Super-Sensitivity and Male Cows
Here is another installment of acts of women's self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and misandry that I have seen lately. This is just a fraction of the acts that I have seen. I couldn't begin to talk about all of them.
In a previous article (Prologue) I noted that the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association had evolved quite differently. The YMCA had abandoned its focus on men and had become totally gender-inclusive, while the YWCA remained an organization only for women. I recently examined their websites to see if anything has changed. I found that the YWCA has remained an organization for women. Its unintentionally ironic mission statement says it is dedicated to "empowering women." (In this society men need empowering.) The website, www.ywca.org, also shows a strong emphasis on race relations. (I suspect that this is a trick commonly used by feminists to equate the bias against women with the far more serious discrimination against African-Americans.) In contrast the YMCA is moving further from its initial focus on men and is now doing a lot of pandering to women. Most of its members are female. In 2010, it officially adopted the nickname, "The Y," thereby eliminating any connection to men in its name. It also gives preference to women-owned contractors and sponsors the activities, "Girls on the Run" and "Black Girls Run." I also found it odd that the History section on its website, www.ymca.net, does not mention when the organization moved away from its original male focus. This is just one more example of women's organizations being acceptable while men-only groups are avoided like the plague. I guess men are seen as scum and no one wants to associate with them.
Givers of scholarships also do not seem to want to associate with men. When I looked into scholarships for women on scholarships.com, the site mentioned that women now outnumber men in college (it is now about 57% women to 43% men,) but that we still need to give women more scholarships to eliminate the pay gap. [1] I'm not sure I get the connection here. They seem to be saying that we have to discriminate against men in the number of scholarships in order to pay women more. An end-justifies-the-means, kind of thing. But, as I have pointed out before, the pay gap has to do with women's choices, and has little to do with discrimination. So I really do not think more scholarships for women will make much difference in the pay gap---women will still choose safer, more comfortable, less dangerous, more flexible, often lower-paying jobs. But this is a handy---and ridiculous---excuse to justify discrimination against men. The site lists 35 scholarships for women and 9 for men (four of which are from fraternities.) The site explicitly points out the discrimination by saying that it lists "more rare scholarships, such as ones geared specifically towards men." [2]
(Update: "A recent analysis of scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities revealed widespread discriminatory policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students." http://www.saveservices.org/2019/07/pr-federal-office-for-civil-rights-launches-investigations-of-title-ix-discrimination-complaints-by-male-students/ )
I have seen several Redd's Apple Ale TV ads where a man is hit in the head with an apple and knocked down. [3] I have never seen a Redd's ad where a woman is hit with an apple. Now, as violence goes, this is fairly mild, yet Redd's is still not allowed to show the slightest harm or violence towards women. We value women too much. (And the advertisers are probably afraid of complaints by super-sensitive women.) But we do not value men. It is OK to hurt them, even for fun. (And men have been shamed into never complaining about such slights.) This kind of thing is rampant throughout advertising media. Raid kills bugs dead, but only male bugs. JackLink's Sasquatch only beats up men. Allstate's male "Mayhem" falls down stairs, gets blown up in a car, get's zapped by an electric dog collar, is run over by a truck and attacked by a bear. Violence or harm to men is fun, and is used to sell products.
Another Allstate TV ad is also indicative of this pandering to women. [4] It shows a couple in a restaurant, and the woman denies his contention that men are better drivers. She implies that women have fewer accidents. She even tells him to shut-up when he tries to respond. This ad has been playing for years. Is it correct? Men drive almost twice as many miles as women, so have more total accidents. But when considering the rate of accidents per miles driven---a much more indicative statistic concerning driving ability---one study [5] found that women's rate of injury accidents was 26% higher than men's, and it also found rates 16% higher for women drivers in police-reported accidents. But one does not need a study to realize this. Just observe drivers. If a couple or a family is in a car, chances are high that the man is driving. Would a woman really let an accident-prone man do the driving with her babies in the back seat? She knows that he is a better driver. Either that, or she is so narcissistic that she believes that she should be chauffered around like a queen.
