|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This may be the first, major, full-frontal assault between a feminist organization and so many major players in the men's/honesty movement. Who needs charcoal this Fourth of July weekend? I've been roastin' marshmallows and weenies for days on this heat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me about it! I'm wearing my asbestos gloves!
;>)
T____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me about it! I'm wearing my asbestos gloves!
Ah, yes. The ol' iron fist in an asbestos glove. Sock it to 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trudy, are you aware of which aspects of their report CANOW is changing?
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Trudy, are you aware of which aspects of their report CANOW is changing?"
What a bunch of losers.
So so much for three years work. Im telling you guys you should seriously monopolize on this. I know its holiday up there, but don't let this go to long. If those cows are offering a direct debate, we should be pushing for it. I think fox or someone should consider this . But be careful not to get trapped into a station that is associated with the FemiNazi Press. . The FemiNazi Media: Knock out the signal!
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to Rachel Allen
Public Relations Director, California
National Organization for Women
"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."
There was something else too, I think, in a CA newspaper article, but now I can't find it.
T____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I read that NOW report I think I actually got dumber.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I read that NOW report I think I actually got dumber.
I know what you mean, Dan. Should we change their name to the "Continental Organization of Women?" (Just tryin' to put a little humor into this. Okay, I'll get back to work.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid if I read the new and improved version , I may be to dumb to log back on line.
If you don't hear from me for a while, well you know what happened.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you know this, Trudy, but I'll throw it out for emphasis: They're going to be vicious, dishonest and hateful. They'll distort what you say, invent "facts," and smear you. Best of luck, my friend. (I hope that I can call you that.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's got a start here. Seems I mistook one hate-monger for another with the same first name. (In another instance.) So now they and their gangs are all mad at me. But after awhile, they all begin to look alike. Their websites pretty much all say the same thing.
What I want to know is, if we're all in collusion with the Feds and have all that money coming in, where's *my* check??? ;>)
No worries, amigo!
T____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Their websites pretty much all say the same thing.
I've noticed that and find it quite remarkable. There is a distinct lack of any dissention of opinion. It is almost as though any dissenters are immediately excommunicated from the larger group. It seems to be little more than mind control.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 05, @05:49PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for writing this. You're
a jewel.
-- a man fan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree! Many thanks to you Trudy. You are a gem!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.canow.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26
The above link leads to the CANOW message board. You might like some of what you see.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 05, @11:49PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
hey AFG,
I just checked out the message board - Wow! It looks like even some of the members of CANOW themselves recognize the lies purported by CANOW. This is great!
And to Wendy: Thank you for everything you do!! You have my full support!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The frustrating thing here is that I have in my hands an actual study done by Sanford Braver of UofAZ demonstrating the opposite -- that his group of lawyers believed courts to be biased against men! "A survey was administered at a State Bar convention to 72 Family Law attorneys who reported on their experiences in representing a total of 3,860 clients"
It's not due to be released yet, and I only have permission to cite or quote, but not release the whole study! AAArrrgh!
T_____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's not due to be released yet, and I only have permission to cite or quote, but not release the whole study! AAArrrgh! "
Ohhhh brother, that must be what hell is like. That's alright Trudy, in the meantime, maybe you can give us some quotes and perhaps a release date so that we can prepare to 'market' or 'spread' around this report (which ever term you prefer).
I would like to try something on that and that is not to promote this piece as a counter to NOW ( I am assuming its not) but to show it as another perspective and to try our best to point out the 'sound' research 'ETHICS' involved. Hopefully that is the case.
However, trashing NOW would be fun with this piece I fear that by doing that it may harm the 'credibility' of the piece, which is the thing I think we should be promoting the most.
Ultimately, I want our enemies to by like us not us like them, if that makes sence.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the one I'm debating with, men's activists should be attacked.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFG,
It looks like a civil debate, so I don't want to butt in. I can't resist thinking about how I would respond in my own (not very successful) style of trying to make someone listen to their own words, so I'll put it here. If anything grabs your fancy, feel free. :)
Lilith,
"Why should I care at all that there are some nice people in the men's movement when so many others obviously hate women and they are accepted."
It seems to me that you answer your own question:
You are right that some feminists go too far by condemning all men , but these are usually young women that are new to feminism or women that have been traumatised by men and use feminism like a form of therapy. Most of these people get it out of their system.
I could, and do, say the same thing about the men's movement, sometimes called masculists. You are right that some masculists go too far by condemning all women, but these are usually men that are new to masculism or men that have been traumatised by women (or the courts on behalf of women) and use masculism like a form of therapy. Most of these people get it out of their system.
Maybe you have trouble imagining men being traumatized by women. I don't know. But it does happen - a lot! You might want to re-do your google search and read with that possibility in mind.
Also , feminism is incredibly diverse. You have groups like NOW that are usually very thoughtful and responsible and then you have a few groups that are too radical.
