|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong here: Wendy, Glenn, Diana, Trudy, etc., have all done a great job in this "battle" to spread the truth. But it will soon come to an end. The fathers' rights leaders will do nothing, the issue will die, and nothing will change.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fathers' rights leaders will do nothing, the issue will die, and nothing will change.
I disagree. Even if the leaders choose to do nothing something significant has happened. The attacks drew the groups closer together. and they made the public more aware of how the FR groups are being attacked unjustly by radical feminists.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Warble. We ARE progressing.
We are NOT relying entirely on leaders to do everything for us. Glenn, Dianna, etc. are the air crew. But there's a ground crew that is not only all over the internet but is now moving onto the streets (the NCFM protest in St. Paul, the press conference in LA, lawsuits all over the place, etc.) Warren Farrell predicted this years ago and added that the men's movement will be the most incremental of movements. How right he was.
The signs are everywhere. A liberal democrat daring enough to write about "revenge paternity" and "deeppocket paternity" in a major newspaper. This site, which once got all excited when it had 100 hits in a day, now gets thousands and takes it for granted. The NOW report, which 3 years ago would have been front page news in the LA Times with no opposition, was buried in the Metro section along with good quotes from Dianna. Glenn's article smashed NOW in the Daily Journal in L.A. and San Francisco (THE legal journal in California, possibly the biggest in the nation, with a combined circ of over 20,000 big hitters and probably quadruple that because law firms buy one copy and distribute it to save costs - $500 a year per issue).
Every one of us who ever does anything, from writing to Progressive to posting stories to encouraging each other to setting up protests to sending money, is playing a part. We've got a hell of a long way to go, but we ARE moving. This movement is becoming more and more grassroots, not just leader-based. So it's a big mistake to say we're not getting anywhere because the leaders won't do anything. The leaders ARE doing things, and WILL continue. And if they didn't, the rest of the movement still would. It will NOT stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind this entire CANOW flap has played out in only two weeks! These are only the early days still. Those of us online get out of the habit of having to wait days and weeks for things to happen; they happen in minutes and hours for us. I don't think it's all over yet.
T____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" This movement is becoming more and more grassroots, not just leader-based. So it's a big mistake to say we're not getting anywhere because the leaders won't do anything. The leaders ARE doing things, and WILL continue. And if they didn't, the rest of the movement still would. It will NOT stop."
Now this is the kind of talk I like to hear! I mean seriously aren't you people tired of being afraid to step on people's toes? Stand up for yourselves, study some law and as much as you can. Learn to protect yourself.
Remember among those grassroots gatherings leaders will rise out of that, don't wait for someone to come and save you it is up to the individuals to lead society not the other way around. Society has been greatly and purposely misinformed up until now, and pointing out the lies is making a difference.
I was speaking to a guy today who lost his kids 4 years ago at the time he thought it was temporary so he never prepared. He could have studied so much law with in that time he could be fighting his own case by now. He can't afford a lawyer and they are dangling his kids over him and using them as leverage against him. He is afraid to step on people's toes because he thinks he will get his kids back if he is a good little boy and not point out the systems flaws etc... Well, nothings changed, the system and 'feminists' are coming up with new strategies to keep his kids from him. After debunking all the other acusations he now has been hit with "Sexualization" simply because he hugged his daughter on film at an arranged and supervised visit. There is no doubt this ideology comes from the "women's courses" text books, but unfortunately as he has no money to fight this crap the judge has to accept it and after that it becomes case law. Its horrific to say the least, but so much for being a good little boy.
Exposing their lies is part of the game. We didnt fall into CANOW's little trap they just weren't prepared for our response. Its an adversarial system (which isnt working fairly) they want to take the fight out of you, they want to point out all your inconsistancies, its time we did the same, and seriously ask the judge and jury of those anti-family groups "are they better than me?".
Thanks, Marc.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 24, @02:39AM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Marc, all the way!
We will NOT stop!
...Feminist of the world..., We're comein' to GET you...! (and your little dog too.)
...Thundercloud...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO! It will not die! It will not be the same! Justice demands it!
