Most hateful quotes of 2014

AVFM has a long list, starting:

1. Amanda Childress, sexual assault awareness program coordinator at Dartmouth College, declared that campus policies aren’t going far enough to protect students. She asked, “Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” Dartmouth defended Childress’s comment, noting that she “was asking a question—a provocative one—meant to generate dialogue around complex issues….”

2. Ms. Magazine quoted Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental College, on suits filed by men for alleged violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: “These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape.”

3. California’s new “affirmative consent” law requires “affirmative” consent at each step of a sexual encounter on its college campuses. The co-author of the bill in the state assembly, Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), was asked how an innocent person is supposed to prove consent. She said, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

There is much more. This was a year of GamerGate, of the press announcing that Hillary Clinton will be the next President, of a UVa frat party hoax being taken seriously, of a NYC subway campaign against manspreading, of the President, Attorney General, and NYC Mayor encouraging blacks to riot and kill cops, and many others. The Democrat Party has become the hate-white-men party.

Here was the most hateful story:

Over at 28 Sherman, SoBL has links to all 106 New York Times articles referencing “Michael Brown” that the Newspaper of Record published just from August 10 to August 30. That’s five per day!

As you’ll recall, the Myth of Michael Brown collapsed in mid-August due to two revelations. On August 15, the convenience store video appeared showing gentle giant Michael Brown violently shoving the poor little Asian store clerk who tried to stop him from stealing. Then two days later, the Brown family’s privately-hired coroner announced Brown wasn’t shot in the back. His wounds were fairly consistent with the cop’s story.

A black thug robbed a convenience story, got stopped by a cop, and then tried to kill the cop. The cop gave him every chance to stop, but he kept charging a cop with a loaded gun pointed straight at him.

Then Barack Obama and the America-haters at the NY Times and else decided to keep Ferguson Mo in the news until election day, in order to get more blacks to vote. Obama himself issued public statements about how racist white cops are to blame, and that black riots are understandable.

NPR Radio reports:

Eger, a retired police officer who is now a professor at the Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterey, Calif., found that nationwide about 40 percent of people whose licenses are suspended lose them for reasons other than bad driving.

It all started with laws passed by Congress in the late 1980s. First, a law took away the driver's license of men who didn't pay child support. Then came one for people caught with drugs. ...

"Driving is a privilege, and if you're not willing to support your children and [you] expect society to do it," she says, "then you should lose the privilege of driving."

But you do get that privilege if you are an illegal alien:

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is bracing for a massive increase in demand when it begins issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants starting Jan. 2.

The agency has hired close to 900 new workers, expanded its hours and opened four new field offices in order to deal with the more than 1 million applications that are expected from illegals.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation authorizing the change in October 2013, and since then, state officials have been urging residents who are illegally in the country to apply for driver’s licenses.

That's right, illegal aliens now have more rights that dads behind on child support. I hate to even call it "child support", because no law requires that the money be spent on the kids.

Debate on campus rape culture

In the interest of presenting both sides, here is a debate on campus sexual assault

with video

But Jessica Valenti, who offered her opposing perspective in a 20-minute presentation after McElroy’s, expressed frustration that some continue to question rape culture’s existence, adding that the debate leaves her “exhausted.”

The contrast between the tones of the two speakers was striking. McElroy was defensive from the outset, commencing her talk by explaining that she has personally experienced sexual violence, identifies as a feminist and would not tolerate any claims that she belittles survivors. But Valenti seemed calmer, with her first statement affirmed by light applause from the crowd.

Valenti highlighted several recent cases as evidence that American culture “gives rapists a social license to operate.” In one case, a lawyer described an 11-year-old victim of gang rape as a “spider” who lured men into raping her. ...

“How many of you came tonight knowing exactly who I am and thinking you know exactly what I’m going to say?” asked Wendy McElroy, research fellow at the Independent Institute, kicking off her 20-minute talk and setting a tense tone for a highly anticipated Janus Forum debate on sexual assault that filled around three-quarters of Salomon 101.

McElroy’s impending arrival on College Hill spawned controversy across campus. President Christina Paxson sent out a community-wide email Friday publicizing her personal disagreement with McElroy’s widely reported assertion that rape culture does not exist in the United States and cannot be used to explain individual incidents of sexual assault.

Of course McElroy was the sensible one, arguing for fairness.

Valenti's arguments were emotional and anecdotal, as if most women were being raped, when in fact the statistics
show a big decline.

She complained that a 2006 Nebraska judge did not allow the word "rape" by the accuser in a rape trial, because it is prejudicial. This is a revealing complaint. I have watched some trials, and from what I have seen, witnesses are not allowed to use the word "murder" in a murder trial, "robbery" in a robbery trial, etc. The jury is supposed to determine whether it was a murder or a robbery. Witnesses are just supposed to describe the facts, and not leap to conclusions about whether the facts made a crime. The witness might say "I saw the defendant stab him" or even "I saw the defendant kill him", but never "I saw the defendant murder him. Likewise, a witness should not be allowed to say "I saw a rape" if the legality of the sexual act is under dispute.

Her examples of the supposed "rape culture" are like this. Anecdotes that are completely stupid unless you believe in guilty-until-proven-innocent, and a woman should not be questioned or second-guessed.

Another anecdote was about the Steubenville High School rape case, and how not everyone recognized it as rape. Of course she did not explain what happened. A drunk girl allowed herself to be undressed and picked up, and some boy's fingertip entered her vagina. She did not realize it, but I guess a picture showed it. I think most of thw world would not call that rape (but perhaps some lesser offense).

Valenti also complained about people trivializing rape, such as "I got raped on my English exam." Huhh? She seems to be the one who is trivializing rape.

Time-ins instead of time-outs

This article claims to apply the latest brain research to child discipline:

She is part of a progressive new group of scientists, doctors, and psychologists whose goal is ambitious, if not outright audacious: they want to redefine “discipline” in order to change our culture. They want to rewrite, or perhaps more precisely said, rewire how we approach interacting with kids, and they want us to understand that our decisions about parenting affect not only our children’s minds, but ours as well.

So, we’re going to need to toss out our old discipline mainstays. Say goodbye to timeouts. So long spanking and other ritualized whacks. And cry-it-out sleep routines? Mercifully, they too can be a thing of the past. And yet, we can still help our children mature and grow. In fact, people like Bryson think we’ll do it better. If we are going to take seriously what science tells us about how we form relationships and how our mind develops, we will need to construct new strategies for parenting, and when we do, says this new group of researchers, we just may change the world.

They are against spanking, of course, and horrified that spanking is correlated with dark skin, low income, and Republican politics.

They also urge time-ins instead of time-outs, and claim that the stress of putting a kid to bed the wrong way can have long-term consequences. A child having a tantrum at bedtime could be like a soldier getting PTSD.

A century ago, the Freudian psychologists claimed that science proved that much adult neuroses are caused by improper toilet training as a toddler, such as learning too soon or late. Freud's theory was never proved.

I am not sure the modern theories are any more scientific. I have my own common sense opinions about putting a kid to bed, but I cannot prove that there is any long-term advantage. According to the article, this is the biggest conversation topic among parents of toddlers today.

New British crime: controlling behavior

Bad ideas from Sweden and Japan do not necessarily come here, but England seems way ahead of us with its feminist nanny state laws, and we usually get their bad ideas. Here is the latest:

If ‘controlling behaviour’ is made a criminal offence, no relationship is safe.

I have always thought that otherwise sensible people can turn into complete nutcases around their partners. Relatively mellow people can become obsessed with the most insignificant nonsense when it involves their other half. This is because relationships involve the development of a peculiar, often pretty weird dynamic, which often only makes sense to those involved. I thought this was all pretty normal and had been part and parcel of relationships since the dawn of time. Last week, the UK government made it clear that it thinks I am wrong.

UK home secretary Theresa May announced that a new offence of ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’ is to be introduced to combat the threat of ‘extreme psychological and emotional abuse’ within relationships. Examples of this so-called abuse include: ‘preventing the victim from having friendships or hobbies; refusing them access to money; and determining many aspects of their everyday life.’ The new offence follows the government’s expansion of the official definition of domestic violence in 2013 to include emotional and psychological harm (under the new category of ‘domestic abuse’).

The latest move was justified on the basis of a consultation over the summer. The government said that 85 per cent of those consulted were in favour of reforming the law on domestic violence.

Really? 85% want the government to oversee and micro-manage how a couple influence each other in a relationship? I doubt it.

