Sign up for the draft "for me" says blond woman

In this commercial for the selective service, they had a blond woman tell the men in American who are obligated to sign up to potentially be drafted to "do it for me". She also tells men all of the privileges they get for signing up.

Sign up for her and sign up so that you can have access to the same privileges she has access to simply for reaching adulthood as a woman. This is the kind of cultural pressure men in the western world have been subjected to for far too long in a so-called equal society. Men should not be the only sex who has these sort of responsibilities imposed upon them.

More Evidence of NOW Killing Father's Rights Bills

The National Organization for Women, the largest body of feminists on the planet, as well as one of the most influential gender-issues lobbying groups in the nation, has consistently opposed practically every Father's Rights or Men's Rights bill introduced in the nation during its existence.

To achieve their goal of killing programs to help fathers they have declared any bill that focuses on helping the male gender is unconstitutional. In 1999 they opposed the Father's Count Bill which they admitted would help fathers in a variety of ways but because the bill singled out poor fathers for help, they declared the program illegal. They also immediately asked "what about the moms"?

"The ostensible goals of H.R. 3073 are to teach parenting skills to poor, non-custodial fathers and to enhance their employability so they may obtain jobs and meet child support obligations.  Other services offered would include: anger management training, family planning information, tips on relationship skills and money management techniques, plus encouragment for fathers to spend more time visiting their children."   

                     

The Chicago Tribune reported on the incident and rightfully exposed NOW's "no men agenda" and revealed the fact that the organization was successful in forcing the Government to include mothers in the program. Still they were not satisfied. The article also reveals NOW's feminist hypocrisy by showing how they had no problem pushing for the Violence Against Women Act even though the funds from the program were not to be used to help men.

"You no longer have to read between the lines to divine the National Organization for Women's agenda. In a way, it seems refreshingly simple: No Men.

That's the only conclusion one can draw upon reviewing NOW's objections to proposed federal legislation popularly known as the "Fathers-count" bill... The bill isn't exactly a mainstream father's dream.

Mostly, the bill creates programs to help unemployed fathers find jobs so they can produce child support for their welfare progeny. In fact, men's-rights activists aren't wild about the bill, saying that it addresses only the financial responsibilities of fathers while ignoring more pressing (child access) concerns of fathers disenfranchised by courts that favor mothers...

But NOW really doesn't like the bill because, well, it seems helpful to men. The fact that helping men might result ultimately in helping women and children is irrelevant. Anything that purports to help men is suspect. In the case of the Fathers-count bill, NOW claims it's unconstitutional....When it comes to legislation aimed only at helping women, NOW forgets everything it knows about the equal protection guarantee of the 5th Amendment.

For example, NOW issued no such protest to the grant application kit for victim services under the Violence Against Women Act Fund, which specifically states:

"A VAWA-funded project may not use VAWA funds or matching funds for projects that focus on children or men." Selective constitutionality at its shameless best."


And The National Organization for Women did not stop there. In 2012 they opposed a whopping six father's rights bills. These bills were mainly designed to allow men who suspected they weren't the father of a child to take a paternity test and be made exempt from child support if the results were conclusive.

"The putative father’s rights bills (HB 4067, SB 256, SB 557, 558, 559, 560) have passed the Senate and House Judiciary Committee.  We testified against the bills as they take away a protective mother’s rights. The bills are supported by the Family Law Section of the State Bar, the DHS Office of Child Support, the probate judges, and of course the father’s rights groups. Now that there is DNA testing, biological fathers can be identified should they wish to come forward and make a claim. The logic of allowing putative fathers to gain access to and some control over their progeny seems to hit sympathetic chords with legislators in the silence of the affected women and children."

This is the feminist movement's track record and it highlights why they are the enemies of true equality and why the men's rights movement has been targeted by them. For more on the subject check out my recent article at A Voice for Men

White Women Are the Majority of Abroad Students from the US

Women--mostly white women-- are the biggest beneficiaries of studying abroad programs according to the national statistics, comprising two-thirds of the data.

And as we know from a previous blog, women have 36 grants for their education.

