|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, this is our first commision and we HAVE HAVE HAVE to get behind it. I have to go to work so this will be brief:
1) Scott and ALL OTHERS who work this site: Guys, we have tons of newspaper ed's and lots of threads, but there is one critical area we are lacking: A data base of facts here on the site with accurate headers. Each for facts, links to research, and common questions and if necessary rebuttal. Otherwise it's just OPRAH with legit issues and tons of tissues. Sorry to be not as polite, but I gotta hurry and write this and run.
2) Gentlemen, we have to write letters about this to the paper. Also, CC them to any interested parties and congresspeople and advoctates. CC'ing is easy and spreads the news.
3) Like the original topic mentioned, make sure the letters are ON POINT, FACTUAL, and point out the obvious slant/lack of research in the reporting.
I will be writing a letter later, THIS IS IMPORTANT folks.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @01:41PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I expected the fems to react savagely when men started to get off their knees. That obscene editorial (and equally obscene letter)are examples of that savage reaction. We can expect more of it. However, it proves to me that the Commision has already been an outstanding success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it'll take ten minutes... just do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 08, @03:48AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I emaled a letter to them and it doesn't take that long. I did it how about you?
Masc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I jotted out my message I was getting ready in the morning. I didn't want to send a hushed badly written letter so I waited till I got home, pulled up the article in one window and wrote my letter in another. Its down there now, give positive/negative feedback: honest criticism will make all our letters better.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you skip the opening half of the editorial, it's not a bad article. I suspect the editorial board received a too-male-friendly first draft, and decided to pad it with ridicule. Unfortunately, many readers will focus on the juvenile opening remarks and fail to notice the important stuff, like ...
On average, for example, the life expectancy of New Hampshire men is 10 years less than that of New Hampshire women. Nationally, the difference is 5.3 years. That's worth studying.
So is the growing educational disparity between boys and girls and young men and women. Twice as many boys as girls, the report's authors said, are coded as learning disabled, and six times more boys than girls are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Boys are also far more likely to drop out of school and less likely to go to college. Nationally, the enrollment in the nation's colleges and universities is split 57 to 43 percent in favor of females.
The list goes on. The suicide rate for males is nearly five times the rate for females. Of the 139 suicides in New Hampshire in an average year, the report said, 110 are male. Teenage boys and older men are at particularly high risk.
Boys from homes with absent fathers are far more likely to suffer from mental health problems, fall prey to drug abuse or engage in criminal activity. The commission would be wise to focus on ways to keep fathers, no matter their marital status, involved in supporting and caring for their children. Big dividends could come from even the smallest improvements in that area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that-I think perhaps we should be pushing the fact that even the feminists see the issues clearly when they have a reason to(ie trying to prove a point.)
Is there a way of using this admission against them?
The BQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @04:59PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree. The latter half of the edtorial may appear sincere, but my experience in reading feminist literature enables me to detect sneering feminist undertones.
Of course the feminists think it worth studying why women don't outlive men in New Hampshire as much as they outlive them elsewhere in the country.
Of course feminists want to study male suicide. The male suicide epidemic (whilst pleasing to the feminists) is nevertheless an embarrassment to them. It is the ultimate rejection by men of the feminist society. Searching for the true causes of this epidemic is dangerous, in the eyes of feminists, as it exposes all the injustices of the feminist society. The initial feminist ploy was a media cover up. This hasn't worked. Thus feminists are now interested in "studying" male suicide. These studies involve concocting feminist-approved "causes" for male suicide. The favorites are alcoholism, insanity and simple "badness". The feminists studies conclude that the best approach is to refer these lunatics for psychiatric help. They do not accept the reality the suicide is actually the act of rational young men who can no longer stand the suffering of living in a feminist hell hole.
Likewise feminists are anxious to "study" gender based disparity in education in order to find politically correct explanations. Those explanations will suggest that boys have inferior ability and that they should be directed towards less challenging careers.
And of course, feminists are anxious to "keep fathers involved in supporting their children". "Big Dividends" will result from this, says the editorial. What they mean is big dividends for the woman who has kidnapped the mans children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Of course the feminists think it worth studying why women don't outlive men in New Hampshire as much as they outlive them elsewhere in the country."
Actually it said that women outlive men 10 yrs, btw
Anyways, every coin has two sides. You could look at this negatively, or you could look at it positively. I KNOW she was not sincere. Irrelevant.
Number one, an article was written with some major truths in it. Even though the intent was to slam, people who read it will have ingested that info. When they hear it again somewhere else, they will remember.