I posted about this UK law before, and got these comments:

Justin said...
My thoughts exactly. When I heard they were making "emotional abuse" a crime, my first thought was, holy shit, WAAAY more women than men are emotionally abusive. Emotional abuse and controlling behavior are a female specialty.

Quartermain said...
I have the feeling that the law would only enforce unilaterally.

Yes, as a practical matter, men are not going to call 911 to complain about a controlling wife, and no one is going to take them seriously even if they do. There are not any limits to what women will complain about.

For an example of female manipulation, here is a current letter to the Slate advice columnist:

Dear Prudence,
My girlfriend is what you would call “judgy” and it’s seeping into our personal life. She’s constantly saying my behavior is not normal, which includes such things as the way I stock the fridge. When she doesn’t like my opinion or the way I’ve phrased something, she proclaims that we’re going to have a new restriction about what I’m allowed to say. When I was a grad student and took longer than she liked to study for an exam, she called up my friends to find out how long it took them to study. When she was mad that I couldn’t go out on a certain weekend, she took down all the photos of us in her apartment. How do I put an end to this judgmental and controlling behavior? I feel like I’m on eggshells. We actually have a good time together until I say the wrong phrase, don’t abide by her schedule perfectly, or don’t meet other expectations.
—Tiptoeing

I have never heard of a man doing this sort of nonsense.

One reason that women get away with ridiculous complaints is the white knight phenomenon -- there is always a man to stick up for a woman no matter how unreasonable she is. Not sure if it is some hormonal response or misplaced chivalry, but they are despised in some quarters for doing it.

Speaking of manosphere jargon about male-female differences, CH quotes:

GAME is all the techniques and strategies to get better with women, including negging, cold reading, push pull, frame control, but also self improvement topics like working out, better posture, career development. The RED PILL, in contrast, is the deeper understanding that women are not sugar and spice and everything nice, that they in fact have a strong need to be sexually overwhelmed and dominated, that they are fundamentally emotional and childlike, that their concept of truth is not the same as that of men, and that their core nature is not to be loyal. The red pill teaches men to love and appreciate women as they are, not as we want them to be.

These concepts are widely misunderstood. They are rooted in scientific knowledge about human nature, and evolutionary psychology response to it.

Sign CPS demand or lose kids

Maryland CPS bullies a dad:

This past Saturday, while I was out of town, my husband dropped my kids off at a park about 1 mile from our house and said they could walk home together. They got 1/2 way when someone called the police.

"Shots Will Be Fired"

The kids were picked up in a patrol car and brought home. The policewoman asked to see my husband's ID. When he refused, she said she was going to call for back-up. He said he would get his ID and went to go upstairs. She said - in front of the kids - that if he came down with anything else, "shots would be fired."

At this point 10 yr old. called me crying, saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. My husband stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to the kids, she actually asked him: "Don't you watch TV?" (The answer was no). They took notes and left.

"Sign This or We Take Your Kids"

Two hours later someone from Child Welfare showed up with a temporary plan, which they wanted my husband to sign, stating that he would not leave the children unsupervised until Monday when someone from their office could contact him.

He refused.

She called the police, saying that if he didn't sign they would take the kids away right then.

He signed.

I have watched a lot of TV, and it is usually quite safe to let 10 and 6 year-old kids walk home from a park a mile away.

The trouble is that if people commonly think that it is unsafe, then someone will call 911. The operator calls the cops, and the cops call CPS. No one has enuf common sense to conclude that this is not a problem, so they are obligated to do something.

Next time CPS will not have to prove that the parents did something unsafe. It will just have to show that they violate the plan that they voluntarily signed.

In case you think that we have a more dangerous world today, Harvard professor and famous intellectual Steven Pinker writes in Slate:

Violence Against Children. A similar story can be told about children. The incessant media reports of school shootings, abductions, bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, date rape, and sexual and physical abuse make it seem as if children are living in increasingly perilous times. But the data say otherwise: Kids are undoubtedly safer than they were in the past. In a review of the literature on violence against children in the United States published earlier this year, the sociologist David Finkelhor and his colleagues reported, “Of 50 trends in exposure examined, there were 27 significant declines and no significant increases between 2003 and 2011. Declines were particularly large for assault victimization, bullying, and sexual victimization.”

He wrote a whole book on how the world has become more peaceful, and it is full of data to back up his claims.

Trying for moral high ground by apologizing

I say people are innocent until proven guilty, and I try not to jump to conclusions based on hearing one side of the story. As an example, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture is completely one-sided. It claims that no actionable intelligence resulted from CIA torture (aka enhanced interrogation) of al Qaeda suspects. CIA officials say that is false, and that the Senate did not even interview them to get their explanation.

I do not know who is right. But others jump to conclusions, such as this opinion:

How The CIA's Torture Program Is Destroying The Key Foreign Power The US Had: The Moral High Ground ...

The basic stated values of the US are something worth spreading and perpetuating. But the only way you can legitimately do that is to admit when the country has strayed from those values, and that means a true and honest accounting of where things went wrong, along with a transparent and concrete plan for dealing with those failings and making sure they don't happen again. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening, and many in power don't seem to understand the damages this is doing to the US's power around the globe.

Huhh? I am not sure that things did go wrong. If the US Senate cannot get to the bottom of this, then how are people on the other side of the world to know whether we strayed from our values or not?

I am straying off-topic for this blog, but the above opinion seemed similar to yesterday's Ask Amy advice column in my local newspaper:

DEAR AMY: Quite some time ago, before we were married ... He eventually admitted this to me.

The story was that on a weekend trip with several of our friends there was heavy drinking. A flirtation (with no physical contact) developed.

She has told many people that he made a genuine pass at her and she refused. Everyone that was there refutes this, but my husband admits he may have been so drunk that he did it and doesn't remember. ...

My husband loves my children from a previous marriage and is everything I ever hoped for in a partner. I have truly forgiven him, but I can't stop torturing myself. How do I let it go? — An (un)happy Wife

This problem is all in her head. She found her Mr. Right to support her kids from a previous marriage. She should count her blessings. Even if the allegation is true, it was merely a drunken flirtatious comment before they were even married. It was a triviality. And the evidence is that the allegation is not even true. But Amy gives this advice:

I suggest you ask him for a sincere apology and a guarantee that this will never happen again.

What?! She owes him an apology for making a big issue out of a triviality, for interrogating everyone involved, for distrusting him, and for not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Instead, Amy suggests demanding an apology for something that probably never happened, and that he does not remember.

What I get out of this is that the feelings are more important than the facts.

Much better advice would be for him to flirt with women at every opportunity until the wife quits bitching about it. If she wants to destroy the marriage over this, then he is better off without her and her kids. She probably gets excited about the possibility of him hitting on other women, and does not want to admit it.

I have read a bunch of online stories where the man says he had a lousy marriage because the wife was always nagging him to apologize for weird crap like this. Then he stumbles across some online advice saying that the marriage counselor advice is usually backwards. The complaint is not the complaint. She is reciting the complaint to test him. She wants a man that she can look up to, and if he does not have the balls to stand up to her stupid BS, then she loses respect for him. In the above story, some gossipy bitch is threatening to undermine their marriage, and she wants him to be strong enuf to stop the threat. The men report having much better marriages after understanding this aspect of female human nature.

So what do you do? Seize the moral high ground by apologizing for things that you did not even do, or be a man and show that you can deal with threats appropriately? You decide.

Merry Christmas

And Happy New Year.

Kids' Drawings Speak Volumes

Be careful what your kid draws in school. If his drawing is like the first one, you are in the clear. If it is like the second, you may get a call to CPS.

Many psychologists use drawing tests as a subjective way of trying to understand children's home lives. What's new here is that Mills-Koonce and his team believe they've created a system of evaluating the drawings objectively — in short, allowing any clinician to look at a child's family sketch and draw roughly the same conclusions.

Someday these drawings will be automatically scanned, uploaded to the cloud, and run thru the psycho-babble detector.

We might also see more of this -- a video ad encouraging kids to steal their parents' gun, smuggle it into school, and give it to a teacher. Currently our silly zero tolerance laws make it a crime for the teacher to accept such a gun.

Escape the patriarchy destruction

An anonymous commenter left the following rant:

There are only a few things a man need do to escape the cluster B personality disorder that women now represent:

1.) Do not get married.
2.) Do not cohabit.
3.) For kids, get a surrogate.

That's pretty much it. Once you give up your power to a woman (through marriage, cohabitation or kids), she owns you. The moment you commit what are now the biggest sins a man can commit, you're done. All of your power is gone.

Never give a woman power over your life and you have almost no worries. Never put yourself in a position where you can be accused of rape, molestation, harassment or sexual assault.