The truth is so powerful that if you bury it, it will resurrect itself! If you burn it, it will rise from the ashes!. If you dishonestly buy it, it will run away like a rebellious, angry slave seeking freedom!
The truth is stronger than any lie, and there is always great strength in brave people who are armed with truth! The more, the merrier!
To live is sometimes to struggle against evil, sometimes for a lifetime. I believe there is no greater revenge against those who oppress us than to live well (as well as possible) and do justly to all no matter how much we are baited and tempted to be angry. When we are angry and hateful we fulfill the prejudiced, self fulfilling prophecy of those who bait and tempt us. If we are angry it serves their purpose, and we are then more harshly maligned, made angry, maligned, made angry, ad infinitum. It is not my will to do their will, or be entrapped in any servile cycles that are unhealthful to my person.
Best Wishes and Good Living Always and Forever,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to ask. Other than writing to Wendy and Trudy and others encouraging them along, what is everyone else doing?
1) Is anyone writing directly to these two organizations, and if so, what is being said?
2) Is there any legal action being taken from our side? If so, by whom?
3) This little war is being very well hidden from the rest of the world because as far as I know, very few media outlets are covering it. How do we get it exposed? Is George Will willing to do a piece? (He did a good article on Title IX a few weeks ago.) I'm not sure letters to the editor will do it if the target paper is not covering the story.
Inquiring minds want to know!! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy has decided to publish the email sent to her. I believe that is a smart move. We really need to see what was said.
The link can be found here on Men’s News Daily:
Threating Email
Go halfway down the page to find the email.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. I've got it now. There is in my mind a clear trail that goes from the emails sent to Wendy and others, to the Judicial Watch radio show where NAFCJ appeared and a NOW director (Vicky) called in to support Liz, to Cindy Ross, and her alleged claims of criminal activity of specific FR groups that are listed in the CA NOW report. The trail is clear and easily followed.
In my opinion, there can be no doubt that a reasonable person can tie the libel that NAFCJ and NOW has made against specific FR groups. If the names of the groups that were alleged to support criminal activities had have remained anonymous there would be nothing. But the emails, phone calls to a public radio show, and the now report tie all the libel to gether in a neat package.
In my opinion, there is a clear and definite trail that definitely connects CA NOW's support to the libel coming from Cindy Ross and NAFCJ. I believe that a reasonable person must now conclude that the two groups are supporting each other in libeling specific FR groups.
Dang. I would just luv to have a transcript of that radio show.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even I am stunned at the level of hate directed at FR groups by Liz R. in her statement, "We are all waiting for the day when we can watch with great glee to see rotten eggs dripping from your no-longer-smirking faces. You will be so sorry you have been promoting the cause of a ring of sociopath, deadbeat, and violent abusers who are so bad that most of your conservative friends have disavowed them for their well documented association with pedophilia."
I knew that radical feminist disliked fathers rights organizations. But this is way over the top! This can only be seen as the purest and most vile expression of male hate that exist today. Even I thought these radical feminists would at least be tolerant of the diversity of expression coming from FR groups. But gees! I was way….way…way….off!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They phoned GS and made similar threats. They are truly sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They phoned GS and made similar threats. They are truly sick.
Oh. Well it must the result of Wendy, Trudy, Dianna, and Glenn beating their report to a pulp. So the opposition isn’t really responsible for their actions. We all know their hatred is really it’s all the fault of the evil patriarchy that is beating them down with their rebuttals. The official diagnosis is battered report syndrome, and it’s a well-known disease that makes radical feminists resort to all kinds of insane nastiness.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I read both the MND article and the vitriolic threatening email that was sent to mac by Liz Richards.
Man! What a total nut bar!
It's rather sad and pathetic, and more than a bit frightening, but also clinically kind of morbidly fascinating to see such an expression of the product of an apparently totally bigotted mind -- completely consumed by irrational, blinding hatred, and thereby completely unhindered by any concept of truth, or the inconvenient restraint of any logic, common sense, or decency.
Her email is, in my opinion, the raving of a lunatic; total nonsense, blatant falsehood, and lacking any form or substance -- and any decent person with half a brain should be able to see that.
So, I hope she writes *lots* more of them.
