now altered) blog text, then she chose a very obscure and awkward way to go about it – one that was virtually guaranteed to give most people the wrong impression of her sentiments.
I have decided to weigh in on this posting. For some time I have posted on Bob Allen’s web blog. And the Men’s Movement is a very Big Tent. With many divergent viewpoints and political leanings. Some are Liberals, Libertarian, Conservative, Independents. And have differing Spiritual practices or Religious views. We have Christians, Atheists, Deists, Buddhists, Jews, Agnostics even a Pagan or two. I have always opposed the censorship of Feminists on Men’s sites. While I maintain that ideas should compete for their validity in the Marketplace.
Robin Steele has engaged in a deliberate campaign of Character attacks, misinformation, lies and deceit. She has fraudulently posted that I endorsed the Rape of my Own Daughter. And communicated this Slander to Third Parties. It was Jeff Fecke who posted on Pandagon.net the spurious claim that MRAs were “Rape Enablers”. This fiction is intended to marginalize and demonize us as a group.
Robin Steele Esq., now publisher what’s next Astronaut? Has misled, lied, and engaged in attacks on a number of those of us in the Men’s movement. Many of us myself included hoped that Feminism the Second Wave would allow for more flexibility in Gender Roles. Would provide Women more opportunities. Would allow Men and Women to discard roles and allow us to be ourselves and experiment in ways to benefit both our Genders.
Feminism and Feminists turned angry and hateful. Feminism has morphed or mutated into a Gender hatred movement. Where Women see Men and see their Oppressors. It has gotten so bad. That US Men are rejecting US Women in huge numbers. And are marrying Foreign Women in greater numbers than ever.
Feminists not content to allow Men to have “Choice”, instead decided to remove choice and foisted IMBRA on the US Male populace. With the intent to stop US Men from marrying non Feminized Women. And got the US Congress to declare US Men Sexual Criminals and Abusers Per Se. Feminists are intent on trampling on our Natural Rights. We will not capitulate to them. So a New campaign of Disinformation apparently is being tried. To Divide the growing Men’s Rights Movement. The Old Gender paradigm is broken. But American Men are not willing to tolerate what is currently being offered to us. Feminists and their Allies will have to deal with this reality.
http://womanofsteele.blogspot.com/2008/03/robin-steele-robin-steele-robin-steele.html
Glenn Sacks and Robin Steele are the two most sane self-identified MRAs. (back)
This entry was posted by Ampersand ….
(24) Ampersand Writes:
December 29th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Yohan, she clearly identifies herself as an MRA.
This comment was written by Ampersand.
———-
I wonder, if you still compare Glenn Sacks with Robin Steele, Ampersand – but see yourself, link above.