|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:06 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
One of WEAVE's original founders, Sandra Orozco, left WEAVE after it was hijacked by radical feminist bias. She joined Stop Abuse For Everyone (SAFE) and she was on SAFE's speaker's list, but I don't see her there anymore, I don't know what happened. An organized informational protest at one of WEAVE's events would be a good idea.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you have a valid point on the topic. Spousal abuse is indeed a two way street. But labeling WEAVE's perspective as propaganda is a bit harsh.
Most people in general are very gender centric (this website is proof of that). I am not surprised that a bunch of abused women got together and decided to expound a reactionary belief based upon their perspective and where they stand. That perspective being that of an abused woman who is still looking into herself to discover why she gravitates to men who abuse.
I think you would do your cause a better service by attempting to reach out to them and educate them rather then being accusatory and antagonistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:23 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with you if this were simply a case of circumstantial ignorance. But it isn't. There is a 30+ year history of the DV industry intentionally lying, covering up the research about DV and totally misleading the public in order to use DV as a tool to push a radical feminist anti-male agenda. Read a good summary of it in this excellent article by Dr. Richard Gelles, one of the world's top DV researchers. http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html The cover up has involved suppression of data, death threats, bomb scares at universities, sabotaged careers, and even a shooting in England.
Sandra Orozco tells a very sad story about how WEAVE started out with sincere intentions, even if it focused more on women, and then how it was taken over by radical feminists who carried the same anti-male agenda that most of the DV movement carries. This is the same story told by Erin Pizzey, who founded the first DV shelter in England in 1972, and by Patricia Overberg, who ran the only DV shelter in California that accepts male victims and who was badly mistreated by other shelter directors for doing so (see her sworn declaration at http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf )
Yes, we do need activists who are savvy and know how to be diplomats. But we also need truth tellers and ralliers. A combination of the two, working collaboratively, is the most effective thing we can have. And with a group that has a long-established history of being part of the cover-up, exposing them in public is much better than writing them a letter, in my opinion. In San Diego County (CA), NCFM-LA and a number of other groups have finally begun making progress with the San Diego DV Council. They didn't get there by writing nice letters to the groups they knew were misandrist feminists (although I'm not against dong that). They got there with a combination of diplomats inside the DV counsil working with the middle ground, and calm-but- forceful, informative demonstrating on the outside, with the subtle but very real threat of lawsuits and insurgency.
The DV industry has built a huge financial and political war chest, along with strong ties to the media and government and social institutions, that give them far more power than the men's activists have. When they are exposed for one lie, they just jump to another and it takes years to overcome that one. It's going to take a combination of all types, within rationality, to reverse the public misperceptions and social injustice perpetrated by the DV movement.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, let me respond to this in two separate answers to accommodate the circumstances that I am clearly ignorant of.
RESPONSE 1 - You are fucking crazy.
RESPONSE 2 - Wow. I never knew. Ok, them bitches are trying to fuck our shit up. Now if we can see CLEARLY and the world is BLIND. Then wouldn't yelling this information out loud from the hilltops make our cause seem insane? (it does) You are preaching to the converted and you must adopt the language of the BLIND to make them see. You must approach less antagonistically so that that people don't believe that you are a woman bashing Neanderthal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:47 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I've "adopted the language of the blind" many times. Many of us have. Here, though, most people are very aware, and I don't even know yet what parts of the above posts you are calling "antagonistic." If you are referring to NCFM-LA's rallies, you're very wrong. We held a calm, sign-carrying rally outside a DV event that made it very known why we were there, then we went inside and calmly sat at our RSVP table and watched the event without trouble. And they were very gender-neutral, largely because they were very aware of our presence and who we were. The combination of tactics worked beautifully.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am referring to the use of the words "propaganda" and "hijacked".
The heading uses communist and terrorist references to either antagonize the opposition or to rabble rouse the initiated. These tactics are obvious, don't bullshit me like a girl, this isn't prom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:03 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I think most adults are perfectly able to handle the term "propaganda" and "hijack." Anyhow, that's what you're so roused up about? My gosh I gave you more credit than I should have. Silly me.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terrorists hijacked the prom? But where will we dance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:17 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"I am referring to the use of the words "propaganda" and "hijacked
The heading uses communist and terrorist references to either antagonize the opposition or to rabble rouse the initiated. These tactics are obvious, don't bullshit me like a girl, this isn't prom. ".
Where have you been. Instead of exhibiting incredulity, attacking others, and overtly displaying your ignorance, perhaps you should conduct yourself in a more civil manner and ask questions about those things you are either ignorant of, or don't understand. There is a book called "Red Feminism by Kate Weigand" that covers the communist history of the feminist movement. Another one is "Betty Friedan and the making of The Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz." There are many other sources. Carrey Roberts recently did a number of articles on the topic, and they are probably still available at Mens News Daily (MND). The gender (Stalinist) feminist/communist link is well documented, and there are many, many parallels between the two.
Another book that documents the "hijacking," is "Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff-Sommers"
Here are some T-shirts you might enjoy wearing to your next feminist rally, just to have a little fun with your more radical feminist chums.
Ray
(click) Stalinist Feminism
(click) The Little Red Schoolhouse
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your sarcasm is bullshit.
Ineffective, argue the point automaton. Lure me into an antagonistic tangent? HA HA....
Use logic mongloid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, not everyone here is a man, so your little prom reference is silly, and using phrases like "You are Fucking crazy" and "Use logic mongloid" shows you clearly are already on an antagonistic tangent.
Your replies have been completely antagonistic to Marc's post, and having reread his post I see nothing in it which would warrent such a response. He was polite, used no profanity, used no name-calling, gave references, and made a logical arguement of peaceful protest tactics. What on earth caused you to overreact? If you were my kids and reacted like that I would think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and would send you for a nap this afternoon. But since you are not my child, I will just hope you have a reason.
~Peacce, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:26 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"If you were my kids and reacted like that I would think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and would send you for a nap this afternoon. But since you are not my child, I will just hope you have a reason."
Jen:
If I weren't approaching senior citizen status, I'd put myself up for adoption and request your family. Just kidding, but it is nice to see the healthy construct you bring. God knows we certainly could use more of that in this world.
Thanks, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:50 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Xamot is clearly suffering from pheminist hate indoctrination and can't help spewing the sort of hate pheminists do. All I can prescribe is for Xamot to study the facts and observe carefully.
As for you, TBQ, we all love you and are SO HAPPY you are here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Look! up in the internet!
It's a turd! It's a pain!
No It's SUPER TROLL!!
Sorry, guys, I couldn't resist...! (hee hee hee)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I think most adults are perfectly able to handle the term "propaganda" and "hijack." Anyhow, that's what you're so roused up about? My gosh I gave you more credit than I should have. Silly me.
Marc
It was this little sarcastic quip that set me off. That and the whiskey. He was obviously skirting the issue here. Which was that the title headings on these posted articles are twisted and designed to rile up all of the man boys. I approached him about it and he replied with this sarcastic fluff.
He still hasn't addressed why the title's of these articles are overtly worded with concepts of feminist conspiracies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW .... your T-shirts are getting better and better. I mean that man. Your use of ideas and phraseology and symbols are getting more sophisticated, (lol) better spelling (don't beat me up toooo bad for that one bro), and in general you are turning out some great products.
At one time I chided you on marketing your stuff here, but I was wrong.
First off I didn't know your story. Second I didn't realize they would become so good. And I, probably like you, am protective of this site.
I owe you a long over due apology.
Mea culpa bro.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:32 PM April 10th, 2004 EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
Steven:
Gosh, thanks. I actually have a decent job so the T-shirts are really more of an effort to fulfill a desire to get the information out, and protest the unfairness of so many things that have been going on. We've actually sold a few, but I wish I was rich enough I could just give them all away.
