"But if the victim were a woman, they wouldn’t hesitate, and the law needs to be enforced equally."

Laura Curtis at Pursuing Holiness Blog has a post on the double standards when men are sexaully assaulted:

This is an unremittingly bad story. An LSU fan was stupid enough to drink himself senseless in a public place and evidently didn’t have even a single friend willing to look out for him. An mob of stupid Alabama fans assaulted him – putting trash on him and even teabagging him. In fact, they were so stupid that they filmed their crimes and posted them on the internet.

Next, the New Orleans police department – with actual video of a sex crime in their possession- decided they couldn’t investigate unless the victim stepped forward.

Let’s do a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that this was a girl who drank herself stupid. Let’s imagine that she was touched, her breasts were fondled, and that a man rubbed his genitals on her while she was unconscious. Can anyone imagine the NOPD – or any police department, anywhere – dragging their heels on investigating unless she came forward?

Given the way that our society laughs and mocks men who are abused in this way, I can understand the guy not coming forward, but he must. It is only when individual men start to say "No, this is not justice for all" and endure the ridicule that men everywhere will no longer have to endure their rights and bodies being violated in this absurd manner without consequence.

"...an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in prison on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears."

I was working on some continuing education articles today on legal issues and came across the case of Turner vs. Rogers that I thought would be of interest to readers here. In this case (which examines child support) according to an article on mental health and medical rights by Steven R. Smith, JD:

...the question was whether there is a right to have appointed counsel in such civil contempt proceedings. Typically, such civil contempt findings must be based on the fact that there is a valid child-support order, and that the noncustodial parent was able to comply with it, but failed to do so. In a 5-4 decision the Court held that the state is not necessarily obligated to provide counsel for indigent parents facing incarceration for civil contempt related to the failure to pay child support. At a minimum, however, states must have in place procedures to ensure "a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order."

There is much more to this case than the lack of counsel being provided that I will not get into here but I was disappointed to see that Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion:

Thomas further argued (with Justice Antonin Scalia, but not Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Samuel Alito joining) that the majority opinion did not consider the effects of this decision with respect to child support payments, and expressed concern that the majority opinion would undermine state efforts to collect child support payments.[4]

What didn't surprise me is how many people (my guess is mostly or all men) are imprisoned for not paying child support:

A person being in arrears on child support payments is not unusual: in 2008, 11.2 million U.S. child support cases had arrears due.[1] The number of persons kept in jail or in prison for child support arrears is not generally tracked. Based on a publicly available collection of relevant data, an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in person [sic]on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears.[2] Hence Turner v. Rogers does not merely concern a technical question of legal procedure. Being in arrears on child support payments is a situation that many persons experience. Moreover, as a result of child support debt, many persons in the U.S. are being imprisoned.

If 50,000 on any given day is accurate, it is unbelievable how many men are being kept in jail for owing money. Many people feel that child support is a different kind of debt but I disagree. Debtors' prisons are long gone, so much so that people are actually nonchalant and even contemptuous about owing others money. They know that jail is not an option for them. I believe that the jails are full of fathers because of their sex exclusively. We have a higher percentage of deadbeat moms, but few are held accountable and I doubt that many, if any, of the 50,000 in jail on any given day are female. Why does our society allow men to be thrown in jail this way? Are there that many chivalrous men and white knights like Thomas out there who believe that men's rights end when it comes to reproduction? Are there that many totalitarian women out there who believe that a man in jail is par for the course and a source of smug satisfaction? Given how many of our nation's men sit in jail over child support, I guess the answer is a resounding "yes." We continue to legalize misandry but at what cost?

I read a post over at Amy Alkon's blog entitled "Muzzling Men" that really made my blood boil, and it should make yours boil too, if you care about men and their civil rights. The post was on the work being done by Glenn Sacks and his group, Fathers and Families:

Via Fathers and Families rather outrageous legislation criminalizing men's relationship choices. Glenn Sacks writes:

Fathers and Families has joined with the ACLU of Michigan in opposing the Michigan's Coercive Abortion Prevention Act (CAPA). It is one thing to criminalize violence or threats of violence designed to coerce a woman into having an abortion. It is quite another to criminalize men's personal relationship choices, as CAPA does. Fathers and Families does not take a position on abortion, but we do oppose CAPA.

