/avfm/ - Men's Rights Activism

'During a Washington Post symposium on campus sexual assault Wednesday (which included no speakers advocating for due process), Gillibrand was asked if the bill she has introduced — the Campus Accountability and Safety Act — takes into account the rights of accused students. Gillibrand responded with an emphatic "absolutely" before claiming that she and her Senate colleagues worked with accused students while crafting the bill.

"[We] made sure that they had the same rights of representation as someone who was alleging the crime," Gillibrand said. "And so, all notice requirements are for both, all representational requirements — that you can have someone by your side representing you — are for both."

This is not accurate. Gillibrand's bill does not specifically lay out what rights accusers (the bill calls them "victims" throughout, except for once, illustrating a clear bias) and the accused have. It states only that schools must provide each student with written notice of the process to provide them "with the opportunity to meaningfully exercise the due process rights afforded to them under institutional policy."

Due process rights are mentioned elsewhere in the bill as being provided by a certain section in the Higher Education Act of 1965. That section calls for a supposedly "fair and impartial investigation" conducted by minimally trained campus administrators (more on that later). It also calls for both students to be notified of the process and outcome of the investigation and allows them to have "others" present at the disciplinary hearing.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/kirsten-gillibrand-claims-her-bill-gives-equal-rights-to-accusers-and-accused-but-it-doesnt/article/2566469

"'A male Durham University student was so moved by the suicide of a close male friend that he felt compelled to start a society for other men who may need support – only to find it blocked by the Student Union this week for being too “controversial”.

When Adam Frost, 21, a third-year Italian and French student, proposed the Durham University Male Human Rights Society, he was ridiculed on campus, with remarks such as “Isn’t this a bit like starting a society for white people’s rights?”

Adam told me: “Last October, a friend who was depressed reached out to me, but I didn’t know what to say. I tried to help, but two weeks later I found out he’d killed himself. That hit me hard. I started looking into male suicide and found some shocking statistics. The reason behind that is that male depression isn’t taken seriously – we’re supposed to just ‘man up’ and deal with it. Men are ridiculed.'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

"'America leads the industrialized world in fatherlessness.

Right now, around 41 percent of children are born to single mothers.

For women under 30, who bear two-thirds of all children, that rate is 53 percent.

Many unmarried women are cohabiting with partners at the outset of their children’s births, but those couplings disintegrate at twice the rate of marriages.

In total, about one-third of all children are raised in father-absent homes.

By some estimates, this means more kids are growing up with televisions in their bedroom than with both of their biological parents.

Boys are especially affected by this trend. Without positive and consistent male role models, society misses out on much of their constructive potential.'"

http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/how-society-is-failing-fathers-photos/1069521/

>>54

The sense of due process being eroded for the sake of victims feels in the instance is going to seep into everything else. If you can take away due process for the accused and give presumption of innocence to the accuser and take it away from the accused there is no stopping say;

Anytime someone is charged with the crime, since innocence is with the accuser, then you are probably going to get sentenced for it.

Example;

If you are fined with having gone over the speed limit you can fight it. You are assumed innocent unless they can prove, with empirical evidence, you did it. Being able to both show that they recorded your speed and that the device used to do so is shown to be calibrated frequently to ensure accuracy. The other way around dictates you have to prove your innocence. How do you prove you were going the speed limit? Only way to do such a thing is to always be recording everything you do so YOU always have the evidence of your innocence.

"Exactly two people are responsible for filing over 1,700 sex discrimination complaints with the federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in the last few years.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the Education Department’s secretary for civil rights, won’t identify these two highly litigious individuals.'"

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/25/two-people-have-filed-over-1700-sex-discrimination-complaints-with-dept-of-education/

"'Defending against a federal lawsuit, which claims Fremont police falsely arrested, imprisoned and accused a Marine veteran of rape, the town is now shifting blame to the Rockingham County Attorney's Office.

Veteran Andrew "Drew" Cullen filed suit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire alleging the town of Fremont and two of its top police officials falsely imprisoned him and cast him in a false light by untrue accusations that he sexually assaulted a mentally-disabled woman. In a 5-count federal lawsuit, Cullen names the town, former police chief Neal Janvrin and police Sgt. Adam Raymond as responsible for failing to investigate the initial allegations that were made by a woman with well-documented mental limitations, who gave three different versions of her story and previously made a similar false claim against someone else.