Another example of pandering to women occurred on the NBC Nightly News for August 28th, in a report concerning refugees in Europe. "Today, authorities say 71 people, including 8 women and 4 children, died in that truck found abandoned on a highway in Austria. The youngest, a girl, perhaps 2 years old." As usual, women and children deserve special attention and sympathy. But 59 men don't. Another example of this occurred when former British Home Secretary David Blunkett asked that women and children be given priority as Syrian refugees are selected to immigrate to England. Winston Peters of New Zealand also said that only women and children should be accepted while the men should go back to Syria and fight. We couldn't care less about the lives of men. I have said this before but, whenever the phrase "women and children" appears, men are probably being devalued.
This pandering was also evident with the July 30th episode of the sit-com, Mom, on CBS. The 20-year-old-or-so daughter in the show exclaims that "Men suck!" Her mother tries to come up with the words to contradict this, but finally concludes that she cannot even fake such a counter-argument. Men are constantly degraded in the media, often for laughs. That's permitted. But criticizing or devaluing women is rare.
Howard Kurtz on the August 16th Foxnews program, Mediabuzz, may have actually criticized women, but so subtly, that I bet few realized. He appears to have set up liberal Leslie Marshall and conservative Meghan McCain in a test of sexist hypocrisy. But then again, he may have just been doing the normal pandering to women. Kurtz showed them the current cover of The Week Magazine and asked them if it were sexist. The covers of this magazine always show outrageous caricatures of people in the news, who are often men. This cover showed Foxnews anchors Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier attacking Donald Trump. Even though the cover was not sexist because, as Kurtz pointed out, it showed goofy caricatures of both a male and female news anchor as well as Trump, both Marshall and McCain thought it was sexist for its portrayal of Kelly. This is just one more example of the overly-sensitive knee-jerk hypocrisy of women thinking everything is sexist against women. But Kurtz then further showed that McCain's super-sensitivity for sexism against women could be overcome by political hypocrisy. Kurtz showed a video clip of Bernie Sanders stating that Hillary Clinton was the victim of much sexism. McCain did not think the liberal Clinton had suffered any sexism, and that liberals were being overly-sensitive. McCain implied that conservative women were the only ones being victimized by sexism in the media. Amazing.
Another example of women's super-sensitivity and hypocrisy occurred recently concerning women's soccer. After the American team won the women's World Cup, several players complained that they were not paid as much as the winning men's team. It turns out winnings are based on money brought in by the matches, and the women's events had low attendance and correspondingly brought in little cash. The President of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, suggested that the players might increase attendance by wearing sexier uniforms with shorter shorts. Needless to say, this comment did not go over well. But why? In almost any situation, women, of their own volition, wear sexier outfits than men, with more skin exposure, tighter fabrics, see-thru fabrics, shaping clothing, and generous amounts of cosmetics. They also wear shorter shorts---the inseams on most women's shorts seem to be about an inch long. From the red carpet, to work, to school, to church, to the beach, to casual wear, to Halloween costumes, women are generally much more sexual in their dress than men. This applies to sports as well---from tennis, to track and field, to volleyball, to diving and gymnastics with butt cheeks hanging out, to cheerleading, to golf, and beach volleyball. GEEZ, BEACH VOLLEYBALL!!! I have noticed that television camera operators must be very careful when zooming in on female athletes for fear of accidentally exposing something they shouldn't. Soccer and basketball seem to be the only popular sports (other than cold-weather sports) where women wear what men wear. I would be happy if women stopped being sexual in their dress, because I hate the hypocrisy of women being offended by a man's sexual joke while women are showing camel toe, or exposing their boobs, etc. If men are not allowed to be sexual, than neither are women. Keep the sexy outfits in the bedroom. In the meantime, hypocritical women are not allowed to be upset with Sepp Blatter for suggesting something that they usually do anyway.