Heck, give this harpie enough rope, and she just might do our work, bringing down pheminism, for us.
Like we should be so lucky... I expect other pheminists will start to distance themselves from her pretty soon. Even though she's religiously toeing the apparent party line, she'll probably lose her position with the National Alliance for Family Court 'Justice.' She's becoming an embarassement.
If it happens, I wonder how she'll like being 'discarded?' Considering she knows "of plenty of federally funded 'custody clinics' for men," maybe she could go to one of those for legal help.
Wouldn't mind finding one of those clinics -- never heard of them before, myself. You guys holdin' out on me, here? :-)
Ragtime
The Truth will set us free!
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her email is, in my opinion, the raving of a lunatic; total nonsense, blatant falsehood, and lacking any form or substance -- and any decent person with half a brain should be able to see that.
So, I hope she writes *lots* more of them.
I am just rolling on the floor laughing! LOL!
I must admit. I hope Liz, Cindy, and Vicky write lots more of these letters.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<Before you stick your neck out further, call Independent Women's Forum and ask them why Barbara Leeden is no longer a member of their organization. The reason is because she used to do what you are doing now and the rest of IWF couldn't stand it.>>
Can anyone verify if this is the actual case? It appears that those bimbos are trying to set up the iwf for being mysoginistic bitches, I hope they don't fall for it.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 24, @02:55AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Ragtime. That was Ladyrivka who said that.
It made me SICK to read it, too.
It just goes to show that DICTATORSHIP loathes dissent.
...Thundercloud...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one would never pour eggs on my face or break eggs on my face so can I assume that someone would be throwing the eggs? If so who? If they are not thrown, then how would they wind up on a person's face? ...and why do they have to be rotten? Is this some further effort to inflict an unpleasantness or injury? Could rotten eggs make you physically ill? Is this a threat of violence? Why would someone state that they would take "glee" in promoting the misery of another human being? Isn't this type of speech deemed emotional battery under domectic violence laws? I feel sorry for any person who might possibly come under such an attack. I feel sorry for the chicken(s) who would have their eggs so disrespectfully used (it is ecologically unsound to needlessly waste food), but most of all I feel pity for someone who is so out of touch with normally acceptable social behavior as to make such overweening statements to people not desirous of such uncivil discourse.
Peace and Good Will,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the infamous report it references the "Judicial council of California's Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts." It quotes them saying they found "gender bias in the administration of family law in California" which is true. Interestingly though the bias was found if at all against men!!
Here are a few selected quotes:
Page 28 footnote 3: For example, in cudtody disputes men battle stereotypes that consider them strong, credible, and independent, but NOT capable of nurturing small children,...
pg 29; "except in the area of child custody, the committe did not receive evidence of bias against men."
pg 144: "the evidence received by the committe showed that bias, or the perception of bias, against men and women exists in custody decisions."
Please take note that this committee is NOT attempting to look into bias against men in the court system. It states early on that it feels men have the advantage in all areas of the system. Taking this obvious bias into account it is very interesting to note that the area they do feel has evidence for discrimination against men is in custody cases.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great point, thanks Tony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are so right! What is going on with Title IX and male sports in colleges is a fine example of what you are saying. There have been a lot of lawsuits to impose quotas anytime that women's sports do not comprise 50% of the athletic curriculum, but where are the law suits to balance out the statistics that show men are falling behind the 50% eight ball at an alarming rate in acedemic achievement.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I suspect Liz R. isn't completely letting it all hang out, I'm not convinced that this degree of hatred rises to the level of some of the terrorism we've witnessed recently.
I wonder where the charges of paedophilia stem from. Do they stem, at least in part, from some misinterpreted remarks of Warren Farrel? I interpret those remarks--which might not have been stated precisely enough to exclude misinterpretation--as offering hope that someone who has been molested could get on with their lives after all. You could tell a person who has been through such an ordeal that every aspect of their lives has been irrevocably ruined, or else you might find that people manage to overcome it eventually, and you might even tell them that, to offer them some hope, not to excuse the perpetrator. This issue of how people get on with their lives has to be kept separate from that of the moral and legal problem of paedophilia; in no sense does suggesting that people could get on with their lives amount to condoning illegal and immoral practices.
