Gender Discrimination Against Men in Courts

Men face gender discrimination in American courts. A recent study by Sonja Starr of the University of Michigan found that men are given much longer sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court. The study concluded males receive sentences that average 63 percent higher than their female counterparts. There is also bias against men from prosecutors and police departments. Males arrested for a crime are more likely to face charges and convictions than females. Additionally, they are twice as likely to be incarcerated if convicted. The study concluded a significant disparity favoring women exists at all stages of the judicial process.

The study indicates both prosecutors and judges practice gender discrimination. Prosecutors use an array of excuses inorder to avoid holding adult women accountable for their actions. Some common excuses used are: she has mental health problems, has a drug addiction, is a mom, she accepts responsibility, she was under the influence of her boyfriend and she is sorry. Prosecutors do not use these alibis for male defendants. Judges practice gender bias by allowing family circumstances to temper female sentencing. This leniency does not extend to males. Additionally, judges sometimes issue no sentence at all simply because the convicted criminal is a women.

The idea adult women should be put up on a pedestal and their criminal activity blamed on men reigns supreme throughout the American judicial system. Grown, adult women simply are not held accountable for their actions by American courts.

An example is the Brenda Ray case. Despite having sex with a 16 year old boy, giving him alcohol and possibly even drugs Brenda Ray was not sentenced to jail. Additionally she was not even required to register as a sex offender. The prosecutor was not interested in the fact a minor received alcohol and possibly drugs. The judge had no interest in the case. No one cared. If an adult man did this the outcome would be very different.

Feminist continuously advocate for a two tiered judicial system - one for men and a separate one for women. A feminist group named "The National Association of Women Judges" wrote a document titled Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges. The document claims that "levying the same sentence on a female offender as on a male offender does not in reality impose far greater deprivations on the woman because of her gender." It also states "In many cases, that lack of information {about women criminals} leads to oversanctioning." The paper's conclusion is that female criminals should be handled differently than male criminals - thereby advocating gender discrimination. The National Association of Women Judges still endorses this document.

In the 21st century, treating male criminals differently than female criminals is obsolete. Additionally, if the legal process insist grown, adult women are easily influenced by men and therefore not responsible for their own criminal actions then shouldn't women be forbidden from holding political office? Couldn't she easily be influenced by a foreign enemy? Isn't that dangerous for the country?

The time has come to end American judicial double standard and hold ALL adults equally accountable for their actions.

November 28, 2012

Highland Middle School Harassing Boys Education

Highland Middle School of Indiana recently suspended 3 boys because they saw either a nude or racy photo of their female teacher.

The teacher in question had given the 13 year old students access to a school-owned IPad, which had been assigned to her, for the purpose of working with several applications. The students went to an unauthorized application called IPhotos. This application contained a photo of the teacher.

A parent of one of the students claimed the teacher was topless in the picture. Highland school claims the photo was not topless and there was no nudity nor pornography. The local Police Department, which investigated the incident said the photo was of a partially covered woman.   The students were given the choice of being suspended or expelled. They choose suspension.

Why were these boys suspended? They did not steel equipment. It was given to them. They pushed some buttons and out popped a racy photo of the teacher. Its not their fault. They didn't take the picture.

Obviously, the female teacher made a mistake and somehow allowed her private photos to be linked to school equipment. Highland Middle School refused to say what disciplinary actions would be taken against this teacher (meaning nothing would happen to her). So, if this institution is so willing to assume that an ADULT woman made a technical mistake WHY WONT IT ASSUME 13 YEAR OLD BOYS MADE A TECHNICAL MISTAKE?? Why are minors held to a higher degree of accountability than an adult woman?

The decision to suspend boys is in line with harassment policies promoted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and The National Women's Law Center (NWLC). These two feminist groups are largely responsible for creating prevailing student conduct codes. Many of the Department of Education's student behavior guidelines are based entirely on sexual harassment definitions and behavior codes issued by the AAUW. Any learning institution not following the guidelines is sued by the NWLC. This is why male students can easily be expelled from colleges on false rape charges.

Feminist intent is to hinder boys education as much as legally possible. Allowing schools to easily suspend or expel boys achieves this goal. (Note: According to a study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2011, boys are suspended at more than twice the rate of their female peers).

Imagine if the roles were reversed and a group of 13 year old girls called up a racy photo of their male teacher. Think the girls would be suspended?? NOT LIKELY.