Women Are Now More Likely to Have College Degrees Than Men

Time Magazine reports on the latest stats  by the Census on educational achievement by genders which reveal that women are earning more college degrees than men:

"Young women are driving the change in higher education
For the first time since the Census Bureau began collecting data on higher education attainment, women are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than men.
Last year, 29.9% of men had a bachelor’s degree, while 30.2% of women did, the bureau reports. A decade prior, in 2005, 28.5% of men had bachelor’s degree, while only 26% of women did."

And women have 36 grants and resources for women only:

http://www.bestcolleges.com/resources/scholarships-and-resources-for-women/

12 year old boy suspended from school for merely staring at a girl

A 12 year old boy was suspended from St. Gabriel Consolidated School for merely staring at a girl. The boy was black and the girl was white but so far it appears that main factor for him being suspended was the fact that he was a boy and she was a girl:

"A 12-year-old boy is suspended from school for 'staring' at another student... The parents filed suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas court to try and get the suspension erased claiming the school didn’t give their son due process.

A Judge denied the claim, which means as of now the suspension of the 12-year-old stands. “The perception is he intimidated her,” said Candice Tolbert, his mother.... Court paper shows the female student "felt fearful.” The incident happened on a Monday.
The school was notified by the girl’s parents on Tuesday.

They allegedly notified the Tolbert’s son on Tuesday, but did not tell the Tolbert’s until Wednesday. By that time, their son had already written an apology letter...

In the letter, the 12-year-old wrote, “I never knew she was scared because she was laughing.” It also read, “I understand I done the wrong thing that will never happen again....

The 12-year-old is Black and the female student is white. We did ask the Tolberts if they felt race played an issue. They said they are not ready to pull out the race card, but are concerned the way their son was treated."

*Please contact the school with complaints at the following number*

(513)-771-5220

The National Organization for Women, Feminism's Largest Group, Opposed Joint Custody/Shared Parenting

There is undeniable proof of the most prominent feminist groups in both the United States and Canada opposing shared parenting/joint custody arrangements in the event of divorce in 1986, 2001, 2005, again in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2016 these bills were designed to ensure that children had both parents in their lives after a marriage between the parents was ended and unless viable proof was provided that the non-custodial parent was a danger to children then shared parenting/joint custody would be the default arrangement. Now I've discovered that The National Organization for Women, the most powerful, and largest feminist organization in the United States and probably the world, also opposed joint custody in 1981.

                                    

**Edit

Here is newly discovered video of the President of Florida's N.O.W chapter, Barbara Devane, declaring N.O.W's opposition to shared parenting bills and an end to permanent alimony payments in the Senate. She flat out lied and said that there is no benefit to children for having equal time with both their father and mother after a divorce.



**

These actions by the feminist movement's largest representative bodies demonstrates that their main interest historically has been in providing women with more privileges regardless of its impact on the families, on fathers, and especially on children. Despite NOW's dishonest fearmongering about how shared parenting bills would force children into households with dangerous fathers and how shared parenting was psychologically damaging to children, numerous studies have shown otherwise. In the paper titled  "Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody," Edward Kruk Ph.D. discredits those myths. On page 37(page 5 in the pdf) of the paper he states:

"Gunnoe and Braver (2001) and Bauserman (2002) found that the benefits of joint custody on children's well-being exist independent of parental conflict, and Fabricius and Luecken

(2007) concluded that equal parenting is beneficial for children in both low

and high conflict situations. Finally, Fabricius, Diaz, and Braver (2011) determined

that children's ongoing relationships with each parent can counter the

harmful effects of parental conflict, and that limiting parental time when there

is parental conflict makes children doubly vulnerable to long-term physical

and mental health problems."

In addition to The National Organization for Women lying about the psychological effects on children due to shared parenting their claims that the bills would force mothers to send their children off to abusive fathers are bold-faced lies. I exposed that information in my article for A Voice for Men on the subject. This information undeniably proves that the feminist movement has been instrumental and at the forefront of empowering a legal apparatus that has torn apart countless numbers of families all in the name of serving the selfish interests of a segment of the female population. This constitutes a crime against humanity and they need to be held accountable. To my knowledge the National Organization for Women has not changed its stance on shared parenting and continues to oppose it up to the present day.