It should be becoming more and more obvious to men that women are not your friends. They're your enemies, competitors and hold great power to destroy your life on a whim.

I hate to be the one to break it to you guys, but women have been using you for centuries to build the perfect world - and now they are going to destroy you and take it from you through force of law. You'd have to be pretty naive not to see this yet. It can't get much more obvious than it is now.

Expect things to get much, much worse for men.

"A few years ago I would have said that you are nuts. Not any more."

To destroy the patriarchy, which is and has always been the stated goal, one must destroy male power. To destroy male power, one must emasculate men. How best to emasculate men?

(1) Remove men's rights to presumption of innocence and due process. Force men into no win situations.

(2) Redefine rape as any contact a woman doesn't like at any given point in time. Allow women to decide if a rape took place months, years or decades later.

(3) Use words like "affirmative consent" knowing you can deny consent was ever given whenever you so choose.

(4) Create a law that allows women to remove men from their homes just by claiming to be afraid.

(5) Force men to pay for children they don't want, but allow women carte blanche over the decision to kill the fetus (my body, my choice, your wallet).

(6) Create laws that allow men to be expelled from college based on accusations alone.

(7) Create laws that give women preferential treatment in employment, and many times the funding for their health and welfare.

(8) Create environments and institutions that are hostile towards men from birth to death (marriage, no-fault divorce, child support, alimony, education, employment).

(9) Pull horrifying statistics out of thin air that paint all men as rapists and wife beaters, while painting women as innocent victims and martyrs. Regardless of how much evidence exists to the contrary, never admit how blatantly false the statistics are. Repeat falsehoods often enough and everyone will eventually hold the falsehoods up as gospel.

(10) Fill the media with denigrating images of men and positive images of women. Destroy men's spirit through all forms media brainwashing. Use all forms of media to shame men into manning up at a women's behest. Use the media to publicly shame and destroy any man that acts against women's demands. Praise through the media that act like good little white knights. The end goal of this step is to train men as you would train a dog. Reward good behavior. Ruthlessly punish bad behavior.

The worst mistake a man can make is not taking the above seriously. If you don't see the above playing out all about you, you're not paying attention or you're living in denial.

A recent NY Times article on the vanishing male worker said:

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates like Mr. Walsh once could earn $40 an hour, or more.

You would be amazed at how easy it is to qualify for those benefits. It used to be that you could not get food stamps if you had more than about $2k in the bank. Now those limits have been eliminated. It also used to be that you would notice if the guy in front of you in the supermarket line was using food stamps. Now they get cards that look just like Visa cards.

3 bad trends in the British nanny state

The UK is way ahead of us with the nanny state, and with various leftoid forces that are ruining the country. The London Telegraph explains:

Among the many serious puzzles raised by the peculiar workings of our “child protection” system, three continually recur. One is a huge increase in the number of children now being removed from their parents on grounds of “emotional abuse”. This has been by far the biggest contributor to the explosion in the numbers of children taken into care since the “Baby P” scandal in 2008, rising by 92 per cent. And most have not been for actual emotional abuse but simply for the possible “risk” of such abuse happening in the future. A second charge against parents which comes up too often is their failure to “co-operate with professionals”, such as the social workers who are tearing their family apart. A third, used to justify 90 per cent of child removals, is the role of those “independent” psychologists hired by social workers to report that the parents suffer from such vague conditions as “borderline personality disorder”, or “narcissism”, leading them to “put their own interests above those of the children”.

Yes, those are three horrible anti-parent trends, and an appeal just upheld all three.

Everyone agreed, as an earlier judge found, that the children were “thriving”, that the parents were devoted to them and had done them no harm. But the same psychologist again found the mother not fully fit to look after her boys and said there might therefore be a “risk” of future harm. When the social workers removed the children, relations between them and the father grew so fraught that, when he accused one of them outside a courtroom of lying, and the social worker pushed him, he took a defensive swing at the man’s head and was fined £430 for assault. The father then refused to allow his baby to go through a traditional temple naming ceremony because, in defiance of Hindu rules, the social workers insisted on being present. ...

Anyway, the father had already abused his children, both by hitting a social worker in his older son’s presence (even though the boy had been yards away at the time), and then by refusing to allow the younger boy to be named.

The social worker probably deserved to be punched. But whether he did or not, punching a social worker should not be consider child abuse.

The way we are going, any sub-optimal behavior will be considered child abuse. If you are rude to a stranger, CPS might claim that you are setting a bad example for your kid, and hence call it child abuse.

It was a mere oversight that this woman had been described in council documents as “Dr”, when she was nothing of the kind.

Yes, here in the USA we have clowns with mail-order degrees that get called "Doctor" by the court.

I used to respect the British system of justice, since we got ours from them. However it is absurd to punish parents for risk of future emotional abuse. That is what CPS did to me. It is arbitrary and capricious. In the British system of centuries ago that still gets taught in American law schools, no such charge is legitimate.

Another problem that we also now have is psychologists claiming that some parents have a problem leading them to “put their own interests above those of the children”. The opposite would be a mental illness. That is, all normal parents put their own interests above those of the children, for some of the time at least. You can't be babying your kid all the time. This is just some stupid psychologist buzz phrase that was invented to blame parents when there is no substantial complaint.

Here are some of the online comments:

FOLLOW THE MONEY:- Judges, Lawyers, Court Guardians, all making their fortunes, carers being paid £400/week for "each" child tax free - more than most families have to feed their entire families'. £5000 for a hired gun Psychiatrist for making a report favourable to the Social Workers.
The so called Child Protection Agency aka the Child Cruelty Agency, labelled in the Daily telegraph Callous, Cruel and Corrupt. They purger themselves in the secret family courts with impunity. The most absurd accusations are made and accepted by judges. Of a case in Enfield which unusually was given publicity; the Judge said that of a dozen accusations made, every accusation was false or misleading. Yet not a single Enfield employee was punished or named.
There is no defence against an accusation of Emotional Abuse or Potential Emotional Abuse, it is a trick learnt in the Witch trials, the accused can not win.
Social Workers are Nazis and re-incarnated Witch Finder Generals as are those who are happy to support and work for them.
It is time for justice and for these people to be named and put in the stocks, their day of judgement is at hand.

My long held view: There is no situation so dire that it cannot be made worse by the intervention of a social worker.

The solution is so simple,so simple ! No child should be taken from a parent unless that parent has been charged and subsequently convicted of a crime against children.Criminal courts replace family courts,innocent until proved guilty and no children ever removed for "risk".
We have laws in uk and those who break them are rightly punished;How can it make any sense if we punish those who do NOT break any laws by removing their children? The President of the family court Sir James Munby recently stated quite rightly that to remove a baby at birth from a mother was the worst punishment that could be given since the abolition of capital punishment ! Who can argue with that?

My Name is Bhupeshkumar Patel
I am the Daddy of Baby no name.
The point you are all missing is these people steal children for a living.

This is disgusting. When can we have the revolution? Who judges the judges?

Aren't we always being told that the English legal system is so much superior than the systems of those dastardly foreigners?
These star chamber like proceedings of the English courts make these claims extremely dubious.

Which is the greater danger to children, 'emotional abuse' or a psychologist?

The rationale of the state -- judge, social workers, psychologists et al -- make perfect sense if one becomes acquainted (as I have recently) with the phenomenon of "collectivism" -- a euphemism for socialism, communism, fascism, et al. Essentially, it is an ideology of totalitarian control, where the state knows best, and the individual is expected to submit willingly and happily to the interests of the group for the betterment of society.

Collectivism is the ideology that has taken hold of our democracies, both here and in America. It has been brought in by stealth, without consulting the electorate, and it functions by coercion. Things such as the taking away of children against the wishes of their parents because the authorities think it best is an example of collectivism in action.

G. Edward Griffin explains it well in laymen's terms in various videos on YouTube, although he is based in America. "Collectivism" is the new tyranny, and the direction our government is taking in Britain, secretly, whilst pretending to advocate democracy and government via elections. Just thought you might like to know .....

Men prefer porn to marriage

The Wash. Examiner reports:

Pornography is replacing the desire among young men for marriage, according to a new study that finds males are chasing “low-cost sexual gratification” on the web over a wife and family.

“Traditionally, one of the reasons to enter into a marriage was sexual gratification. But as options for sexual gratification outside of marriage have grown, the need for a marriage to serve this function is diminishing,” said the report.

The report published by Germany’s Institute for the Study of Labor and co-authored by a West Chester University of Pennsylvania professor suggested that the government crack down on porn access, especially as more and easier tools to tap into the Internet, such as smartphones, expand. Saving marriage, said the report, will help the economy and society. ...