This is hardly grounds for leveling charges of paedophilia against father's rights groups. Imagine if the situation were reversed, if father's rights groups were engaging in the same kind of libelous smear tactics as these people.
Sometimes I think that Farrel was being clever by deliberately introducing controversial statements into his books that could provoke a knee-jerk reaction, if the interpreter is too emotional to keep the issues straight, with the intention of eventually triggering the kind of hysterical attack response we're seeing. It's very common for readers who are unaccustomed to keeping separate issues separate to reject Farrel's books on the basis of a single statement they disagree with, even if the particular statement stands or falls on its own, independently of the remaining argument.
In any case, given the hysterical personalities involved, the kind of delusional, libelous attack in response to criticism we're seeing is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a member of NAFCJ, I am NOT a feminist. I am a Christian, I support the second amendment, I have two grown sons and a daughter. I am also a grandmother with congestive heart failure. I can not see my grandchild because I testified against her dad in court. This was not a 'custody dispute' as the media called it, but a molest case which was not investigated. My daughter had sole custody,and the father didn't want custody until he was accused of molest. As a Christian, I would not dare give false witness against anyone. I had never heard of father's rights until a Judge turned an incest case into an illegal custody switch behind the mother's back. I know many good men who have lost contact with their children because the courts are just 'bad'. My problem with the 'fatherhood' movement is the use of people like Gardner. You have to read his words on the pedophile. Do you blame a mother when a father turns to his daughter for sex? Gardner does. How can any of you read this man's words and condone using PAS in any molest/incest case. Most of the parents who have lost custody after reporting molest are Christians. So, please, we are not a hate group, we just want our children and grandchildren to be safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never heard of "Gardner" and no one I know in the men's rights movement "uses" people who advocate or condone paedophilia. The suggestion that we actively invoke such people in support of our cause is false, damaging and probably actionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a member of NAFCJ, I am NOT a feminist.
Let me get this straight. A non-radical pheminist joined a radical pheminist hate group and claims that she is not a pheminist. Then she claims to be Christian and not to support bearing false witness. Gees. Now I’ve seen it all.
While I don't personally know Gardner, I do personally know others that are being libeled by NOW and NAFCJ. It is clear to me that their speech is little more than the hate speech of the radical left. The people they are libeling simply don't deserve to be attacked in this way. These are good people.
So you are welcome to support the radical pheminist and their hate speech. Doing so places you in a position where I believe you are supporting those that bear false witness. Obviously, if you support those that bear false witness against others then you probably also bear false witness. So, I don’t believe a word you write.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to believe a word I say, that's your right. God knows I am a Christian, and that's what is important. Bless you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to believe a word I say, that's your right. God knows I am a Christian, and that's what is important. Bless you.
I don’t believe a word you say because your statements are full of contradictions. In a contradiction, it is impossible for one statement to be true and another contradictory statement to be simultaneously true.
This is done when a person claims to support a well-known radical pheminist organization and then claim not to be a radical pheminist. That means the person cannot be telling the truth. It is physically impossible. Supporting a radical pheminist group in act and deed makes a person a de facto radical pheminist. That person deny it and lie about it all they want, but their actions belie their words.
It’s like saying, “I am not a smoker” in one breath and they buying a pack of cigarettes and smoking them at a social event. If you smoke, even occasionally, you are a smoker. You may be a social smoker, but you are a smoker non-the-less. In the same way you’re a radical pheminist.
Further, I would note that the devil also claims to be Christian and uses words like "God Bless You." However, the words are belied by the acts of evil. If a person supports evil, finances evil, and associates with evil then we can reasonably conclude that person is evil. That’s how it works.
Further, let me make it clear, I don't support criminal activity of any sort. If the level of physical evidence and testimony were present, as you claim, to convict a child molester I do not believe he would have gotten any custody or visitation rights. That doesn't mean the system is perfect and that it doesn't occasionally fail. However, occasional failures do not justify the level of libel that has been leveled at FR groups from the radical pheminist side.
