Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)
November 6th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Two major online publications--Salon.com and Slate.com--recently did articles about the men's and fathers movement. The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the movement, and also quote and misquote me. This series of posts will comment on the articles and also straighten out certain misrepresentations.
Kathryn Joyce of Slate.com is a feminist writer who has written much about what she calls the "Christian patriarchy" movement. She told me she was doing a story about George Sodini, who she (accurately) describes as "the Pittsburgh man who opened fire on a gym full of exercising women this August, killing three and leaving behind an online diatribe journaling his sense of rejection by millions of desirable women."
I knew from the beginning that Joyce would try to somehow wrap Sodini around the men's and fathers' movement, and I was very hesitant to be interviewed. I consented, for two reasons:
1) I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together.
2) I hoped that maybe I could get her to understand the absurdity of her premise, and to understand that our movement is based on legitimate grievances.
No good deed goes unpunished. Joyce writes:
Sodini’s diary was republished widely, including on the website of a popular men’s rights blogger, “Angry Harry,” who added his assessment of the case. “MRAs should also take note of the fact that there are probably many millions of men across the western world who feel similar in many ways, and one can expect to see much more destruction emanating from them in the future,” he wrote. “One of the main reasons that I decided to post this diary on this website was because the western world must wake up to the fact that it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it.” In a phone interview, Angry Harry said, “Of course there will be more Sodinis—there will be many more,” likening him to Marc Lépine, a Canadian man who killed or wounded 28, claiming feminists had ruined his life...Perhaps, Angry Harry mused, that as the ranks of online MRAs grow, “the threat” of their violence “may be enough” to bring about the changes they desire.
Glenn Sacks dismissed Angry Harry as an “idiot” without real power in the movement and yet he cautiously defends him. “I want to be careful in wording this,” he says, “but the cataclysmic things I’m seeing done to men, it’s always my fear that one of these guys is going to do something terrible. I don’t want to say that like I condone it or that it’s OK, but it’s just the reality.”
I specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was determined to jam it in there anyway.
What I did say was that when I do hear of a drastic action--a man on a bridge threatening to jump, the guy here in LA who tried to commit suicide by parking his car on a train track, etc.--my first thought is that it might be a guy dealing with a painful family law issue or injustice.
As for Angry Harry, I dismissed Harry's comments about Sodini--as those comments were related to me by Joyce--as idiotic.
Judy Berman of Salon.com, writing about Joyce's article, writes:
It's certainly chilling to hear Sacks empathize (albeit ambivalently) with men like George Sodini, the deeply misogynist Pittsburgh gym shooter...
Again, this is ludicrous--I never said anything remotely sympathetic to Sodini and I made that abundantly clear to Joyce.
Joyce writes:
The movement seems eager to supply more martyrs. After Sacks wrote about a San Diego father who shot himself on the city’s courthouse steps over late child-support payments, numerous men wrote Sacks, telling him, “They’re taking everything from me, and I want to go out in a big way, and if I do, will you write about me?”
This isn't the movement--it's desperate individual fathers who've been driven to the brink by a cruel, inhumane family law system. That's why since 2002 I've had a policy of not writing about fathers who commit suicide--I don't want to encourage copycats.
The case she refers to was the Derrick Miller case, about which I wrote a column for the San Diego Union-Tribune. The case wasn't exactly "over late child-support payments"--the father, a longtime Navy veteran, was being assessed 70 or 80% of his income in child support.
Joyce quotes RADAR’s Mark Rosenthal:
“In any movement, there is going to be a reasonable voice and people who are so hurt, who are so injured by the injustices, that they can’t afford to step back and try to take their emotions under control. But no movement is going to get anywhere without extremists.”
The part about the need for extremists is a silly thing to say, but Rosenthal is usually reasonable and I frankly doubt he's being quoted correctly. If Mark would like to clarify this on my site, he's welcome to do so.
[Late note: Rosenthal has contacted me and says that he was indeed misquoted in the reference to "extremists." He explains his side here.--GS]
The two articles are Kathryn Joyce's "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective (Slate.com, 11/5/09) and Judy Berman's "Men's rights" groups go mainstream--Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability (Salon.com, 11/5/09). I'll be posting about them in a few parts, and clearing up more misrepresentations, as well as commenting on Joyce's and Berman's views.