There's a link at Sacks' site to email their letter to relevant committee members. From an op-ed by Sacks:

HB 5882 [CAPA] actually makes it a crime for a man to "change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other, to "file or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife, or to "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman who he has been supporting, if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Why not criminalize the use of pregnancy by women to trap men into getting married? This makes as much sense as CAPA. Seriously, why aren't the Nazis proposing these laws tarred and feathered?

"More than 30 percent of the cases investigated by detectives each year are deemed unfounded, five times the national average."

In response to my previous post, Dave from the BaltoNorth blog sends in this article from the Baltimore Sun on false rape allegations:

The Baltimore Police Department has for the past four years recorded the highest percentage of rape cases that officers conclude are false or baseless of any city in the country, according to The Baltimore Sun's review of FBI data. More than 30 percent of the cases investigated by detectives each year are deemed unfounded, five times the national average. Only Louisville and Pittsburgh have reported similar numbers in the recent past, and the number of unfounded rape cases in those cities dropped after police implemented new classification procedures. The increase in unfounded cases comes as the number of rapes reported by Baltimore police has plunged — from 684 in 1995 to 158 in 2009, a decline of nearly 80 percent. Nationally, FBI reports indicate that rapes have fallen 8 percent over the same period.

Many people mistakenly think that women never falsely report rape. You would think that after all the mess with the Duke Lacrosse team and the resulting books such as Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, that academics and others would realize the error of their ways but ideology often wins out against the truth.

"... no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver."

Roissy:

The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.

Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with a court order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.

And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.

To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.

Cursing is a start, but organized political action against those who enact these legal injustices against men is better.

What if Shriver had to pay for a child that wasn't hers?

So the news is blaring about how Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a woman working in their home over ten years ago. While I feel sorry for his wife, Maria Shriver, one thing she does have on her side in this situation is the law. Imagine if she had been a man?

I was watching the Today show about this case and the hosts of the show were all atwitter about how women were so upset by this type of infidelity, to the point it made their skin crawl and anyone should understand. Unfortunately, if you are male in this country and your wife has a child by another man, that's your problem. The women on the show acted as though only men were unfaithful.

Apparently, they never read (or neglected) the studies such as one from U.S. News & World Report stating "Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."

A man has no choice but to pay for a child in this situation should he find out ten years after the fact, or even sooner. Not only does a woman not pay, but I heard a news show saying that Shriver may be entitled to compensation in a divorce if Schwarzenegger paid any support for the child. Imagine the outrage if Shriver was kicked in the gut not only with the news of this illegitimate child but double-kicked when told by the law that she now had to contribute to the child's support until the child was 18? It is unimaginable. Not so for men.

Why is there no similar outrage for men in this situation?

Update: "Schwarzenegger May Not Be the Legal Father Says Celebrity Attorney Andree Taylor" (thanks to the reader who emailed this article).

Amy Alkon: Where was his right to choose?:

Wild and horrible case of a woman giving a man oral sex, holding his sperm in her mouth, and using it to impregnate herself without his consent. The man sued the woman, his ex-girlfriend (who turned out to be still married to somebody else at the time of the sperm-robbing), for fraud and emotional distress...after she got a court order demanding that he pay child support for the 2-year-old daughter created from that sperm! Wildly, the child support claim was not contested.

"...female, non-violent prisoners will do about 25-percent of their sentence.."

Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 90 days in rehab:

According to Steve Whitmore, spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, Lohan will serve her time at the Century Regional Detention Center in Lynwood, California and will be segregated from the general jail population.

Lohan may only end up serving a few weeks of her 90 day jail sentence -- Whitmore noted that "female, non-violent prisoners will do about 25-percent of their sentence" because L.A. jails suffer from "an overcrowding situation."

According to this article, "non-violent" male prisoners serve more time:

The Los Angeles Times reports that most women only serve 20 percent of their jail sentence. Up until last week, male inmates were serving at least 80 percent of their jail time, but recently the sheriff's department began freeing men who were sentenced for non-violent offenses after they served only 50 percent of their time.

I don't think letting people off early is such a good idea but shouldn't the time served be uniform across the board regardless of sex? Isn't this blatant discrimination?

750 million for blackmail?