What these Highland School boys need to learn from this incident is that they were victims of feminism. Additionally it will fall on the shoulders of their generation to overturn the entire rotten and corrupt feminist social order in America.

November 1, 2012

Obama Education Policy of Discrimination

Obama's education policy is based on limiting the opportunities of males. Currently, he has instituted a federal program called "Race to the Top". This program gives grants to states which in turn give money to public school districts in the expectation the districts will create new curriculum improving student academic achievement. However, grant eligibility rules require a state prove it has increased girls' access to science or math. "Race to the Top" will issue grant money even if the state's new curriculum limits boys' access to science or math. Equal access is not a provision of the program.

Even more ominous, the president has recently threatened to issue guidelines limiting male enrollment in any science, technology, engineering and math field (STEM). The Administration is angry there are more male students than female students in STEM fields. The new guidelines, tentatively to be issued in 2013, will withhold federal grants to universities which do not have increasing numbers of female students in the above mentioned disciplines. Schools want money.  They will gladly decrease male student enrollment and replace them with women as long as the federal government gives them cash.

Obama's policies are a violation of Title IX. They are passive discrimination. Education is supposed to be equally accessible for ALL students. Male students denied enrollment simply because of their gender can validly sue the University as well as file a class action Title IX sex discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Education.

Meanwhile, women earn the majority of biology degrees, nursing degrees and health science degrees giving them the majority of high paying jobs as biologists, nurses and technicians (Dental Hygienist & Ultrasound Technologist etc.). Obama has no intention of putting limitations on women in these fields. He is a sexist (in otherwords a true supporter of feminism).

 A 2011 study (Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science) completed by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams concluded the skewing of gender in different disciplines is based on students' choices not bias. The researchers concluded women tend to be interested in "organic" fields involving people and living things which are the focus of biological & medical majors, whereas men are more interested in  objects and abstractions which are the focus of STEM majors. Therefore, all this  Administration's talk about being "pro choice" is largely a farce.

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) & the Women's Law Center (WLC) have controlled American education for the past two decades. These two feminist groups are largely responsible for creating nationally adopted classwork specifically designed to appeal to girls and disinterest boys. Additionally, many of the Department of Education's student conduct guidelines are based entirely on sexual harassment definitions issued by the AAUW. Any school not following the guidelines is sued by the WLC. Since most schools cannot afford legal fees, its cheaper to follow the guidelines. Lastly, both feminist groups claim men don't need higher education in order to obtain high wages. Therefore, schools should remain focused on girls. What these female chauvinists don't mention is the 1970's economy no longer exist. It is increasingly difficult to obtain good wages with only a high school diploma.

Previous Administrations have not had the courage to fight these feminist organizations and liberate American schools. The Obama Administration not only refuses to fight them but is creating policies so the AAUW and WLC can expand their dominance of education.

It is truly ironic Obama responded to Mitt Rommey's infamous '47% of Americans are moochers' comment by stating "If you want to be president you’ve got to work for everybody, not just for some."  Obama doesn't work for men. He doesn't represent them. He offers men nothing but hypocrisy and discrimination.

September 26, 2012

Feminist Sexual Double Standard Against Men

The University of Illinois at Chicago recently completed a study on sexual double standards.  The study revealed that most college students judge males and females  by the same rules when it comes to casual sex. The study found only 12% of students lose respect for women (but not men) if they have frequent casual sex. Meanwhile, 13% of students judge men more harshly than women.
What is truly revealing about this study however is the persistent feminist hypocrisy in US academia. The researchers, professor Barbara Risman & Rachel Allison expressed contempt for those students judging women more harshly when they act promiscuous. However when explaining why 13% of students felt men should be judged more harshly for promiscuity,  Barbara Risman stated “Women who hold to this reverse double standard are invoking a kind of gender justice, They are critical of men who treat women badly and they do not accept a ‘boys will be boys’ view of male sexuality.”

This is classic feminism. If a man does the exact same thing as a woman a different set of rules apply.

She then tried to justify her female chauvinism by explaining that many fraternities have an adversarial double standard against female promiscuity. She claimed that Greek brothers are at the top of campus social stratification and end up holding a great deal of social power on campus. Since sorority women living in Greek housing were the most likely group to judge male promiscuity harshly while accepting female promiscuity Risman claimed the women were challenging the "boys will be boys mentality"

Risman is an obvious sexist bullshitter (in other words, she's a feminist). Claiming its acceptable to judge males more harshly than females is narrow minded  Additionally, most students do NOT look up to fraternity brothers. The term "frat boy" is often used in a derogatory manner. They have little social power on campus. Finally sorority girls have a reputation as self centered princesses who treat men & even other women poorly. Their attitudes are no different than fraternity brothers.