Number two, we have just seen feminist logic at work, and how it can be used against them? They get so caught up with point A that they make points B,C, and D for us. Hello, how can this be bad? Trick them into making their own noose and even kicking the horse!
Number three, she has just set the foundation for future articles that these are subjects worth studying. Anything she writes in the future can be linked back to the original article.
The men's commission is smarter that this twit. They will not bow down to feminist excuses for the problems men face.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @06:18PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing out the error. I'm sure the members of this commission fully understand feminist techniques; however, I think men in general are somewhat gullible and innocent regarding gender issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @07:37PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"The commission could tackle the tough issues, like how to get homophobic men to submit to prostate exams that could save their lives. Conversely, being males, the group might just drink beer, play poker and watch the sports channel".
I considered this paragraph to be in the first half of the editorial. The second half of the editorial pretended to be pro-male and that was the piece which ,I felt, had feminist undertones.
The paragraph quoted above is more than concentrated bile. It is an obscenity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the bit about "Alternately, the members could sit around, beat drums, bond and talk about their suppressed feelings. No harm done." was pretty bad too.
How many cliches can they string together? This is male-a-phobia at its worst.
I think they should call their paper the CONCORD CLICHE!
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The very best I can find to say about this editorial is that it is offering bad advice to the Commission.
Bias toward one gender or another may indeed exist in the judicial system. And men with grievances are right to ask that they be heard. But if the commission is smart, it will not allow that issue to drive its agenda. A better course would be to focus subsequent meetings on a given topic and establish a track record for seriousness, fairness and objectivity.
I've come to the conclusion that the most important issue for the men's movement is to firmly establish fathers's access to their children and children's access to their fathers. I would be pleased if the Commission focused on this as their highest priority. This editorial would have them diffuse their time and energies over the whole range of men's issue's. Sounds like a recipe for impotence to me.
If I were to be uncharitable and remember that I am a small-penised, paranoid, extremist misogynist, I might think that is exactly what the editors at the Monitor intended.
Still, it's a sign of real progress. Those opposed to men's issues have had to retreat from simply denying men's suffering and have switched to trying to deflect us down unproductive avenues.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the editorial isn't all bad- I actually thought that for the most part it promoted the importance of men's issues. I think its important that as men's groups become activist, we need a moderate tone in addition to a militant presence to help create the social change we want.
I wrote a letter to that effect:
"Dear Monitor,
Thank you for your editorial about the NH Men's commission in your Nov. 6 edition. Its commendable that the state of NH has created a commission to address men's issues, and I applaud your paper for covering the meeting.
I agree with the contention that the agenda of the commission should be to address all areas of concerns for men, whether it be the declining performance of males in schools, men's health issues, or social bias. Thank you for again publicizing the importance of these issues.
I also feel, however, that you slighted the importance of social bias against males in the court system. One reason this is such an emotional topic for many men is that the bias against men in the court system is salient to those men who have lost the opportunity to be fathers. This is an issue of importance not only to men, but to their children. The state of New Hampshire, and frankly the entirety of the US, has a vested interest in correcting an inherently unfair court system.
Thank you again for publicing the needs of men in your paper,
Sincerely,
Gary P. Chimes, Ph.D., M.D."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what I submitted this afternoon:
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to the Nov. 6 editorial "A leaky launch." I am
strongly opposed to the Concord Monitor's editorial bias against the NH
Commission on the Status of Men, and feel it reflects poorly on your
newspaper. Your portrayal of its first meeting as "a vehicle to bash
women and gripe about life's inequities" is abhorrent, and I say this as
someone who was present at that meeting.
The purpose of that first meeting was to solicit public input regarding
the status of men in our state. What became painfully clear is that many
fathers are systematically shut out of their children's lives and ruined
by divorce. I have met many of these men, and I know their pain is
unbearable. The family court system is in desperate need of reform for
the sake of gender equality and the testimony of these men put that in
very personal terms. To make light of this is not only in bad taste, but
inhumane.
I'm also shocked that the Concord Monitor did not report in detail about
the testimony of a domestic violence advocate at that meeting who gave
examples the bias and difficulties he faces in creating services for men
who are abused. Had this been reported on, the public would be aware
that the NH Coalition Against Domestic Violence does not offer the same
services or shelter to abused men that they do to women, and that NHCADV
has near exclusive control of funds allocated in the state to address
the needs of family violence victims.