Over at Instapundit, Guestblogger Ann Althouse asks the question: Should Elin Nordegren settle with Tiger Woods for $750 million if it includes “a lifetime ‘confidentiality clause’ that would prevent her from writing a book or doing any interviews about the split”? She has a poll up over at her blog asking readers what they thought with the following options:

Yes. That’s so much money!
Yes. We’ll all be better off if that nasty material never sees the light of day.
Yes. Elin, you will be better off looking for the future and not dwelling on the past.
No. Tiger must pay for what he did and shouldn’t get anything back in exchange.
No. You need to explore and air this all out for your own good.
No. I want to read all about it! Come on! Dish it out!

None of those options seems adequate. How about:

"No, this thief does not deserve that kind of money for engaging in blackmail."

What would your response be?

"...perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion."

I received an email today from Robert L. Shibley, the Vice President of FIRE about a press release warning of a new Duke University policy that can make you a rapist without you even knowing it:

DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

It seems to me that the most powerful group on Duke's campus is the group of feminists that got this policy passed. If you have sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped and need to file charges.

If you would like to let Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, know how you feel about this new policy, you can send him an email here. I just sent an email and I hope you will too.

Violent French husbands 'may be tagged' (thanks to the reader who sent this):

Men seen as likely to be violent towards their wives could be forced to wear an electronic tag under a law being debated by the French parliament.

The tag would have to be worn by men who have received a court order to stay away from their partner.

The proposal is part of a draft law on conjugal violence. It has cross-party support and is expected to pass easily.

According to the government, around 160 women in France are murdered by their husbands or partners every year.

Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home, because it is seen by many as a precursor to physical violence.

It is rare for the left and the right in France to agree on anything, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield, so the near unanimity in parliament behind this law comes as something of a novelty.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is bad and getting worse.

Why is it that when the left and right finally agree on something, it's to take away the civil rights of men and treat them like dogs? Apparently, misandry is a bipartisan endeavor.

Is Statism the new normal?

Rasmussen: 32% Favor Marriage Law That Punishes Verbal Abuse:

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 32% of Americans say the United States should have a law that punishes individuals for verbal and psychological abuse of their spouses. Forty percent (40%) are opposed to such a law, and another 27% are not sure.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of men are against a law that cracks down on arguing in marriages. Women are much more narrowly divided on the question. Adults ages 18 to 39 think the law’s a better idea than their elders do.

Interestingly, married adults are less enthusiastic about a law against verbal and psychological abuse of spouses than unmarried adults are – by a 43% to 36% margin.

When I read that 32% of people agreed that verbal and psychological abuse should be prosecuted and 27% are unsure, I really start to wonder about a society that even considers such draconian ideas. How did we get to this point?

And why is it when someone threatens to kill others or harm others in institutions such as schools or in the military, that is okay--especially if they are politically correct about it? The worst that happens is a psychological evaluation, typically. Or is it is just the same old war against boys (and men) that is really the key here? Or is statism just the new normal in the US?

Go directly to jail: Women are the worst perpetrators of verbal violence against men

"In the sea of conflict, men sink and women swim"--Researcher John Gottman

Many of you have been emailing me about France's new law banning "psychological violence" against one's spouse (wife is more like it, I'm sure). Apparently, jail time might even be involved for perpetrators who dare to mock their spouse (wife). Fausta emailed me a post she had written on the topic and asked if I thought women were more likely to be the perpetrators of insults against their husbands. My answer, "absolutely."

The research bears this out. In psychologist Richard Driscoll's book Opposites as Equals, there is a section called "Women are more confrontive." Driscoll discusses the work of John Gottman who observed that women are freer and more open in expressing their anger than are men:

While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations.

Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more forcefully in almost twice as many marriages as men.

In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. ....

Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, in our ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around.

So, if men are more stressed and confused by arguments, meaning that they suffer more psychological harm than women, it seems fair to say that women are the ones who should suffer because of this law.

I should note that I do not believe the government has any right to interfere this way in people's marriages. However, given that these statist laws seem to abound, it seems only fair that women should be held accountable. And lest you think this an impossibility, remember that more and more women are being arrested for assaults, one reason being that due to feminism, women are no longer getting away with their crimes as often.

Maybe men "should take back the night"

I found it sort of (okay, really) ironic after reading a news article about University of Tennessee women at a "Take back the night" rally to highlight violence against women that two of the stories linked to this story were about....women's violence against men.