I mentioned in an earlier post that male criminals receive 63% longer sentences than females for the same offenses. [6] Here's one possible reason why. A Delaware woman convicted of raping a 15-year-old boy was sentenced to two years of probation as well as 48 weekends in jail. Her defense attorney said that this is fair and that "(The judge) is punishing her ... while at the same time not punishing her children." [7] So, I guess, women get a break on their sentences if they are mothers. It's odd, because men have children too, but they and their children seem to be exempt from benefitting from such a policy. In fact, an inmate and father recently had to sue California to include fathers in a program which has allowed 530 mothers the opportunity to get out of prison early to be with their children. [35]
I noted previously that women's voting gender gap gets much media attention, always with the implication that candidates must pay attention to women if they expect to win elections. I also noted that men's voting gap only receives negative attention, as in the "angry white-male vote." This negative attention to men's vote again occurred recently with the candidacy of Donald Trump. Several news outlets reported that the expectation was that Trump, a rude, mean, bullying, racist, loud-mouthed clown must be receiving his support from angry white men. [8] That expectation turned out not to be true, but the assumption was, who else but angry white men would support the obnoxious, egomaniacal Donald Trump? The media make it appear that female voters are smart, benevolent, and angelic, while male voters are angry, stupid, and evil.
Another kind of sexism concerning Trump appeared during the first Republican debate. Megyn Kelly implied Trump was a misogynist for some of the rude names he has called women. But of course, Kelly was the sexist here. (Perhaps Megyn's name is a giveaway to her bias---meGYN as in GYNocentric.) Trump calls everyone rude names. But Kelly carefully selected out only examples of Trump calling women bad names, ignoring all of the men who have received the wrath of Trump's sharp tongue, thus unfairly portraying Trump as a woman-hater. Unbelievably, Kelly ignored the men who had been name-called just days before the debate, and went back years to find names used by Trump against Rosie O'Donnell and other women. Even more unbelieveably, most all of the media and political commentators sided with Kelly in this case. Something similar happened a few weeks later when Trump criticized Carly Fiorina's face. However, no one had any problem with Trump calling other men names, for example, "stupid fool," "moron," "fraudsters and liars," "thugs," "idiot," "dummy," "total losers," and "rapists." Trump also made fun of Rand Paul's looks during the second Republican debate---no one got upset. No one had any trouble when other men called Trump names---examples include "unstable," "narcissistic egomaniac," "unserious," "a carnival act," "shallow," "the world's biggest jackass," "buffoon," "clown," "bandit," "thief," and "a-hole." And everyone has made fun of Trump's hair---even Hillary Clinton did this on the September 16th Tonight Show. This again shows that it is OK to dehumanize men, call them names, and make fun of their appearance, but it is a major offense to do the same thing to women, especially if a man does it. Trump was treating women and men equally. Women complain if they are treated badly, and women complain if they are treated equally. Women do not want equality. Women want superiority. This double standard is completely sexist, and omnipresent.
As this incident with Trump shows, men are not allowed to criticize women's looks. Women's sexual appearance is a major source of power for women, and men are not allowed to diminish or degrade this power. At the same time, men can be criticized for anything, including looks. If this isn't hypocritical enough, men can also get into trouble for complimenting a woman's looks. [36] It is considered sexual harassment. Yet women are not restrained or criticized for screaming at and swooning over the latest hunk. Or Ellen Degeneres can get a guy to take off his shirt on her show. No problem. A guy sitting behind Jake Tapper during the second Republican debate even got a lot of attention on Twitter and news shows for being studly. The bottom line is that women can do whatever they want, and men are criticized no matter what they do. The only explanation for duplicity this staggering is that women are in charge. There is no patriarchy.
Another example of this duplicity occurred in the very last minute of NBC's Meet the Press program for 8/9/15. Host Chuck Todd asked Heather McGhee, President of Demos, if Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina would be more able than a male candidate to attack Democrat Hillary Clinton. She answered, "Of course." Men apparently are not allowed to criticize women. At least in this case, McGhee was able to admit that the double standard exists. But still, no one is complaining about it, or demanding that it end. Discrimination against men is acceptable.
