|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:30 AM October 18th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear PBS -
I am deeply saddened that you are about to air a "story" about domestic violence peppered with non-truths and completely avoiding known facts.
Stating such blatant falsehoods, such as “One-third of mothers lose custody to abusive husbands.” does your station and the public a disservice - which ultimately will affect your funding. Please note that fathers are awarded custody of children in only 15% of cases. How then does this jive with your falsehood???!!!
Additionally, the program goes on to state that "children are most often in danger from the father". This is WRONG.
Women gain custody of children in 85% of the cases. It then follows, because they have custody, that the incidence of child abuse, including death and murder, occurs most frequently at the hands of mothers.
Please check your facts: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/c mreports.htm THIS IS FROM US GOVERNMENT WEBSITE!!!
Perpetrators of Maltreatment
More than 80 percent (83.9%) of victims were abused by at least one parent. Approximately two-fifths (40.8%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.8 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 16.9 percent were abused by both parents.13 Victims abused by nonparental perpetrators accounted for 13.4 percent of the total (figure 3-6).
Parental Status of Perpetrators
Three-quarters (78.2%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents (figure 4-2).5 Almost one-third (30.5%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.6 Nonparental perpetrators (e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff, other, legal guardian, etc.) were responsible for 17.7 percent of fatalities.
The message you are about to air is offensive, divisive, and blatantly misleading the public!!!
YOU MUST ASK YOURSELF - "WHAT IS MY ROLE IN THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE????"
This type of information paints a very damaging image of men and fathers.
Please DO NOT show this fictitious piece of work.
Showing this type of false information is the WORST type of "reporting" and is not journalism but biased political crap.
PLEASE CHECK THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FIGURES BEFORE AIRING THE PROGRAM!!!!
Very Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:43 AM October 18th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote to all the sources as well. We need to flood them with calls, letters, faxes and emails.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:24 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Guys - go to this site if you haven't already responded. Lets choked every communication device they have with email, voicemail, faxes, etc
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:53 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT?!? PBS airing false information, airing false statistics and siding with ultra left-wing feminists?!? That can't be!! (sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:22 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"A mountain out of a molehill."
If it is anything like the last "Breaking the Silence," aired on PBS, it is hardly what you say, but instead more Father bashing, gender feminist bigotry from PBS. All the previews indicate that. As far as your ad hominem attack on Matt, you are off base as usual. We make clear note of your enmity against Fathers and men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 10:15 AM October 23rd, 2005 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
As far as your ad hominem attack on Matt, you are off base as usual.
And I see you are completely wrong, as usual. Watching you guys try to argue is like watching Charlie Brown trying to beat Lucy at football - its just sad.
The NPR segment talked about VAWA, and for five minutes they interviewed various professionals law and law enforcement, who all used gender neutral terms. The only person who failed to do so was one woman interviewed at a shelter, who spoke two or three sentances about women who come into the shelter. Matt took this to mean that NPR was ignoring men, and ripped into them for doing so.
Contrast that to all but his latest post on the VAWA moving through the Senate judiciary committee, in which he blamed the whole thing on Joe Biden, and totally ignored the Republican sponsors Hatch and Specter. Pure, blatant hypocracy.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 07:02 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sent the RADAR article to my local PBS station verbatim. I received this reply:
Dear Mr. X:
Producer Dominique Lasseur and director Catherine Tatge have asked us to share their thoughts about the documentary with you.
“When we began this project over a year ago, our goal was to produce a documentary about domestic violence and children. We had no preconceived notions about the issue … no specific agenda to prove or disprove. The finished documentary is simply a result of where countless hours of extensive research and interviews took us. These are the real stories of real women who lost custody of their children when Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was used as scientific proof in their family court cases. These were the stories we found over and over again.
There have been a number of concerns raised regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and how it is addressed in the piece. We do not make the assertion that the phenomenon of alienation does not exist, simply that PAS is wrongly used as scientific proof to justify taking children away from a protective parent. We as filmmakers are in no position to determine the scientific validity of PAS. However, the fact remains that the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have not recognized PAS as legitimate science.
Some individuals have expressed concern that the documentary only features the stories of women as the victims of domestic violence. Research shows that “while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.” (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998). If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area. Nevertheless, we recognize that men are also victims and men are also sometimes victimized by family courts, but it is overwhelmingly women who are victims. In all cases, the children are the victims.
These are difficult and controversial issues that stir human emotions. Nothing can galvanize one’s passion like the welfare of a child. We understand certain individuals will never be completely satisfied with the information presented in the documentary. All we can do is offer, in the most open and transparent manner, the reasoning and research that went into this program.”
We appreciate your interest in PBS programming and hope that you will continue to enjoy and support your local PBS member station.