In the first story, a teacher is arrested with the statutory rape of a male student:

FENTRESS COUNTY, Tenn. (WVLT) -- The Fentress County Grand Jury has indicted a high school teacher for allegedly having sex with a 16-year-old student.

Lindsey Seymour, 27 of Allardt turned herself in to Fentress County authorities on Thursday afternoon. She was officially charged with eight counts of statutory rape.

Seymour allegedly had the sexual encounters with the male student between June 2009 and September 2009. In late September, the teen’s parents complained to the district attorney about the contact.

In the second news story, a woman is just now serving time (not much) for shooting her boyfriend through the head in 2005:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) – The Blount County woman who gunned down her live-in boyfriend in June 2005 will begin serving her sentence on Monday.

April Jennifer Warren, 38 pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter on April 8th, 2008. According to police, she killed Charles Russell, 32 with a single shotgun blast to his head following an argument in their home on June 13th, 2005. Court records indicated she was performing CPR on Russell when police arrived on the scene.

Warren was sentenced to 10 years in prison on May 28th, 2008, but later appealed when it came out that Judge Mike Meares had contacted the family of the victim about the verdict. After sentencing Warren, Judge Meares apparently told Russell’s family that he gave her the maximum penalty with them in mind and asked that they support him in his upcoming election.

This murderer will have to serve only 35 percent of the 10 year prison sentence. I understand this is due to a technicality but 10 years wasn't much to begin with. And I wonder how this murder was counted? As a woman murdering a man? As some lesser crime due to it being voluntary manslaughter? Was it entered in the national data base at all as a woman killing a man?

Maybe it's time men who have been affected by female sexual and physical violence to"take back the night" but that will never happen. Men will rarely stand up for themselves and society sees their lives as expendable, especially when taken by a woman. Men will continue to be abused and will suffer or die in silence, or with the frequent sneer that "he deserved it."

Update: Here is yet another story linked from the same news site (WVLT) about a woman who killed her boyfriend (Good grief, how many are there?). Naturally, she again got only voluntary manslaughter and here is what she served:

In May 2008, the defendant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in that case and was sentenced to three years in prison as a standard offender. According to her sentencing report, she was to serve 120 days in the county jail in 20-day increments -- with the remainder of her sentence as supervised probation.

Women just say the word, "domestic violence" and they are given a pass for killing, as in this case. When women's groups shout non-stop about domestic violence and violence against women, they plant the seeds in the culture that men are never victims. This is not true but people listen, despite evidence to the contrary.

Update II: DADvocate points out another case where a woman stabbed her husband 193 times, gets 25 years and has the verdict overturned (via Althouse blog). The case sounded familiar and I realized it was that of Susan Wright, one of the women profiled on the Oxygen show "Snapped" that I was on as an expert in 2004. The show is coming to the Biography channel soon according to a promo. That's the thing about cable. The shows are recycled forever.

"I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten,"

Trudy Schuett reports at Examiner.com on Praxis International, an organization that she says "encourages domestic violence, when properly applied." Trudy says:

I wouldn't have known anything about this org but for an e-mail I got from Marc Angelucci, of NCFM. The e-mail was about the outrage felt by participants at the recent Washington State Domestic Violence Coalition (WSDVC) annual conference, where Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis said with a grin, "I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten," during her keynote address.

Naturally, when asked for clarification about this comment, Janice Wick, Associate Director of Praxis, said:

"Amanda McCormick is an employee of Praxis International but was not representing Praxis at the Washington conference. As I was not present, I can not speak to your concerns. I would not want to make a judgment based on a sentence that may or may not have been taken out of context. I will forward your email to Amanda and she will respond to you directly."

Notice how there is always an excuse when PC comments are made in most organizations, one that would not be tolerated had the sexes been reversed. I am glad to see that people who were attending were outraged and that Ms. Schuett is on the case.

"...the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman."

It seems that the woman who says she was raped at Hofstra University has now stated that she made the whole story up:

The student who alleged she was gang raped by five men inside a Hofstra University dormitory bathroom on Sunday has admitted to making the entire story up, the Nassau County District Attorney's office confirmed on Wednesday night.

Charges against the four men arrested have since been dropped. ...

When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.

"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts. I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."

As of late Wednesday night, the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman. A press conference will be held Thursday morning.