This fact that men are not allowed to criticize women showed itself again when Trump commented that Kelly had blood coming out of her eyes and "wherever." Some took this to mean that Trump was implying that Kelly was on her period and was hormonal. This caused quite a commotion and more charges of misogyny against Trump. Now, I do not know if this is what Trump meant. He denied it. But I do not doubt that he could have. I also do not doubt that Trump would, more than likely, have explicitly said it, instead of hinting---he has shown himself to be quite rude. But the fact remains that he did not explicitly say that Kelly was on her period. And to read this into "wherever" seems a bit of a jump. But super-sensitive women are quick to show indignation for any criticism, so this is where they jumped.
But consider that this is another double standard. We are allowed to condemn men's hormones and bodily functions with little risk. For example, three weeks before Trump's vague comment, Frank Bruni criticized Trump for his "unchecked testosterone." He said Trump was "priapic" and relied on "pheromones over good sense." Bruni even made fun of Trump's hair. [9] Bruni was quite explicit, yet no commotion resulted. And immediately after the first Republican debate, Donna Brazille said that Chris Christie and Rand Paul gave us "testosterone with a bit of Tabasco." [10] No one was upset about this comment. Can you imagine the uproar if someone commented on Hillary Clinton's estrogen? And let us not forget that the major claim to fame during Senator Joni Ernst's campaign was her ability to castrate. It is acceptable to criticize male hormones and bodies, but never women's.
Women's constant demand to be treated differently, i.e., better than men, was on full display when CNN changed the rules behind choosing participants for the September 16th Republican Main Debate. Carly Fiorina did not complain about the original rules last May when they were established. But she did complain when it appeared these rules would leave her out of the main debate. CNN changed the rules to allow her, and only her, to join the main debate. This completely sexist and hypocritical rule change has received little criticism from anyone. Our duplicitous political system has no problem giving women special favors and advantages that they would never consider giving to men. If women want to run for public office, they need to stop demanding special treatment. Women keep telling us they want equality, but their actions show us something different. All of this confirms that we are ruled by a matriarchy, not a patriarchy.
While President Obama was in Kenya in July, he gave a speech detailing the sexist traditions of African societies toward women and girls. [11] He mentioned sexual assault, domestic violence, genital mutilation, early forced marriage, and keeping girls out of school. As usual, we must focus only on the victimization of women and girls. I am sure that traditions of Africa also victimize men. But rarely do we hear any details of men's victimization in the media. (One recent exception was a report that revealed botched circumcisions had killed 14 and injured 141 boys in South Africa. [12] ) We must only focus on sexist discrimination and victimization of women. This is odd, because in Obama's speech, he also described how his grandfather was belittled as a domestic servant during the British colonial period. His adult grandfather was referred to as "boy." His grandfather was also imprisoned for opposing British rule. But Obama and the media do not connect any of this with gender. We are not allowed to connect discrimination or victimization with being male. Because, as we all are told, men are the victimizers. I am sure some British women treated Obama's grandfather and Kenyan men badly. But I bet feminists will argue that these women were forced to do this by their husbands and the patriarchy. Discrimination and treating others viciously is not restricted to things men do to women. But feminism and the media make it look that way.
Male Control Theory is a feminist theory that contends that the vast majority of domestic violence is male on female, that the basis of the violence is the patriarchal need for men to control women, and that most female-on-male violence is defensive in nature. This theory has been used to institute policies that blame and punish men for domestic violence. Evidence has been mounting that this theory is pure crap. "Testing Predictions From the Male Control Theory of Men's Partner Violence" [13] provides such evidence. This study found that women are more likely to be physically and verbally aggressive against their partners than men are, and that women are more likely to seek control over their partners than men are. The study also found that defensive violence was more likely to be used by men than women. Chivalry appears to reduce men’s tendency to be violent against women, [14] while it simultaneously contributes to increasing the women's violence against men, since women understand that men will likely not hit back. This study found that the basis of domestic violence is not men’s need to control, but a violent personality, which can be found equally well in men and women. The study noted that earlier studies promoting Male Control Theory suffered from selection bias, since many only studied women in women's shelters. Once again, we have faulty science performed by feminists and then used for decades by feminists to promote counterproductive and male-oppressive policies. Any policies or laws based on the Male Control Theory must be repealed immediately. There are many feminist campaigns of hate against men.
