The National Campaign Against Male College Students

Feminist have launched a national campaign of harassment and intimidation toward male college students. 

At Columbia University, feminists wrote the names of four male students at various locations across the campus claiming they were rapists. However, none of the students had been found guilty of anything. The only known fact about any of their cases is that a complaint was filed against one of the men 5 months after the incident. 

New York's feminist Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, wants more legislation against colleges' alleged rape culture. She stated "The price [for women] of a college education should not include a 1 in 5 chance of being sexually assaulted." She claimed schools have "become havens for rape and sexual assault". "These are not cases of dates gone badly, of a misunderstanding about whether she said yes or no, these are actually brutal crimes committed by recidivists and predators". Falsely claiming thousands of women are being raped means thousands of men are rapists. Gillibrand is hoping to create new legislation making it easier for schools to expel large numbers of accused men. 

Sandra Fluke, a feminist California State Senate candidate, repeated Gillibrand's fraudulent clam of 1 in 5 female undergraduates being sexually assaulted. She stated "One in five women will survive a rape or attempted rape by the time she graduates college. That means of the approximately 966,000 women at the bachelor's degree level who will graduate this year, 193,200 will be survivors of rape or attempted rape while in college". Fluke demanded female undergraduates be given "rape shield statutes to protect assault survivors from character assassination". Her proposal means that in any campus incidents women will remain anonymous while men will be named. This includes

incidents of false rape. 

In a TIME Magazine article, Nancy Chi Cantalupo, feminist professor at Georgetown Law, argued that accused students rights can be ignored because "schools face exponentially more expensive liability for violating student victims’ rights under Title IX than they do for violating accused assailants’ due process rights". She stated the largest award given to a falsely accused male undergraduate was only $26,500 compared with $2.8 million awarded a women. 

Feminist Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College stated “"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students." Thus, the Dartmouth Coordinator wants men expelled on mere accusations. This same school has also created a Bystander Initiative program which demands pupils, faculty and staff intervene against men at the first signs of dating trouble. Dartmouth is creating a type of feminist police state. 

Lastly, TIME magazine's recent large article titled 'The Sexual Assault Crisis on American Campuses' emphasized campus sexual assault rules are applied only against men. Women cannot be rapists. In fairness, the author also implored only about 6% of male undergraduates are rapists. She said most men are good. Nonetheless, emphasizing rape laws be applied only against men gives feminist opportunities to manipulate sexual assault rules without impacting female students. Manipulating rules will allow for the expulsion of increasing numbers of men from college. Thus, 6% can easily be changed to 20% or even 40% of male undergraduates are rapists. An example of this double standard occurred in the Ohio State University false rape incident. A video was posted of two drunk undergraduates having sex. Feminists publicly demanded the man be expelled because, under current campus guidelines, a drunk women cannot give sexual consent. However, the man was was also drunk. Yet the woman was not deemed a rapist. Sexual assault guidelines were applied only toward the man.

Across America, feminist are advocating a hostile campus environment for male university students. These women are creating rules allowing for the easy expulsion of men on bogus charges. Feminist are attempting to limit the number of men earning degrees. 

The impetus for this limitation is a 2010 study by the research firm Reach Advisors. The study discovered single women aged 22-30 outearn their male counterparts in most American cities. Reach Advisors cited college education as the main reason for the gender pay gap. Significantly more women than men earn degrees. By altering campus rules, feminist hope thousands of male undergraduates can be prevented from obtaining degrees. Less men with degrees means more high paying skilled jobs go to educated women. 

Curtailing mens' economic opportunities while simultaneously advancing women is the campaign's major goal. If feminists wanted equality, they would have advocated fairness for all students. Instead, these women are intentionally creating a hostile learning environment for men.

America's Feminist Media and Jill Abramson

The New York Times recently fired executive editor Jill Abramson. She was replaced by Dean Baquet. America's female chauvinist media was outraged.

Every time a white female corporate manager is fired, there is mass media hysteria. The same hysteria happened with the firing of Carly Fiorina, Carol Bartz, Cynthia Carroll and a host of other female corporate managers. The American media projects a feminist mindset that white female managers should not be fired nor questioned. They should simply be obeyed.

The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR in fact nearly all media outlets claimed she was fired because she was a woman. They even made up a phrase calling her firing a 'glass cliff' for women.

However, Dylan Byers (from POLITICO) stated that Abramson had many problems with subordinates. She was viewed as stubborn and condescending. Many subordinates believed they were being treated poorly. The usually feminist NewYorker backed up his claim. Could this be the reason for her firing? Why would an organization want dissension within its ranks?

A Charlie Rose panel (Rebecca Traistter, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dylan Byers;) grudgingly admitted that the previous executive editor, Bill Keller, had the same problem. Ultimately, it led to his demotion. Could it be the New York Times owner did not want to go thru the same scenario all over again?

The same panelists also stated Abramson hired many females - most of whom were white. Could it be that male journalists were growing resentful at being passed over for promotion or not being hired at all? Because most major media organizations operate secretively, its not known whether she actually practiced sex discrimination in her hiring and promotion practices. However, it is known that she intended to hire Janine Gibson - a white female and place her in a prominent position. Ms. Gibson would serve alongside Dean Baquet as a co-managing editor. Baquet was never told of such an arrangement and was angered when he inadvertently found out. Was Abramson discretely creating a white female controlled environment circumventing other employees? Additionally, could her underhandedness concerning Mr. Baquet be a reason for her firing?