In my opinion, your support of these alleged pheminist hate groups means that you are a radical pheminist in denial, or you are just a poser pretending to be Christian for flame bait. We get trolls that pull this stunt all the time.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.leadershipcouncil.org/Reasearch/PAS/PAS2/pas2. html please read PAS/Gardner compared to NAMBLA
www.acfc.org/lkallorg.htm Father's rights of America (Gardner)
www.mensnewsdaily.com/linklist.htm linked to Gardner.
I am also PRO LIFE, a member of NAFCJ, not of NOW, although I do support their family court report. Amos 3:6 www.smalljustice.com shown in NY City Sept 9, 01.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.leadershipcouncil.org/Reasearch/PAS/PAS2/pas2. html please read PAS/Gardner compared to NAMBLA
Again I will repeat what others have stated. Nobody in the widely respected FR/Men's movement supports the evil of pedophilia. We adore it and condemn it. No amount of fake scholarly studies will make the libel of the radical pheminists true. In my opinion, you are clearly unable to discern between a fake study and a credible one. If somebody chooses to be ignorant that is their right.
Nobody that I know of knows Gardner. Further, this link provided doesn't work. But I would ask, has Gardner been convicted? If so has he repented and changed? As a Christian to you believe that a person can repent, be forgiven, and permanently change? Or do you believe the radical pheminist line of once a child molester always a child molester? I personally believe that a sincere person can change. This belief however, doesn't mean that I support pedophilia, as the radical pheminist would have you believe.
This idea of a person being unable to permanently change undesirable behaviors is the great evil of radical pheminism today. It is an outright lie and it is known to be false. It is the same lie that radical pheminists told when they claimed (falsely) that children couldn’t lie about being molested.
Gees. Last I checked, painting everybody and every group with a broad brush on the basis of the actions of one individual it was called bigotry. In my opinion, Rosie is supporting bigotry by justifying her hate of FR groups on the purported actions and belief of one individual. Then she denies being a radical pheminist. Right. We’ve all seen that before.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.acfc.org/lkallorg.htm Father's rights of America (Gardner)
Oh gees. I see whom you are talking about now, and this demonstrates the insidiousness of the lies being taught by radical pheminist. In my opinion, your belief in the lies of the radical pheminist demonstrates how effective their lies are in ensnaring innocent people. It is the reason why ACFC should sue the radical pheminist.
The ACFC is one of the most moral and respected men's groups today. It has a board of directors that is quite distinguished. I suggest opening your mind, that you stop supporting radical pheminism in their libel of this group, and that you learn how these fake studies are fabricated.
The CA NOW study doesn’t even have a bibliography for Christ’s sake! They don’t even publish any credible statistics! It doesn’t get sloppier than that. The study is a complete fraud.
Gees. If the American public can become any dumber after reading the CA NOW study let me know. I’m afraid that if I read it even one more time that I’ll descend into a pit if ignorance.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble wrote:
Nobody in the widely respected FR/Men's movement supports the evil of pedophilia. We adore it and condemn it. (Emphasis mine.)
LOL!
I assume, Warble, that you meant 'abhor' rather than 'adore.' I know what you meant, and I got a good chuckle out of the typo.
Better correct it, though, before some crazy-ass nut bar takes it out of context and claims it as 'irrefutable proof' of some kind of nasty, evil, female-hating, mysoginist, male-bad, wrong doing.
Still chuckling, though... :-)
Ragtime
The Truth will set us free.
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
please try again. www.leadershipcouncil.org and read about PAS and what ever else interests you.
I don't judge Dr.Gardner, but since he published his work, it is open to public inspection. I believe he has said that his PAS is being 'misused' in the courts and that 95% of allegations of sexual abuse are true. That might also be on the above web stite. www.google.com, search "father's rights" PAS and really research this. I'm sure you would not want to see any children harmed without doing all you can to research this.
God bless and watch over our nations children, justice for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I assume, Warble, that you meant 'abhor' rather than 'adore.' I know what you meant, and I got a good chuckle out of the typo.
Yes. Gees! That is the kind of typo that will get me published on a N.O.W. site in the most negative light!