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.

No the marriage rate is mostly going down for other reason. But porn is a contributor, and soon we will have much better virtual reality and sexbots.

A reader comments:

My body, my choice. Been woman free for 3 years now, and at least $60K richer for it. Also realized I can live off under $10K a year, and thus under the tax exemption bracket, meaning I don't need to suffer tax extortion to pay for the indoctrination of breeders kids in collectivization concentration camps called school. I can move to where the jobs are, I can travel the world and if need be, rent woman for just a night. And even if they shut down porn or the internet, they will never ever be able to locate or confiscate years of downloaded material. I will proudly be releasing my sperm down the bathtub drain rather than down any the throat of some duplicitious broad who is a threat to my personal sovereignity, wealth, and sanity. I've had my share of women, and checking out. Thanks for nothing, you empty shells. You are the true polygamists, married to the state, married to your smartphones, married to your burdensome eggs, and good men will only occupy that very tiny space you left for him. My seed has too much dignity to be in the company of the rest of useless humanity that has no dignity or principles of its own.

Meanwhile, women prefer babies, according to an Atlantic mag story:

Dawn Pieke’s relationship imploded just before she reached 40. Pieke had a miscarriage and shortly after, her boyfriend, whom she’d dated for almost a decade, met someone else on a business trip and had an affair. The two broke up and Pieke found herself in a tailspin: She knew she wanted a family, but she also knew her biological clock was ticking, and she wasn’t sure, after two separate, decades-long relationships, that she could go through it all again.

A glass of wine in hand, she steeled herself for more dating, signed up for Match.com, and started going on dates in Omaha, Nebraska, where she lives.

“I thought, ‘These guys look like jerks...I just want a kid, why can’t I just have a baby and not worry about if it’s the guy?’” she told me, in a phone interview. After eight months, she hadn’t clicked with anyone.

Pieke, who works in sales, started diligently researching her options, but soon got discouraged. Adoption didn’t seem like a good bet: She knew three separate couples trying to adopt, and it was taking forever for them to get approved—a potential single mother would have even more trouble, she figured. Pieke didn’t love the idea of going to a sperm bank: She and her twin sister were raised by a single mom and they grew up always wanting to know more about their father. She wanted her child to know both parents, if possible.

“I always thought I would be married and have kids by the time I was 25, but it just didn’t turn out that way,” she said.

Then one day, she stumbled across something on the Internet that seemed like it might work: A website that connected people who wanted to have kids and raise them together, but without a romantic relationship. ...

He was gay, and from New York, and shared her beliefs about spirituality—she describes herself as spiritual, but not religious. The two struck up a correspondence. She liked that he was dark-haired, since she is blonde, and figured they might make a good-looking kid, and they agreed on lots of things. Most importantly, they had similar ideas about parenting: They would be gentle and nurturing, with no yelling or spanking, and would not use baby talk, but would instead speak to the child as a "person already full of intelligence," Pieke said.

“It felt like speaking to an old family member,” said Fabian Blue, the man she met on the site. He made a documentary about his efforts to find a co-parent, called The Baby Daddy Project with the clever tagline, "No Sex, No Marriage, Just the Baby Carriage." ...

They also feel that they've vetted each other more extensively than married couples do. They performed extensive background checks on each other and shared tough moments that they might have tried to hide from a potential romantic partner, like when Pieke called Blue sobbing, nearly incoherent, because her dog died. They did testing to see what their fertility chances would be, and got various medical tests to make sure a potential child wouldn’t have any genetic problems. Blue had come close to committing to other potential parenting partners, but something in his gut had told them that the other women weren’t the right fit, but Pieke was.

There are very few examples of this actually working. This just sounds naive and foolish. They think that they have vetted each other because of a phone call about a dead dog?!

Genetic testing sounds good, but very rarely makes any difference.

Many things can go wrong here. These two do not even live in the same city.

On the legal side, a huge problem is that no co-parenting agreement is actually binding in court. No matter how well you plan it out, the other party could take you to court, and your agreement could be replaced with some stupid boilerplate form that some stupid psychologist slapped together in 10 min. Or worse, you could end up paying for a child that you never see.

Mom is free after murder conviction of son

Cases where a mom murders her own child are especially creepy. Here is a conviction that got reversed:

In a scathing critique of Arizona's criminal justice system, a state appeals court on Thursday ordered the dismissal of murder charges against a woman who spent 22 years on death row for the killing of her 4-year-old son.

The Arizona Court of Appeals leveled harsh criticism against prosecutors over their failure to turn over evidence during Debra Jean Milke's trial about a detective with a long history of misconduct and lying. The court called prosecutors' actions "a severe stain on the Arizona justice system."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said it agreed with Milke's argument that a retrial would amount to double jeopardy.

They did not prove her innocence. They just showed that the main police witness had credibility problems tainting the trial.

Authorities say Milke dressed her son in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall in December 1989. He was then taken into the desert near Phoenix by two men and shot in the back of the head.

Prosecutors claimed Milke's motive was that she didn't want the child anymore and didn't want him to live with his father.

She was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to death. The case rested largely on her purported confession to Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate, which he did not record. ...

Milke has maintained her innocence and denied she ever confessed to the killing. The two men who led her child to his death in the desert were convicted of murder but refused to testify against Milke. ...

Prosecutors insist Milke is guilty, but their ability to try her again was limited by the fact that Saldate said he wouldn't testify. He fears potential federal charges based on the 9th Circuit's accusations of misconduct.

In December, Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz granted Saldate's request to assert his Fifth Amendment right, allowing him to refuse to take the stand.

This is weird. Who shoots a 4-year-old, gangster execution style? Who gets a confession without recording it?

Maybe the cop was genuinely convinced that she did it, but confessions need to be recorded. If I were on the jury, I would be very suspicious of an unrecorded confession.

Parents should be given the benefit of the doubt with their own kids. If she is truly innocent, then the prosecutors just double the tragedy when they prosecute. They should only prosecute when they have an airtight case against the parent.

Foster parents do bad things, but that is different, as in this recent Canadian conviction.

Of course this may have never happened if the dad had joint custody in the first place.

Father spiked baby like a football

AP reports:

At least 760 children died of abuse or neglect in the U.S. in a six-year span in plain view of child protection authorities — many of them beaten, starved or left alone to drown while agencies had good reason to know they were in danger, the Associated Press has found.

To determine that number, the AP canvassed the 50 states, the District of Columbia and branches of the military — circumventing a system that does a terrible job of accounting for child deaths. Many states struggled to provide numbers. Michigan had 22 kids who died from abuse or neglect from fiscal year 2009 through 2013 (2008 was missing).

Most of the 760 children whose cases were compiled by the AP were under the age of 4. They lost their lives even as authorities were investigating their families or providing some form of protective services because of previous instances of neglect or violence or other troubles in the home.

Take Mattisyn Blaz, a 2-month-old Montana girl who died when her father spiked her “like a football,” in the words of a prosecutor.

What? CPS agents let a man spike a baby like a football? That's outrageous!

No, use some common sense. You are being manipulated. I very much doubt that the dad spiked his baby like a football. But even if he did, how was CPS supposed to predict and prevent it?

My local newspaper had this on page 3 yesterday, with the above picture and this caption:

A small urn containing the ashes of Mattisyn Blaz is displayed on a bookshelf in front of a photo of the infant girl in the home of Jennifer Blaz, 34, in Butte, Mont.

More manipulation.

This is supposed to be a neutral AP news story, but here is what the story advocates:

Also, insufficient training for those who answer child abuse hotlines leads to reports being misclassified, sometimes with deadly consequences; a lack of a comprehensive national child welfare database allows some abusers to avoid detection by moving to different states; and a policy that promotes keeping families intact can play a major role in the number of deaths.

In other words, the AP reporter wants an Orwellian nanny state where anonymous busybodies report on everything you do, the feds track it all in massive databases, and CPS busts up families at every opportunity.

All this because your emotions are being manipulated into thinking that a spiked baby is preventable.

We live in a society that is very free and open in many ways. I can download porn, smoke dope, and live as a parasite in the Obama welfare state. But once some liberal do-gooder announces that I have to forgo all my rights for the sake of the children, everyone just rolls over and concedes. The AP reporters and editors probably do not even realize that there is another side to the issue.

Another Slate attack on men

AVFM attacks Hanna Rosin on Slate.

The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true. ...

“There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer. ...

According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5.

I posted about the Patric case, as he is the Lost Boys actor who lost rights over a test tube baby. He is not a great example of fathers rights.