A 2002 study by David Lisak [15] found that two-thirds of college rapists are serial predators, committing rape more than once. Activists have used this study to blame campus rape on men who are violent sociopaths, who use sophisticated strategies to victimize college women. Activists have also used this study to justify harsh penalties and the abandonment of due process in removing these sociopaths from college campuses. However, the Lisak study is now being questioned. [16] It appears data for Lisak's research was taken from four surveys which were conducted by his graduate students and were not directly about campus sexual assault. The survey questions were not even specifically limited to the college campus. Lisak also said he interviewed many of the offenders even though the surveys were anonymous. It also appears many of the sexual assaults were between established couples, including married couples, and should have been classified as domestic violence, not campus sexual assaults. The men in Lisak's study also showed high levels of other violence, thus making them unrepresentative of male college students. Also, a recently released study contradicts Lisak's conclusions, finding that there are few serial college rapists. [17]
It appears that this is another example of bad feminist scholarship and activism leading to counterproductive solutions. Feminists are intent on denying that sexual assaults in colleges are mostly the result of bad decisions by immature people (including women) often under the influence of alcohol. Instead, feminists are determined to encourage a hysteria that alleges that campus sexual assaults are epidemic and are the result of evil male sociopaths who are products of the evil patriarchy and the Male Control Theory. The flawed Lisak study aided them in this. Exaggerated numbers also helped. Even though feminists have complained that colleges hide sexual violations, the director of Campus Violence Prevention Program at Cal-Davis gave the number of rapes and attempted rapes at the school as 700 in applying for a grant. The actual number was zero. [18] Feminists then used the hysteria and Title IX to install policies that allow colleges to abandon due process and the criminal justice system in an effort to punish men. This has probably done little to reduce sexual assault in colleges. But it has aided a feminist campaign of hate against men.
Consider the alleged rape detailed in a recent Esquire Magazine. [19] Both John and Jane (not their real names) were extremely drunk in John's dorm room on a Saturday night early in their freshmen year at Occidental College. By witness accounts, Jane was the aggressor. She kept trying to kiss him. They ended up on the bed, where Jane rode John, moving her hips around. Friends took Jane to her dorm room one floor away. John texted Jane to come back. She texted "OK" and asked if John had a condom. Jane then texted a friend that she was going to have sex. John and Jane remember little of what happened when she got to his room. John's roommate walked in on them and found them having sex, but he did not think it was an assault. A neighbor looked in on Jane when John went down the hall and asked her three times if she were okay. She said she was. One half hour later, Jane went back to her room, where she put on her pajamas and went to another dorm where her roommate found her on another guy's lap. John and Jane met the next evening after sobering up and awkwardly talked things out. They chalked it up to a big drunken mistake. They sat together in class on Monday and seemed to be getting along. But after talking to several counselors and her roommate, Jane decided that she had been raped. She developed emotional problems. She filed complaints with the police and Occidental. The police decided not to file any charges. John also thought Occidental had no case, but during the hearing he found himself "in a room full of women and there's a crying girl." He was expelled. He was accepted at another school until they found out about the rape allegation. He has sued Occidental.
Many men in similar situations have also sued. Many have won---e.g. Corey Mock, Bryce Dixon, and John Doe at UC San Diego. It is too bad that men have to go through a long and brutal legal procedure to obtain justice. But selfish feminists have put in place totally unreasonable and unfair sexual assault policies in our colleges. I do not believe this will stop any time soon. But this is insane. This hysteria is comparable to the Salem witch hunts. It can damage a lot of women emotionally, and a lot of men emotionally, educationally, and legally. And there is no good reason for it. Title IX says colleges cannot discriminate or deprive anyone of equal access to an education due to his or her gender. Feminists have stretched this policy to extraordinary lengths. I really do not see how the criminal offense of sexual assault can deprive someone of an education based on gender. Men are sexually assaulted. Women are sexually assaulted by other women. What is the gender connection, and why is it that only women can be deprived? It seems that this stretching of Title IX uses the Male Control Theory as a base, postulating that patriarchal men use sexual assault and rape to control women and deprive them of an education. But, as I have indicated, the Male Control Theory is crap. There are many feminist campaigns of hate against men. Any policies or laws that are based on Male Control Theory must be repealed.
