There can be significant consequences for expressing hatred of homosexual men, or men of a racial minority, but never because those individuals are first and foremost MEN.

Misandry has become the national sport of all English-speaking countries.

Watch this videoclip to see what I mean.

Even Bill, who usually defers to women, couldn’t take Wiehl’s nonsense — claiming that women are clawing their way to equality in the USA. Give me a break.

Lis: If women were to gain any more rights in this country, they would have all the rights and would have to become hermaphrodites.

- your new term “snivelry” (which I put right up there with such gems as “vaginamony” and “reproductive rape” as identifying a men’s rights issue succinctly and articulately).

- “Like charity, manhood begins at home.”

Thanks for providing both…….

You are again arguing about wanting tough sentences for people who hurt children, and I am again arguing that your desire to see justice in this world (and there will NEVER be justice for the girl whom the law is named after, not in this world) comes at the expense of innocent men. This, to me, is unacceptable. And your brand of justice will not prevent or stop sexual molestation.

I find Mr. Rudov’s contention that taking the battle to the streets, as it were, in the face of an unjust system, is an intriguing one. I do not take issue with men standing up to women in private. If men and women are truly to be in a peer relationship (whether platonic, familial, or romantic), then that makes sense.

What does not make sense to me is one more draconian law at the Federal level that will undoubtedly be used by corrupt officials, feminized or not, to put innocent men behind bars out of political or popular expediency.

And “the severity of the sentence” making it “harder to get a conviction” will, I believe, end up being one more tool of the corrupt, feminized system against the phantom threat of male power. There is no more severe sentence than the death penalty, and how many innocent men have been found on death row? Male power is not the threat. Naked power wielded by any faulted, flawed, mortal individual is. That is why the Founding Fathers created a government that was supposed to be off our backs.

So perhaps the fight does indeed need to be taken to the streets and kept out of the courts. I do not see how passing a law in all 50 states that will put some innocent men behind bars, a law meant to prey upon the mostly phantom fears of misled moms, can be part of that fight. It seems like more angry, feminized legislation to me.

I understand where many of them are coming from, as the old frames CAN feel so comfortable. But I also maintain that the man who takes joy in unilaterally wining and dining is probably more interested in posturing and ownership than forming a genuine connection.

My two cents.

While it is true that left-wing states (like Vermont) and left-wing organizations (like NOW and ACLU) give aid and comfort to child predators, I see no difference between the left-wing and the right-wing in one regard: both are content to sell men down the river. And, there is one reason for this: men don’t rebel.

You guys can post 500 more responses about the unfairness of the “system” — and you would be right — but being right solves nothing. Only one thing solves problems: taking action.

Unless and until men stop their pathetic chivalry — which I have been calling benevolent sexism, or BS — NOTHING will change in our society. In fact, I have a new name for chivalry: snivelry. Yes, you can attribute this word to me.

As long as women and eunuch politicians see men engaging in snivelry, they will continue to steamroll them. Flush nonsense down the toilet.

Like charity, manhood begins at home. Prove it.

First, I’m not sure how you can equate the brutalization of children in a rape or molestation situation to a school system which you feel does not teach children adequate morals or whatever. That’s outrageous.

Second, realize that the 25 (or 15 or 10) year sentence is a mandatory minimum. It could be a life sentence. The perpetrator could be chemically castrated afterwards and/or monitored for the rest of his life. Every year behind bars is another year he (lol, I keep saying he) is kept away from children. The power in Jessica’s Law is the message it sends to the would-be predators.

Third, it’s true that some people will be wrongfully accused, but remember: the severity of the sentence will also make it harder to get a conviction, meaning more evidence will be necessary. And even now, people are certainly accused falsely.

Again, I think it’s a stretch to go from shoplifting to molestation, and the people of California went around the legislature to get their form of Jessica’s Law passed.

O’Reilly is a news analyst, and has a right to talk about the national issue as he sees fit. Also understand that if people did not agree with him, this effort would not be as successful as it has been.

What cost? Personally, I would like to see these guys in labor camps, but that’s not going to happen.

Many in the national “media” aren’t pouncing at all, in fact they’d rather ignore the story.

I was hooked from that point on. I’m even a billoreilly.com Premium Member, lol. What he’s done for the children is excellent, as many in the public arena won’t even discuss this issue. However, I can tell you from someone who has been listening and watching his program for years, it’s unlikely that he will jump aboard the MRA bandwagon.

While libertarian about many issues, he takes a very old-fashioned view when it comes to things like this. It’s my opinion that he views the man’s role as the protector while the mother is the nurturer. I could be wrong of course.

I saw that interview with Mel Feit and it was very telling. One of the main reasons people resist tough legislation on child abuse is the idea of “restorative justice”. It’s the idea that the abuser must be held at nearly the same level as the victim in terms of rehabilitation. It’s contrary to the “punishment fits the crime” system that we have in this country. Also remember that children don’t vote.

I wonder though, what would happen if a woman (18+) was raped (for real) and the judge only gave the perpetrator probation.

No, I don’t think there is any confusion in my mind over this law. The argument is not, “How tough should we be on sex offenders?” It’s, “How many innocent men are going to be targeted by an overzealous and increasingly police-like state? How many children are truly going to get adequate protection from sexual predators, and in exchange for how much more loss of freedom?” If anyone who supports such a law thinks it is not going to be misused by a thoroughly corrupt state, I think he is kidding himself.

The media pounce on these stories as if a mother needs to be concerned at all hours of the day as to exactly where her children are, yet they completely ignore the fact that government factory schools abuse children mentally, emotionally, and spiritually for 6-7 hours a day, and that mothers are misled into believing that their children are fine in these institutions.

Why, if you do this to a child, is your life not over? Sexual abuse is usually dangerous at an emotional and spiritual level, not physical. Why is the emotional and spiritual abuse of children in government factory schools tolerated, then?

A minimum of 25 years for a conviction of sex offense will land innocent men in prison for 25 years, as California’s “three strikes” laws has landed some men in prison for offenses as light as shoplifting. God- or rather the State- save us from shoplifters, and suspected child molestation.

And after a minimum sentence of 25 years is served by a truly dangerous criminal, he is then free to rape, molest, and/or kill again. Whom are you really protecting? And at what cost? And who gave O’Reilly the ability to speak on behalf of all 50 states???