|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if CANOW accepts the challenge. I noticed in the e-mail from Rachel Allen that she's already begun clouding the issue with non-issues such as the positions various people hold at CANOW and their relation to the report. She also states, "The father's rights groups we point to in our
report are insidious, powerful, dangerous groups of misogynous men. "
Yeah, right. Their source for this information was The Liz Library, which is run by the same Liz that also is the listowner of FamilyCourtReform, a Yahoo Group that routinely sucks in men under false pretenses and edits & reposts their e-mails for the purposes of accusing them of crimes and threatening them with 'exposure.' FCR conveniently forgets that violation of copyright itself is against the law, though this Liz person claims to be an attorney.
And well, we know exactly how powerful father's rights groups are at this moment!
Well, Wendy, our prayers are with you, but it should be a cakewalk! It's not hard to prove truth.
T_____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Double, Triple and Quadruple check everything that come out of a pheminists yap.
We don't even have to prove the truth, they do, they are the one's the put out this report.
The first thing Wendy has to do is dismantle the credibility of the report as it comes out. I can guarentee some old myths prairy doggin their heads out on this.
Wendy should play for zero effect forcing the canow to prover where they got their information, and how it is relevant. Then when no one's looking start interjecting some quotes from other studies.
Personally Im past looking like a Mysoginist, I just tell them Im looking for the truth. I have been very effective at communicating with younger crowds seniors in highschool age.
My line is "We have to look at the overall sitution to really do some good. And to do that we have to be fair at look at all forms of violence. And before we can do that we have to look at where the money is going, which is clearly not a fair approach to find out about the 'overall pictur'"
I'm happy to say I made an impact. And to hear the responces from the kids gave me hope, all were in agreement and it was an even crowd of boys and girls.
This is one step in nuetralizing the hostility between the sexes, the next should be to 'expose the divorce industry' and show how its purposly ruining lives.
Then thirdly we have to empower women to be independant of the constant fear monger propaganda of rape, and assault in their everyday lives.
Fourthly, I think we should look at the "conditioned responces" that they are teaching girls in schools on how to act and react.
Personally I'd like to shut down the 'women's studies department transmitter' myself; but somehow we have to shortfuse it.
My goal is to nuetralize the hostility between the sexes , so that we can really deal with those problems as we head them off as a team men and women together.
Unfortunately Im starting to believe that its just leftwing vs. rightwing in the political circles thats causing half the problem, if not all of it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking a look at Rachel Allen's letter .(Rachel Allen
Public Relations Director, California
National Organization for Women)
Rachel Allen: "I am writing to respond to Wendy McElroy's column (July 2) on the CANOW Family Court Report 2002. As an author of the report I feel I am qualified to address the issues raised."
Dan: Okay, what are the qualifications?
Rachel Allen: "The impetus for the report came from years and years worth of calls and contact from women all over the country telling their stories about gross injustice suffered in the hands of the system that is supposed to be about helping families. The National Organization for Women has always been about exposing injustice wherever it may be, and recently passed a resolution calling for action on the issues presented by women who have been abused by the family court system. This is often unpopular, but, nonethelss important."
Dan: So it's not just people in California you are talking about here, but you are adding them to the list anyways, is this right? You say NOW is about exposing injustice wherever it may be? You mean so long as it's only women's injustice? "Women's injustice" seems to be the most popular slant in America , Australia, Canada, Scottland, and the UK. I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but I know you won't mind. So I take it men never have injustices served to them.
Rachel Allen: "In California, the amount of contact from women who had come out of the family courts feeling abused, treated unfairly, and concerned for their children became impossible to ignore. We put out a statewide call for information on how the courts treated its primary care givers (some men). Let me just say that CA NOW does not profess now, nor have we ever, to be an unbiased, scientific research agency. We are not the University of NOW. We are an advocacy group. In this case, we started from the problem and backed up to find out why and how much it happened. This does not discount our fingings. (SIC)"
Dan: Impossible to ignore? Spend a lot of time there do you. Btw, is there a 'National Organization for Men' that spend equal amounts of time at court, Making sure the men get a fair shake? Or do you serve them aswell Since you look for injustice's everywhere?