I mentioned above, concerning the Esquire story, that Jane did not believe that she was raped until she had talked to counselors. One of these counselors was Professor Danielle Dirks, who on behalf of the Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition, had filed a Title IX claim against Occidental the previous school year for not taking sexual assaults seriously. Dirks told Jane that John fit the profile of a rapist because he had a high GPA, was on a sports team, and was from a good family. Dirks told Jane that she was a typical victim in denial. I have seen other cases like this, where women do not believe they have been raped until they are convinced by feminist "counselors." A woman at Washington and Lee University was not convinced that she had been raped until she later worked at a women's clinic dealing with sexual assault and attended a presentation in which the Title IX administrator for the school, Lauren Kozak, said that "regret equals rape." [20] I find it obscene that Dirks and Kozak hold positions of power at any university. I pointed out in a previous article that a legal group that deals with Title IX cases found many women who were convinced that they were raped when the circumstances showed that they clearly were not. [21] These are all indications of the rape hysteria that feminists are whipping up across the country. This is blatant misandry. Of course, we need to address sexual assault, but it is best addressed by the criminal justice system. And certainly any deficiencies in the justice system concerning sexual assault should be fixed. But this feminist approach, using Title IX and Male Control Theory, is a farce.
After John Russell Houser killed two women in a movie theater playing Trainwreck in Lafayette, Louisiana, there was the almost reflexive reaction by many women of blaming this rampage on misogyny and the high gun violence against women. The star of Trainwreck, Amy Schumer, stated "I think women are always in a great threat of violence, just statistically." [22] Radical feminist, Amanda Marcotte, said "...maybe we can talk about the continuing role that misogyny plays in the relentless drumbeat of gun violence in this country." [23] Advocate for gun reform, Sarah Clements, commented that, "Women are disproportionately impacted by gun violence in America . An average of 5 women a day are murdered by a gun in this country." [24] But please consider that 84% of gun homicide victims are male. [25] Yes, about 5 women a day are killed by guns in the United States, and women are disproportionately impacted, but the proportion is 1/5th. About 25 men are killed by guns every day. [26] Funny how Clements forgot to mention these clarifying details. Let's also consider guns used in suicides, where 87% of victims are male. [27] Women have to portray themselves as the predominant victims, even when they are not.
Houser had many problems. He was obviously mentally ill. His family stated he had bipolar disorder. He was an extreme right-wing ideologue. He praised Timothy McVeigh, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Adolph Hitler. He tried to hire a hit man to kill a lawyer representing pornographic movie houses. He placed a swastika on his bar. When he was evicted from his house, he poured cement down the plumbing fixtures, left hundreds of fish in the pool, and left feces everywhere. He hated "liberals, the government and a changing world." [28] And, yes, he showed anger towards women. But to blame misogyny as the reason for the theater shooting is ridiculous. Houser shot six men and five women [29] in his rampage. One man was shot four times. Because two women were unfortunate enough to die, this does not mean women can blame this horror on misogyny. [30] Ridiculous. Victimization is not always about women. Women can be so narcissistic.
Something similar occurred when Sandra Bland died in police custody. We will probably never know for sure what happened to Bland, but the coroner's report said it was most likely suicide. (The Guardian Newspaper, which maintains a database of people killed by police, [31] has not included Sandra Bland in its database.) However, many women are claiming that she was killed by the police and are using this unsubstantiated claim to highlight black women killed by police. [32] #BlackWomenMatter and #SayHerName campaigns have resulted. The odd thing about this is that the three black women who organized the Black Lives Matter Campaign have been discouraging other Lives Matter campaigns (e.g., All Lives Matter, Disabled Lives Matter) because they feel these campaigns dilute the impact of Black Lives Matter. But they have encouraged the Black Women Matter Campaign. Of course, all instances of police killings deserve scrutiny and attention. But, as I mentioned in "McKinney to Minions," according to the Guardian Newspaper database, 95% of blacks killed by police are male. (Males make up 96% of all people killed by police.) Yet, women, as a group, seem to want equal attention, if not more. Again, it appears women will not let men get more attention, no matter how much men deserve it.
