I was on the Tommy Schnurmacher show on CJAD radio at 10 eastern this morning discussing “Men on Strike,” common law marriage in Canada, and men’s reproductive issues.

You can listen to the segment here.

So women “feminists” (more like female-privileged fascists ) are protesting austerity in Canada by proclaiming it sexist and chanting that the police are sexist, too:

A demonstration “banning” men was held in downtown Montreal Tuesday night by a feminist group opposing the Couillard government’s austerity measures.

Several hundred women gathered at Norman-Bethune Square near Concordia University for the protest.

A strong police protest observed from both sides of the march, which began by heading north on Guy St. At times, the women chanted “Sexist police sexist, feminist resistance.”

The organizers had warned on Facebook that male protesters and journalists would not be tolerated in the march. The event was trans inclusive.

Many feminists prefer to gather in same-sex environments, organizers explained on the Facebook group dedicated to the event, to justify their refusal to accommodate male protesters.

One person was arrested for a P6 municipal violation. The protest ended before 11 p.m.

Since the protests against austerity began, several feminist groups have emerged to protest government decisions and the impact they have specifically on women.

The Quebec Women’s Federation recently said that the cuts to the state affect women disproportionately, because they make up 75 per cent of personnel in public sector jobs.

This is rich: 75% of women are in these public sector jobs, meaning that the jobs are only made up of 25% men. So women are now protesting that their disproportionate share of these jobs getting cuts is sexist, but apparently it’s not sexist to have it only be 25% men making up the jobs in personnel. Also, I wonder how many of these female-dominated state jobs in Canada are being funded by male taxpayers. Maybe Canadian men should just go on strike and let the female taxpayers pick up the slack to help their “sisters.” Maybe Canadian men are already going on strike as their employment rates are sinking while women’s rates are increasing:

Employment has grown more rapidly among women than men. Between 1976 and 2012, the employment rate for women rose from 41.9% to 57.9%, a 16.0 percentage point increase. On the other hand, the employment rate for men declined by 6.9 percentage points from 72.7% in 1976 to 65.8% in 2012.

Update: I will be on CJAD in Montreal at 10 eastern this morning.

(Artwork on PJM homepage by Shutterstock.com.)

As I was reading over Instapundit this morning, I came across a post on a Progressive’s ambivalence with liberalism:

To question the guilt of Darren Wilson was to be a racist, and to question the veracity of Sulkowicz’s story was to be a sexist rape apologist. Doing either of these things would almost certainly get you branded as a conservative. As a liberal who did both of these things, I have been appalled by the irrational mob mentality displayed by my fellow liberal students at events like the Ferguson protest and the “Carry That Weight” march in support of Sulkowicz. I am struggling to come to terms with this new reality wherein sticking to an objective view of the facts is considered a conservative trait. The campus left’s complete unwillingness to adjust their opinions of these cases to fit with the facts shows a thought process completely devoid of reason.

It got me thinking about the whole UVA case and the lies that the reporter so easily swallowed from “Jackie,” the woman who was supposedly raped. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Rolling Stone Magazine article and the facts are being picked apart but that is not the real story. The real story is that liberal rags like the Rolling Stone mag, the liberal media, and liberal politicians in general are so used to getting away with lies, exaggeration, and twisting the facts to suit their agenda that they don’t even bother to conceal it anymore (if they ever did is perhaps debatable).

Those who identify as liberal figure they will get off scot-free and the truth is, they often do. The media is on their side and the current administration is even more so. Lying is a way of life that carries no consequences in their world. Are conservatives just better people? Maybe, (some research shows conservatives are more moral) but more than likely, liberals lie because they get away with it in our country. It is simple operant conditioning, When the rewards for lying for liberals diminish and the consequences for lying increase, maybe the lies will diminish.

“Yes,” according to the new book I am reading entitled The Student Resistance Handbook. The author, Cevin Soling, advocates for youth to fight back non-violently against the tyranny of their school:

The Student Resistance Handbook provides children with information on how they can effectively fight back against their school and work towards abolishing this abusive and oppressive institution. Legal non-violent tactics are presented that are designed to: disrupt the operation of school, substantially increase the costs involved in its operation, and make those who work for and support schools as miserable as they make the students who are forced to attend. The text was conceived to empower youth to struggle against the helplessness, passivity, and despair that schools were designed to instill. John F. Kennedy accurately claimed that “learning without liberty is always in vain.” This Handbook provides students with tools to fight for their liberty in order to attain a real education.

