CJ writes "The 'domestic violence' pork barrel keeps expanding. Last week the Boston Globe reported on the creation of domestic violence shelters for animals (pets), now the Globe reports that “domestic violence” activism will take place at the workplace as violence is highly prevalent now at work too(?). Oddly enough this alleged unreported violence will still be called 'domestic' violence despite the fact that it did not occur in a domestic environment. Clearly the totalitarian "DV industry" is looking to spread its might into the workplace so that men will be further incriminated and will also suffer career disadvantage in the workplace now too. Yet another way to spend the forthcoming VAWA grant money...expand the definition of "violence" and the expand the definition of 'domestic.'"

Anonymous user writes: Article here. Excerpt:

Man joins lawsuit against shelters

By Brittany Retherford

October 29, 2005

A Grass Valley man is claiming he was turned away because of his gender when he sought help from the county's Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition, said the man's attorney Friday.

The man, Patrick Neff, is part of a class action lawsuit filed Friday along with three other men and one woman against the State of California and two state-funded domestic violence agencies, including Grass Valley's Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition and Women Escaping a Violent Environment in Sacramento, said Neff's attorney, Marc Angelucci.

Dittohd writes "Here's a story detailing a proposed change in England's law doing away with a man's obligation to keep a woman supported to the level to which she has become accustomed after a divorce. There are a couple of other common sense "believe it or not" changes too that you'll find hard to believe. Anyone here think this will get passed... even considering that of the 646 members of parliament, only 127 are women?"

frank h writes "It seems that there is now a litmus test to identify men who are potential batterers, as studied by Florida Atlantic University and described here. There was no mention of such a test for women. What's interesting is that I found this (via WND) in a Scottish newspaper, not an American one."

This looks great to me. I hope Professor Adams follows through on what he promises here. It might help to rectify some of the anti-male sexism at UNC-Wilmington.

Anonymous User writes "Here's a story on a study of girls who bully - as usual, excuses such "Those behaviours are to protect themselves" are used to justify the verbal, mental and physical abuse that the girls dished out..."

On October 20 PBS released Breaking the Silence (BTS), a "documentary" that portrays fathers seeking joint custody as batterers and makes false claims about domestic violence.

In response to last week's RADAR Alert, fatherhood advocates flooded local PBS affiliates with e-mails, phone calls, and letters.

Click "Read more..." for more.

Evil White Male Oppressor writes "Oh Ms. Dowd, does it ever end? Another 'woe is me, what has happened to feminism?' piece from the 'better half.'"

Misandrope writes "I was suprised and shocked to find that the recent bankruptcy act directly affects men paying support or alimony. Now to obtain any relief from their creditors, a support/alimony paying man must FIRST bring his support and alimony payments current. How exactly one is supposed to do that when he is insolvent isn't clear to me, but then that's the approach that the courts have traditionally taken to men and their money - "just load the bills on, he'll find a way to pay, somehow, and if he doesn't, we can throw him in jail". My MIsForMalevolent Post on Topic Here.

Yours
-M"

Marc A. writes:"Link here:

Men's Rights Group: Victim Support Only For Women

Group says male victims of violence don't get same support as women.

Jon Baird

Reporting

(CBS 13) SACRAMENTO A men's rights group claims the domestic violence system is skewed toward women.

Today, a lawsuit was filed in Sacramento court, claiming that male victims don't get the same help as female victims.

"I remember going to phone 911, saying get here now, I'm going to kill him!" said Ruth Woods.

They fought all the time, often over money. Things sometimes got violent.

"I do it. I do hit. I do slap," said Ruth.

"She reaches a point when she's angry, you look in her eyes, there's no one there," said Ruth’s husband, David Woods."

Click the link above for the full article.

Marc A. writes "San Pedro woman shoves sissors in husband's eye, tapes him to chair, kills him because she didn't like the way he played with his beard. And according to Health & Safety Code Section 124250, this elderly man is still *not* a victim. Why? Because he is a man.

Marc"

I wonder if single moms will soon be having "unwed maternity" parties to go with their mothers' "divorce parties"? Story here. Meanwhile, the fathers of American children remain without parental rights-- married or not.

This from the BBC. Closes with:

Organisers say they want more collaboration with western feminists but say non-Muslim feminists need to challenge their anti-Islamic stereotypes.

I'd buy tickets to watch the proceedings of the first conference between Muslim and western feminists, just for the sheer entertainment value if nothing else!

Anonymous User writes "MIsForMalevolent compares marriage to a perfect storm, one where skill, care and intelligence count for little, because it is all about how women are tempted by the overwhelming power given them by the family court system. He also points out how men discount the misfortune of other men, assuming that those who went before were somehow at fault."

All,

It's no secret to MANN regulars that there has recently been a "troll-flame" war going on between an anonymous poster and some of our regular members. I would like to point out that people who "troll", bearing in mind that "troll" is a judgment and not a strictly-defined word, do so specifically in order to be provacative and get a reply. One who posts merely controversial comments is not a "troll" as long as he or she does so in sincerity; it's a matter of intent on the part of the poster. Nonetheless if you find someone whose posts for whatever reason consistently annoy you and you want them to stop/go away, the best thing to do in general is ignore them. Eventually, troll or not, they will go away, since shouting into a black hole is no one's idea of a good time.

So in the name of keeping the site focused and topical, please consider how and why you respond to posts you believe are meant to be provacative. Remember that there is this thing, the "right to remain silent"-- in some cases, staying quiet in the face of commentary/speculation is the best thing to do, for any number of reasons.