Sincerely,
PBS Viewer Services
To which I replied:
Dear PBS Viewer Services,
Thank you for your reply. May I count on PBS to air one more documentary with equal amounts of extensive research and interviews that presents a completely opposite - and equally valid - view? Or, am I to take it that Dominique Lasseur and Catherine Tatge's program has produced the final word on this "controversial issue"? If your answer is NO, then my answer will be NO PLEDGE.
Sincerely,
Mr. X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Give them the survey-based data, which is not based on "crime."
According to the Violence Against Women Survey, co-sponsored by the Department of Justice and the Center for Disease Control, “Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States” (i.e., at least 36 percent of the victims are men).
www.ncjrs.org/ txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt.
California State University maintains an online bibliography of over 174 studies showing “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”
www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
One of the studies is the most comprehensive analysis of existing research on the topic ever published (Archer, Psychological Bulletin, 11/00), which found that 38 percent of injured victims are men and that self-defense does not explain the female violence.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:35 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Is Damning.
Clearly - children are better off, SAFER, with their fathers.
Traditionally, the provider and protector of the children.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/c m03/figure4_2.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:27 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I am the only one to see this or am I off base here??
The article above says:
"while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.” (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998). If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area.
It looks to me that they are contradicting themselves.
If they had one man and five women that had been victims, it would be the same as saying women are 5 times more likely than man to be victimized...
This is the bottom range of their own statistic. The would not have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area, they would have stated it within their own statistic. Instead their choice was to disregard their own data and grossly understate it ???
Am I crazy or what??
Looks like simple math??
regards
morpheus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:24 AM October 20th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Am I crazy or what??
Looks like simple math??
Nope. Marxist-Feminist do not use normal math. They use Marxist math, or pop math.
That means that 1+1 != 2
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 05:42 AM October 21st, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Research shows that “while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.” (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998)
Here's this report that they're supposedly quoting:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vi.txt
The statement "women are five to eight times more likely..." does not appear anywhere in this report.
This report cites no actual research, it merely contains "estimates" mostly from the methodologically discredited National Crime Vicitimzation Survey, which:
1. does not contain any questions about violence by intimate partners. (hence its sample of victims in this category is unscientific and unrepresntative).
2. has been conceded by its authors as incapable of detecting incidents of domestic violence reliably.
3. a study by the Justice Department of known victims of domestic violence (based on police records) who were also part of the National Crime Victimization Survey sample has found that nearly 80% of domestic violence victims (who reported their victimization to the police) did not report their victimization to the survey's interviewers -- hence the survey is unable to detect the vast majority of domestic violence incidents.
4. does not distuinguish between misdemeanors and felonies, equating a woman who was grabbed or fondled with a man who was stabbed or shot.
This is not "research," and the statistics are not an actual account of an intimate partner violence measurement, nor does the report claim that they are.
"However, the fact remains that the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have not recognized PAS as legitimate science."
Well, the fact also remains that the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have not recognized the research in the PBS report "Breaking the Silence, Children's Stories" as legitimate science. So I guess that invalidates this entire report...
The fact also remains is that neither the APA nor the AMA has issued an official statement on the scientific legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the PAS research, or any research for that matter, hence the statement "...have not recognized PAS as legitimate science" is nothing more than deceptive propaganda.
By the way, mental disorders are defined and recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Medical Association has any say or authority in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:24 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
So they spent a year researching this, and their best statistic is roughly seven and a half years old?!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 06:06 AM October 19th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
When will you already realize that "writing letters" is useless when the person/organization you're addressing is a biased, feminist, agenda-driven propagandist? You will NOT change anything by doing that, only give them opportunity to be better prepared for your arguments when the discussion moves to the public realm. This is war, and you won't win it by being right, rational or nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:33 AM October 19th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
'Pathetic' is a bit harsh; at least they're doing something. But basically you're right. Writing letters and emails will not really change anything because they're too easy for those on the receiving end to ignore. It is physical presence that is needed. Crowds, shouting slogans, shaking their fists angrily. This is what MRAs need to get to grips with, and now, not in another five years time. It should have been ten or fifteen years ago already! How bad do things have to get?
Isn't there already some kind of annual MRA convention somewhere? That would be the place to start. Next year's primary focus should be 'Getting Physical'. The MR movement cannot stay at the letter-writing stage any longer. It needs to change. Who will change it?
It's no good attacking MRAs for doing too little. That's a knee-jerk reaction born out of one's own frustration. I look at the people in the office around me and wonder how I would ever get any of them to go on a march. Ack! But maybe I'm asking the wrong question. It's how to get those who are already interested in the issues to progress to physical activity that matters at this stage. The rest will follow in time. Personally I think most MRAs are too scared to - I know I am. So, how does one overcome that? By stength of numbers, I guess. By not being alone. I think it is an ugly mechanism we are trapped in. We will have to escape it, though. If we don't... well, what future will there be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:58 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
The men's conference in DC, we got together and talked about all sorts of activism. How about making the focus "getting to the damn conference in the first place?"