So when you say, "primary care givers (some men), does that mean that is your real role advocacy for the primary care giver? What exactly are you saying or implying when you try to add "some men"?
So you are not an unbiased university study research agency (if there are any of those left). But you think we should make new laws or change our whole court system in your favour because you're a 'biased advocacy group'?
And while we are on it. Is it your only defence against us asking probing questions That we are "misogynist"? Brilliant, do you have a degree in this? Certainly like making accusations.
We are not going to except being labled "misognyist pigs" as an excuse anymore everytime we want to see where the money is going, what is being serviced and what it is NOW is doing or even better still where the 'data' comes from.
Rachel Allen: "Comparing the numbers to the total numbers of litigants is irrelevant. Even if it only happens that in one percent of the cases women are treated unfairly and their children put in the hands of dangerous men, it still represents a problem that CA NOW will not ignore."
Dan: Really?! and what if the reverse is the case? Do you even listen to yourself talk? Nice political posturing though. As long as the other 99% of the injustices go to men, I would think you would be happy, guess not. Btw, how many children go to the hands of 'dangerous women'?
Rachel Allen: "The approach to the problem was one that gathered statistical data, but, presented qualitative analysis. This is a perfectly acceptable approach to research. However, due to the call for more numbers, we are going back to add in statistical data analysis."
Dan: Huh? Didnt you already say you were biased and adversarial? Don't you think someone else should be doing this work? Sorry I didnt catch your qualifications, what were they again?
Rachel Allen: "I also should point out the several errors Ms.McElroy makes in her column. First, she states that one of the authors is the president of CA NOW which is incorrect. CA NOW has a president and an executive director and it was the executive director who was an author of the report."
Dan: Wow, Im glad you put that one at the top of the list.
Rachel Allen: "Second, she states that there is no way of verifying the cases accuracy. Each questionnaire calls for a case number so that information on the case can be verified through public documents."
Dan: Lets see them.
Rachel Allen: "Third, McElroy says that the historical research we did was based on the "constituents" (a large majority of questionnaire respondents are NOT NOW members) information. Simply not true. The historical analysis was based on public documents, not survey information."
Dan: Which is less than 1% of the case load I take it by your previous statement. And is nationwide, but added to suit your California provisions. Unless I missread your early statements, thats what I got.
Rachel Allen: "And, finally, the footnote McElroy calls into question is adequately supported by the bill research, but also is supported by the American Judges Association who presented the statistic that in custody cases where abuse is alleged and the father fights for custody 70% of the time the father gets sole or partial custody. The father's rights groups we point to in our report are insidious, powerful, dangerous groups of misogynous men. Go check out their websites and see if you aren't outraged."
Dan: We've been to busy checking out your websites, looks like tit for tat, if its even true. So are the Judges supposed to be trusted here or not? And lastly since when did men's groups get a cut of that multi billion dollar cash cow called vawa?
Rachel Allen: "McElroy is right, this is news, not a university study. I challenge her as a "feminist" to sit in a room with the hundreds of women who have had their rights to contact with their children denied on the whim of a sexist judge, or tried desperately to get her child out of the home of a man who has been sexually molesting that child, or who has had her teenage son commit suicide rather than go live with his father, and tell them their stories don't count."
Dan: Really we challenge you to sit in the room full of MILLIONS of men who have lost their rights(which isnt news to us). Acussed of abuse merely on your say so though arent they? Tragic about the child, but then again its still your say so on what drove him to suicide, wake up, suicide rates are phenominal for boys (which also isnt news for us), interesting how its suddenly a concern for you when it kind of helps your agenda isnt it.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the worst statements in Allen's reply is this oft-repeated statistic that "in custody cases where abuse is alleged and the father fights for custody 70% of the time the father gets sole or partial custody." This goes along with its sister statistic that "x% of fathers get sole or partial custody of the children," where "x" is far more than 50%. The implication is that mothers get to see their children in 100% - x% cases.