The female chauvinist culture in American academia mirrors traditional feminist hypocrisy concerning sex. Feminist claim women have a right to engage in frequent sexual encounters. These women are said to be exploring their sexuality. Anyone calling them sluts is labeled a misogynist. However if a man does the exact same thing, these women's groups  promote their arrogant female chauvinist double  standard by labeling him a womanizer, player or dog.

The conclusions of the University of Illinois researchers is another example of the lack of objectivity that persists throughout American academia as a result of feminism.

September 4, 2012

Understanding Feminism

To understand what feminism truly represents a person need only read Dr Sasha Galbraith's "Blame it on Hormones: Men are the Cause of Today's Problems". This article recently appeared in both Forbes and the Huffington Post.

The feminist author states the current problems in the banking and corporate world are all mens fault. She claims women are better bankers, investors and managers than men. Galbraith asserts that Facebook's recent problems in the stock market are mens fault because men are on the  board of directors. If women were on the board of directors things could be different. She neglected to mention Facebook was invented by men not women. The author also claims the recent financial problems of JP Morgan (an investment bank)  are the result of male decisions. She did not mention that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70% of the US banking industry is female. In fact, in the financial industry in America as a whole is predominately female. With such a high proportion of women employees, according to this author, the American banking and financial sectors should be one of the most efficient industries in the country's history. But they aren't.

The idea that men are inferior to women is the most important foundation of feminism. It is the reason why feminist believe women are more significant than men. The average person needs to comprehend this.

Galbraith claims male inferiority is due to testosterone.  The author states a book titled "The Hour Between Dog and Wolf" by John Coates documents testosterone creates "havoc in the bloodstreams of the male traders" and causes them to make stupid mistakes. Therefore, since women have very little testosterone they would clearly be better investors than men.

This inferiority claim is similar to an older feminist claim that men die before women because of testosterone. They claimed testosterone had a toxic effect on the human body while estrogen protected it against disease thereby allowing women to live longer. However, using estrogen in the treatment of disease has been a failure and in some cases caused an increase in the risk of stroke and dangerous blood clots. Additionally, maintaining normal testosterone levels in men has been shown to decrease the risk of prostate cancer and according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism can protect against cardiovascular disease. Thus, the idea estrogen is superior to testosterone was proven to be based on sexism rather than science.

The average person needs to understand that feminism is an ideology based on female chauvinism. It is founded on the belief women are better than men. Feminism is sexism.

June 27, 2012

Shattering a Feminist Myth

In recent months, a cherished feminist myth (women don't lie - especially about rape) suffered a series of shattering blows.

In May, a man named Brian Banks was exonerated of rape charges. He was initially accused of rape in 2002 by Wanetta Gibson, a high school girl. Even though he was innocent, his legal council recommended he plead "no contest" for a more lenient sentence. In America's feminist judicial system, when its her word vs his word, her word wins. (Note: This is true throughout America's female chauvinist culture.) Banks spent 5 years in prison. After being released from jail he registered as a sex offender and was required to wear an ankle bracelet. However in 2011, Gibson contacted Banks  on Facebook, telling him she felt guilty about making up the rape allegations. He then agreed to meet with her and secretly recorded a conversation in which she apologized. This meeting was the only reason Banks was able to clear his name.

Another recent case is that of Thomas Edward Kennedy. In April, he was released from prison after his daughter, Cassandra, admitted she made up rape allegations against her father. He had spent 10 years in prison. In 2001, the 12 year old daughter accused her father of raping her. He was convicted by a jury in 2002 and sent to prison. In January 2012, the daughter, now 23, admitted to police that she made up the story. She said that as a girl she felt neglected by her father at the time. Her parents had divorced and she spent only 1 weekend a month with him. Apparently the father began having drug problems after the divorce and wasn't around much. According to The Daily News in Longview, she told detectives "I wanted him to love me, and I didn't think he did at that time,".  "I took my own vengeance."

As teen, Cassandra began having her own drug problems. By 2010, she was using meth and had felony convictions for burglary and theft. Ultimately, she ended up at Mountain Ministries a Christian addiction treatment center, perhaps allowing her time to reflect.