It sure shakes the G-fems up, when they see them so that alone makes the effort rewarding. I had a friend call me and tell me the other day he was going to be wearing one on campus soon. Yikes!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the blind don't generally speak another language than what they already know (depending on the country, the language differs). Learning a language while blind is do-able, but very difficult. So communicating with the blind in their native language is usually quite easy, granted they have an education and an IQ above 30. Now, deaf people, on the other hand, have their own language. So that analogy would have been slightly more apt. Plus, if you shouted things at the blind from the hilltops, there'd be some confusion as to who was doing the shouting, why they were shouting, and what they were wearing. This is also where the deaf analogy would have been more apt. Yelling at deaf people *could* be considered "insane", but yelling at blind people... nah.
But anyhoo... I love how you say he's "fucking crazy" and proceed to tell him to be less antagonitic so people don't think he's a neanderthal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Most of these people don't get my conditional sense of humor. I'm like a choose your own adventure book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:12 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"Most of these people don't get my conditional sense of humor."
It's not a sense of humor, it's domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:30 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"Most of these people don't get my conditional sense of humor. I'm like a choose your own adventure book."
Yeah, but the only copy on the bookshelf is, "The Exorcist."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I beat my wife?
You are seriously retarded. Another off the wall retort from the man group.
And if you imply that my insult of YOU is domestic violence well its not because you do not live in my domicile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, then wouldn't that be straight up assault then?
Xamot, isn't being abusive then joking about it a little sick? If you were doing this to your wife you would be thrown in jail for DV. Says so right on WEAVE.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:04 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
Xamont.
I knight thee sir big of troll.
I knight thee sir bag of wind.
I knight thee sir eye of newt.
'sir cup of coffee.
'ball of yarn.
'essence of mir.
'glass of milk.
'loin of beef.
'cream of wheat.
'leg of lamb.
'sheriff of naughtingham.
,milk of magnesia.
,clump of dirt.
'hall of fame.
'call of the wild.
'deck of cards
'song of the south.
'man of la mancha.
'basket of fruit...........
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:09 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE 1 - You are fucking crazy.
RESPONSE 2 - Wow. I never knew. Ok, them bitches are trying to fuck our shit up. Now if we can see CLEARLY and the world is BLIND. Then wouldn't yelling this information out loud from the hilltops make our cause seem insane? (it does) You are preaching to the converted and you must adopt the language of the BLIND to make them see. You must approach less antagonistically so that that people don't believe that you are a woman bashing Neanderthal.
Look at this response from Xamont. She has her misunderstanding of domestic violence corrected then resorts to this abusive and battering kind of rhetoric. This female definitely needs anger management, but the feminist bigots who run that program deny that abusive battering women like this exist.
That's Xamont, for proving with your rage, what Marc has already proven with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:33 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
What facts? All I've seen is a selective misrepresentation of Gelles' research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:28 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Please elaborate, whoever you are. I gave a link to Gelles' article. What part did I misrepresent? What the link wrong?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:53 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"What facts? All I've seen is a selective misrepresentation of Gelles' research."
...so glad you asked,
(click) Martin Feibert Bibliography
(click) Domestic Violence: The Twelve Things You Aren't Supposed to Know
There's a lot more. Reputable scholars are still digging it up from under the jack boot heel of gender feminist oppression, and feminazi (IMO) domestic violence propaganda and law. Sorry the last part of the preceding sentence is a little redundant. Feminazi (IMO) domestic violence propaganda and law are really one and the same.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
(click) Domestic Violence Law
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:24 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE 1 - You are fucking crazy.
RESPONSE 2 - Wow. I never knew. Ok, them bitches are trying to fuck our shit up. Now if we can see CLEARLY and the world is BLIND. Then wouldn't yelling this information out loud from the hilltops make our cause seem insane? (it does) You are preaching to the converted and you must adopt the language of the BLIND to make them see. You must approach less antagonistically so that that people don't believe that you are a woman bashing Neanderthal.
Xamont, you need help. You really need to see someone who knows how to address that kind of domestic violence outburst. Please see a professional, and not just some ignorant feminist indoctrinated parrot. Shame on you for your abusiveness. Shame on you for saying those mean, and cruel things in an attempt to control the conversation, just because you weren't getting your way. You really need to admit your abusiveness, and I think an apology to this site, where you recognize that you have battered another human being, would be a good first step in your recovery. Again, please seek professional help, and from someone who knows that women abuse and batter men.
Sincerely, R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OFF TOPIC....
Repsond to my point.
Shame on me? Thanks aunt Meg. Man up and take it like a Man. I made my points. If you want to comment on my delivery then I will comment on yours. You type like a bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAHAHAHAHA!
Oh such WIT! Oh such command of the English language!
Misspelling what is supposed to be a sharp retort is like trying to twirl around and stomp out of the room, tripping and falling on your face!
HAHAHAHA!
Now she resorts to putting down women by calling someone she distains female. Oh boy, I think xamot is confused.
Maybe therapy is exactly what she needs. Therapy and a nice padded room.
I do have to say she has been an especially fun troll!
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and what was the topic? Your telling marc he was 'fucking crazy' kind of was a distraction.
I never did hear a point from you. Did you make one?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Thanks aunt Meg. Man up and take it like a Man."
This is utterly perfect. Someone who takes a leak on the status of abused men using a phrase that abused men have probably heard an awful lot in their lifetimes.
I don't know if X is male or female and I don't really care.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:39 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"Repsond to my point."
...and which point might that be??? Did you make one???? If so, I suggest you apply at the defense department for a job. Your stealth powers at making a point are formidable and they might have some value for that kind of talent.
"Shame on me?" "You type like a bitch."
That's correct, "Shame on you." Shame on you for inflicting your abuse on others here. Xamont, you need help. You really need to see someone who knows how to address female domestic violence rage. Please see a professional, and not just some ignorant feminist indoctrinated parrot. Shame on you for your abusiveness. Shame on you for saying those mean, and cruel things in an attempt to control the conversation, just because you weren't getting your way. You really need to admit your abusiveness, and I think an apology to this site, where you recognize that you have battered other human beings (repeatedly), would be a good first step in your recovery. Again, please seek professional help, and from someone who knows that women abuse and batter men.
"Thanks aunt Meg. Man up and take it like a Man."
No, thanks. The compensation for being a man just isn't worth "the glass cellar" consequences. I prefer instead all those special privileges that women have. I demand equal protection, equal justice and equal rights, and I demand that women have equal responsibility in the "glass cellar" so they can stop lying about the "glass ceiling myth."
(click) The Feminist Dilemma - When Success Is Not Enough (Economic Statistics/Facts about women)
Ray
Here's the reality of taking it like a man,
(click) The Greatest Indicator of Oppression
(click) 7 horses, 6 men, 3 mules
(click) Cannon Fodder
(click) Have a Heart???
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:24 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny that you mention Gelles.
Maybe you should read this:
"Many feminists content that it is clear women are overwhelmingly the victims of intimate violence and that there are few if any battered men. On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data."