A Circuit Court judge in February 2012 found there was no probable cause that Cullen committed the crime and the case was dismissed, according to court records. Probable cause is considered a low legal threshold and few cases are tossed at that level.

For reasons that have not been made public, Janvrin was fired six months later and he responded with a wrongful termination suit against the town of Fremont.'"

http://www.fosters.com/article/20150621/NEWS/150629944/-1/breaking_ajax

IMO;

Believing the victim is going too far.

>falsely accused previously

>gives several accounts of the story

>still gets believed

So he gets branded a rapist.

>>85

This is fucking crazy, but you know

"believe the "victim""

Good and bad news

"'DNA evidence has cleared a man in two rapes in Norcross, and a woman who accused the same man of rape in Brookhaven has been arrested and charged with providing false statements, police said Tuesday.

Anamirna Cabello-Loeza, 31, surrendered July 1 and was jailed after detectives determined statements she provided in connection with the case “were not truthful,” Brookhaven police Officer Carlos Nino said in an emailed statement.'"

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/woman-charged-with-giving-false-statements-in-broo/nmsjm/

"'I suggest they call it the Princess & the Pea Code. (Or Princess and the Penal Code?) The group seems to be on the verge of endorsing the idea that every step in any encounter that could conceivably lead to sex must be explicitly agreed to by both parties. Let’s first state that obviously, no one wants anyone raped, ever. Duh. But how far back in any encounter should we start regulating and punishing? And how fragile do we take our species for, when we state that any unwanted anything, even the grasp of a hand, is too much to bear and requires legal intervention? Shulevitz writes:

"In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”'

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/01/is-it-rape-to-hold-someones-hand-without

One of the most frustrating things a man can do is claim that he’s a victim of sexism. Men’s rights groups who espouse the systemized oppression of men are ridiculously wrong in their philosophies. Sure, men might experience discrimination, bullying or even disparagement of their gender, but this doesn’t equate to sexism. Sexism is institutionalized. Having someone be biased towards you in an isolated context, for instance, a woman excluding a man from something based on his gender, is simply mean or discriminatory, because it’s an individual act, rather than one that’s historically ingrained in the way society operates to the detriment of men. It’s the exact same “nope, not even close to the same thing” comparison that happens when white people assert that they’ve been victims of racism: That is literally not possible, because you are in the privileged majority. If you think that isolated instances of feeling slighted or discriminated against amount to having the entire balance of favor in society stacked against you, then you’re self-involved, ignorant, or at best, misguided about what words like “sexism” and “racism” actually mean. The fact is, if you’re a white, straight, middle-class man, then society operates in your favor, regardless of any instances of discrimination. You always win. Congratulations, you are the lord of the genetic lottery, so give chance a giant hug for making your life so easy.'

http://www.bustle.com/articles/71400-6-reasons-men-can-literally-never-be-victims-of-sexism-and-those-who-think-they

'Zach was arrested last winter after having sex with a girl he met on the dating app “Hot or Not,” who claimed she was 17. But she admitted to police that was a lie. She was really 14.

If he had known she was so young, Zach said, he never would have met her.

“I wouldn't even have gone to her house, like I literally wouldn't have gone to her house at all,” he said.

As a convicted sex offender, the terms of Zach’s probation are incredibly strict. For the next five years, he is forbidden from owning a smart phone or using the Internet. He is not allowed to talk to anyone under age 17, other than immediate family. He is banned from going to any establishment that serves alcohol and he has to be home before 8 p.m. every night.

“They make me out to be a monster,” Zach said. “I can't even look at life regularly.”

His parents say his punishment is cruel and unusual, and they are waging a very public fight, even setting up a Facebook page, hoping to rally support for their son.

Zach graduated high school just last year. Like many teens, he turned to his smart phone to find a date one night. He says he was on the dating app “Hot or Not” for about a week when he started talking to the 14-year-old.

…

“[She] was actually the first person I had met up with or anything from that,” Zach said. “I had asked her when we were messaging. I said, ‘How old are you?’ And then she had told me 17… I just got out of high school. So it's two years difference. I didn't think that was a big deal or anything.”'

http://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-spend-25-years-registered-sex-offender/story?id=32783206