A final example occurred in Asotin Washington recently. An 18 year old woman told police she was abducted and raped at gunpoint. In this particular case, the police did not follow feminist protocol and decided to thoroughly investigate. According to KLEW TV, after the investigation, police stated "She has confessed to us that she was not abducted nor raped. Any interactions between her and a young man was purely consensual." The women was cheating on her boyfriend. She made up the story to avoid getting caught. Currently, her name has not been released.

Women lie, cheat and steal the same as men. However, America is a feminist country. Its judicial system continues operating based on obsolete feminist myths. A woman's word is often considered fact.

The myth "Women don't lie" should be legally and culturally shattered. People should be judged on the basis of their actions. Unless feminism is overthrown, its chauvinistic myths will continue to be a guide for American law.

June 4, 2012

Average Life Expectancy of Men in USA

Recently, the USAToday expressed rage that men are increasing their life expectancy at a higher rate than women in the USA.

A report by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a health research center at the University of Washington showed the average lifespan for American men improved by 4.6 years, but only by 2.7 years for women. In 2010, life expectancy for American men was 76.2 years while it was 81.1 years for American women.

The news organization exclaimed this is cause for alarm.

Why? What is so wrong about men eventually living as long as women?

Even worse, Ali Mokdad, director of the research team said "A gain in life expectancy should be equal among men and women," "This is a wake-up call for all of us." It is ridiculous for a medical professional to make such a feminist statement. The only wake up call needed is for the medical field to weed out feminism. They should be trying to eliminate the gender gap in life expectancy not preserve it. No biological reason has ever been clearly identified for gender differences in average lifespan in the USA. The medical establishment once thought testosterone had a toxic effect on the human body while estrogen protected it against disease thereby allowing women to live longer. This theory was based on feminist ideology not biological science. Using estrogen in the treatment of disease has been a failure.  The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute states "Estrogen-alone therapy [for women] increased the risk for stroke and venous thrombosis (blood clot, usually in one of the deep veins of the legs). It had no effect on heart disease and colorectal cancer, and an uncertain effect on breast cancer."

Science says smoking, excess alcohol, stress and obesity  are major factors affecting human lifespan. In the past, men smoked more, drank more and had more stressful work than women. This impacted their longevity. Today, in the USA, women are smoking more, binge drinking and obtaining more stressful jobs. These factors are slowing women's life expectancy gains, not neglect by the medical profession as Mokdad implies.

Additionally, obesity is a growing problem among women. Obese women outnumber anorexic women by approximately 9 to 1 in the USA.  Yet the medical establishment focuses on anorexic not obesity. The reason for this focus appears to be feminism. Generally, males are unattracted to heavy women. Feminist view this unattractiveness as a benefit for women. Thus, feminists lobby the medical community against the seriousness of obesity in women.

A valid concern is how will feminist use this IHME report. Will they use it to lobby for increasing research on women's health and decreasing research on men's health?

April 30, 2012

Should Men Get Married Anymore

Should men get married anymore? Increasingly men are disinterested in marriage. The media has responded with a widespread "Man-Up" crusade advocating guys grow up, act responsible and become husbands. Yet at the same time, anti husband campaigns are conducted throughout America. Currently, the mass media is in the midst of one such campaign.

A new book titled "The Richer Sex" by Liza Mundy has been championed by FoxNews, MSNBC, Time Magazine, CNN, Huffington Post and a whole host of other major news outlets. Its author claims marriages will soon be wife controlled. Husbands will be subordinate.

According to Mundy, 38% OF wives outearn their husbands. She said this percentage is increasing and soon women will become the primary earners in most American households. When this happens, the author claims married relationships will radically alter. The driving force behind this change is said to be education. Women are the majority of college graduates and now earn the majority of masters degrees and PhDs. They are reaping the financial benefit while guys are stagnating.

Mundy and the media claims breadwinning wives will have most of the power in future marriages. Increasingly husbands will need to make sacrifices, according to the author, and stay home so their breadwinning wives can excel. Also, these wives will feel entitled to pampering since they are earning the largest percentage - if not 100% - of the families income. Mundy writes “Women will wonder whether they deserve perks in return for being breadwinners, and in their heart of hearts, they will answer: Yes. Yes I do.” Helping out with housework is not an option for the breadwinning wife. These responsibilities are said to be primarily the husbands. One stay at home husband is quoted: “I have told Susie several times that my job is to make her life easier. And I like doing it.” The author said the husband "is happy to listen to the workday accounts" and problems of his wife. As more men discover the joys of domesticity, Mundy says,“man-caves will become a thing of the past, because the whole house will become a man-cave.”