This woman could have destroyed the lives of these young men and the district attorney has not decided whether or not to press charges? And one of the men involved "has no hard feelings?" I am sure he is simply relieved that he will not spend part of his life in jail, but it just goes to show how much power women have in our society when they get away with falsely accusing men and the men are just happy they have not landed in jail. Pressing charges against women who falsely accuse men will stop it from happening in the future. When there are no consequences for horrendous behavior, it escalates. Expect more of this in the future.

Childless man released from child support debt

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A Georgia man who spent a year in jail for nonpayment of child support -- despite the fact he has no children -- has been cleared of the debt, his attorney said Tuesday.

Frank Hatley, 50, spent 13 months in jail for being a deadbeat dad before his release last month. A judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" -- a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley.

Why men shouldn't volunteer with children

Amy Alkon: "You're a guy and you want to "give back"? Keep away from the kiddies or you could lose everything you have." Amy says this because of a post by Wendy McElroy:

I haven't been able to get Anthony J. Tripoli out of my mind. He is the 69-year-old man I wrote about in a July 19th blog post. He was a volunteer who tutored children one-on-one in reading skills at a public school in Florida. Based on the testimony of an 8-year-old girl and without any supporting evidence whatever, he was given a life sentence for allegedly touching her in an inappropriate -- that is, a sexual -- manner. In reading the news story, I thought the man was probably innocent and a victim of the public/legal hysteria that surrounds the issues of children and sex.

I must say it makes me both sad and angry that this is the case. Having worked with numerous kids and teens over the course of my career, many could have used some male influence. But this is the sad new reality.

The new 1950's man

I read over an article by Jason Whitlock entitled: "This is why athletes should never marry" (thanks to the reader who emailed this):

McNair, 36, was shot by his 20-year-old mistress, Sahel Kazemi, a waitress at Dave & Buster's. Gatti, 37, was allegedly strangled by his 23-year-old wife, Amanda Rodrigues, a former dancer at Scores.

I'm not dismissing the smaller, more obvious lessons: 1.McNair needed to keep his butt at home with his wife and kids; 2. Middle-aged, millionaire men shouldn't romance 20-year-old children who are looking for their lottery ticket.

And I'm not blaming the victims. McNair and Gatti did not in any way get what they deserved. No one deserves to be murdered.

What I'm saying is the institution of lying/marriage is a horrible idea for athletes.

Okay, fair enough, the author talks about why athletes should not get married but what caught my eye was this comment:

If McNair could keep his dick in his pants, he'd be alive today, and that's a fact.

As Mr. Whitlock noted, no one deserves to be murdered in the way that these men were--and that is really what the debate is about. Women are murderers too and the men are being blamed for it. A society that believes that McNair and other men had what was coming to them because of their male sex is one that is neither just nor fair. It is just that now, the genders are reversed. Men are the new 1950's women --but at some point, this will change, as men get wise and quit taking it. Women need to be held responsible for these murders in order to reduce them.

"I wish I had a bit more courage,...."

The Spectator: "Toby Young says that Father’s Day is nothing to celebrate: today’s neutered dads have become overworked assistants to their children rather than paternal role models." Young makes some good points about dads in the article and how their role is diminished, but the main item that caught my eye was this:

I wish I had a bit more courage, particularly as I have three sons. Among advocates of men’s rights, the main focus is on the iniquities of family law — and the bias shown towards women in custody agreements is clearly indefensible. But the people who suffer most from the diminution of paternal authority are adolescent males. A recent study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families discovered that white boys do worse in their GCSEs than Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, African and Chinese boys, not to mention girls from any background. The only groups that perform worse are ‘Traveller of Irish Heritage’, ‘Gypsy Roma’ and ‘Pupil in Care’.

I think a lot about how boys are faring in a society where they are treated like second class citizens, along with their dads. I was recently at a spa getting a pedicure and a young boy and his sister were sitting next to their mom. The young boy blurted out, "I can't help it that I'm not a girl!" in response to something they were saying. I was taken back a bit. When did you used to hear boys saying that and in a serious way?

Our society simultaneously thinks it's funny that boys have been regulated to second class citizenship and at the same time, they feel it it their "just desserts." Afterall, they must pay for whatever happened to women in past times. This is cruel and vindictive but worst of all, it is happening because we let it.

Perhaps this Father's Day, we should all think about what it mean to have "a bit more courage," when it comes to helping the next generation of boys succeed. Without courage, we (and they) are lost.