Nowhere is the lower status of men more clear than in divorce courts and
domestic violence services. I hope that the NH Commission on the Status
of Men will, if nothing else, help educate the public to care about
these issues. The Concord Monitor clearly isn't doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @04:22PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
That is a helluva good response, Scott. I like your tactic of exposing the NH DV group at the same time you rebut the editorial. Let's see if those cowards have the guts to print it, and tell the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what I sent to them:
Editorial: A leaky launch
In your editorial "Editorial: A leaky launch" you rightly list some of the
many reasons for a men's commission such as the newly created New Hampshire
Men's Commission to exist: lifespan disparities, educational bias, family
court bias, to name just a few. Unfortunately your editor has fallen prey
to a basic taboo: a man's pain. He or she could understand the issues but
couldn't hear the *pain* of men and therefore discounted its importance. I
have been following this issue closely and know that the men who spoke at
the first meeting weren't focusing on blame, they were telling of their own
experiences of being battered by our family courts system. They were men
who have been ignored and discounted and forced away from their children.
This hurts. They are in pain. You gave them a space to speak and then your
editor shames them for speaking. I can hear it now, "Men shouldn't
complain!" "Men should be strong!"
You see in our culture we are geared to seeking out and offering compassion
for women in pain and suffering. Once we identify this pain and suffering
we move into action as individuals, judiciary, educators or legislators to
insure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. We hear, we offer
compassion and we respond. That is, we respond as long as those having
difficulties are women. If those having difficulties are men we go through
all sorts of gyrations to minimize the suffering and bring the focus to
another arena. Just have a look at your own newspaper over the last year.
How many articles did you run that focused on women who were upset or in
distress where you wrote about their inner turmoil? Now how many did you
run on similar issues but focusing on a man's emotional pain? The answer is
probably none. We have made strides in freeing women from the chains of sex
roles but our work in freeing men has yet to begin. Your editor and your
paper are a part of the problem.
I applaud New Hampshire for being the first state to begin a Men's
Commission. I hope you can use and appreciate what you have created.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wonderful post Tom, got right to the heart of the issue and left no wiggle room for excuses.
the Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor -
I read your editorial "A Leaky Launch" with interest and some concern. Like many other men across the country, I am extremely interested in the New Hampshire Men's Commission, both as a model for my own state and as a spearhead of effective representation for the issues and concerns of men.
You correctly point out some issues of concern - educational disparity between boys and girls and the much greater rate of suicide among men and boys, for example. To that might be added the fact that over 70% of all victims of violent crime are men and boys, and the mounting evidence that indicates men and boys comprise at least 35% of all domestic violence victims, and more probably 50%.
What I found especially interesting was your comment that "Boys from homes with absent fathers are far more likely to suffer from mental health problems, fall prey to drug abuse or engage in criminal activity. The commission would be wise to focus on ways to keep fathers, no matter their marital status, involved in supporting and caring for their children. Big dividends could come from even the smallest improvements in that area."
This is doubtless true. A good start would be to insure that fathers had as much access to children as mothers after divorce. Since about 80% of all divorces nationwide where custody is at issue place custody of children with the mother, and courts seldom enforce visitation on behalf of the father, it follows that many, many fathers have great difficulty staying in their children's lives.
Many men's advocates are concerned about the other issues you cite, be assured of that. But the first meeting of the Men's Commission is about what? - the impassioned desire of fathers to be part of their children's lives. Permitting fathers to be a greater part of their children's lives would go a long way toward addressing the very concern you mention.
The NH Men's Commission will very likely address the issues you mentioned, and others as well. But I invite you to notice that the first meeting was not concerned so much with the terrible rate of suicide, nor with the violence done to men, nor even with the disparity between lifespans of women and men - but with fathers and the well-being of children. By your own statement, absent fathers have an impact on the lives of children. The fathers who testified, and many others across the nation, want to be able to parent their children and alleviate the very issue you mentioned. It appears to me that the NH Men's Commission put children first by looking at fathers concerns, and by doing so may have begun to address the other issues you mention. Perhaps the Men's Commission counts the well-being of children as an important place to start its work. How do children and fathers count with you?
Thomas Parker
Washington State
parkertr@w-link.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @09:58PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
That was a very good letter Thomas. It was calm and rational. Though I wonder if they'll risk printing it for it would show them to be bafoons.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great letter. Speaking to your first comment, do you have any ideas how we could generate publicize the NH commission to help get similar commissions in other states. I live in NJ and would love to see a similar commission here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I sent the governor of my state. Sent properly modified to my state reps, as well. Constructive criticisms gratefully accepted. Hope it helps.