Nice catch. We (and I) do of course ADHOR and condemn pedophilia.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe he has said that his PAS is being 'misused' in the courts and that 95% of allegations of sexual abuse are true.
Okay. How about instead of me doing your thinking for you that you do your own research and provide the exact quotes. Please prove a quote in his literature and not from some secondary source to substantiate your claim.
The burden of proof is upon you. Not me. You are the one making the allegations.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cringed when I saw that typo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typo was a chuckle, though one the looney tunes would love to grab and run with. And speaking of typos, for a correction, you wrote
We (and I) do of course ADHOR and condemn pedophilia.
I think you meant ABHOR. Ah well, third time's a charm.
It's always great to read your posts. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We (and I) do of course ADHOR and condemn pedophilia.
I think you meant ABHOR. Ah well, third time's a charm.
Gees. 100 times now...ABHOR....ABHOR...ABHOR...ABHOR...ABHOR....
ABHOR....
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gees. 100 times now...ABHOR....ABHOR...ABHOR...ABHOR...ABHOR....
ABHOR....
Chuckle. Just be glad I'm not Sister Mary Formaldehyde. Boy! Would you have gotten a public beating. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Gees. If the American public can become any dumber after reading the CA NOW study let me know. I’m afraid that if I read it even one more time that I’ll descend into a pit if ignorance."
Don't worry Warble, if you DO fall in, we'll pull ya out. Besides, even with the occasional typo, you still manage to fire off both barrells....er...did I spell 'barrells' right? :-)))
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Rosie, why don't you check out the iwf site at www.iwf.org , there are some fasinating women there with good insight and intelegent thinking that challenges the status quo. Christian women some of them.
Don't be seduced by the easy way out, Rosie. True independance isnt easy at all at first, but in the end you will never go back, I promise.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is done when a person claims to support a well-known radical pheminist organization and then claim not to be a radical pheminist. That means the person cannot be telling the truth. It is physically impossible.
Not true, Warble. I can support the NAACP, but that doesn't make me black.
That doesn't mean the system is perfect and that it doesn't occasionally fail. However, occasional failures do not justify the level of libel that has been leveled at FR groups from the radical pheminist side.
Exactly right. There HAVE been some documented failures of the system; at least one case of a convicted child molester receiving custody. But these are exceptions, not systemic bias. And no one I've heard on the FR side supports or condones these outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not true, Warble. I can support the NAACP, but that doesn't make me black.
I disagree with this analogy. We are talking about supporting ideologies not changing the biology or skin pigment of a person. There has never been an instance where the biology of a person changes because they join a group. However, we do know that a person’s support of a group changes their ideology.
Joining an organization is a significant event. It signifies support of their ideals and practices. If you choose to support the NAACP, I would believe you support the ideologies of the NAACP. That is a reasonable belief unless you denounce it at a later date.
When a person supports the KKK they are in fact supporting a racist organization. They are supporting a group that spreads hate based on race. Can you really tell me that somebody would believe a person's denial of being a racist while being a member of the KKK? NOT!
Likewise, if a person supports a radical pheminist organization, they adopt those ideals through their support of the ideals. Rosie, whether she likes it or not, adopted radical pheminist ideals and hate tactics when she joined NAFCJ. She is, in my opinion, little more that a radical pheminist contributing to the hatred of men. Read her original email. It oozes of the pheminist male hate agenda espoused by radical pheminist.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 24, @03:23AM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, When you're right, You're right.
And you are DEFINATLY right.
PS. I got a real laugh out of your reaction to the pointing out of your "ABHOR" type-o. Witch is just one MORE thing we have over the feminazis, a since of humor!!
...Thundercloud...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rosie wrote:
I am a member of NAFCJ, I am NOT a feminist.
and
we are not a hate group
You come across as a concerned person, Rosie, and I commend you for that, but you might want to give a bit of thought to the people you are choosing to associate with. You state emphatically that you are not a feminist. I'm glad -- that's a good thing.
BUT you need to realize that I and _many_ other decent people believe that the NAFCJ IS an extremist feminist organization with an adgenda that's driven by gender hatred, and is NOT motivated by any concept of actual fair-play or equality in the courtroom.