Here are a few examples from the book: Score poorly on tests, refuse to be tested, or go slowly on tests. These suggestions are only for state-mandated tests where the school needs students to do well. Show apathy: “…the school system relies on you caring about your grades, a diploma, your test scores,and your reputation as a good student. As soon as you stop caring, you take away the power the system has over you. Naturally, there are consequences to this, but there are alternative methods of getting the equivalent of a high school degree and colleges accept students who do not attend traditional schools or even school in general.”

I admire this writer’s book in a lot of ways as I often talk to young men who are in school and don’t know how to deal with a system that is so stacked against them. For example, one young man told me his school would not sponsor an all-boy’s reading club (of course there was an all-girl’s reading club). He asked me what to do and it is a hard thing to tell a young man to go against a school that may retaliate and harm his future. But the author is correct, he believes we should stand for liberty. So do I. But where do you draw the line at possibly hurting an individual’s future?

What do you think? Should students, particularly young men resist their school? Or should they resist in certain ways and not in others?

I read an article over at CNBC about women’s network organizations wanting men to join up entitled, “Women’s networks to men: We want you!”:

Think women’s network, and one thing that probably does not come to mind is men.

Time to rethink that. In a new study by the Financial Women’s Association, an overwhelming majority of people agreed that “men are instrumental to the success of women,” and 39 percent agreed that men should join women’s networking groups that have been set up to promote and advance women in the workforce. …

Women’s networks have been a presence in many workplaces for years. The Financial Women’s Association, for example, was started in 1956 when several Wall Street women were shut out of a professional organization. But for the most part, these groups have been for women only.

The networks have helped women connect with each other and obtain feedback, and Openshaw said those features remain important to women.

So, since the fifties, these groups have been for women only. Now, after almost 60 years of reverse sexism, they aren’t getting anywhere with their exclusion of men and now want men to join? Seriously? Why would any men join up?

Christina Hoff Sommers: Are Men Inferior to Women? Let’s Check the Data:

Readers often have fascinating questions and I thought maybe commenters here might have some answers for a military reader who wonders where the best place in this country (or the world) is for men to “go Galt” (his data and info has been changed):

Dr. Smith,

I have a question for you. After reading Atlas Shrugged countless times to keep myself sane at an ivy league, I had already decided to go Galt a few years ago and I never asked myself, “who is John Galt?” but rather, “Where is John Galt?” What I mean by this is where would I be able to move and enjoy the most rights and appreciation? I am an earth scientist now and after I have worked at my current job in Colorado enough to credential myself (hopefully within the next year) I think that I will have a valuable enough skill set to be able to work anywhere in the world. I am researching different countries to move to and any input or advice you may have would be greatly appreciated.

My response was as follows:

Thank you so much for your email and for taking the time to read “Men on Strike.” Your question is a very important one. What are the best places to go Galt? What about places where it is cheap to live and no income tax? I like Tennessee myself but it is not everyone’s cup of tea and it might not be the best fit for your job. I might ask readers to answer this question because they often have great ideas.

So if you have ideas about the best places in the country or world for men to go Galt, drop it below so our reader (and others) can benefit.

I saw this article at Psych Central on the link between older age in kindergarten and crime:

A new study has found that students who are older when they start kindergarten are more likely to drop out of school and commit serious crimes as teenagers.

Additionally, this negative outcome is significantly more likely for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, according to a researcher from Duke University.

“This research provides the first compelling evidence of a causal link between dropout and crime. It supports the view that crime outcomes should be considered in evaluating school reforms,” said lead author Dr. Philip J. Cook, a professor in Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy….

The explanation for the seeming contradiction lies in the age at which students may legally withdraw from school, which is 16 in North Carolina, he noted.

“If they were born before the cutoff date, they have just 19 months between their 16th birthday and graduation to be tempted to drop out,” Cook said. “If they were born just after and enter school later, they have 31 months, and for some of them, it is an irresistible temptation.”

“It’s human nature,” he added. “For a lot of adolescents, high school is a drag.”

Naturally, the fix according to Cook, the lead author of the study is…more school:

Policymakers should take notice, Cook said.

“Even something as crude as a regulation that requires a kid stay in school to a fixed age, whether he wants to or not, has a considerable effect on criminal activity,” he said.

Rather than tie when kids can drop out to an age, states might consider requiring completion of a certain grade or a specified number of years in school, he said.

