TIME Reporter Angered by NHL Mansplaining

Kendall Coyne Schofield, a female hockey player who helped the United States capture the gold medal at the 2018 Winter Olympics, was invited as an on-air analyst for an NHL game between the Tampa Bay Lightning and Pittsburgh Penguins.  Her partner was longtime NHL analyst Pierre McGuire.

At the beginning of the broadcast, McGuire told Schofield  "Tampa's going to be on your left, Pittsburgh's going to be on your right. What are you expecting out of this game?  We're paying you to be an analyst, not be a fan tonight.”

Feminist reporter Melissa Locker became angered.  She claimed  McGuire was trying to explain hockey to a female gold medal hockey player.

Locker states:

"In 2014, the Oxford English Dictionary named "mansplain" as a runner-up for their word of the year. According to the dictionary, to mansplain is to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"

Locker also stated

"Now, McGuire faces backlash for his remarks hockey to an athlete who theoretically knows how the sport works better than him and most, because even though he did coach for one season, as USA Today points out, McGuire hasn't played hockey in the NHL"

The only backlash McGuire is facing is from female chauvinist reporters. All McGuire did was state Tampa Bay was on the left and Pittsburgh was on the right. Big deal. Many sports broadcast lead off with similar such statements.

The real issue here is the feminist derogatory phrase 'mansplaining". The phrase implies that a man should never explain anything to a woman because men are not as smart as women. Ms. Locker was triggered when a mere male took the lead position over a woman in the broadcast by stating Tampa Bay was on the left and Pittsburgh was on the right. Anything McGuire said after this was considered mansplaining by the feminist. She then used her position as a journalist to attack him.

Lastly, Melissa Locker's statement  "McGuire hasn't played hockey in the NHL" is irrelevant because NEITHER HAS KENDALL COYNE SCHOFIELD.

USAToday and ESPN had similar articles.

The incident is another example of the sexist feminist culture within some segments of the media.

Feminist Bigotry Suffers Defeat At Tulane

Tulane University recently reached an agreement with the federal government to stop discriminating against male students. The University had multiple scholarship and financial aid programs that were available only to female students.

The agreement follows a complaint placed with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights by Virginia Title IX attorney Margaret Valois. She argued that six of Tulane's scholarships were discriminatory because male students were barred from receiving them. The scholarships included the Landor Lewis and Shirley Gauff Award and the Grace Hopper Celebration Award, as well as the school's Summer Internship Funding Grant, which provided up to $2,000 annually for female students.

"Tulane's implementation of Title IX provides greater educational opportunities for female students than for male students. When opportunities and benefits are offered to one group because of their sex … it is patently unfair," said Valois in August when she filed the complaint.

PJ Media stated that male students are already a minority at Tulane and therefore, providing scholarships that only benefit the school's majority is unethical and discriminatory.

The agreement states: "By September 6, 2019, Tulane will ensure that it is not treating male students differently on the basis of sex by providing different amounts of financial assistance, limiting eligibility for financial assistance … or otherwise discriminating with respect to financial assistance,"

Unsurprisingly, feminists are dismayed that discrimination against men is not acceptable.

"Not all women have seen the gains from affirmative action," said Onyeka-Crawford, of the National Women's Law Center, who notes that women of color are still underrepresented in higher education. However, she had no problem with black men being underrepresented.

Onyeka-Crawford also stated "It is concerning that they're (Department of Education) not dismissing these complaints outright,”

Feminist Suzanna Danuta Walters, director of the Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies program at Northeastern University angrily stated “I will be sympathetic to these arguments when we have something like pay equity," It should be noted Walters is the same feminist who wrote "Why can't we hate men?"

In addition to Ms Valois, another pioneer looking to shatter feminist barriers against men is Mark Perry. He is challenging the legality of girls-only science and coding summer camps. Over the past two months, he has filed Title IX complaints with 23 universities, calling for the programs to be opened to boys.

The idea that feminists are invincible is obsolete. Feminist hate can be beaten. It just takes time and persistence.

Paternity Fraud Victim Receives $318,000 Compensation

Richard Mason was married to Kate Mason for 20 years. During this time they had 3 children. They divorced in 2008.  As part of the divorce settlement, Richard paid Kate a £4 million  ($5,099,000 US dollars) cash sum. The large settlement was because of the huge wealth he earned from co-founding Moneysupermarket.com. He also continued parenting the three boys after the divorce. In 2016,  he was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, and told by doctors he couldn't father children naturally. They told him he had been infertile since birth.  According to Mr. Mason, his backstabbing ex-wife initially said "of course the boys are yours, no matter what the science might suggest" . However, she latter admitted she cheated many times during their marriage.

Mr. Mason then sued his ex-wife for paternity fraud in an effort to get at least a portion of his £4 million back.

Rather than going thru a lengthy and probably public trial, Kate decided in November 2018 to pay Richard  £250,000 ($318,000) - on condition the biological father remained anonymous.  It appears Kate may not actually know who the father is since she tacitly admitted she had more than one boyfriend during the marriage.

Considering the amount of money Richard paid to his former wife and the amount of effort he put into raising someone else's children, £250,000 does not seem like adequate compensation. Richard was lied to and exploited by his backstabbing wife not only during most his marriage but also for eight years after his divorce. He continued being a father and financing the boys after his marriage to Kate ended.

However, Roger Terrell, a  lawyer representing Mr Mason believes the case is a legal first, as there are no other known instances (in Britain) where a financial settlement has been set aside due to paternity fraud.  It should be noted, upon research, one other case was discovered where an exploited husband received compensation for paternity fraud.  Mr Richard Rodwell was awarded by the court £50,000 when he sued his ex-wife  for "deceit" after  a DNA paternity test showed his daughter and son were not his biological children.

Paternity fraud remains legal throughout most of the western world. The fact Mr Mason received any compensation at all means there is hope for other exploited husbands.