"To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men."
http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html
Thank you for helping to validate Gelles as a good source for info on DV. I'm sure you respect his comments on this page as much as you do the one you linked to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:37 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good, anon. Now you changed the subject to be about *injuries* instead of about the *initiation of violence*. Richard Gelles wrote this article in 1999 and he stands by it to this day, in which he flat out says: "contrary to the claim that women only strike in self defenese, we found that women were as likely to initiate domestic violence as were men." He goes on to hammer the point that all relevant research shows women initiate the violece as often as men do, even if the injury rate differs. And in the 2000 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, Dr. John Archer showed that men make 38 percent of *physically harmed* DV victims. So, even if men are harmed less often, as Gelles points out in your reference, that doesn't change the fact, or justify, the equal amount of violence by women in relationships (especially when children witness it, because they're harmed no matter what the injury is), and also, men are injured at high rates as well, even if less than women. Feminists love to change the subject to be about injury rates to divert attention from the equal frequency of violence committed by women. When women are victims, it's "no excuse!" no matter what the level of injury. But when men are victims, it's "well, it's not as bad because most men aren't injured." The pure hypocrisy speaks for itself. I suggest you read the Gelles article I link above before trying to swith the subject and divert attention from the issue. http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Feminists love to change the subject to be about injury rates to divert attention from the equal frequency of violence committed by women. When women are victims, it's "no excuse!" no matter what the level of injury. But when men are victims, it's "well, it's not as bad because most men aren't injured." The pure hypocrisy speaks for itself.::
If I "just" slapped a woman across the face, I most likely would not draw blood, leave a bruise, or break a bone. Does this mean I have the right to do that? Of course not. It's the same if a woman hurts a man. Forget injury; that would only make it worse. The mere act of hurting someone, male or female, is serious enough.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BG's comment - "The mere act of hurting someone, male or female, is serious enough."
True enough.
And the usually unrecognized form of hurting that women inflict upon men occurs via false accusations, calling 911 to beckon the DV gestapo to arrest and prosecute him because "she was afraid of him...," and compelling the entire feminazi apparatus to descend upon him to expropriate his liberty, reputation, career, income, property, and dignity.
Women are masterful "third party abusers..."
They learn during adolescent girlhood "friendship wars" how to recruit others to do their dirty work, while presenting a facade of innocence.
False accusations, spreading rumors, destroying reputations ... all forms of psychological and "indirect" violence that girls master in high school.
Enter the State... the "womynz advocates," the Family Courts... the local DV goon squads...
Same modus operandi, only refined to make the consequences men face more lethal, more devastating, more irreversible.
And the "innocents" waltz away with his assets, his children, his home, and a society eager to exonerate her because "SHE's the victim!"
Time to re-read Orwell... we are living in the Animal Farm today.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:45 AM April 8th, 2004 EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, the law doesn't see it that way. Does the term "aggravated battery" mean anything to you? Or is it all the same? This belief is a rhetorical trap for men's activists - it could be turned against them.
Here is more on Gelles' response to 'mens rights' use of his statistics:
"The Gelles/Strauss numbers that Leo and others seize on are based on simply asking people whether they have ever hit, pushed, slapped, etc. their partners. They do not reflect the context of family violence. They do not indicate whether violence was used as aggression or in self-defense, or whether violence caused or was intended to cause injury. Using such numbers without qualification results in bizarre conclusions: that children's violence against parents is a much more serious problem than parents' violence against children, for example.
Gelles put his research in perspective in a Long Island Newsday op-ed (2/22/94): 'In the majority of these cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocations or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence.' "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:00 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
"Time to re-read Orwell..."
I've been reading this great new book, Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't suppossed to know
Chapter 2 Violence Against Men is Just as Severe as Violence Against Women
Excellent footnoting
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I've been reading this great new book, Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't suppossed to know
Chapter 2 Violence Against Men is Just as Severe as Violence Against Women
Excellent footnoting"
Author's name?
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"Author's name?"
bg:
Thomas B James, J.D.
Aventinve Press
I found it through a link at the NCFM bookstore. It's located right at the top of that page.
A male friend who works with different aspects of the domestic violence industry, and sees the ongoing bias against men, said it was an excellent read.
The author is a Minnesota attorney and served as the co-cousel on the recent class action lawsuit to declare the Battered Womnen's Act unconstitutional.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Ampersand, you are citing a source by Gelles dated 1994. In Gelles' 1999 article at http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html Gelles states:
"contrary to advocacy claims that there was an epidemic of child abuse and wife abuse, we found that the reported rates of violence toward children and violence toward women had declined. This made sense to us, as much effort and money had been expended between 1976 and 1986 to prevent and treat both child abuse and wife abuse. Female-to-male violence showed no decline and still was about as frequent and severe as male-to-female violence."
Moreover, other studies that have inquired about self defense, context and motives found that women and men commit domestic violence for very much the same reasons, most often to "get through to them," and that self defense account for only a small amount of the violence (10 percent for women and 15 percent for men, approximately. Dr. David Fontes, who is the EAP director for the California Department of Social Services, thoroughly refutes the self defense argument in his paper, "Violent Touch, Breaking Through the Stereotypes" which is available at http://www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf (scroll down to page 34). Also, see this study by Dr. Martin Fiebert and Dr. Denise Gonzales at California State University, which found that of 1,000 college women, about 20% admitted committing violence against their male partners, and the most common reasons were things like "my boyfriend was not being sensitive to my needs" and "my boyfriend was not listening to me." www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm
The self defense myth is yet another level of lies that feminists are using to divert attention from the subject and buy themselves more time to tell more lies.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:43 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gelles completely retracted that view in his 1999 article, “The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims,” in which he states: “contrary to advocacy claims that there was an epidemic of child abuse and wife abuse, we found that the reported rates of violence toward children and violence toward women had declined. This made sense to us, as much effort and money had been expended between 1976 and 1986 to prevent and treat both child abuse and wife abuse. Female-to-male violence showed no decline and still was about as frequent and severe as male-to-female violence.”
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Murray Straus further elaborates on this in a 1997 article, “Physical Assaults by Women Partners: A Major Social Problem” in Women, Men, & Gender; Ongoing Debates, 1997, page 213, where he says: “In previous work I have explained the high rate of attacks on partners by women as largely a response to or a defense against assault by the partner. However, new evidence raises questions about that interpretation.” He goes on to explain why, then on page 215 he says, “one can conclude that the research on who hit first does not support the hypothesis that assaults by women are primarily acts of self-defense or retaliation.”
Dr. David Fontes, who is the Employee Assistance Program manager for the California Department of Social Services, thoroughly refutes the self defense myth in his paper, “Violent Touch,” available at http://www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf (go to page 34). He references several studies that inquired about motives, context and self defense and found that women and men initiate DV for very much the same reasons, most often “to get through to” their partners, and that self defense accounts for only a small percentage of the violence by either sex.
Dr. Martin Fiebert and Dr. Denise Gonzales of California State University surveyed 978 college women at Cal State Long Beach and found that 29 percent of them committed violence against their male partners. Their top three reasons were: My partner was not sensitive to my needs, * wished to gain my partner’s attention, and my partner was not listening to me. www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm
Sorry, but you’re wrong, self defense does NOT explain female-initiated DV. This is just another lie by the feminists to buy themselves more time to make up more lies and keep the public misled while they fuel their industry.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
This is Marc again, sorry I took the wrong quote from Gelles even though that one was good too. Here's the one I meant to quote: "contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men."
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is more on Gelles' response to 'mens rights' use of his statistics:
Your quotation is directly lifted from a 1994 piece from the good folks at FAIR. You know, the ones who taught us about DV and the Super Bowl.
Is the Gelles piece that you originally quoted from also the Long Island op-ed they are refering to? If so, they put a helluva a spin on it.
BTW, did you notice in that article that Gelles apparently has different definitions for "battered men" and "battered women?"
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1985 National Family Violence Survey, which found that men and women were equally likely to be abused, also found that 3.0% of women and 0.4% of men who were assaulted reported that they needed to see a doctor.
1) This does not mean that women are more likely to be injured, as men are much less likely to seek medical treatment than women. This is true for any injury or illness.
2) According to the UCR, men are the victims in at least 30% of intimate partner homicides. It is likely that the rate is significantly higher because: a) the high percentage of male victims with an unidentified assailant; b) the high percentage of women who get others to kill their partners; c) murders attributed to other causes such as poison. Due to the high percentage of domestic violence murder victims who are men, it is likely that a high percentage of those injured are also men. Murder rates are probably more reliable because it is difficult to hide a body, whereas it is easy to hide or ignore an injury.