Another fact is Abramson demanded the New York Times pay her more money.  After 3 years as executive editor, her salary was $503,000. She demanded the same salary as previous executive editor Bill Keller. His salary, after 8 years in the position was $559,000. Abramson hired a lawyer to assert her salary demands.

Making salary demands by hiring a lawyer is not an intelligent decision. An employer will likely become angered. Could that be a reason for her firing? Additionally, American feminist media outlets such as the LA Times, Huffington Post, Slate, The NewYorker, CNN and others claimed her salary demands were about pay equity. However, none of the feminist outlets justified why a women needs only work 3 years in a position before she can make the same as a man who worked 8 years in the same position. 

Lastly, these same news organizations contended Abramson created an atmosphere for high quality reporting and investigative journalism.If so then why has the New York Times continued producing biased and chauvinistic articles? For example. a few weeks before her firing the organization wrote an article titled "Technology’s Man Problem". The article claimed male programmers make death threats and rape threats against women. It stated the "computer-engineering culture" causes hostility toward women and pushes them out of the industry. It quoted a man named Lauren Weinstein. He said the reason more women aren’t in this industry is because "these guys are just jerks, and women know it". The foundation for these hostile claims was the fictional app Titstare. According to its comedy presentation, the app allows someone to take photos of themselves staring at tits. The New York Times claimed the app was disgusting and sexist. It was an example of why more women are needed in computing. However, this same news organization produced a November 2013 article discussing the app Lulu. This app allows women to write reviews of men but expressly forbids men from reviewing women. Pictures of men can also be uploaded and their names listed. Negative comments can be posted anonymously. Lulu's developer hopes the app will change men. The New York Times article openly supported Lulu. Thus, according to this news organization, under Abramson's management, a fictional app about staring at anonymous women's tits promotes sexism. A real app rating named men like a restaurant service - and forbidding the rating of women - does NOT promote sexism. THIS IS CLASSIC FEMINIST DOUBLE STANDARD.

Admittedly, the New York Times produced biased and double standard articles long before her hiring. However, she did little to promote objectivity during her tenure.

Media hysteria every time a woman corporate manager is fired shows the American news industry has an entrenched female chauvinist culture. It is a culture based on the philosophy that women should not be held accountable for their actions and men are second class citizens. This philosophy is formally known as feminism.

A Reason Why Marriage Is A Bad Deal For Men

A prime example illustrating how marriage is a bad deal for men recently appeared on the news website Slate (ranked by Alexa as one of the most popular sites in the word).

On the site's Advice section, a wife wrote that she had been married two years and recently became pregnant. Her husband wanted a paternity test simply to make sure the child was his. The wife, however, does not want to do a paternity test. She stated she has never given "him the slightest reason to doubt my fidelity" and "I’m at the point that I’m not sure I even want to save the marriage. What sort of dad is he going to be if his love and trust for me is so conditional? Part of me is strongly tempted to say “You’re right, this child is not yours,” and just raise it myself". Slate's feminist oriented advisor called the husband a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" and stated the wife should tell her husband she has "never been so shaken, and that he is making you question the foundation of your marriage".

Legalized paternity fraud is a major reason why men see marriage as a bad deal. In America, only 9 states have outlawed paternity fraud: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Missouri. Each of these states allow husbands to submit - at any time - DNA evidence proving they are not the father. The court will then absolve the husband from any child support or parental responsibilities. Three states, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Tennessee, allow the submission of DNA evidence only if the child is under the age of 5. Once the child reaches the age of 5, DNA testing is irrelevant. State law legally requires the husband to finance and raise his wife's boyfriend's child. The remaining states allow DNA testing only if the child is very young. Depending on the state, the child can be no older than a few years to only a few months old.

A husband can avoid every state's restrictions by obtaining DNA testing at birth. However, as emphasized by Slate, any husband requesting paternity testing will be harassed by his wife and called a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" by feminists. If DNA testing at birth were made state law this situation would be avoided. Husbands would have no need requesting testing since its required by law. However, opponents of such a law claim its insulting to innocent wives. Additionally, opponents state the government should not force couples into taking paternity testing.  Allowing DNA paternity testing at anytime during the child's life would avoid insulting innocent wives and forcing couples into taking paternity tests. However, opponents of such a law claim children will be harmed because they will no longer have a father. They say they are concerned for the child's welfare.

As can be seen, there is a stream of excuses for maintaining paternity fraud in the United States. In any given situation, a husband will be harassed and denied paternity testing. Its a poor deal for husbands.

Additionally, the excuses as to why these wives cheat are a farce. Feminist oriented outlets such as Women's Day, WebMD and ABCNews promote propaganda claiming wives cheat because their husbands are unsupportive. These outlets claim a wife's boyfriend provides understanding and emotional support.

If the boyfriend is so understanding then why are so many states forcing the 'unsupportive' husband into raising the 'understanding' boyfriend's child? Wouldn't an 'understanding' man be a better father than a 'unsupportive' man? The contradictory excuses for female marital infidelity and legalized paternity fraud  are simply ASTOUNDING.

Opposition to paternity fraud laws is not about the welfare of children. Rather, its about preserving the exploitation of husbands for the benefit of selfish fraudulent wives. The only people benefitting from paternity fraud are the backstabbing wife and her sleazeball boyfriend. The wife is able to fraud and exploit her husband without repercussions while the boyfriend is absolved from his parental responsibilities.

Since American law promotes the frauding of husbands, why should men get married? Marriage, for men, is a bad deal.