A better example is that moms are still getting sole child custody 45% of the time.

I have posted on Hanna "End of Men" Rosin before. She is a typical Jewish feminist social justice warrior (SJW) that dominates sites like Slate.

I hope someone is keeping track of these man-haters. One suggestion is to embarrass the UVa rape hoax promoters:

Roosh lists 15 people who used the UVA article to push a false narrative

We should also keep track of those who promoted riots in Ferguson Missouri, like President Barack Obama and his supporters.

Sweden has feminist policies

I mentioned Sweden as a feminist paradise, and it even pretentds to have a feminist foreign policy:

In the interim, Wallström will remain at the Foreign Ministry, with her feminist vision for Sweden’s ventures abroad intact. By empowering women, the argument goes, there are better chances of snuffing out wars before they start and of ending them in more equitable ways. However, it is less clear what such a feminist foreign policy has to say about the old-school power politics that Putin has helped resuscitate in the past year.

During a recent debate in the Swedish parliament, Wallström said that her feminist approach is based on the American political scientist Joseph Nye’s concept of “smart power.” “The tools of foreign policy can, in varying degrees, be hard as well as soft. The situation at hand determines this,” Wallström said. “The half of the population that so far has been almost systematically excluded and forgotten — namely, women — will now be included.”

Asked how she believes a feminist foreign policy will help end Russian aggression, Wallström suggested it would be useful to review women’s participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and to look at what it does to address the problems women face — a statement exactly as vague as it sounds.

Meanwhile, Putin delivered another swaggering address on Thursday. “The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against our country for many years, always, for decades, if not centuries,” he said at his annual state-of-the-nation address. “In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent, these tools are quickly put into use.”

The newfound emphasis on feminism abroad has been remarkably absent in the Swedish response to the recent submarine incursion in Stockholm. When Göranson, flanked by Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist, presented evidence at a November press conference of illicit underwater activity in the Stockholm archipelago, there was no talk of gender perspectives or feminist approaches to territorial breaches. (While the Swedish military maintains that it does not have the evidence to conclusively identify the submarine’s nationality, it was all but certainly a Russian boat.)

In the USA, the only group I know who are unapologetically standing up to the feminists are the video gamers:

The cost to Gawker Media of its ridicule and viciousness toward video gamers was "seven figures" in lost advertising revenue, according to the company's head of advertising, Andrew Gorenstein. In addition, founder Nick Denton has stepped down as president and editorial director Joel Johnson has been removed from his post and will probably leave the company, reports Capital New York.

"Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission," Gawker writer Sam Biddle tweeted in October, sparking a firestorm of outrage which solidified into a sustained letter-writing campaign to Gawker's advertisers, which continues today, against the bullying of marginalised groups by mainstream media outlets.

A number of advertisers, including Adobe and Mercedes-Benz, distanced themselves from Gawker after receiving communications from GamerGate supporters. It is not known how much GamerGate, a consumer revolt advocating better ethics in video game journalism and rejecting feminist critiques of video games, may have cost other publishers.

Wikipedia has a long article on the Gamergate controversy.

Parents still ordered to pay for college

I posted about the Divorced parents have to pay college tuition. Now there is an update:

THE 21-year-old student suing her estranged parents for university fees was back in court this week claiming they should be held in contempt because they refuse to pay.

Caitlyn Ricci filed a motion on Monday arguing that her parents, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, violated a judge’s previous decision by failing to pay her $US16,000 ($19,200) tuition at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Ricci’s father said he has no intention of paying until his daughter reconnects with the New Jersey family. Ricci hasn’t spoken with her parents for two years.

“That’s fine. They can hold me in contempt of court. They can do whatever they want,” Mr Ricci told US TV station WPVI-TV. “I’m not going to pay. I’m not going to give them any money until my daughter has a relationship with me and we start to heal our family.”

Here is the dad's story (also here):

Most nights before I fall asleep, I have tears in my eyes thinking about the difficulty my family is going through. My daughter is suing her mother and me for $16,000 towards college tuition, and a judge has ruled in her favor. My daughter moved out, and I only ever see her in court. It’s certainly not what I wanted for my family.

Every day I wake up and miss my daughter. I miss talking to her, seeing her, asking her about her day, and being involved in her life. I understand that after she was kicked out of her Disney internship, a program she participated in to help prepare for college, she was upset and angry at the rules her mother and I set for her. She was kicked out of the program for underage drinking, and so we had to set boundaries. That included chores, a curfew, and summer classes. When Caitlyn left our home in February 2013, to go to her grandparents, we thought we’d let her go for a couple days and then she would come home. When we called her grandparents to ask that they send her home, they said, “No, she can stay here as long as she wants.” That’s when we knew we had problems.

There is a mindset that says that college is such a good thing that it is worth any cost, and parents should make any sacrifice for the good of the kids, and therefore should do whatever it takes to pay for college. This view is very destructive. There are decent alternatives. The girl can get college loans, she can attend a cheap community college, she can work to support herself, and she can reconcile with her parents.

Here is another attack on parents:

A tattooed-up Brooklyn middle school teacher with a criminal record left her three kids home alone so she could get ink — and then went on a whiskey-drinking binge at a Lower East Side bar until Thursday morning, according to police sources and social media.

Laura Aguero, 35, who works at M.S. 88 in Park Slope, and her husband, Alfredo Bobe,41, allegedly left their 4,5, and 12 year old kids by themselves while she got tatted up at Inborn Tattoo in the Lower East Side on Wednesday night, according to police sources and posts on Facebook.

“I’m getting tatted on ludlow (Inborn) so I’ll stop by to have a drink!!! Xoxo!” she wrote on Local 138 bar’s “Whiskey Wednesday” event page at 10:32 p.m.on Wednesday. ...

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said, “While this alleged behavior is not school-related, it is unacceptable. Ms. Aguero Dupla has been reassigned away from any classroom, and will not be in contact with students.

Sounds wacky to me, but I guess tattoos and whiskey make for a good time for others.

But now it is criminal:

However, he didn't have his keys, so he punched out a glass panel on the front door.

The shattering glass woke up neighbors who called 911, the New York Daily News reports.

Police arrived to Aguero pacing outside the building while Bobe was inside the apartment.

The couple was arrested for after police learned the kids had been left home alone for hours, according to WPIX-TV.

Aguero-Dupla was charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, while Bobe was charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child.

I assume the "three counts" is for the 3 kids. But millions of parents think that it is perfectly fine for a 12yo child to babysit 4yo and 5yo kids. Who was endangered? Maybe you think that a middle-school teacher should not have an evening of tattoos and whiskey, and I might even agree with that, but we have a society where that is legal and acceptable.

Bad advice on managing joint custody

I sometimes post bad advice that women commonly get, and here is another example. This mom has joint custody, and needs a man to be in charge of her child-rearing. Either the ex-husband or the boyfriend would be an improvement. But the columnist Amy advises neither, and to rely on some stranger instead. Furthermore, she suggests undermining the joint custody.

DEAR AMY: I am divorced and have two young children. Their father and I share equal custody. I have had a boyfriend for a year. He has a young child of his own and we all live together as a blended family. This man is kind, sensitive, supportive and loving, everything my ex-husband was not.

There’s one problem. My kids tend to act up a lot and I’m not sure why. His child NEVER acts up. She’s helpful, listens, is easygoing, etc. My kids are the exact opposite!

This past year, my boyfriend has really been working with my kids on discipline and setting good examples, and so have I. I am an easygoing person but their dad is not. I think they get this trait from him. I don’t really know what goes on when they’re with him. When they come back to us, I feel like we’re going backward. My daughter (age 10) doesn’t act her age. She whines like a 3-year-old, is unhelpful around the house and with her younger brother, etc.

Now my boyfriend is showing hostility toward ME because of their behavior. I honestly do my best at disciplining them, but because his child is “perfect” he does not understand. I know I’m trying but he doesn’t see that. What should I do? -- Challenged Mom

DEAR MOM: You should take your kids’ behavior not as a sign that they are “bad,” but that they are very stressed. Your daughter’s regression does not mean that she is immature, but having trouble coping.

You should establish consistent routines, make sure they get plenty of healthy food and sleep, and treat them with firm, unflappable, loving kindness. Their routine of switching households is extremely challenging (could you do it?). You, not your boyfriend, should be the primary disciplinarian. Let him teach you how.

Your whole crew could benefit from some professional mentoring. The kids need to see your family as a “team,” with good days and bad days, but always on the same side.

Most important, your daughter should get some private counseling with a child therapist. Because you are not willing/able to communicate with her father, you should make sure she is safe and well cared for when she is in his household. Her behavior could be a red flag that there is a serious problem.