What Allen is doing here isn't even just glossing over the truth. She is lying with statistics by quoting numbers that seem to tell you something but don't tell you anything at all. "What percentage of fathers accused of abuse end up having any sort of custody arrangement at all with their children?" is not a useful question. Useful questions to illuminate this situation (rather than obscure it, which Allen is dishonestly trying to do) would be:
What percentage of fathers who were accused of abuse and where the judge believed those accusations nonetheless were given some sort of custody arrangement with their children?
What percentage of fathers who were accused of believable abuse got sole custody of their children?
What percentage of fathers accused of abuse that was later found to be unbelievable (i.e. could not be proven and did not seem likely) got sole custody of their children?
What percentage of fathers accused of abuse where the accusation was later found to be a lie (i.e. not simply unsubstantiated, but clearly invented) got sole custody of their children? How many got joint custody? (One would hope that this is a large number, as the mother has shown herself to be a vindictive liar in these cases.)
And, the kicker,
Of those fathers who got "sole or partial" custody of their children, how many got sole custody and how many partial custody?
This is the great feminist sleight-of-hand: lump the (very few) sole custody recipients in with the (many) shared custody recipients, leaving the impression that fathers get a better deal than mothers. If you look at Allen's own numbers you can see how useless they are: fathers got sole or partial custody 70% of the time, which means that mothers got sole custody 30% of the time. Now, I'll guess that out of that 70%, fathers got sole custody 5% and partial custody 65%. That would mean that in 95% of the cases mothers retained custody of their chidlren, while in only 70% of the cases fathers retained custody. However, it's impossible to tell: by Allen's numbers, 0% of fathers could have gotten sole custody. After all, she says "sole or partial" custody. If all of them got partial custody, she could still truthfully say the same thing.
Just another way in which feminism trashes science in the name of perpetuating The Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait until Sacks comes out with his article about the FCR. He gets wide exposure, so that should be good.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait until Sacks comes out with his article about the FCR. He gets wide exposure, so that should be good.
I hope Sacks has a legal war chest built up. The war against men is getting nastier by the day. I predict that it is only a matter of days now until the radical feminist groups libel Glenn. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe it is that day is rapidly approaching.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 03, @05:06PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
for your courage and intellect. NOW's hate-driven
"reports" are no way to address issues that matter
a lot to men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy rocks.
Women aren't better than men.
Men aren't better than women.
We're just different. Deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read this page at Men's Daily, this is great.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/newswire07040 2b.htm
Perhaps the Father's movement has hit a nerve?
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dman Dan! Mud slinging is an understatement! I just read the document that you referenced at the following link, and here is the URL: Liablous language
I was deeply shocked by the level of the lies they are telling about the men's rights activist. It never occurred to me that they might stoop this low. I know some of these people and what is being said about them cannot be anything other than an outright lie.
A list of what in my humble opinion are the most libelous statements ever told about men's activist's as allegedly posted by " Cindy Ross, California Director, National Alliance for Family Court Justice. "
I also believe that (IMHO) there is little doubt but that these libelous statements are actionable if it can be confirmed that Cindy Ross actually made these written statements:
1. FR groups are affiliated with pedophiles and others who advocate incest and deviant sex, including John Money, Ralph Underwager, Hollida Wakefield, Warren Farrell and Richard Gardner.
2. FR groups are connected to a court kickback/financial corruption scheme that calls for the misuse of federal program funds in the name of "fatherhood" and "shared parenting".
3. FR groups fabricated "parental alienation syndrome" as the strategy used to suppress evidence of child abuse and domestic violence, assist men with getting out of child support obligations and punish women and children in jails and institutions.
4. FR groups are comprised of misogynists, batterers, child molesters, sociopaths and criminals, their present wives, girlfriends and mothers, as well as those trying to repeal the 19th Amendment.
