Supreme Court of Canada - Yes means No?

This decision last week has - predictably - generated a HUGE amount of feminist screeching.   Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin wrote the majority decision - but Justice Fish wrote the sole dissenting opinion.

Among the "expected MSM" articles was this one from Canadian Press, it pretty well defines the feminist side.  Then there was this more serious exploration in (of all places) The Toronto [Red] Star by Rosie Dimanno (who appears to be the sole voice of reason there).

From there we learn that:
1)  The women only charged her former (common-law) husband 2mths later when they were battling over custody of their daughter.
2) LEAF funded intervenor status.
3) She consented to the [twisted + demeaning] sexual activity while conscious, before passing out for 3 minutes (brain damage?)  and continued with regular intercourse afterwards.

The major conclusion:  “Parliament’s definition of consent does not extend to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious.”

But Justice Morris Fish, in writing the dissenting opinion, makes an emphatic point: “It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means ‘no’ and only yes means ‘yes.’ K.D. said yes, not no …

“The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.”

K.D. made that choice and expressed it clearly. But the Supreme Court — essentially infantilizing the woman — has ruled otherwise.

LINK1

[Update: This seems to move the definition of rape closer to ridiculed Antioch College Code created in 1994 (IMHO, the height of the feminist hegemony).]

How anti-male advertising doesn't help

The above was a reply to the one below.
The humour loses to the misandry in it - imagine the reaction if this was being done to a women?

a ly'n cheat'n B&#@H

Amazing ability of self-delusion - on a nationally broadcast TV program no less!

Oh women, thy name is evil.

The best part is the group's reaction who automatically take the women's side as a "victim".
The worst part is that idiot Maury comforting the women and trying to defend her lame excuse "she thought it was yours".   My suspicion is the women was compromised into this lurid disgrace by the program promising "formula and to help arise the child" - which is quite kind as long as they remove the B&#@H as well.

h/t to Walter at www.fathersforlife.org

Challenge to the White House - Help Boys

Recently I became aware of this proposal - supported by 34 prominent scholars and academics - to challenge the White House to establish a special parallel "White House Commission on Men to Boys" to counteract the blatantly misandric claims of the feminist-pandering "White House Council on Girls and Women".

This Commission has identified 5 key area's that need to be addressed to counteract the crisis that already exist for boys and men:

• Education - Boys are behind girls in almost every subject, especially reading and writing, yet boy-friendly program are curtailed.  Title IX discriminates against boys propensity to sport.
• Jobs - Sons/Boys are not being prepared for where the jobs will be.
• Fatherlessness - Father absence creates huge behavioural issues for kids - and already 1/3 of boys are raised without their fathers.  Why do we allow this?  Do government program promote this?
• Physical and Emotional Health - Men + boys suffer death much earlier/often than women/girls, yet there is no corresponding program dedicated to Men/Boy's health. Boys suicides rates are much higher as they feel the distress of their gender roles.

Please, support this effort.

Further stats on Fatherlessness.

A women's perfidy

This article in Toronto [Red] Star struck me as sinisterly indicative of a womens's perfidy.  This women misled a man even while they planned to marry - except she forgot to tell him she was still married.   His house went up in flames the day after he found out the truth.

2nd Online Conference on Men's Studies

Yesterday, the 2nd Online Conference on Men's Studies took place.  I was unable to partake but it seemed promising.  I look forward to receiving notice of the online video.

Little House of Horrors

Barbra Kay writes: "For 30 years, thanks to activists’ remorseless protection of unconstrained abortion access, Gosnell ran his little house of horrors without any oversight whatsoever."

Is this is what we have become?

So - there was some truth to it...

This case was initially seen as salacious but in error.  It now turns out to be true - but the justice system can't quite bring itself to punish anyone.  It's funny that way.

And here was Barbara KAY's  brutally honest accessment of the weak decision not to heave the lawyer overboard.  The judge should have been a slam dunk.

Social "Price of Sex" is low - as is cost

Great article.  Matches comments by Dr. Helen that on remarks by University of Georgia coeds who say the guys show for a date in a dirty t-shirt with a bag of condoms.

Maybe they don't want to do it?

Another a faux article that insinuates women are being discriminated against when they may just be exercising their choice.   I have know quite a few women journalists in the media - and most find it very challenging working. It seemed tp me that male reporters and technical staff were frequently "picking up the slack" for their female co-workers. The stress of "looking one's best" on-air was also an issue - and of course some wanted to pick-up their kids at school as regularly as possible.

Then the next article I saw suggested that CBS News Anchor Katie Couric started out exploring a renewal contract and realized she might make more in a syndicated program and is discussions with a number of major networks.  I guess this makes up for Oprah's retirement?

PDF1