Governor Locke -
This past week, the first meeting of the New Hampshire Men's Commission was held - the only such commission in the United States.
Several issues that such a commission might address spring to mind - the fact that men and boys are over 70% of all victims of violence, about 80% of all suicides, at least 35% of all victims of domestic violence, for example. Or the fact that children in fatherless families are very much more prone to drop out of school or turn to criminal activities. Or the increasing disparity in enrollment between young men and young women in our colleges and universities.
Washington has always been a good place to live, and has done well by it's people. In recent years, we have done much that was needed for women and girls, and will continue to do so. Isn't it time we started helping men and boys, as well?
Governor Locke, I respectfully ask that you consider the creation of a Commission for Men to address problems such as the ones I have outlined above. The men and boys of Washington are no less worthy than those of New Hampshire, and no less in need of our support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Tom Parker,
Thats not a bad letter or idea. Since we are on the subject we should all send letters to our congressmen and senators and governors. It couldn't hurt.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I got a reply from the Governor's office notifying me that the email had been referred to the Boards & Commissions Supervisor and advising me to contact my district representatives so that a bill could be introduced by them.
I expect to give the Boards & Commissions Supervisor and my local rep one week to repspond, after which I will send followup emails. If anyone else lives in WA state, by all means please message your local rep and the Gov about it.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Monitor:
The editorial of Thursday, November 6th specified fathers' support for and care of their children as a valid focus for the nation's first State Commission on the Status of Men, saying that "Big dividends could come from even the smallest improvements in that area." Yet it simultaneously criticized the Commission's first meeting for focusing on precisely that, simply because it did so in the context of men's testimony regarding divorce and custody bias. I'm confused.
The editorial noted men's five times higher suicide rate as one of many "critical issues in need of urgent attention". Yet the post-divorce suicide rate for men is ten times that of women. I'm very confused.
The editorial also so noted boys' far greater likelihood to drop out of school and not attend college, and to have problems with mental health, drug abuse, and criminal behavior. Yet solid research shows separation from their fathers is the most common factor in their increased risk of such -- a separation often caused by custody bias against divorced fathers. I'm extremely confused.
The editorial agreed that bias may exist in the judicial system, and that men with grievances are right to ask that they be heard. Yet it groundlessly trivialized and discounted their grievances and attempted to prejudicially characterize the amount of such testimony as a negative. I'm overwhelmingly confused.
The editorial said that the Commission needs to establish a track record of seriousness, fairness, and objectivity. Yet it frivolously mocked and denigrated men and the Commission with stereotyping; it unfairly assigned the NOW a privileged, elite status as being specially exempt from criticism; and it subjectively assessed the Commission's first meeting as a failure on the basis of nothing more than self-contradictory and unsupported negative characterizations. I'm ultimately. . .
. . .starting to think someone else is the confused one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice letter acksiom. Witty, articulated, humorous, and most definately NOT a template.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have much to add, other than compliments. Well written and effective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good letters. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to write The Monitor. I think it will help the Commission and its cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this the chap who wrote the letter?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=CAPITOL+FIRE+PROTECTION+CO+rattee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor,
This E-mail is in regards to your Article: Editorial: Leaky Launch. I found what you published to be very condescending and dismissive of men's concerns.
First was the mere mention that the NH Status of Men commission is the first one in the country for men. No mention of the fact that there are over 250 women's commissions in the nation and that they are funded while the men's commission is unfunded and has only a 2 year mandate that must be renewed. Men around the country wrote letters in support of this commission which was years in the making, but is being treated as a poor cousin that has to explain it's existence and go unfunded.
Next was the sexist comment about men being "homophobic" about prostate cancer checks and that they might, being men, get together, drink beer, play poker, and watch the sports channel. This is a childish and sexist comment that your editor should have rebuked the writer for, instead of publishing. Would you have, were this the first women's commission, published that women had gotten together, gossiped, had some knitting workshop, and watched the Home Shopping Network? I doubt it. Where is your sense of journalistic objectivity? Why the double standard?
Then the writer said "the men could have gotten together, sat around, beat drums, and talk about their suppressed feelings. No harm done. Or, in the worst imagined scenario, the commission could turn into a vehicle to bash women and gripe about life's inequities." This is condescending and degrading to men. The men who came forward were not suppressed in their feelings at all, but passionate and personal. And the writer's arrogance in this paragraph, "no harm done" smacks of men needing a women's permission to say what they feel at a men's commission.