In any event, your implication is that domestic violence isn't really domestic violence unless the victim needs to seek medical treatment. Is this your belief and is this the belief of the group you quote? If a husband slaps his wife, is she a victim of domestic violence? If a wife slaps her husband, is he a victim of domestic violence?
Ironically, another implication from your post is that domestic violence is a relatively insignificant problem. According to the 1985 study coauthored by Gelles, only about 50,000 women and 8,000 men sought medical treatment for domestic violence. So why the big fuss if medical treatment rates are the best measure of domestic violence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data."
The truth is, if honest research were really being done that included the verbal abuse that women subject their intimate partners to, the initiation of violence would more likely show 99.99% female initiation of violence IMO. Is nagging a form of emotional abuse? You bet it is so where is the defense of "Battered Husband Syndrome" that should have been a part of the domestic violence industry from the start.
Your statistics about the number of women who are injured compared to men is very questionable, considering the corruptness, and therefore lack of credibility that has permeated the entire domestic violence industry for the very start, (click) Domestic Violence: A Two Way Street, Glenn Sacks.
He says:
"It is true, as crime statistics indicate, that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. However, such statistics overstate the disparity because an abused woman is many times more likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
Nor do husbands murder their wives significantly more than wives murder their husbands. A 1994 Department of Justice study analyzed 10,000 cases and found that women make up over 40 percent of those charged in familial murders. And because women who murder their husbands tend to use less detectable or traceable methods--such as poisoning (which are often ruled "heart attacks") and hiring others to do the killing (which usually aren't counted as "murders by wives" in official crime statistics), these murders are far less likely to be noticed than murders by men, which are usually committed with guns."
(click) Sneaky Female Batterers
(click) Domestic Violence Law Is A Scam
Thanks for sharing your half truths and other refutable insights. The domestic violence industry has had a long "herstory" of committing fraud in the name of rabid gender feminist movement. You will not soon or easily lose the taint of that.
Come back anytime to post your discreditable fraud.
Very Truly Yours, Ray
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:07 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Gelles has publicly acknowledged the abuse he has suffered from colleagues and anti-male DV activitists. So he writes for the anti-male DV activists:
On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.
Let's look at this. First, he seems to be hinting that the first two claims, "there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention", are correct. In fact, he has also directly stated that these claims are correct. The last claim, "there are as many male victims of violence as female" is a "significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Huh? Well actually, there are many times more male victims of violence as female. Is this what he meant? Or did he mean that most studies indicate that, among persons who suffer self-reported serious injuries from domestic violence perhaps 40% are male and 60% are female?
In any case, I can forgive him for writing what he did, given the abuse threats that he faces from anti-male DV hatemongers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
"Thank you for helping to validate Gelles as a good source for info on DV. I'm sure you respect his comments on this page as much as you do the one you linked to."
No, as a matter of fact Gelles didn't do his homework on that as further documentation reveals. It's either that, or he was too intimidated to speak more correctly. Remember that Gelles was going against the tide with much of his work so it is not surprising to find the strong arm of gender feminist domestic violence advocacy skewing some of his work off the mark.
Additionally, just when you thought you could pass that work off as valid, there's now another excellent resource to refute what is being said in quotation marks above.
The book is, Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't supposed to know by Thomas B. James, J.D.
Chapter 2 is titled "Violence against men is just as severe as violence against women." It is excellently documented.
The author addresses violence committed by women against men. I suggest you read it. My book just arrived today. I have only read about a dozen or so pages so far, but they are dynamite. I will be quoting from it soon.
Oh by the way, the other 11 things you aren't supposed to know about domestic violence are very interesting in what they reveal about the atrocities committed against innocent men by the man-hating domestic violence industries agenda.
Ray
(click) Shame on the Domestic Violence Industry for Lying
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:43 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:00 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon keeps quoting Gelles from an outdated 1994 piece. Again, in 1999 Gelles wrote an article in which he hammers home the fact that their research found "women initiate domestic violence as often as men." http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Murray Straus, who was Gelles' research partner, further elaborates on this *change* in his 1997 article, “Physical Assaults by Women Partners: A Major Social Problem” in Women, Men, & Gender; Ongoing Debates, 1997, page 213. He says:
“In previous work I have explained the high rate of attacks on partners by women as largely a response to or a defense against assault by the partner. However, new evidence raises questions about that interpretation.” He goes on to explain why, then on page 215 he says, “one can conclude that the research on who hit first does not support the hypothesis that assaults by women are primarily acts of self-defense or retaliation.”
Again, a very thorough refutation of the whole "self defense" argument is written by Dr. David Fontes, who is the Employee Assistance Program manager for the California Department of Social Services, at http://www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf (go to page 34).
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:16 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"I believe you have a valid point on the topic. Spousal abuse is indeed a two way street. But labeling WEAVE's perspective as propaganda is a bit harsh."
I believe Marc was exceptionally kind and gentlemanly in dealing with those evil devils running the domestic violence industry. Labeling WEAVE's perspective as propaganda is really a euphamism. WEAVE is really conducting ongoing hate crime's against men based on their man hating feminist agenda born out of things like 700 to 800 women's studies programs on college campuses (with many misandric class offerings in each program), and over 270 women's commissions. That's in the United States alone.
Ray
(click) Shame on the Domestic Violence Industry
(click) Domestic Violence Laws Corruptly Exploit Innocent Men
(click) Formula Scripting Domestic Violence
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:47 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of 'industry', did you know that think tanks like the Pacific Research Institute are funded by billionaires like Scaife and the Koch Brothers? That they get grants for 'research on feminism'?
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/in fo_on_any_recipient.php?274
Nice try. If you're going to complain about the money that shelters get, you're going to have to answer for the right-wing propaganda bankrolled by a few vindictive billionaires.
Otherwise, you'll have to hang your argument on something other than $$$ because you don't have much to stand on if billionaires are feeding you these 'facts'.
The Koch brothers fund libertarian and conservative enterprises, they give money to Bush, then turn around and secure government contracts to make themselves wealthier. They also commit environmental crimes. They then use that wealth to fund more propaganda. Nice 'industry' that's behind you, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boy, where can we get some of those billions of dollars? SO far I haven't seen any men's movements with cash to spare, but then again, maybe some of you are hiding it. HEY MODS!! WHERE'S MY DOUGH?!!
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
activist individuals on either side do not get 'dough'. you do not get 'dough' from posting to a bulletin board.
however, the 'research' in this case and in many other conservative causes is funded by extremely wealthy people like Scaife and Koch, who have a lot more money than some college professor or social worker. Scaife called one reporter a 'communist c--t', I think its clear what his motivations are. you can't claim that 'they're getting all the money' when think tanks and propagandists are funded by millionaires who use patronage to make themselves and their foundations even richer.
this is just another example of conservative attacks on academia and public services. nice to see that people took the bait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"activist individuals on either side do not get 'dough'. you do not get 'dough' from posting to a bulletin board."
Jen's main point was that men's rights groups and groups supporting male victims operate on shoestring budgets, something they would NOT be doing if they were indeed funded by conservative millionaires. If you think we're loud now, just wait until we get some cash in the bank.
"however, the 'research' in this case and in many other conservative causes is funded by extremely wealthy people like Scaife and Koch, who have a lot more money than some college professor or social worker. Scaife called one reporter a 'communist c--t', I think its clear what his motivations are."
Foul language?
"this is just another example of conservative attacks on academia and public services. nice to see that people took the bait."
This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. There are plenty of liberal misandrists and plenty of conservative misandrists. Just because you're firmly entrenched in the former category doesn't mean there aren't gobs of people in the latter.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:18 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
i>This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. There are plenty of liberal misandrists and plenty of conservative misandrists. Just because you're firmly entrenched in the former category doesn't mean there aren't gobs of people in the latter.