Neither Mundy nor the American media see marriage as a partnership. Instead they view it as a dictatorship. A husband's purpose is catering to his wife's whims, doing housework and listening to his wife's troubles. Conversely, the "breadwinning" wife does very little housework. Its beneath her. Helping her husband is considered sacrilegious. After her long day at work, coming home and listening to her husband's problems is NOT on her schedule. She demands pampering.

The American media's emphasis that a breadwinning wife should do minimal housework is pure sexism. ABCNews, NBC, CNN, FoxNews, CBS Newsweek and TIME Magazine continuously demand working husbands do 50% of the housework. So why should it be different for a working wife? The American media is run like a good ole girl country club with an entrenched female chauvinist culture. In other words, the American media is feminist.

According to "The Richer Sex", marriage’s future is a wife dictatorship.

Liza Mundy has a son. The author should be asked if she aspires for him to marry a breadwinning wife and cater to her whims. Does she hope he becomes a subordinate husband to a self centered working wife?

Additionally, the reason women earn more college degrees is because America's education is run by feminists. Organizations such as The Women's Law Center and the American Association of University Women write guidelines which the US Department Of Education almost always adopts. These guidelines are designed to ensure Curriculum is female oriented and that the least number of males advance into higher education. Women also have more financial aid available to them than men and college polices make it easy for schools to kick men out on false rape charges. American education is highly female chauvinist.

Mundy also states the marriage rate for wealthy women has actually risen whereas for all other classes of women it has fallen. She writes "men may be readier to cede their role as breadwinner than they are given credit for". TIME claims men are attracted to high earning wives and will compete for them.

The reality is most men actually don’t value their wife's job. WHAT THEY VALUE IS HOW THEIR WIFE TREATS THEM. However, the feminist family court system has forced an artificial premium on a prospective wife's finances. The dwindling number of men willing to marry are choosing upper class wives as a shield from Family Court.

Husbands are discriminated against and despised by the feminist Family judicial system. They are often ordered to pay large child support payments with hidden alimony to their ex wives and denied access to their children based on false abuse claims. However, judges will have a hard time justifying child support/ alimony payments to a high salary "breadwinning" wife. Thus, husbands can survive divorce financially unscathed.

And to the growing horror of feminists, many stay at home dads are now demanding alimony and child support from their breadwinning ex-wives during divorce. THEY ARE DEMANDING TO BE TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS ANY WOMEN WHO DIVORCES HER WORKING HUSBAND. However, most courts still balk at this idea. As of 2007 only 13% of child support payers are women. Feminist oriented judges continue to view husbands as their wives' property.

A final Mundy claim is that in future relationships (including those not married) , women will require men to dress well and shape up. However, if men request the same of women, she states, their request will be declined.

Mundy is delusional. Unless a man has low self esteem, he is likely to reply rather "unpleasantly" as he sends the royal princess hurdling - quite rapidly - toward the proverbial curb.

The American media's campaign promoting "The Richer Sex" is similar to its recent promotion of the book "Secret Lives of Wives". That book claimed the secret to remaining married is for wives to have boyfriends with boundaries.

In fact, in America, there is continuous reinforcement of the notion husbands should be mistreated and subordinate. This notion along with the anti husband court system and legalized paternity fraud have caused record numbers of American men to reject the idea of becoming a husband. (Note: The same also appears to be happening in Britain and Australia). American marriage rates have fallen sharply during the last 25 years of feminist domination. In 2010, the rate was 51% - the lowest ever recorded.

Soon - for the first time in history - when American men ask themselves "Should I get married" a majority will answer "NO".

April 2, 2012

Sexism In New Mexico's Criminal Sentencing

Two recent cases seem to underline gender double standard in New Mexico's criminal sentencing.

In the first case, Brenda Ray, a 40-year-old high school teacher in Albuquerque, New Mexico began a sexual relationship with one of her male students, who was then only 16 years old. According to police, Mrs Ray had sex with the teenager on multiple occasions over several years and gave him alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Despite this, the prosecution in the case agreed to drop all charges related to supplying alcohol and drugs. Although the prosecution never determined whether she supplied the teen cocaine as a minor or an adult - in either case its still a crime. Once the unlawful substance charges were dropped, the backstabbing wife then pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor.