One of the men addressed how anti-father groups like N.O.W. were helping to discriminate against men and fathers. N.O.W. was in full opposition to the Paternity Fraud Act (California) which would have ensured that only the biological father of a child would be paying child support instead of the current system which allows a women to "father shop" for the most financially well off man that the mother can stick the bill with. N.O.W. also published a "study" about bias in the family courts (again from California) that was debunked within days of its publishing as S.L.O.P. science. N.O.W. keeps publishing long debunked falsehoods on sexual assault and domestic violence that have misinformed the public for years. So these men who testified at the Status of Men Commission had legitimate grievances, but the writer never mentions any of this.
The writer then goes on to say that the commission was weighted heavily with members concerned with father's rights. This country has long called for men to stand up and be good fathers while often painting them as unconcerned and wanting no part of their children's lives. But in New Hampshire the story told over and over was of men wanting more involvement in their children's lives and how this is being prevented by the courts and vindictive ex-spouses. These men told of ex-spouses who denied court ordered visitation rights. Maybe this was the theme because the often publicized "uncaring father" stereotype is just hogwash. Fathers overwhelmingly don't get custody, child support is set on unrealistic guidelines, there is no accountability in the child support money paid out and spent by mothers, fathers are vilified to their children, and this is all done by a court system that treats men like human sperm banks with a wallet. So, yes, these men were upset. These fathers want to be part of their children's lives and instead of applauding them and publishing a column that shows that these human beings have true parental feelings the column you published made light of their concerns and basically said: "yes, yes, fine, move on to the next subject".
I don't know if this was a reporter who wrote this or some write-in letter, but I hope it was the latter. I don't know if the writer wrote in ignorance or with tacit agreement of the editor to publish this anti-father/anti-male column, but your paper is displaying a sexist and anti-family view of the men's commission. Men around the country are watching what is happening in New Hampshire. If you don't believe me then why am I, who live in Alaska, writing you a letter? Have you received other letters from other parts of the country? Men will no longer tolerate the anti-male bias in the media. This men's commission is the first we have, as compared to the over 250 funded women's commissions, and we are watching. Fathers are important in a child's life and these men are standing up to be actively involved fathers, write a column about that.
L. Steven Beene II
Nome Alaska
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I CC'd the E-mail to the members of NH congress and senate. I also CC'd it to others in the movement. I hope whoever wrote a letter sent it to the members of the Congress and Senate and if you did not, do so, let them know we are watching from all around the country.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great letter Steven!
Can you give us the email addresses that you cc'd? That way any of us who have written letters can paste in the addresses and do the same without having to track them all down.
Great idea.
The quality and breadth of the letters that have been written here are astounding. I do love this place. Good work men!
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey - first is the Congresmen and Senators:
letters@cmonitor.com ; mailbox@gregg.senate.gov ; mailbox@sununu.senate.gov ; cbass@mail.house.gov
The second set was to friends: Angry Harry, Gonzo, and a few others I thought might interested. I do not want to publish theirs. I hope you could understand that.
I did NOT CC to the Governor of New Hampshire. His site:http://www.nh.gov/governor/
I tried to find his E-mail but he doesn't put it out. But he DOES include comment forms not unlike what you see here on Men's Activsim. So try that route.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great work by our female supporters too!!!
We can't forget them ... they are wonderful .. and VERY MUCH APPREICATED.
Jen? WHEN AM I GETTING THE BREAD RECIPIE I ASKED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS POST: I was not kidding. Get my E-mail from my profile or I can post it (I don't care if my E-mail is posted). My wife wants new bread recipies and I want to try it. (sniff sniff whine whine)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't read the post then? Go back to the thread and look so I don't have to repeat myself;-)
I did send a letter to the editor but my e-mail ate it when I tried to go back to cut and paste it here.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 08, @07:42AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the article and in all honesty I would have to commen the author for writing the piece. But where was the author before the men's commision on these subjects?
Thanks to the NH Commision author's like this one has done a wonderful service even in thier attempt at bashing the idea to get those areas out into view.
The Men's Org has being doing that for years now, that author writes a piece as if we've totally ignored those things are are really just a bunch who are to selfish to give up money to our kids.
Seriously and that's it isn't it? The author's big point was that men should give money to their children. Ha! But I wonder where the author comes in when it is men(the fathers) who start wanting accountability for the money that the mothers spend.
Don't worry, I'm sure theres an answer to it and it will be government intervention.
Dan Lynch's Self-Defence (519) 774-2121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
We need to get accountability into the system. Right now a mother CAN spend the money on whatever she deems fit.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