Basically, a kid starting school a year later has a year more of his life put on hold in school. If instead of graduating at 17 or 18, the kid will be 19, it is tempting to drop out. Who wants to be hanging on that long? Will forcing kids to stay in school for more time really help? The lead author seems to think so but I am not so sure.

Other factors may be at play. Often, parents redshirt kids who are more emotionally immature or who have behavioral problems meaning that they may be more susceptible to impulsive, criminal behavior anyway. The more mature ones less prone to behavioral problems tend to go early or the parents may pull strings or get the kid into a private program so they can attend kindergarten without the wait. Adding time to school may or may not be the answer, but to have a kid go late, then refuse to let them out seems to me to be cruel and unusual punishment. I thought that was illegal in this country?

The Daily Mail has an article that says, “yes,” teens are less likely to drink, smoke or be bullied:

Young teenagers are happier and healthier now than teenagers were a decade ago, a new study said yesterday.

It found that the ‘Facebook generation’ of youngsters are less likely than their predecessors to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or cannabis, or get bullied.

A growing proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds, the study said, engage in behaviour that would make their parents proud. They eat fruit and vegetables, take exercise, clean their teeth, and talk to their mothers and fathers….

Some researchers have pointed to a ‘Facebook effect’ which has led teenagers who would once have spent their spare time on the streets instead to devote it to playing with gadgets in their bedrooms. Widespread public disapproval of smoking, drunkenness, drug abuse and teen mothers is also likely to have influenced teen behaviour.

I wonder if teens are happier now because they spend less time around peers and there are more choices for how to spend one’s free time. Video games, online school and online activities mean that one can find more individualized ways of spending time rather than being around other obnoxious teens and school administrators. The Internet and video games have their pros and cons but they do allow for more individual choice, and a way to find others who are more similar to oneself. Instead of getting in trouble on the streets, teens have other options that are a click away.

In Judith Rich Harris’s book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, she points out that peers have the most important influence on a kid’s behavior. If the Internet lets you choose your peers or gives a teen access to better ones, this would have some influence on happiness and subsequent behavior.

Do you agree that teens today are happier than ten years ago or is this article and study a crock?

As I talked to an older mom with a 33-year-old unmarried son the other day, I wondered how we could help mothers understand their adult sons. She asked about what I did and I told her about my work and my book about men and marriage. When I told her men did not want to marry much anymore, she looked bewildered, and said, “Is it because they are selfish?” “No,” I said, “it’s because women are selfish.” This took her back a bit and I meant for it to.

Sure I was stereotyping a bit here but so was she. Popular culture and its negative memes about men sink down to everyone, sometimes without the person even realizing it. This mother had no idea what the disconnect was between what she thought about men and what they actually are. She told me that her son was involved with a woman whom he lived with, whom he provided for, bought gifts for and helped out when he could. This woman, in turn, racked up more and more bills, including $100,000 in student loans, without including him in her plans at all.

This would all be well and good if she also expected to pay her own way. She did not appear to do that from what I understood, and the son felt betrayed and upset that he was pulling all the financial muscle in the relationship while the spoiled woman took advantage of him. They broke up and he went on a series of dates with women that he met online. Apparently, they said such outrageous things, and were so different than he was, that he has just decided to take a breather from dating for the moment.

The mother told me that she had liked the first girlfriend very much and thought that things ended poorly because her son was living with this woman rather than marrying her. I explained to the mother what might have happened if he had married the spoiled woman. If she wanted children and they had them and she ended the relationship later or wanted to, she could control the son with the children. “In fact,” I told the mom, “she could easily take your son’s kids away from him and take your grandchildren from you and it would be hard and expensive to fight.”

At this point, once the mother figured out that something bad could happen to her and her potential grandkids, I could see a light go off in her eyes. Her son was smart enough to know the odds were stacked against him and ending the relationship was for the best. Men these days have to be much more careful than women about whom they settle down with, have children with, and marry. Now this mom seemed to get that. I hope that she can now understand her son a little bit better and be supportive of his choices in this difficult legal and psychological climate.

There are many mothers out there who simply don’t understand what their grown sons are going through, particularly older women who have sons in their late twenties and thirties who do not want to marry, or are hesitant to make that commitment. These mothers could be good allies for men and could be helpful in bringing about changes in the culture and the legal system, but they have to understand that the problem is with these sexist systems, not necessarily with their sons.

Education is key with this group and fighting the constant media drumbeat that men are rapists, selfish and evil is difficult. How do we reach moms of sons?