So is the men's movement. It's also primarily Internet-based, so anyone with an extreme view can rant on all they want. Having a website doesn't mean you're accepted. If you want to find out what all these men are so angry about, look for the organizations that ARE thoughtful and responsible, such as NCFM, to draw your conclusions.
It can be hard for men to adapt to the changes that are taking place in the world and they may feel lost - this is why there is a constant backlash against feminism.
Perhaps some of that backlash is more than just existential angst. Perhaps it derives from clear-headed opposition to the consequences of proposals from thoughtful, responsible feminist organizations, such as:
What if someone in the CA legislature took this (CANOW)report seriously and assumed these guys really were all wife beaters and deadbeats ? If this is true why should men be allowed to apply for custody in the first place - why even have a family court ??
Am I backlashing if I think that's a bad idea? Is it misogynist to wonder at the motives and agenda of those who produced this report?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry,
Thanks for your input, and feel free to post it. As I'm sure you know, the contradicitions in her post can be pointed out by anyone. ;)
I'm going to respond to her later tonight. Anyway, she seems to think it is ok for the women's movement to have a few radicals, but not the men's movement. So when we view feminism, let's ignore the whakos, but when we view the men's movement, let's focus in on them.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm going to respond to her later tonight. Anyway, she seems to think it is ok for the women's movement to have a few radicals, but not the men's movement. So when we view feminism, let's ignore the whakos, but when we view the men's movement, let's focus in on them."
Make sure you point out that feminists have advocated for genicide, and feminists that were leaders. Can she say the same for the men's movement. I mean to openly advocate for genocide of the other sex? Not likely.
http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id68.htm
Check out the 10% to much? part as well as the others. There are also an entire host of feminist utopias in lit. But of course there the radical feminists, while those other ones are the nice fems, that think prison is a fine enough solution.
And if she brings up China, remind her that China is only 4% above the norm with male to female ratios in birth rates. Meaning the US is typical at 105 to 100(females) and China is 109 to 100(females)
CIA fact book: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFG,
Yer welcome for the words, but I'll stay out of it. No need to gang up on her when she's trying to stay polite. Besides, you seem to have things well in hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you don't mind. I used your response, but told her it was not my own. Mine will come later tonight or tomorrow, as I'm too tired.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And by the way...I don't give two shits about what she thinks about me using your post. I told her it was not mine, and I'll leave it at that.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 06, @11:17PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
a recent poster on the NOW forums wrote the followingI think that referring to 'father's rights' groups as wierdo's is a nice way to put it. Search for the terms 'father's rights' and 'men's movement' on Google and see what you get ! These are the a**holes that put the M in misogynist ! They make Osama Bin Laden look like Alan Alda ! If there are any decent enlightened men that call themselves father's rights activists they'd be smart to choose another label. Most of these groups are just haters pretending to be victims.
I think we should attack the "men's movement" , but not by lying about why men seek custody of their kids. We'll just create more haters and hurt innocent people. What if someone in the CA legislature took this report seriously and assumed these guys really were all wife beaters and deadbeats ? If this is true why should men be allowed to apply for custody in the first place - why even have a family court ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being a psychology student I have a background in researching social issues. After taking a research class I became aware of how easy it is to mislead people in the information you are attempting to portray. As an academic individual I demand statistics and references (unless the discussion is theoretical in nature) so I can look verify information myself.
After reading the CANOW report about bias against women I became interested in one of the studies they refrenced "The California Advisory Committee on gender discrimination in the courts (1996)" so I looked it up. It is a quite lengthy article (well over 150 pages) that self discloses its own bias in focusing on discrimiation against women but even it notes and I quote, "..., the problems of gender bias in the courts do not create specific disadvantages for men, with a few notable exceptions (note 3." now for the interesting part, note three reads (pg 25)" For example, in custody disputes men battle stereotypes that consider them strong, credible, and independent, but not capable of nurturing small children. "
Absolutely amazing! This flies in the face of the very discrimination that this propaganda is attempting to claim. (I refuse to call this report a "study" since it fails to meet any of the critera that academic studies are required to meet.)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a link to this study, Tony? Is it on line somewhere?
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
soory dan should have put it in my previous post.
It is a rather large file that does not really deal with men but does have a few juicy tidbits.
NOTE: it is the larger of the two files with similar names. and the footnote is on page 25
Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the California Courts
Final Report of the Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts (1996)
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/access/activi ties.htm
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think “father’s rights” groups should either ignore the CANOW report or endorse it. Obviously, CANOW is looking for publicity. Why would they put out this kind of trash?
I however, would suggest that “father’s rights” groups endorse this report and together with CANOW seek to remedy the situation via legislation. I would support and endorse legislation and gave mothers custody automatically and streamlined divorce proceedings. This kind of legislation would be a win for everyone (except divorce lawyers, judges, mental health “professionals”, etc.) and would be a huge win especially for men.
No?
Here is why: First, men would not lose any rights - the law already grants automatic custody to women. Second, by simplifying the divorce process, families would save huge sums of money. Third, men would know up front what they are really getting into.
Yeah I know: WHISHFUL thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