5. FR groups and their allied court "professionals" are connected to hundreds of cases across the country (and around the world) where "custody" has gone to child molesters, violent men and others who are unfit to be parents.
Damn! This liable cannot go unanswered. Does anybody have a means of confirming that these were actual statements made by Cindy Ross? In my humble opinion this stuff is actionable and must be answered by every legal means.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be certain to use language like allegedly and opinion to qualify all statements on this stuff. It could be a setup.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to make a request of everyone who reads this to take a step in public men's rights activism by writing to the editor at FOX in support of Wendy McElroy's recent article.
Here is a reply I got from Wendy that I would like to pass on.
>
Please pass this on to anyone you know. I am sure that NOW and other feminist groups are sending in "hate" mail asking for Wendy to be removed as a contributing author.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 04, @07:12PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is that they don't accuse any particular father's rights group. So they really don't libel anyone.
They do accuse certain people of having questionable views on pedophilia, probably with some evidence. In Warren Farrels case, he was quoted in an old Playboy interview making a comment that could be construed as condoning pedophelia. He claims Playboy misquoted him. He was still a feminist at the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was just regurgitating feminist party line.
Even if the Playboy quote misrepresented his statement, that would be the fault of Playboy. Cindy Ross would probably be held harmless. They are playing a harball PR game here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" They are playing a harball PR game here."
I like this game.
It shows that they are getting desperate, and are resorting to new lows, and their lack of evidence is compounding. Which proves that more and more, these whores like to make 'false accusations' as their preferred choice of violence and abuse.
By becoming so vocal about the men's rights movement they start to bring it to the surface themselves. Which is why they are going after our pocket books, our reputations, our very balls if possible.
I am really enjoying watching them squirm under the bright lights. I bet it's getting real hot in there for them.
We have to be careful not to go un-noticed at this point. Wendy is right, we have to send in letters to Fox.news big time. Try and get as many people you can to send letters, even from people who are half way about it. They don't have to lie, but they can certainly say they would like to hear 'both' sides of the story in a fair and unbiased approach.
We have to make a move on this in order to establish our credibility to at least the extent where we can be heard.
We have them on the run, gentlemen, this is our chance.
Can someone post a link to an address for Fox news, or anywhere else for that matter. Thanks.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOX News
views@foxnews.com
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This e-mail address might help
comments@foxnews.com
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" They are playing a harball PR game here."
Okay. I did some looking around and found the following link:
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell6.htm
Clearly, Warren has had problems with alleged liable claims from this group (nafcj.org)before. He has also had to seek legal council to defend himself from their alleged damaging claims.
This is pretty nasty stuff. The group actually alleges that Warren, in a letter explaining the 1977 Penthouse misquote, made liabelous statements against them simply because he was asking them to stop using a misquote. In my opinion, these people are quite pathetic, and they need to have an injunction put in place against them order them to stop their alleged liabelous activities.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is that they don't accuse any particular father's rights group. So they really don't libel anyone...
AU is clearly mistaken. IMHO the following quote is most certainly liable and actionable:
1. FR groups are affiliated with pedophiles and others who advocate incest and deviant sex, including John Money, Ralph Underwager, Hollida Wakefield, Warren Farrell and Richard Gardner.
There is nothing vague about this statement. If Cindy Ross really wrote that letter, then I believe she is in trouble.
You cannot go around claiming that a person supports pedophilia and incest without proof like a conviction or explicit literature published by the person. Further, if a person refutes a mischaracterized statement that must be respected by law.
I find it hard to believe that Cindy Ross would make this kind of serious mistake even if I disagree with her views. There isn't one single qualifying word like alleged or opinion to modify the charges being made against Warren Farrell and others that are named in the document.
In my opinion, Cindy Ross does not have a license to liable anybody short of solid and compelling proof. I encourage Warren and the others who were named to demand a public apology for these allegations if they in fact came from Cindy Ross.
The other alternative is for Cindy Ross to publicly state she did not send the email and to denounce the liable in the letter.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