During sentencing, Judge George Eichwald decided to give Brenda Ray a pass. She will not serve any jail time nor register as a sex offender. Instead, she was only assigned three years of probation. No explanation was given. Additionally, she lost her teaching job and it also appears she lost her husband.

Contrast this outcome with what happened in the second case. According to police, Edward Christy 58, had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl he met online. Once the internet relationship was established, the girl (who lived in California) threatened to kill herself if she could not be with him. Christy then drove to California and took her back to his New Mexico house. Her parents reported her as missing. Over the next few weeks Christy and the girl had consensual sex - some of it involving her fantasies about bondage - until police discovered the missing girls whereabouts.

Edward Christy was sentenced to nine years in prison on charges of coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity and possession of child pornography. The pornography charge appears related to some videos of underage teenagers found on his computer.

The only real differences in these cases are: supplying a minor with alcohol and drugs transporting a minor across state lines, videos of girls under 18 years old AND THE DEFENDANT'S GENDER.

Its hard to believe driving a minor across state lines and downloading videos of underage girls is significantly more harmful than supplying a minor with illegal substances on multiple occasions. Therefore, gender accounts for the HUGE discrepancy in punishment.

Also, several New Mexico towns recently conducted undercover sex sting operations specifically targeting men looking for girls under the age of 18.Authorities are angered about adult males looking for girls younger than 18 yet have no problem with a 16 year old boy and an adult woman.

This bring up the question of lawsuits. Can Christy sue for sex discrimination AND would it not be better for government agencies to avoid the possibility of these lawsuits by SIMPLY HOLDING GROWN WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

February 29, 2012

Title IX and Feminism in Sports

In Massachusetts, feminist opposition to boys participation on girls sports teams has raged for months. This year, about 24 high school boys had joined girls swimming teams, because Title IX had eliminated boys teams at their schools. One boy actually helped his team win the Massachusetts South Division swimming championship with a record breaking swim - outraging feminists.

Many are now demanding boys be banned from girls sports. One female coach said “They can’t have a boy be the girls state champion”. The Herald (a Massachusetts media outlet) openly opposes boys on girls teams. It also openly endorses girls on boys teams.

Throughout the state, girls have played football or ice hockey on boys teams, competed alongside boys in golf and wrestled on boys teams. However, boys are now joining girls teams such as swimming in increasing numbers due to the fact Title IX has eliminated their own teams. Boys can receive benefits from joining these teams. Norwood High coach, Kim Goodwin, said she was an opponent of boys competing with girls before she had boys on her team. Then her opinion changed. She saw the boys, who did not participate in other sports, develop self-confidence and mature. “They work so incredibly hard in the pool, and they seem really grateful to be on the team,” she said.

On the national level, a report by Karen Owoc "Title IX and Its Effect on Men’s
Collegiate Athletics"
stated schools have eliminated more than 2,200 men’s collegiate athletic teams since 1981 in order to comply with Title IX law. Additionally the report described a 1979 Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation of this law. The interpretation established three rules by which schools can demonstrate compliance. The first rule, deemed by courts as the most important, states a school is in compliance if participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective fulltime undergraduate enrollments. Thus, if a school is 58% female, then about 58% of its athletes should be female.The other two rules deal with expanding women's programs and proof that both genders interest in sports participation have been accommodated.

Rule #1 is dramatic because the percentage of college students being male continues to drop. By law, more male teams must be eliminated and more female teams created.

Additionally,feminism has created anti male sentiment within the Department of Education (DOE). For example, its new regulations allow schools to kick out any male student accused of sexual harassment without conclusive proof of guilt. Also, many of DOE's sexual harassment guidelines are based on definitions issued by the feminist group 'American Association of University Women'. The DOE's anti male outlook increases male students reluctance to attend higher education. This creates additional need to eliminate more male teams.

Interestingly, obtaining equal access into higher education is not a function of Title IX. Having a predominately female student body is considered acceptable.

The fact that the feminist oriented DOE is uninterested in equal access to higher education and that there is such hypocrisy in Massachusetts concerning boys participation in sports shows feminism was never about equality. Rather, it was about hindering boys opportunity to mature into adulthood & limiting their access to education in favor of girls. Title IX is simply a tool of feminism.

February 1, 2012