Note that the mom does not actually say that she cannot communicate with her ex-husband. Amy just assumes that, as well as assuming that the ex-husband is a problem.

Talking to a counselor is just crazy. Why is Amy being paid to give advice, if she is just going to tell everyone to go get advice from someone else?

The kids are not necessarily over-stressed. Maybe they are not stressed enuf.

You would think that advice-givers would encourage steps to make joint custody work. For example, this mom could ask her ex-husband to take charge of the child discipline, and promise to back him up when the kids are with her. But Amy does the opposite, and suggests that there is something wrong with the his care, and that the mom should interfere with him.

Yes, it is possible that the behavior differences are largely genetic. There seem to be some genes for bad behavior. If so, it is foolish to try to blame food or sleep or the joint custody.

I post nonsense like this just to illustrate the bad advice that women commonly get.

Old Iowa man charged with raping his wife

The states have been pressured to change their rape laws so that a man can be charged with a felony for raping his wife. These laws are usually justified from extreme feminist views, or anecdotes about a violent attack after a long separation. But I assumed that a women would have to complain for there to be a prosecution. Not so.

Here is the prosecution:

The Iowa Attorney General’s office says [Henry] Rayhons had intercourse with his wife when she lacked the mental capacity to consent because she had Alzheimer’s. She died on Aug. 8, four days short of her 79th birthday, of complications from the disease. One week later, Rayhons, 78, was arrested. He pleaded not guilty….

By many accounts, Henry and Donna Rayhons were deeply in love. Both their families embraced their marriage. The case has produced no evidence thus far that the couple’s love faded, that Donna failed to recognize her husband or that she asked that he not touch her, said Rayhons’ son Dale Rayhons, a paramedic and the family’s unofficial spokesman.

Based on evidence generated so far, state prosecutors are likely to portray Rayhons as a sex-hungry man who took advantage of a sweet, confused woman who didn’t know what month it was, forgot how to eat a hamburger and lost track of her room.

These prosecutors are sick. The lawmakers also. Whatever went on between this couple is none of anyone's business.

NFL Personal Conduct Policy

It used to be that Rule of Law meant that punishable offenses were defined in writing, and that you were within your rights to do something if not explicitly illegal. And you had no obligation to rat out your fellow citizen.

Feminist gripes about domestic violence have gotten to the National Football League.

The NFL announced a new Personal Conduct Policy (pdf)

It applies

(a) to pretty much everyone touching the hem of the NFL’s garment: ...

(b) to pretty much all conduct 24/7, whether job-related or not:
“If the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, ...

Disorderly conduct;

Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

and (c) whether or not such activity is lawful or unlawful: ...

Oh, and everyone subject to the policy (a category that includes secretaries in team offices, drivers of team buses, trainers, team statisticians, employees in the NFL Human Resources Department, . . .) has to “to promptly report any matter that comes to their attention (through, for example, victim or witness reports, law enforcement, media reports) that may constitute a violation of this Policy . . . [and] [f]ailure to report an incident will be grounds for disciplinary action.”

This is crazy. Don't we already have a legal system for dealing with crimes?

This is obviously written to allow maximum arbitrariness in NFL bowing to feminist demands and punishing players.

The weird thing about this policy is that, for all its lawyerly thoroughly, there is no exception for football play on the field. It has banned "physical violence". How do you play football without physical violence? This football policy has banned blocks and tackles.

You cannot cave into crazy demands like this. The feminist will just make more. There is no pleasing them. There are feminists who demand monthly paid menstrual leave, with guarantees of no slowdown in career advancement.

Steve Sailer is getting to the bottom of the UVa frat house gang rape story. Jackie's friends not only doubted her rape story, they doubted it before it even happened as she seemed to be going out on a date with a fictitious person. It appears that she invented the guy in oder to make a friend jealous. They only humored her in the same way that they might humor a friend who claimed to be abducted by space aliens. The smashed glass table story may have been taken from the movie Gone Girl, where a broken glass table is both a sign of a crime and a sign that the crime was faked.

Britain has anti-social behavior orders where judges can take away rights for otherwise lawful things. The Manifesto Club sticks up for everyday rights.

More stupid zero tolerance

MIT has been a leader in putting college lectures freely online, and now it has bizarrely overreacted to a minor complaint. MIT announces:

MIT is cutting ties with retired professor Walter Lewin after determining that the physicist, whose lectures had made him a beloved teacher and minor Internet star, had sexually harassed at least one student online.

The woman was taking one of Lewin’s classes on edX, the online learning platform started by Harvard and MIT. ...

MIT has revoked his title as professor emeritus, Provost Martin A. Schmidt PhD ’88 said.

MIT is also removing Lewin’s lecture videos and other course materials from edX and MIT OpenCourseWare indefinitely, “in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior.”

Schmidt said that MIT’s actions were “part of a process of a complete separation from Walter,” though he also said those actions were “probably the extent of it” given that Lewin had retired.

“Given Dr. Lewin’s long career on our campus and contributions as an educator, taking this step is painful,” Schmidt wrote to MIT’s faculty. ...

Lewin joined MIT in 1966 and became a full professor in 1974. In the decades that followed he collected award after award for his undergraduate teaching.

Through OpenCourseWare and YouTube, Lewin’s lectures and physics demonstrations have reached millions.

“Professor Lewin delivers his lectures with the panache of Julia Child bringing French cooking to amateurs and the zany theatricality of YouTube’s greatest hits,” The New York Times wrote in 2007. “With his wiry grayish-brown hair, his tortoiseshell glasses and his intensity, Professor Lewin is the iconic brilliant scientist … he is at once larger than life and totally accessible.”

Lewin went on to star in viral videos of him drawing dotted lines on blackboards and swinging on steel balls suspended from the ceiling.

And then in 2013, Lewin helped launch online versions of his classes on edX. Among those who enrolled: the woman who would lodge the sexual harassment complaint this past October.

This is so stupid, I don't know where to start. The man is 78 years old, and he is only accused of making an inappropriate remark online. For that, the university is trying to destroy 40 years of loyal service, and millions of viewers learning physics from his videos.

The comments are overwhelmingly negative. For example:

I can still read Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book. So for Prof Lewin works to have been banned, he must have done something worse than mass murder. In the name of equality, let us hear his words no more. Zero tolerance!!!

I wonder if MIT was influenced by a fear of an adverse ruling from the Obama administration. The MIT over-reaction is so bizarre that it seems likely that Lewin had enemies who are just using this complaint to sabotage him for other reasons, or maybe MIT has Title IX problems with the Obama administration, and is trying to impress the leftist feminist Obama bureaucrats and avoid charges in other cases.

I note that Lewin appears to be from a Dutch Jewish family, as he had relatives die in Auschwitz. In other campus scandals I have recently posted about, feminist Jewish liberals seem to be at war against genteel southern blond fraternity boys.

To give you an idea how college cave in to leftist agitators, read this:

The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that "all lives matter."

Kathleen McCartney wrote the phrase in the subject line of an e-mail to students at the school, whose alumni include feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, former First Lady Nancy Reagan and celebrity chef Julia Child. McCartney was attempting to show support for students protesting racially charged grand jury decisions in which police in Missouri and New York were not charged in the deaths of unarmed black men.

Protesters have adopted several slogans in connection with the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, including "Black Lives Matter." McCartney's more inclusive version of the refrain was seen as an affront that diminished the focus on black lives and racism, according to emails obtained by FoxNews.com.

“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.” ...

Some who follow campus issues say that the idea of apologizing for saying “all lives matter” shows political correctness is out of control.

My guess is that Obama administration pressure induced MIT to do this. Yes, Democrat leftist feminist bureaucrats now intervene in petty student complaints, as shown by their letter to Princeton.

Update: See Lewin's last lecture to get an idea of how popular he was.

Incapable of distinguishing criminal behavior

The Free Range Kids blogger has been called the worlds worst mom, but sometimes I think that she is the only one with any common sense. Now she warns:

The so-called “Cinderella Law” working its way through Parliament may sound as if it is going to rescue ragamuffins stuck in their own little corner in their own little chair. But in fact, by expanding the definition of child cruelty to include emotional, psychological or even intangible harm, it holds the threat of criminalizing any of us who think  our kids can handle more than the state (or some tsk-tsk’ing agent) believes they can.

I prefiously warned England to get Cinderella Law and Britain makes emotional cruelty a crime.