Amen, amen, that's the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of 'industry', did you know that think tanks like the Pacific Research Institute are funded by billionaires like Scaife and the Koch Brothers? That they get grants for 'research on feminism'?
Interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks for the website. I'll have to look into such things. Of course, just because an organization is bankrolled by someone I don't agree with in general does not make all of their arguments or ideas suspect, simply by association. I'm pretty left of center, for the most part, but I happen to share some viewpoints with more conservative folks. I also happen to disagree with some more liberal folks, even though I tend to have more in common with them.
I'm much more interested in the arguments than the people who propose them. I've read a lot of the research on domestic violence, both those that take the "women-as-victim-men-as-abuser" route, as well as those whose findings indicate a more equitable distribution of violent behavior. It doesn't matter to me, specifically, who does the research, or who funds it, as much as I care about how the studies are done, and how the statistics and findings are interpreted. And, on the whole, I believe that groups such as WEAVE are not presenting an adequate view of domestic violence, and can have the unfortunate result of obscuring other findings that are important so that those students get all the information necessary to make up their own minds.
I tend to view all arguments with a certain amount of healthy cynicism, recognizing that we all bring our own ideologies to the table when we discuss things. Knowing who is bankrolling the PRI may make me a tad more interested in clarifying their data, but it won't stop me from listening to what they have to say, and being willing to give credit to an argument that I believe has merit.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:08 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
"Speaking of 'industry',"
Speaking of industry, how about this multi-billion dollar industry. It's called the women's industry.
(click) Crime Pays
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think you would do your cause a better service by attempting to reach out to them and educate them rather then being accusatory and antagonistic."
People HAVE tried to reach WEAVE and other places of a similar bent, but they don't wish to know of the truth.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I mean you’re not here defending against the abuse of all people, just men. So, since you were so specific in only defending one gender it would stand to reason that you are indifferent in the abuse of the other (since you never said otherwise)." - Xamot
"I am not surprised that a bunch of abused women got together and decided to expound a reactionary belief based upon their perspective and where they stand." - Xamot
"I think you would do your cause a better service by attempting to reach out to them and educate them rather then being accusatory and antagonistic."
Why don't we instead tell them to "Woman up and take it like a woman."?
So, as usual, the "women-firsters" show their bigotry. When women "band together" they have a good reason to do so and more power to them. If men "band together", they are selfish pigs only looking out for themselves.
This is ridiculous. This is EXACTLY the sort of problem that MRA's (note that this includes both men AND women) are trying to bring to the publics attention; society has the idea that if a woman complains about some injustice being done to "women" that she is a "freedom fighter" and fighting for a good cause. But if a man complains about some injustice being done to men, he is a complainer, a whiner, a pussy, etc. Women are considered to have a valid RIGHT to bring to the attention of society *ANYTHING* that they percieve as a problem that their gender faces. Men are told to "Man up and take it like a Man."
Xamot is proof of this mentality. Here's a clue that you are a "women firster" and don't believe that the genders should be treated with the same respect, Xamot. Go to the web sites where women are stating their problems and give them the same replies that you give the posters here. No? Why not?
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:30 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead and ignore. Because you always defer the topic to irrelevance and can’t debate like and educated individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:30 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead and ignore. Because you always defer the topic to irrelevance and can’t debate like and educated individual.
Bring it on. You have little of substance so far.
By the way, where did you get your education, the University of Advanced Profanity. Yes, you certainly haven't diverted the topic to irrelevance by your tirade. Try reading that post you submitted again, then filter out your abuse and hatred of truth so we can see if you have anything at all that is relevant.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry my "harsh" words offend your "manly" virgin ears.
TOPIC 1 - The lady is crazy and you people are fucking nuts to think the insanity plea is related to her sex.
TOPIC 2 - It's a commercial and you people are conspiracy whackos.
How on topic is that? It’s pretty god damn blunt.
... oh, and I don't believe in God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, you make no sense. And blunt has nothing to do with being on topic. What lady is crazy? I thought this was a thread about WEAVE?
Boy am I confused.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:55 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. Xamot? Gelles? Tough choice.
Marc
Xamot: "you people are conspiracy whackos."
Dr. Richard Gelles, one of the top 3 DV researchers in the nation who did over 10 years of research for the federal government:
“When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. . . . The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant finding be rescinded. All three of us became ”non persons” among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to use. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.”
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Gelles continues,
“When we reported the results of the Second National Family Violence Survey the personal attacks continued and the professional critiques simply ignored methodological revisions to the measurement instrument. This round of personal attacks was much more insidious—in particular, it was alleged that Murray had abused his wife. This is a rather typical critique in the field of family violence—men whose research results are contrary to political correctness are labeled ‘perps.’”
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:41 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
Xamot.
If you can't understand THAT then I really don't know what else to tell you. (and I'm saying that in the most charitable way possible)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats."
The irony here is hard to miss. Three people come out with evidence that says that women can be violent; those who disagree with the "theory" that women are violent make DEATH THREATS. Do we need to draw the country a PICTURE?!
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously Dr. Gelles received flack for presenting unpopular ideas to an audience who obviously was not interested in entertaining them.
But I fail to see how this validates a conspiracy. If that is the point you are trying to make.
A doctor pissed off some feminazis... big whoop. What does that prove?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:46 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you, Xamot, used the term "conspiracy" first, but in any case I think the evidence is overwhelming that there is one. It shows a collective and united effort by those in the DV industry to conceal data, as shown in the Gelles article and the Patricia Overberg declaration and elsewhere. That does constitute a conspiracy, which in this context is an agreement between more than one person to do something wrong (here, to cover up important data). This is a whole lot more than a doctor pissing off a few feminists. This is feminists of an entire movement, worldwide, working together collectively, using threats and other methods, to cover up major findings from research funded by the federal government. Professor Irene Frieze was even caught covering up the findings of her *own* research because it showed equal violence between men and women in dating relationships (she later came out in support of this finding and now appears to be on the side of truth) (see C.H. Sommers, "Who Stole Feminism" and Cathy Young, "Ceasefire!").
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are on a very slippery slope here.
This is a whole lot more than a doctor pissing off a few feminists. This is feminists of an entire movement, worldwide, working together collectively, using threats and other methods, to cover up major findings from research funded by the federal government.
So a collective worldwide network is working to oppress pro-man agendas? I doubt it.
Some of your guys' ideas just fall out of line with the typical PC rhetoric. This causes an instant knee jerk reaction from organizations based on that rhetoric and that's it.
There are allot of women that feel that abuse in a relationship is unwarranted in ANY circumstances. That they can threaten you with a knife, scream and you still shouldn't have the right to do anything physical and that their instigation had no part in the end result.
When your organization discusses the psychological partnership between a mutually abusive couple as if they are equal (typically the man is bigger than the woman thus causing the social stigma) you are standing against a huge rhetorical wall. And characterizing these women as one sided liars and radical feminists isn’t going to earn any points to get a friendly ear.
The backlash is obvious and should be expected. They aren't globally organized. They don't have to be. Your organizations message is so against the rhetoric that they ALL know how to react without even talking to each other.
It's like using the N word against a room full of black people. Not one person has to say "Kick his ass." but they all magically will like one autonomous entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:00 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
Your posts are more draining than they're worth because you're almost always off-point or misrepresenting what what said. But I'll go over this perhaps once more.
"So a collective worldwide network is working to oppress pro-man agendas? I doubt it."
You just used semantics to change what I said, while I used facts, and then you dismissed it all with "I doubt it." You still have little facts, just semantics and blanket dismissal.
"Some of your guys' ideas just fall out of line with the typical PC rhetoric. This causes an instant knee jerk reaction from organizations based on that rhetoric and that's it."
?????
"There are allot of women that feel that abuse in a relationship is unwarranted in ANY circumstances."
And who said there wasn't? What does this have to do with anything?