We need to stop being afraid to make waves. This is NOT violence, but physical presence, such as F4J has been doing. We had only 20 or so people outside the capital bldg before our conference.
There are thousands of us-where was everyone?
We are all to scared to come out behind our computers. But what if each person here went to the local courthouse and found one person fighting for their kids, or against false allegations, and supported that person. Then the two of you found two more. etc. Before long you have a bonafide group. What if that group sat in the courthouse for certain cases, or protested tv stations, or female only dv shelters?
We need that grass roots effort, or we go nowhere.
Men make up nearly 50% of the population, then there are us women who support you. We should be able to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
>>"Men make up nearly 50% of the population,"
True.
But unfortunately, 50% of the male population are wussie-poopies.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 09:23 AM October 19th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
then who are you? General Electric or Admiral Refrigerator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:01 AM October 19th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily.
While its true that these are agenda-driven propogandistic organizations, the point is that we are responding...not only to them but to US!
WE need to write letters to TEACH EACH OTHER, to spread our message and to build mindshare.
So, if you are reading sisters....FEAR US!!
We are going to TAKE IT BACK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:16 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, take it back. But please share it.
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe.
But only with DESERVING women who believe in ACTUAL equality, Jinx.
You're probably one of those women.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:16 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
No. We tried that allready, it failed. We will not make the same mistake twice. Women's rights will dissappear for another 2000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 03:17 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoo, troll. Shoo.
Icky old troll. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:46 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
>>"Women's rights will dissapear for another 2000 years"
I wish you trolls would disappear for 2000 years.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:17 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking the Silence, Children's Stories
It appears this show is only airing on HDTV in the Los Angeles area, which is still bad enough considering that's were the influential, big money audience is. I suspect the D.V. industry will be watching with all the taxpayer's billions they get from VAWA.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohold:
I did get preliminary word through the grapevine that it was pulled from some stations, but details are still sketchy. I suspect we should soon hear more details concerning that from HisSide, RADAR, MND, et. al.
Perhaps if we listen hard enough we might even hear NOW squealing.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:14 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
The National Organization for Women has today posted an "Action Alert" urging its members to support PBS' airing of the anti-father faux-documentary "Breaking the Silence."
N.O.W. also says it's aware that PBS is being "flooded" with e-mails from "bogus father's rights groups..." (excerpt below--)
-----
Must See TV on PBS Tonight
On Thursday October 20 at 10pm EST, PBS will be airing a documentary titled "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," depicting a national family court scandal that is putting children into the hands of a physically or sexually abusive parent.
Nationwide, supporters of battered mothers in custody challenges have been demonstrating at family courthouses and other locations in support of the documentary and in protest of the court scandal.
It is important that we make sure that all local public television stations air the show and that we tune in for this program to show our support for PBS and their commitment to showing this documentary.
Your emails are especially important, as we know that PBS is being flooded with emails from bogus "fathers' rights" activists opposing the airing of the film. You may use our suggested comments or enter your own.
Full N.O.W. link at --
ttp://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00206.h tml
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:24 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I used to be so naive. Once upon a time, I thought that all you would have to do is publicise the endless statistics from US government sources that show this programme to be what it is: feminist dogma and falsehoods in a programme made by 2 feminists.
You would think that all someone has to do is say, "Here - look at the ACTUAL figures and evidence which show overwhelmingly that almost the exact opposite is true from what you are airing". This would seem so straightforward, and all rational folk would say "Yes - you're right - this programme is unbelievably biased and actually promoting a complete falsehood".
No-one, and I mean no-one even listens to the facts when it involves feminism. America is so PC that it's truly scary.
For N.O.W. to have written this press release means that they and their supporters are so deluded that it's frightening.
What do you have to do to let these people understand that every actual official figure contradicts their position.
Truly mindblowing.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:27 AM October 21st, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but some feminists sincerely believe that ideas like 'facts' and 'truth' are things evil patriarchal men invented so as to oppress lovely, virtuous, angelic women. They also believe that women have a 'different way of knowing' which relies entirely on their internal emotional state rather than any engagement with, or attempt to understand, the external world. That actually sounds scarily like the definition of psychosis, which is when somebody completely loses touch with reality. To feminists it is a virtue. They have told so many lies that even they don't know what is true and what isn't anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:21 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like NCFMLA is taking it to the streets of Los Angeles. PBS IS BIASED AGAINST DADS - Scroll down the page to the 2nd photo.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 12:46 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I get a reply from some entity like PBS or my so-called representatives in Congress they always quote so bogus statistics about how women are much more abused in relation to men are abused.
