*Can we stomach another one of those features pieces declaring that we now live in a woman's world, that men are "the second sex," and that underachieving, rudderless young men, who are being swept aside in a tidal wave of feminised values, need to find their way to a new kind of manhood in the coming matriarchy where they will be the first generation of men to not enjoy the undeserved entitlements of male privilege? These are Chicken Little pieces written by women who posit, wallow in, and ultimately celebrate the purported death of traditional masculinity in order to "empower" their female readership. It's all a steaming pile of bullshit. You do the math and tell me if, for example, the college gender gap means that our young men are rudderless: (1) It is no longer socially acceptable for women to spend their lives as housewives. The technology invented by -- guess which gender? -- has rendered housework far less time-consuming to the point that no one can pretend it's a full-time job any more, so women feel an overwhelming social pressure to get a job. (2) Women, far more than men, gravitate toward employment that is neither risky nor physically demanding -- desk jobs -- most of which require a college degree. (3) Males naturally skew wider on the IQ map than females, with lots more at the bottom -- who do not attend college -- and lots more at the top (note it's too politically incorrect to talk about them). Given this, does the college gender gap signal the "death of masculinity," or is it a natural manifestation of the difference between the sexes? There is scant evidence for the former and plenty for the latter. But that doesn't make a compelling features article for female readers who, unlike their male counterparts, see themselves in a weird competition with the opposite sex.
*"Some New York prosecutors are using the state's hate-crimes law to prosecute people who prey on the elderly. The Queens prosecutors contend the hate-crimes statute does not require proof of hatred. Instead, they say, it merely requires the defendant to hold some belief about the targeted group, such as a belief that members are easy to deceive and might have substantial assets." See here. Then, without question, false rape claims should also be a hate crime since the defendants hold some belief about the targeted group: specifically, they have penises, which organ renders rape lies plausible. Cue the feminist eye rolls.
*Male judges admit they can't help but look at scantily clad female attorneys. But see the comments beneath the story for the predictable reaction from the lunatic fringe -- women should wear whatever they want, and heaven forbid that men should be honest about a natural reaction. I wonder how the women who dress in this manner would react if some teen boy looking at them on the subway was sporting a noticeable erection. You think they'd insist such a kid should be free to wear a woody if he wants -- it's his body and all? See here
*Somebody needs to tell these chimps that their "gendered behavior" is cutlurally learned from patriarchy -- it's not innate: "But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten." See here These animals need to relearn what it means to be a male chimp to cure them of this unacceptable hypermasculine behavior. And I'll bet they engage in sex without getting an affirmative and enthusiastic "yes." These chimps are pigs!
*On the propriety of "women's only" poker tournaments: "Annie Duke, arguably the best-known woman player in the world, . . . advocates discontinuing the WSOP women's championship. 'Are we saying there is a difference between the intellect of men and women that means that somehow we need a separate championship event just for the women?' Duke wrote." Ah, but there's always some chivalrous man who thinks he can help empower women by insisting they are powerless and in need of special treatment: Daniel Negreanu, one of the best-known male players said this: "Men have had it pretty good, so whining about sexual equality as a man is a pretty lame excuse to take part in a ladies' event. It's beyond lame, it's just plain foolish. You aren't fighting for men's rights, or women's right(s) for that matter." See here Ah, chivalrous men, feminism's useful idiots.
*Watch out. Now its women versus women in a Title IX dispute. Specifically, should a school eliminate the volleyball team and declare cheerleading a sport? I suspect you'll never see a Title IX dispute more heated, or with more drama, than this one, for obvious reasons. See here
*". . . improvements to the species come in the male line. If changes are good, then the male survives - if not, then he most likely will not live to reproduce. That risk taking carries over into their behaviors - again it is a way to help weed out what works genetically." See here
*Girls are now drinking more than boys. My guess is this will be the next national crisis, for obvious reasons. See here