"When your organization discusses the psychological partnership between a mutually abusive couple as if they are equal (typically the man is bigger than the woman thus causing the social stigma) you are standing against a huge rhetorical wall. And characterizing these women as one sided liars and radical feminists isn’t going to earn any points to get a friendly ear."
It's true that merely making that characteristic, alone, is not the best strategy. Of course, most of what I did here was provide facts, and along with those facts I stated my interpretation of those facts, which is that the DV industry (I didn't say "women," you did, in fact many women are on our side and many men are not) is largely distorting the truth and suppressing data on purpose, which is well evidence and hardly refuted by you.
"The backlash is obvious and should be expected."
Yes. And it should be pointed out, too.
"They aren't globally organized."
I haven't said they were, only that they globally work in unison on certain things, and suppressing data is one of them. "Globally" doesn't mean every country, of course, but a number of them, and that is well-documented. And to a large extent they are "organized" especially in the U.S.
"They don't have to be. Your organizations message is so against the rhetoric that they ALL know how to react without even talking to each other."
That's a pretty vague statement, like most of your others, and thus not easy to respond to without specifics, but in any case, they *do* talk to each other, they network very well, and to the extent that they respond without "needing to talk to each other", that is because they are part of a movement with an agenda for which money and ideology are key incentives, and thus their incentives drive them the same direction...so what?
"It's like using the N word against a room full of black people. Not one person has to say "Kick his ass." but they all magically will like one autonomous entity."
Yes, telling the truth to feminists when it threatens their ideology is somewhat like that, I agree. Now, how again does that refute anyting I've said or done?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:40 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
"So a collective worldwide network is working to oppress pro-man agendas? I doubt it."
...then you doubt wrong and big time. They are working to oppress all men. Ever hear of CEDAW at the United Nations? The gender feminists have been trying to run their agenda at the United Nations for years. IMO, there are several anti-male organizations with roots in the UN, such as, WHO, UNICEF. Even Amnesty International, IMO has been going anti-male lately.
I had the time of my life last year as those great ladies at the Concerned Women for America fought the gender feminist agenda to a stand still at the UN. IWF (Independent Women's Forum) was there too. Check out there web sites for more info. There's so much there I can't post it here.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:20 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
"When your organization discusses the psychological partnership between a mutually abusive couple as if they are equal (typically the man is bigger than the woman thus causing the social stigma) you are standing against a huge rhetorical wall. And characterizing these women as one sided liars and radical feminists isn’t going to earn any points to get a friendly ear."
### Women have historical used weapons, poison and 3rd parties to level that playing field. Additionally most men have been conditioned not to hit back and just take the battering, hence so many battered men.
"There are allot of women..."
### This site is not about you.
"...characterizing these women as one sided liars and radical feminists..."
### Get used to it. It is important that all men are informed about these and all other dangerous misandrists.
Sincerely,
Ray
(click) Women Can Be Brutal
(click) The Battering Never Ends
(click) Battered Man Syndrome is an Epidemic
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know I already explained everything before but here we go again, pay attention this time.
I mean your throwing circumstantial evidence at me like Bible scriptures and then act shocked when I say that it doesn’t fly. All it proves is that a Doctor pissed off a handful of organizations and they took action against him.
Oh, let me try to re-explain this concept again. Your entire organization is a fringe organization. Your ideas are not currently popular in this society. When your ideas are expressed to feminists and they take action against your kind, they are not all globally conspiring against you. They don’t have to conspire. They all disagree with you by default and they know how to react without having a little pow-wow over it because your ideas do not fall in line with their rhetoric.
You are not witnessing a massive world wide conspiracy by feminists against your peers. What you are witnessing is a mass of offended feminists who are all acting in parallel because they all have the same beliefs. Unless you have the minutes from a secret meeting where all of these feminist organizations discuss the enslavement of all men, I will never believe you.
As for the numerous links to attempted acts of legislation by feminist groups that would give special privileged rights to all women, well that doesn’t mean that they work in global unison either. It doesn’t take a conspiracy effort to create legislation. Hell, if you had a little more ambition even you could slap something together and send it up to your congressmen.
And in case you have problem with my use of the word conspiracy here’s the definition - to act in harmony toward a common end
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:59 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
"...here we go again, pay attention this time."
Your the one who lacks erudition by writing in an illogical and emotional communication style.
"Unless you have the minutes from a secret meeting where all of these feminist organizations discuss the enslavement of all men, I will never believe you."
If the UN wasn't good enough for you then go to the curriculums of women's studies programs at colleges (same ideology as the gender feminism promoted at the U.N., and then go to the women's commissions (gender feminists again). That should be enough right there. It is your right to choose to stay ignorant of the overwhelming evidence that there is a vast gender feminist network in the western world that works overtime to undermine the rights of men. The 270 women's commissions in America and 700 to 800 women's studies programs are just undeniable evidence of that.
Contained within those 270 women's studies programs are many classes, each teaching irresponsible, misandric curriculum based on unscholarly research.
Additonally, there is a vast domestic violence network funded by billions of dollars defrauded from taxpayers by feminist lies about domestic violence. The vast majority of those advocates sound like the fell out of women's studies text book every tine they open their bigoted mouths.
There are other feminist organizations that promote the gender feminist agenda. Want to find one? Type “feminist” in any search engine. Feminists within all those functions do network and conspire to pass more misandric laws to destroy more and more men's lives. It's what they do. Destroying men is a major part of how that conspiracy redistributes men's wealth to women.
You're comment that there is no conspiracy against men by gender feminist organizations is one of the most ridiculously ludicrous statements I have ever heard in my life. Get serious, everybody knows better.
Ray
(click) Women's Studies Advocates Gender Injustice
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
"I mean your throwing circumstantial evidence at me like Bible scriptures and then act shocked when I say that it doesn’t fly."
Shocked? Oh my. Not at all, Zamot. You proved your lack of judgment long ago with your reactionism. I fully expect you not to change your mind no matter how much evidence is put before you. You are very much like a feminist.
"All it proves is that a Doctor pissed off a handful of organizations and they took action against him."
Ok Zamot.
"Oh, let me try to re-explain this concept again. Your entire organization is a fringe organization."
It sure is. We've make some significant changes though, such as in legislation, but yeah, we're fringe already.
"Your ideas are not currently popular in this society."
I would disagree. It isn't that they're not "popular," it's that they're not "known" and they're misrepresented. But as they get heard, and heard accurately, people absolutely do agree. The public is 98% behind us on paternity fraud, and over 50% behind us on joint custody. Did you see the Christian Science Monitor poll showing 91% of respondents favoring a men's rights movement? That wouldn't have happened a few years ago. Yeah, fringe, not so known, and lots of hostility in the media and feminist-aligned groups, but the movement is gaining, no matter how hostile you are toward it.
"When your ideas are expressed to feminists and they take action against your kind, they are not all globally conspiring against you."
Oh here we go. You are the king of straw-man attacks, Zamot. Not worth responding anymore.
"They don’t have to conspire. They all disagree with you by default and they know how to react without having a little pow-wow over it because your ideas do not fall in line with their rhetoric."
Again, true, but they *do* conspire together, that's how they work. In one county DV council, when someone showed a film on male DV victims, the feminists, who were most of the members, *planned* and *staged* a walkout. They weren't just reacting on the moment. They synchronized it completely. Yes, "conspired." Oh that big word again that makes Zamot react so angrily. Why don't you start cussing again, Zamot. You make more sense when you cuss.
"You are not witnessing a massive world wide conspiracy by feminists against your peers. What you are witnessing is a mass of offended feminists who are all acting in parallel because they all have the same beliefs. Unless you have the minutes from a secret meeting where all of these feminist organizations discuss the enslavement of all men, I will never believe you."
Zamot, have you even *read* Patricia Overberg's declaration of what they did to her, collectively? Oh that's right, the feminists don't really talk to each other, they just react on the moment, I forgot. You're right, Zamot.