And they never give a verifiable source for their statistics. One of my Congressional Senators sent me a blowoff letter about VAWA stating that male DV victims only comprise a paltry 15% of DV victims!
It is the same story with PBS. They sent me a reply with obviously bogus statistics in favor of the female argument.
The problem with this is that judges, juries, lawmakers and others are obviously getting these bogus, unverifiable misandric statistics too.
Just where besides NOW are they coming from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:04 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should send folks like PBS the REAL statistics. Hey if they can send us theirs then there's no reason we can't send them ours.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:21 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
("Just where besides NOW are they coming from?")
I think the media just makes up alot of it's data as to be P.C.
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:31 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Death to trolls who try to sabotoge MRAs by making stupid comments so feminists can make more straw-man attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 07:17 PM October 18th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, mens rights, liberties and freedoms seemed to have died some time ago putting all men regardless of race etc. in no higher than second class citizens of a feminist dominated state.
Okay, I will not feed the troll anymore! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 PM October 19th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
A troll is a troll, of course of course and no one can talk to a troll of course unless of course the troll of course...
(Mr. Ed parity, in case anyone is wondering.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 04:43 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoo, troll. Shoo.
Icky old troll. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:14 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me,
I'm kind of new to this site and I've been reading around a bit. I'd just like to know what "Shoo, troll. Shoo. Icky old troll. Yuck." means.
-Potential men's rights activist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 03:31 PM October 21st, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
In case Fidelbogen's response was not sufficient, I'll fill in the corners.
We have a recurring cyclical infestation here, as you may have noticed. The thing about trolls, though, is that as a rule what they want is PERSONALIZED ATTENTION.
So, if a group has a single, simple, ear-flicking response, to which they all resort when necessary, it usually takes ALLLLLL THE FUN out of it for the troll. And thus decreases the incidence.
For the record, however, I haven't brought this up as such with the regulars here until now (too busy, not needed enough), so please do not assume that I'm talking about an already established policy here.
It is, however, a policy I have seen used to very good effect elsewhere in the past, and I recommend it highly.
Basically, whoever is the first to see the troll and be motivated to respond posts:
Shoo, troll. Shoo.
Icky old troll. Yuck.
And NOBODY ELSE RESPONDS.
Because what the troll WANTS is to get you to waste your valuable time and energy on responding to it. So when you let the troll get to you, by allowing it to provoke you into throwing put-downs and so forth back at it, THE TROLL WINS. That IS the victory condition for the troll; THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED TROLLING; BECAUSE YOU TOOK THE BAIT, HOOK, LINE, POLE, FISHERMAN, BOAT.
You let the troll CATCH you when you do that.
However, when everybody agrees to the single, simple ear-flicking response strategy, it's effectively stealing the bait right off the hook and then gleefully swimming away while the troll fumes in impotence.
This, apart from ignoring them completely, is pretty much the only reliable means of beating them, under the kind of conditions we have here, that I have encountered to date.
So, whaddya say, folks? Is it a deal?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:53 PM October 22nd, 2005 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I always get into deep trouble when I argue that trolls have a certain utility.
They often articulate the lowest-common-denominator of your opposition. (Abundant examples of rabid foaming-at-the-mouth rad feminists come to mind.... Or, perhaps the HugoBoys and Joe Bidens in N.O.W.'s fellow-travelling circus.) Trolls can reaffirm why you're an MRA in the first place.
Trolls reveal your membership's vulnerabilities, especially the tendency to drift out of focus and take up "personal" conflicts with trolling personalities. (i.e. - a lot of MRA's like to fight, and it doesn't take much in the way of bait to get a rise from them.) But fighting is also a virtue, when it's strategically focused.
Trolls are amusing. With all the dire common news about feminism's continuing successes, whether VAWA 2005, PBS' complicity in misandry with the latest bile of "Breaking the Silence," or just the average daily carnage in FemAmerica's family court system...
trolls provide needed comic relief.
They are easy to extinguish, not especially formidable, and might be seen as useful idiots for refining MRA's skills and tactics.
I always think about those carnival bee-bee gun duck shooting games when a really good troll appears.
If feminism has not yet created the New Man Who Cannot Shoot, then a good troll is a fun game.
I expect that the next VAWA bill 2010 will include a provision to ban all Men's Right's websites as "violence against women."
It's a small stretch legally to go from a false accusation of DV to a cyber-accusation of assault.
Cyber-rape is soon to be contested in the courts.... No penetration is required to be convicted... just an erect "mind" ....
Yes, mind-f@#king will be a crime sooner than you think!
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Beginning this coming Thursday, PBS stations around the country are planning to air a film entitled "Breaking the Silence, Children's Stories". This film denigrates divorcing fathers with it's bald-faced assertion that in "75% of cases in which fathers contest custody, fathers have history of being batterers".