Now she refers to a British essay:

There is little doubt that the ominously titled Serious Crime Bill, currently working its way through parliament, will significantly expand the definition of the offence of child cruelty. It may be nicknamed the Cinderella Law, but it will criminalise behaviour falling far short of anything experienced by Cinderella. Clause 65 of the bill, in particular, will make two changes to the offence of child cruelty.

First, it will enable prosecutions to be brought where a child, although not physically harmed, has been harmed in other ways. Any form of emotional, psychological or intangible harm could be caught by this new definition of ill-treatment: ‘physical or otherwise’. This reform will overturn a House of Lords decision from 1980 that confined the offence of child cruelty to cases involving a child’s physical needs. This specifically excluded other aspects of harm, such as a parental failure to meet moral, educational, spiritual or emotional needs. That the government’s proposal now includes such forms of intangible harm will mean that children and their many one-eyed advocates in the child-protection industry will find it all too easy to bring normal incidents of parenting within the scope of the criminal law.

Secondly, clause 65 will also remove the examples that currently illustrate the severity of an injury necessary for its infliction to be regarded criminal. So, since 1933, ‘injury to health’ has ‘includ[ed] injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body’. These examples have ensured that one-off incidents of bruising, for example, would not be treated as child cruelty. Clause 65 will sweep away all the examples and replace them with the expansive and all-encompassing words ‘whether of a physical or psychological nature’. In other words, any form of injury to health, whether of a physical or psychological nature, will potentially fall within the scope of the criminal law.

The effect these two changes will have on the policing of parents by criminal-law enforcement agencies should not be underestimated. ...

Under the current law, a number of parents have already fallen foul of child-protection officials who, having lost all sense of perspective, have used criminal law to prosecute parents whose behaviour fell a long way short of anything that warrants a ‘criminal’ tag.

I am afraid that the trend in the USA is in the same direction, and there is not the political will to stop it. CPS has little interest in distinguishing criminal from non-criminal behavior, and there is no complaint that is too trivial for it to investigate.

Here is the latest example of over-aggressive CPS action:

Later that afternoon, Langwell decided to check out and go home. Langwell said the baby was breastfeeding well and was healthy, and she preferred to take her home early "AMA" (against medical advice) so they could all get some sleep. When she left, a member of the hospital's staff called and reported her to the county's child welfare agency. ...

According to the child welfare agency's report, a hospital staff member described Langwell as "hostile" and suggested that her behavior was "consistent with someone with substance abuse issues." (According to a representative from the county's child welfare department, the majority of the cases they see are neglect cases, and most of those are related to substance abuse.) ...

A child welfare agent came to the house the next day to check on the baby. The home had a security fence, and Langwell and Hodek did not hear the knocking at the gate, which was some distance from the front of the house. The agent called the police. When Langwell eventually appeared at the security gate, she saw two police officers and the welfare agent, who told her that the hospital had alerted the agency when she checked out early. Langwell refused to let the police and welfare agent inside the house but brought the baby out so they could see that she was OK. The agent noted in her report that the baby had good coloring. Langwell submitted to an on-the-spot drug test, but according to the report, the test was inconclusive, because her saliva sample was too thick ­— "which may have had something to do with the fact that I had just given birth and it was 110 degrees," Langwell says bitterly.

The agent returned later that day with a warrant to take the baby — just to the hospital for a full exam, Langwell and Hodek initially thought. ...

A child welfare agent came to the house the next day to check on the baby. The home had a security fence, and Langwell and Hodek did not hear the knocking at the gate, which was some distance from the front of the house. The agent called the police. When Langwell eventually appeared at the security gate, she saw two police officers and the welfare agent, who told her that the hospital had alerted the agency when she checked out early. Langwell refused to let the police and welfare agent inside the house but brought the baby out so they could see that she was OK. The agent noted in her report that the baby had good coloring. Langwell submitted to an on-the-spot drug test, but according to the report, the test was inconclusive, because her saliva sample was too thick ­— "which may have had something to do with the fact that I had just given birth and it was 110 degrees," Langwell says bitterly.

The agent returned later that day with a warrant to take the baby — just to the hospital for a full exam, Langwell and Hodek initially thought. ...

"The Juvenile Court upholds approximately 98 percent of our actions to remove children from their homes based on evidence presented," Pettet says, meaning that in about 2 percent of the cases where a removal has occurred, the judge will return the child to the home of a parent.

We have objective, cheap, and accurate drug tests, so no one should be falsely accused of drug use.

I mentioned that I was suspicious of all the Bill Cosby fan-girls who claim that they got date-rape drugs decades ago. Here is a study from a couple of years ago:

SUSPECTED victims of drink spiking are more likely to be suffering from drugs and alcohol they have willingly consumed, according to Australian research.

Of 100 suspected drink-spiking cases reviewed in a West Australian study, none were found to involve being slipped a sedative or illicit drug.

What emerged instead was a concerning picture of excess alcohol and illegal drug use by people – usually young women – at the centre of these drink-spiking claims.

“The public’s perception that it’s a guy putting a sedative drug into a woman’s drink, at a pub or a club, we just didn’t find that at all,” Dr Mark Little, a clinical toxicologist at the Royal Perth Hospital, said.

“As a community, we have a bigger problem with illicit drug use and alcohol binge drinking than we do with drink spiking.”

I am coming around to the view that unless the woman goes straight to the police within 2 hours and has a medical exam, then her allegations are likely to be mostly false.

Date-rape drugging sheltered from DSM-5

When women make a rape accusation days, weeks, or even years afterwards, they always get the question about why they did not report it earlier, or why witnesses say that she was a willing participant. Sometimes the answer is that the rapist must have used a date-rape drug!

The NY Times reports:

He had money, charisma, movie star looks and no apparent reason to drug his sexual partners. But he did it anyway, according to multiple accusers, who remember little except losing consciousness and waking up partly dressed and molested.

That case — of Andrew Luster, a cosmetics heir convicted in 2003 in Ventura County, Calif., of raping three women after dosing them with a date-rape drug — is distinct from comedian Bill Cosby’s. Women have accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and raping them over a period of decades; he has denied the allegations and not been charged.

Yet the stories the men’s accusers tell raise an overarching question: Why would someone who has seemingly easy access to consensual sex resort to drugging?

So there is a question for the dopey psychologist experts.

Maybe it is like space alien abduction. Abductees often tell similar stories, and claimed that they were programmed or drugged to forget the details of what happened.

Freud got into trouble with feminists for claiming that women's stories of sex abuse were made-up fantasies. So the shrink don't dare say that anymore. So they blame it on the accused:

One of those motives is obvious: simple opportunism, the reason men have spiked women’s drinks (or less commonly, women men’s) since the dawn of cocktail hour. Another is coercion; the perpetrator is aroused by domination, forcing his (or rarely, her) sexual will on the target.

“This is common enough that we debated whether to include it as a diagnosis in the D.S.M. 5,” psychiatrists’ influential diagnostic manual, said Dr. Michael First, a Columbia psychiatrist who edited it. But the idea was shelved, in part because of concerns that doing so would give rapists added recourse in legal cases, he said.

A third and far less common motive is a rare kind of “paraphilia"— an unusual sexual preference that becomes compulsive. “In this case, it’s a preference for unresponsive partners,” Dr. Cantor said.

The DSM-5 is the official book of psychiatric disorders. It has a pretense of being scientific, but as the editor just admitted, they made their decisions based on social justice political opinions, rather than on scientific merit.

My readers will not be too surprised at bad criteria being used for the DSM-5. I have posted many stories about dubious disorders and how the committee is politicized. Sometimes they loosen criteria in order to make state funding more readily available, and sometimes they tighten criteria in order to avoid stigma.

Probably their most famous decisions were to make homosexuality a disorder, and then when closeted gay psychiatrists infiltrated the committee to eliminate the disorder. The decision was ultimately made as a political vote of the membership, and not based on any scientific evidence. You can listen to a pro-gay NPR version of the story.

But I am surprised that the DSM-5 come right out and admit that they excluded a disorder in an attempt to manipulate the legal system to convict more defendants.

Exposing the false accuser

More info is out on Jacqueline Coakley, the accuser behind the UVa rape hoax:

Gotnews.com has obtained the rape obsessed Pinterest account of the 20-year-old girl at the center of the University of Virginia rape hoax.

We can also confirm that Jackie Coakley has misled other students at both her high school and her college about her past sexual relations with men.

Coakley’s social media postings (below) reveal a woman obsessed with rape and well aware of the political consequences of rape allegations.

The mainstream media does not name rape victims, but there is every reason to name false accusers. Jezebel says it is irresponsible to name Coakley.