"As for the numerous links to attempted acts of legislation by feminist groups that would give special privileged rights to all women, well that doesn’t mean that they work in global unison either. It doesn’t take a conspiracy effort to create legislation."
I see. When a hundred feminist groups wrote amicus briefs against fathers in the La Musga case to support move-away moms, they were not "working together" at all. It was just by chance. Yep. And when they silently passed a bill that put the move-away case into law in California last year, with 100 feminist groups sponsoring it, it was not a coordinated effort at all. You are so insightful Zamot. I'm really getting to like you.
"Hell, if you had a little more ambition even you could slap something together and send it up to your congressmen."
Yep. And if you weren't such a presumptive reactionary, you might have asked whether we have done that, and then you'd learn about our paternity fraud bills that we're getting introduced. But don't bother asking, Zamot. It's easier just to assume and react. More fun, that is. And you don't even have to think.
"And in case you have problem with my use of the word conspiracy here’s the definition - to act in harmony toward a common end"
Yep. Feminists do not "act in harmony toward a common end." You're a joke, Zamot. Go back to name-calling. You're better at that than logical reasoning. Why don't you call me a "mongloid" again. That was far more impressive.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:49 AM April 10th, 2004 EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
This IS a conspiracy.
And what a WONDERFUL one it is, too!
YAY!!! \(^0^)/
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:44 AM April 10th, 2004 EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
"But I fail to see how this validates a conspiracy. If that is the point you are trying to make.
A doctor pissed off some feminazis... big whoop. What does that prove?"
TC:
In looking back over this long thread I find her quote above. In that post she said she failed to see how what we were saying validated a conspiracy. I may have missed another post where she said something contradictory, but from that one post it appears she is opposing the idea that there is a conspiracy against men and she is wrong. In other posts examples were given to her (by me) of other ways organizations and institutions are conspiring to discriminate (unfair treatment because of prejudice) against men based on their sex.
IMHO, indeed their is a conspiracy against men that is being waged by: the domestic violence industry, the united nations, radical/militant/gender feminist organizations, women's studies programs, women's commissions, biased courts, biased laws, etc., etc., etc.
There are many, many networks between those radical/gender feminist groups. To argue otherwise is ludicrous. As an example: It is true that I and many other members here belong to multiple organizations and causes supporting men's rights. It is a natural extension of activism to be so affiliated. What is not a natural extension of activism is what those radical/gender feminist have done in conspiring to unconstitutionally discriminate against men in a number of areas. We are not doing that to women. All we want are equal rights, not supremacy like the radical/gender feminists. Contrary to what she says, all the facts clearly show there is indeed a vast mind boggling conspiracy against men in the western world.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:56 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
You may print this article if you like.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been a volunteer worker at Bethany House of Northern Virginia,
5901 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, a private non-profit
so called battered women's shelter. I wish to remain anonymous for
fear of personal and professional reprisals by my co-workers and the Bethany House staff.
In my experience working at the shelter I am appalled and outraged
by what is really going on at Bethany House of Northern Virginia
(BHNV). To put it bluntly, it is for most part nothing more than
a "one stop divorce shop for emotional and bored housewives who want a change of life".
It is also largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional
problems if they are willing to hate their husbands enough and are
willing to take out protective orders against their husbands. Women
who follow BHNV's agenda are guaranteed residency at the shelter
for up to 7 months. All of this in the name of a Battered Women's
shelter is sickening to disgust.
From my observations, the goal of Bethany House is to get bored
and emotional housewives to leave their marital home after infuriating
them with a heavy dose of husband bashing, anti-male talk, patriarchy,
and negative motivation. This is carefully planned and executed
by the Bethany House staff and volunteers. Simple tasks as cooking,
cleaning, laundry, taking care of children are explained to the
housewives as abusive and demeaning tasks forced upon them by their spouses.
Marital arguments are explained as serious verbal abuse. Occasional
pushing and showing are explained as serious physical abuse. Decision-making
is shown as emotional abuse. The staff and volunteers, through a
network of sources, identify emotional housewives. With a series
of pep talks, tests and evaluations, BHNV staffs make the wives
and husbands incompatible, infuriate the wife with propaganda, and
then exploit the wife's frustration and anger as retaliation against
the husband. The wife is given verbal and written instructions on
how to leave the house secretly for the BHNV shelter.
Bethany House system resources are geared to get the father charged
with an offence and to make the mother look like the victim and
the children ending up as helpless pawns in the abuse game manipulated by BHNV.
Women with almost no marital problems are declared abused and are
coached by the staff to go to court and get a protective order against
their husbands with the promise of long-term shelter, legal services, counseling at BHNV.
BHNV also uses scare tactics to get women to file a protective order.
This is a gross abuse of a system that was designed for real battered women.
Most of the staff and volunteers at BHNV have a jaundiced view of
marriage and men, and attach little importance to the role of fathers in children's lives.
A majority of these staff and volunteers are women who are themselves
from broken marriages and failed relationships, enraged with a bottomless pit of anger at men.
Women, staff and volunteers at the shelter use foul language and
spend a lot of time father bashing, husband bashing and hold group
sessions to initiate the same feelings to new residents.
Bethany House is a terrible place, not the environment where children should be. Not even women.
A lot of Bethany House activities are carefully doctored and monitored
and have to remain behind a "veil of secrecy."
The BHNV network with their legal services, sociologists, and psychiatrists
practice a self-censorship. It's just a lot of radical feminists
making biased judgements against fathers, husbands, and families.
BHNV has repeatedly lied to charities that they are a church and
religious organization. Indeed they are located within the Culmore
United Methodist Church complex. But all they do is rent space and
have no connection with the Church.
BHNV has misrepresented and repeatedly lied to the United Way of
the National Capitol Area regarding BHNV's position for several years.
In their United Way of the National Capitol Area CVC Code 8046 Charity
Application form 2002, which I was involved in, I and other volunteers
were told to outright lie and make it as family oriented as possible.
According to the wording in the charity form in verbatim, which I quote below.
(a) "BHNV family assistance program for battered spouses and their
children provides multiple interventions blended into a comprehensive
family development/family strengthening plan."
(b) "Outreach staff work with each family to examine and alter behaviors,
and to enhance each victim's capacity to exercise self-determination and autonomy."
(c) "Once stabilized, victims implement customized family strengthening
strategies, accessing services and advocating for clients to ensure
realization of each individual's"
I can vouch for the fact that none of the above statements presented
to United Way 2002 charity are anywhere near truth. Their so-called family assistance program:
(a) excludes children, fathers, husbands and indeed family interests.
And does exclude to a large part the self-determination and autonomy
of the housewife they supposedly "rescue." It in fact represents
BHNV's interests almost exclusively to the fullest extent possible.
(b) Outreach staff never work with families, neither do they make
any attempt to alter behavior as they claim. They secretly meet
with the wife and encourage her to pack up and leave with the children
for the shelter and file a protective order against the father.
This is almost always the rule — even if there was no abuse within
the family. Outreach staff never assesses issues presented by the
family. The father or any male member is never consulted in this
case. Indeed the father is by default the abuser of the mother.
(c) There is no family strengthening strategies for the victims
as they claim. By this time the poor housewife is converted into
a victim by BHNV with no recourse but to depend on BHNV for her
financial stability, the children are alienated from their father
by a protective order BHNV helped the housewife achieve. The father
is sued for child and spousal support with the legal help of BHNV.
Not only does BHNV impoverish a family by breaking them apart, but
legally and morally commits child abuse by removing children from
their home and putting them in a shelter. Away from their school,
friends, and other familiar activities.
I have spoken with several wives at BHNV who have deeply regretted
having contacted BHNV and acting on BHNV's advice. They have all
been told to outright lie and fabricate half-truths to distort.