Others have remarked on the fact that virtually all goofy, stupid, and silly characters or animals in TV ads are male. [33] Apparently, women are easily insulted and cannot be considered goofy or compared to animals. Yoplait has given us an outrageous example of this with a male cow---not a bull, but a male cow. The ad [34] has a goofy cow with a full udder and a male voice. This just shows the ridiculous lengths we must go to avoid offending super-sensitive women.
[1] https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-women/
[2] https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-men/
[3] https://vimeo.com/94429531
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQR8rj2BO-8
[5] http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1007/83596.0001.001.pdf
[6] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002; ESTIMATING GENDER DISPARITIES IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES by Sonja B. Starr
[7] http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/ex-ravens-cheerleader-sentenced-to-48-weekends-in-jail-in-rape-case/ar-BBlZ471?ocid=mailsignout
[8] NBC's Meet the Press, 8/2/15, mentioned by Gerald Seib, Washington Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-connelly/trumpism-did-swiftboating_b_7836556.html
http://www.juancole.com/2015/07/comments-expensive-mouthing.html
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/republican-party-has-only-itself-blame-donald-trump
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-la-dolce-donald-trump.html?_r=0
[10] http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/opinion-gop-debate-roundup/
[11] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/barack-obama-condemns-tradition-women-second-class-citizens-nairobi
[12] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/14-boys-dead-in-S-African-province-after-botched-circumcisions/articleshow/47949560.cms?from=mdr
[13] http://www.mediafire.com/download/p734plvd6d541h8/Bates_et_al-2014-Aggressive_Behavior.pdf
[14] I have noticed many public service announcements encouraging this attitude. Find one at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLLC9d-d1tE Why aren't we trying to discourage all violence? These PSAs imply that it is OK for women to be violent against men.
[15] "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists" by David Lisak and Paul M. Miller at http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf
[16] http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/28/campus-rape-statistics-lisak-problem
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/28/campus-rape-stats-lisak-study-wrong
[17] Trajectory Analysis of the Campus Serial Rapist Assumption, Kevin M. Swartout, PhD1; Mary P. Koss, PhD2; JAMA Pediatr. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0707
[18] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/02/davis
[19] http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/
[20] http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/john-doe-washington-lee-university-declaration-kimberly-lau-memorandum-protective-order-and-pseudonym.pdf
[21] www.ncherm.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/An-Open-Letter-from-The-NCHERM-Group.pdf
[22] News conference with Senator Charles Schumer, also on 8/3/15 MSNBC program, Last Word
[23] http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/24/lafayette_shooter_john_russell_houser_history_of_domestic_violence_and_hatred.html
[24] 8/3/15 MSNBC program, Last Word
[25] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths
[26] ibid. Statistic calculated from data at the website
[27] ibid.
[28] This portrayal of Houser comes from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/lafayette-theater-shooting-john-houser.html?_r=0
[29] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lafayette-shooting-anti-feminist-john-811119
[30] See also http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/lafeyette-victims-are-two-women-and-some-people-is-this-another-misogynist-who-shot-mostly-men/
[31] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#
[32] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/17/3681752/sandra-bland-say-her-name/
http://blacklivesmatter.com/a-herstory-of-the-blacklivesmatter-movement/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/28/3685435/fourth-black-woman-found-dead-jail-cell-since-mid-july/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/black-womens-lives-matter-police-shootings_n_6644276.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/say-her-name-andrea-ritchie-black-lives-matter
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/24/i_dont_believe_sandy_committed_suicide
[33] http://ncfm.org/2014/12/action/anti-male-media-bias/
[34] http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7c9c/yoplait-original-key-lime-pie-milk-cow
[35] http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/09/09/judge-male-inmates-can-join-prison-rehab-program-aimed-at-reuniting-them-with-children/
[36] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/a-compliment-isnt-misogynistic-why-dont-feminists-understand-this/