I do not want to put all the blame on her. The world is full of crazy mixed-up bitches without a firm grip on reality. I place much greater blame on those in higher positions of responsibility.

Sabrina Rubin Erdely deserves much more blame for writing the phony story, but she is also just another crazy feminist who apparently has been lurid stories of false accusations for years. Why has no one called her on it before?

More blames goes to the supposedly reputable publishers, like the Rolling Stone and Wash. Post, who put their reputations behind this story. And they still refuse to come clean, and call this the hoax that it is. In spite of all the evidence that the story was a hoax, a Wash. Post columnist writes:

We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it ...

President Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and much of the mainstream news media are dedicated to creating racial and sexual animosity. They get their votes by convincing non-whites that Republicans hate them, and convincing single women that there is a war on women. To do that they create hoaxes.

Why was the whole nation preoccupied by an obscure Ferguson Missouri police shooting? Michael Brown was a thug, robber, and attempted murderer of the worst sort. His death is not a tragedy as the world is very much better off with him no longer able to commit violent crimes against people. The evidence confirmed the officer's self-defense story.

And yet Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to incite blacks to riot over this. The Democrats gave the (false) impression that white racist cops pick on blacks for no reason, and shoot them in the back in front of a dozen witnesses. Obama continues to this day to imply that the Ferguson police were the criminals.

Likewise, Obama and the Democrat news media are constantly telling us that American society has some sort of rape culture where Republicans and other evil-doers approve of rape. So we have all these stories like the UVa frat party rape, the Bill Cosby raping with date-rape drugs, Lena Dunham being raped by the campus conservative, colleges being disciplined for not acting more aggressively on rape complaints, etc.

There is no merit to any of this nonsense. Rape is on a long term decline, like other violent crimes. Most of these college stories are just slutty girls who get drunk and have some regrets the next morning. The big majority of the black-white crime is blacks attacking whites, not whites attacking blacks.

Another facet to the battle is the GamerGate controversy. Gamers want to play computer video games without interference from the social justice warriors who want change to suit their leftist politics.

A lot of people thought that electing Barack Obama in 2008 was going to bring a new era in improved race relations and bipartisan government. Just the opposite has happened. He has refused to work with the Republicans, and has engaged in the most hateful and divisive tactics of any President in my lifetime. He has turned the Democrats into the hate-white-Christian-men party.

The hysteria of modern witch trials

A law firm blog accuses:

Before a writer for Rolling Stone ever made the mistake of believing an alleged gang-rape story told by a student named "Jackie," she bought an alleged multiple-rape story told by a former altar boy named "Billy." ...

The writer of the story in question, Rolling Stone contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely, is from Philadelphia. Before she bought Jackie's story, she fell for a story told by a former altar boy dubbed "Billy Doe" by a grand jury.

In Rolling Stone, it seems rape is bigger than rock. On Sept. 15, 2011, Erderly wrote a story for Rolling Stone that accepted as gospel Billy Doe's fantastic claims about being passed around as a rape victim among two priests and a school teacher. [The Catholic Church's Secret Sex-Crime Files.] In Erdely's defense, she, like many other members of the media, made the mistake of relying on an intellectually dishonest grand jury report containing more than 20 factual errors.

Attention Rolling Stone: if you think the factual discrepancies in Jackie's story are "deeply unsettling," wait till you read all the factual discrepancies in Billy's story, documented for the past two years on this blog. Sadly, the stakes here are a lot higher than in Virginia, where none of the alleged attackers have even been outed. In Philly, three priests and a school teacher wound up going to jail over Billy's story, which has since unraveled. One of those priests died in prison last month after he spent his last hours handcuffed to a hospital bed while suffering from untreated coronary disease.

Yes, a couple of priests were convicted by jury trials, but that does not convince me.

The Austin Texas newspaper just reported:

Austin day care owners Dan and Fran Keller spent more than 22 years in prison after three young children accused them of dismembering babies, torturing pets, desecrating corpses, videotaping orgies and serving blood-laced Kool-Aid in satanic rituals so ghastly, their names became synonymous with evil.

It was the early 1990s, when a cottage industry of therapists, authors and investigators argued convincingly — and, in hindsight, absurdly — that a national network of secretive cults was preying upon day care children for sex and other horrors.

Despite a vigorous investigation in the Keller case, at least four law enforcement agencies found no proof of satanic activity. Even so, Travis County prosecutors presented enough other evidence to convict the Kellers of sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl in their care. Both were sentenced to 48-year prison terms.

Prison, Fran Keller said, was “true hell” for two people convicted of child sex crimes.

“We were bullied and assaulted pretty much the entire time,” she told the American-Statesman. “Other inmates, they’d scream at you while assaulting you, yelling, ‘You want to do this to children? Well, we’ll do it to you.’”

Denied parole three times, the Kellers won early release last year when the criminal case against them collapsed. The only physical evidence of sexual assault was found to be a mistake…

Oscar O'Reilly argues The Bill Cosby Rape Scandal Is Just Another Example Of Modern Hysteria, and compares to the Salem witch trials.

This Rolling Stone story was an outright hoax. No fraternity party took place on the alleged date. The fraternity did not have any members who worked as a lifeguard, as alleged. It does not even have new member initiations that time of year. The article says wildly implausible things like: "One flung a bottle at Jackie that broke on the side of her face, leaving a blood-red bruise around her eye."

A beer bottle hit her face and the bottle broke, leaving only a bruise?! Is that even physically possible?

The NY Times reports:

Even the magazine’s apology seemed to backfire. The note to readers initially said that Rolling Stone’s trust in Jackie was “misplaced” — which some read as criticizing Jackie and undermining her story. This weekend, as it faced further criticism for that characterization, it quietly changed the note to say that it was “mistaken in honoring Jackie’s request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.” It also said, “These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.”

So RS is refusing to admit that the story is false. There is no retraction and no apology, except to say that more fact-checking should have been done.

The feminists at NPR radio are still arguing for Jackie's allegations:

Emily, first we should say you know the victim, the woman identified as Jackie. She told you this story when you were with a campus support group. Now, Rolling Stone has said that their trust in her was misplaced. And I'm quoting there. Do you doubt her story?

EMILY RENDA: No, I don't. I think that there are some larger complexities at play here. There's a lot of good research, you know, citing Dr. David Lisak and Dr. Rebecca Campbell that suggest that traumatic memories are stored differently in the brain. And so as a result, they're brought out by the brain different as well. So through none of this process have I ever disbelieved Jackie. Have I believed that details may change shape over time because of the nature of trauma? Absolutely.

MARTIN: Have you spoken to her - Jackie - since the news broke?

RENDA: I have. You know, I never feel entirely comfortable speaking on somebody else's behalf. But I'll say that this is very overwhelming. And I know that even just personally as a survivor, I knew that when people questioned me, that was pretty traumatic. And so I can't imagine what it's like to have the national news media outlet that you trusted for months, who attempted to convince you to stay in the story on multiple occasions, all of a sudden turn its back on you and kind of take the entire country down a road of doubting you. That's got to be incredibly traumatic.

So somehow we are supposed to still believe Jackie, even tho her story is contradicted to all the ascertainable facts.

The obvious inference here is that feminist women are unable to communicate on a factual level. They just give emotional responses and arguments, and do not even understand that truth is based on facts and that many facts can be objectively verified. Not all women suffer from this problem, as the YouTube channel Factual Feminist is able to give a fact-based discussion of some controversial issues. But that is the exception.

Update: This article summarizes evidence that the main factual claims of the Rolling Stone article have been proved incorrect, and concludes:

The wildly poetic moralizing by Sabrina Erdely is based on feminist fantasies about how “rape culture” permeates universities across the country, and has no basis in reality whatsoever. The hysterical fight against this imaginary “rape culture” is a desperate attempt by a dying feminist movement to regain relevance in a world that hasn’t needed their activism in decades.

Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone are not just grossly negligent and wildly incorrect in their reporting, they must be pursued by relentless litigation for libel and defamation of character for the institutions and individuals involved in this story.

After reading the claims made by Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone, and reviewing the evidence, can their continued existence in a media capacity be tolerated?

No, there will be no libel and defamation lawsuits because the legal system makes those suits impossible to win, because anyone suing would suffer worse adverse publicity as the feminist press would gang up on him, and because dumb female jurors are unlikely to understand the facts.

It is telling that Rolling Stone is unwilling to even stick to a statement that Jackie misled them. And the magazine has not admitted that it published a hoax.

Update: Lena Dunham's memoir alleges that she was raped by the campus conservative, and her publisher now suggests that was also a hoax, as it pays off the likely suspect. Sick, sick, sick.