They have all taken out protective orders against their husbands
in "the heat of the moment" at BHNV's suggestions and deeply regret
destroying their marriage, family, husband and their children's
future and "burning their boat" at any reconciliation much to their dismay.
I implore and beg your office to investigate and do something soon
to stop this senseless break up of families and needless trauma
to children. Please do something. The children of Fairfax County
do not deserve this kind of cruelty, This is happening right under
our very noses. Please do something now!
Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:30 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Anon:
I forwarded the entirety of your letter in an email to the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), a lawyer, a couple of journalists, and a friend who has been involved in a Bush task force on domestic violence.
Here is my brief request, asking that they look into what you have so courageously passed along to us.
Sincerely, Ray
==================================================
"Dear IWF:
I recall a few years back that Nancy Pfotenhauer (sp?) was appointed by Attorney General Ashcroft to an advisory position in the domestic violence industry, and I would like to request that you forward the entirety of this communication to her, if possible.
I was recently part of an intense discussion of the domestic violence industry over at Mensactivism.org, entitled "Domestic Violence Propaganda in CA." and after 92 postings the letter I have included below appeared. I thought you might find it interesting. About 5 years ago I wrote a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, regarding the corrupt conditions that exist in the domestic violence industry, and I asked that he please try to get better advice regarding domestic violence, among other things. It was after I sent him that letter that he appointed Nancy Pfotenhauer and another lady from IWF, whose name I forget to advisory positions on a domestic violence board. I'm sure he had many other good reasons besides my letter to do that. Sadly, it appears from the anonymous letter I am enclosing, that things are still very corrupt in that insidious industry. It would be really nice if Nancy Pfotenhauer, Mr. Ashcroft, or other appropriate people could look into some of the allegations made in this letter.
Sincerely, Ray"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 PM April 15th, 2004 EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've seen that letter before on several men's sites, so perhaps someone is just passing it on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:45 PM April 15th, 2004 EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen it before. But in general, whenever I meet someone from a women's shelter, a homeless shelter, a crisis pregnancy shelter, whatever, I ask them about what they're doing for men. Generally, the reaction is, "I've never thought about men."
It's amazing that half the population has become invisible, and a lot of "social service" types seem to think that babies are a product of spontaneous generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:43 AM May 2nd, 2004 EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to speak/email with anyone having information on Bethany House of Northern Virginia. Particularly the person with the letter One stop Divorce shop in Virginia. My wife went through something similar at Bethany House. Please contact me at wh892@YAHOO.COM
Ron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the fact that the letter was detail oriented. Well, as much as this person COULD be considering that they are trying to keep their job.
I applaud his/her strength of character.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:36 PM April 16th, 2004 EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am a female and have investigating men's rights because someone I care about was accused of domestic violence and currently has a PRO in VA --- and the case is under appeal. The woman obtaining the PRO was advised to file for one by a shelter in Springfield VA. She has also refused to allow him his posessions, etc --- this is all going to court and according to the attorney will set case law if he wins (including the lawsuits, not just the PRO appeal). I KNOW that the first step the shelters require is a RO even if it is not necessary (ie no violence) and feel that the overuse of them has damaged the cause against domestic violence (which I witnessed as a child). Any emotional support while we (yes, he and I) take this head on would be appreciated. If anyone is interested in following along - we are hapoy to oblige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon - Would you consider emailing me at tom@mensrights2004.com? I would very much appreciate it. I will gladly honor your anonymity. You could get an anon email from hotmail and keep yourself anonymous. There are some things I would like to talk with you about.
Even if you don't write please accept my hearty thanks to you for doing this. The evil that is being perpetrated by these people is beyond the imagination of most average folks. Standing up to it as you have done is to be applauded. Thank you.
Tom
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Tom.
I emailed you earlier today. Anonymous is not in my nature - and not necessary since I testified at the hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:17 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't waste time writing to WEAVE. Better to write to the school principal or to the parents of the victims of their hate propoganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, get some of the parents involved too, I totally agree. It would be nice to have a list of high schools they target.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, get some of the parents involved too, I totally agree. It would be nice to have a list of high schools they target."
--and then hand a copy of that list to SAFE4all, so that they can also visit those schools and give those students (and faculties) the balanced truth.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:56 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"It would appear that this group is promoting a very one-sided picture of domestic violence..."
The continuing systematic denial of heterosexual males as victims of domestic violence by the domestic violence industry revictimizes myself and all other male victims. We are further traumatized when we see abhorrent pseudo-scientific methodologies (used by domestic violence industry social scientists) to conjure up fallacious factoids and statistics that are then used to support inhuman domestic violence laws.
Law enforcement is trained by gender biased, feminists advocates to rationalize domestic violence incidents so they comply with the self-fulfilling prophecy that all men are batterers and all women are victims. Relevant evidence that women are batterers and men are victims is ignored. Thereby, numerous male victims and their children are cheated when violent females are excused and innocent men are arrested. Considering the inordinate amount of time the domestic violence industry has dedicated to addressing violent male partners, and the lack of time they have dedicated to confronting violent female partners, time at domestic violence task force conferences (and school training sessions) should more constructively be spent concentrating on what violent women can do to end their violence against men.
Years from now, future generations will know the whole truth about domestic violence. They will know how the domestic violence industry politicized the dynamics of domestic violence, then used it as a weapon to demonize men and destroy their lives. Through the sharpened vision of 20/20 hind sight they will justly despise the domestic violence industry of today for the behavior of the misandrist hate mongers who comprised it.
The good men of California and America may suffer for a long time under the cruel batterings of the feminist agenda’s pet programs such as “domestic violence,” but in the end the whole truth will be known, no matter how much the hate monger bigots running that industry restrict input concerning battered heterosexual males.
Ray
(click) Domestic Violence Laws Are Corrupt
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a good article related to the WEAVE group.
Protest snags school seminar on violence
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8584519p- 9512862c.html
It shows that a community group is condemming the information depicted in the cirriculum.
It calls the program "a typical example of a misuse of accurate information." And it hints that if changes aren't made, the district, already enmeshed in a legal dispute over recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary schools, could face additional challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the update on that. I attempted to send a message to the school superintendent, but my message seems unable to get through for some reason. My intention was simply to direct them to other information about DV and make sure they know that there are concerns about WEAVE's content from a variety of viewpoints, not just from folks like the Eagle Forum.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:25 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's like teaching math without numbers," said Robert Tabares, who has brought WEAVE into his law class at Florin High School for six years. Florin High is in the Elk Grove district.
Oh how true. Ignore facts, just spew stereotypes. So much for education!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent article. Amazing that they try to teach high school kids that being white means you have power, and being female means you are without power. And being white and male is considered a "root of violence." Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that Xamot is just one of of those people who like to get a rise out of others. It has made no real points at all, it just leaps on whatever sentence will allow it to abuse someone else. I was thinking for awhile that it was fun to play with, but it is boring me. It has a horrid command of the English language, switches topics more times than Carter has liver pills, and is in a severe need of a bar of Zest liberally applied to the inside of it's mouth.
Xemot has chosen this site for today, I am sure tomorrow it will chose some other site, and it will continue spreading like some vile bacterial infection in need of medical treatment. I suggest we just ignore it and hope it goes away. If it doesn't, then we still ignore it and it can waste it's time.
We have far better things to do than listen to this bitter little person try and emasculate us. I know that the men on this site are honerable, kind, decent-hearted men who do not deserve any of the insults xamot has piled on you. Do not let it's childish taunts pull you down to it's level. We have the final say on how we each react, and I for one am done reacting.
~The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wise counsel, TBQ...
It is always prudent to assess the quality of one's pool of adversaries, and to act (or not react) accordingly.
This particular troll is beneath consideration, though marginally interesting as an exhibit among its impotent species; as well for its lack of intellectual resourcefulness, not to mention 8th grade grammar skills.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