So, to me, your statement is kinda like saying "I'm a member of the Klan, but I'm NOT a racist."
My problem with the 'fatherhood' movement is the use of people like Gardner. You have to read his words on the pedophile.
As someone else said, the FR groups do not 'use' this 'Gardner' you mention. I've never heard of him/her myself. Child molestation is rightly despised by any right-thinking person, and certainly is not condoned by any of the FR folks I know.
Some feminist authors, however, who have advocated sexual molestation of children, beastiality, and genocide are now revered as some of the 'great guiding lights' of the movement. How sick is that?
As for your choice of religion, being a Christian, with all due respect I can't really see what bearing that has on the issues or the discussion, or your credibility. Credibility comes from _you_, not the church you go to.
If you choose not to lie ('not bear false witness') because of your faith, well, good. There's many people (especially here) who choose not to lie simply because it would be Wrong to do so, regardless of their religious faith.
Thoughtfully,
Ragtime
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, to me, your statement is kinda like saying "I'm a member of the Klan, but I'm NOT a racist."
Well said Ragtime. A person cannot support the KKK without being a racist. Period. Nor can a person support radical pheminism and their hate agenda without being and supporting the same.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Do you blame a mother when a father turns to his daughter for sex? Gardner does. "
How about Rosie, you give me the paragraph, and or the full isbn of the book so I can look at it myself.
Personally I think that 95% of all accusations is bogus, and I will tell you why, at this current time the 'children's aid society' is not even taking the word of a 15 yearl old girl. They are telling the girl she is lying to protect her father. Funny how it only becomes the truth or a lie in the certain position that it benifits the children's aid society in their fight to completly crush that family and any of its hopes of being one. I hope to god, that some day these kids will grow up and sue the fucking hell out of these people so far back into the stoneage we will never hear of them again. But they're crafty they will probably just make up some neat law that says 'well you can't sue the cas' insert bullshit reason here ( ).
Secondly I want to go onto the sexualization that those children's services are trying to install as fact. Its a simple hug that can be construed that way. Women who hug their little boys will now be called molesters. Mother's who let their sons or daughters sleep in the same beds with them will be called perverts. But something tells me they will come up with a reason why that can happen and the reverse can not, i.e. the father letting his child sleep in his bed during a thunderstorm or because a monster is under the bed.
This isnt about truth or protecting the child its about leverage, Rosie.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 15, @02:09PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"Personally I think that 95% of all accusations [are] bogus"
That's going a bit far, don't you think? If we are trying to achieve common acceptance of our research and numbers, don't you think the most honest thing to say is that "we don't know how many accusations are bogus, but from the number of fathers accused of molestation, a large precentage of cases end up unfounded"?
We should be driving home the idea that an accusation doesn't make one guilty, but it doesn't make the accuser a liar automatically either, for the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We should be driving home the idea that an accusation doesn't make one guilty, but it doesn't make the accuser a liar automatically either, for the same reasons."
The problem is all in the timing of the accusation. The RCMP here in canada had research themselves that rarely gets attention they also found that it was about a 95% bogus round. Funny how the women never accuse themselves of molestation.
Women have always used sex as a weapon, whats new, whether its theirs or someone elses. It always seemed to be the girls accusing the other girls of being sluts and whores more on a broad basis and them being more concerned about their reputations. I have seen far to many guys go to jail because some chick was worried she'd be labled a slut, along with police coercian and the sexual assault centre's timely advice.
Funny how most of these chicks make statments and get advice from the 'sexual assault' centre long before they talk to the police, and funny how in case after case there seems to be a jealous boyfriend in the background. It all works good. You can almost go up to any woman and she will tell you she knows her word is better in court over a guy's. This is common knowledge to them, to say it won't be abused is niave. Fake tears can certainly go the distance in the courts.
If you want transcripts of unbelievable cases where guys have been convicted Im your man. Remember all these cases are done in summery court and are based on the judge's opinion, not evidence just a he said she said deal. The judge almost has to throw out any contrictory evidence and the defendants testomony is a waste of time. You can not look at her past or her reputation, but they can certainly look at the defendant's. Summery trials in ontario are a joke, we truly are in the dark ages of justice. Men better start getting it threw their heads that they are being discriminated against.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grace and Peace to You Rosie:
My own Mother died about 4 years ago of congestive heart failure and I still miss her dearly. You have my deepest sympathy that you have been seperated from your grandchild.
I assure that, as a Christian, I would not be on this web site unless I too had a legitimate "ax to grind," over horribly unjust treatment at the hands of our legal system that is, in all my experience, heavily biased against men.
Very Tuly Yours, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 15, @02:49PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t know who Gardner is but I do know he does not represent ANY father’s rights group.
I have some unpleasant news for you. Of the all child abuse that is committed, 11 percent is committed by biological fathers. Biological fathers are the least likely to abuse their children. Furthermore, a child is eight times more at risk of child abuse when a biological father is NOT present. These facts are supported by all major child abuse studies. If you really have any concern for child abuse you should stop and listen to father’s rights groups for a minute or two.
Now let me ask you this question: If fathers are the least likely to commit child abuse, who do you think would be least likely to condone child abuse?
Are you still not convinced? Ask NAFCJ and NOW what is their position on ‘The Vagina Monologs’. The ask them is child abuse is OK when committed by lesbians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 16, @02:19AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you didn't know that biological fathers are also the least likely to be actually looking after their children. Many of the "biological fathers" you mention have never even seen their children, so the fact that biological fathers are still responsible for 11% of child abuse cases actually speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many of these missing biological fatehrs are chased away by the mothers? Far more than you'd care to admit, or perhaps you'd brag about that if you had real numbers.
True enough, there are too many fathers who abandon their children, but the likelihood is very high that this "abandonment" was encouraged and welcomed by the mothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the "biological fathers" you mention have never even seen their children, so the fact that biological fathers are still responsible for 11% of child abuse cases actually speaks volumes.
I'm glad that anonymous brought this up, because it is a standard feminist excuse for child abuse committed by women. We need to know how to respond to this vile attempt to justify child abuse committed by women.
First of all, "Many of the "biological fathers" you mention have never even seen their children." What proportion is "Many?" One in 1,000? One in 10,000? One in 100,000? What a loonie! I wonder what percentage of biological fathers have never seen their children.
Second of all, trying to excuse women for committing most child abuse because they spend most time with children is like trying to excuse men for committing most rapes because they are able to. (Remember, in many jurisdictions rape requires penetration by the alleged perpetrator. Consider a man and woman playing around naked and both saying they don't want to have intercourse. If the man pops into the woman for a moment, he has committed rape. If the woman pops over the man for a moment, she has not committed any crime.)
There is no excuse for child abuse, no matter how desperately feminists try to justify it when it's committed by women. Women commit the overwhelming majority of child abuses. If the feminists truly want to put an end to child abuse, they'd better stop excusing women perpetrators. In fact, they'd better start focussing on women perpetrators.
Again, feminists, despite your endless attempts to excuse women, there is no excuse for child abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool. The male hating pheminst are oozing out of the woodwork. The more they spread their hate the more we can rest assured that we are successful. The result is that we are getting more radical pheminist trolls that have no facts or figures. A common pattern of their logic kind follows:
1) They claim that men are evil and commit most______(fill in the blank).
2) Next they demand that we prove them wrong.
3) If we don’t prove they are wrong they claim that they are right by default. i.e. the false allegation of rape.
4) If male activist prove they are wrong, they claim we are woman bashers, that we must hate woman, and that this proves they are right.
Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that they never provided evidence to prove their claim to begin with. They are truly ignorant.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 16, @04:44PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
It is called ‘The Reasonable Woman’s Standard’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Reasonable Woman Standard is a foolish and one-sided notion that completely leaves one-half of the population out of the equation of what is "reasonable behavior." It is a slap in the face of every single male, regardless of his position on feminism, and it is an insult to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It ought to be invalidated immediately by the United States Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 24, @03:37AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the proverbial nail on the head, Thomas.
...Thundercloud...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is silencing of men's rights groups a First Amandment issue in any way? I am not a father but I am an American writer who expects not to be punished for his works.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