"));
19 queries. 0.433 seconds.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together.
Yea right. You can't reason with someone that's unreasonable, and you can't work with someone who actively to sabotage your goals. The vast majority of the modern feminist movement wants more female privileges which inevitably come at the expense of men. Mra's want equal rights and responsibilities.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Thanks Glenn,
I encourage you to contact the editors directly, by phone, and ask for a prominent rebuttal.
Without a rebuttal we'll see there quotes used against you by all the bloggers from here on out.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
And if they deny you that rebuttal, they should explain why, and you should document that here, for us and for google.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Silly? It's true.
It's true because "extremists" will ALWAYS exist. Were the extremists in the MRA to magically disappear, then the new extremists would be those seeking equality while the mainstream members those saying "well we'll give feminists half of what they want".
November 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Kathryn Joyce is calling MRA's anti feminist? Is it even coceivable that feminists are anti men? Ms. pot meet Ms. kettle..
November 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
" 1) I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together."
Feminists understand EXACTLY what fatherhood activists are about. they dont care.. just like MEN.. they crave POWER & MONEY. thats how they fool everyone. they say the WANT equality, but they just want the same crap men have.
" 2) I hoped that maybe I could get her to understand the absurdity of her premise, and to understand that our movement is based on legitimate grievances."
They also understand how absurd they are, but as long as they repeat the stupidity long, loud and hard, it doesnt matter.. the absurdity is for the uninitiated, they know the truth.. the point is to hide the truth until they get what they want, which is.... MONEY, POWER, CONTROL.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Deception is their only real tool. The truth would bring their "crusade for equality" to an end.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Mr. Robert Franklin:
I stand by you and support you in all that you stand for and within all your lawful undertakings in our cumulative plight for truth, justice and equality for all. The truth always comes out and will prevail. The attack on you is a natural consequential reaction to the work that you do! Believe it or not, it's a good sign.
"To ignore the facts does not change the facts. - D.M."
Respectfully,
Attila L. Vinczer
www.CandaCourtWatch.com - Spokesperson
Premier Place - Founder
Glenn Sacks and Fathers & Families - Proud supporter
November 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The most destructive aspects of the new gender feminist "break the patriarchy" movement is that they have almost succeeded in taking away all mens social networks.
Any social scientist that is not a "deviant with an agenda"..will tell you that if you take away mens social networks such as the elks clubs, moose clubs, bowling leagues ect,ect, you invariably manufacture more anti-social behaviors. Anti-social behaviors generally manifest into criminal behaviors.
Welcome to yer matriarchy where children are put on drugs at 5 years old...usually against their fathers wishes.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Mr. Glenn Sacks:
Mr. Robert Franklin:
I stand by you and support you in all that you stand for and within all your lawful undertakings in our cumulative plight for truth, justice and equality for all. The truth always comes out and will prevail. The attack on you is a natural consequential reaction to the work that you do! Believe it or not, it's a good sign.
"To ignore the facts does not change the facts. - D.M."
Respectfully,
Attila L. Vinczer
www.CandaCourtWatch.com - Spokesperson
Premier Place - Founder
Glenn Sacks and Fathers & Families - Proud supporter
P.S. Sorry Glenn, your name got clipped in the process of cut and paste.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Let this be a lesson to all of us to realize that there is no honor to feminist there is to be no trust as they say in war all if fair we just got to remember that
November 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Man, that was a serious setup. Just the names of the articles themselves are slams by themselves. Who, other than "lunatic", self-serving feminists, would ever consider the the totality of people involved in monitoring any human rights (in this case "men's rights") a "lunatic frings".
Just remember Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
The wacky feminists are starting to label us and laugh at us, before they mostly just ignored us. It's a step up. It shows our progress. They want desperately not to enter the "fight" us stage, cause that would require actual debate in the public sphere. Their pseudoscience and pseudoscholarship can't weather that. Things are looking up.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Glenn,
Understand that while there is ONE man that is taking extreme steps - whether out of desperation or mental illness, it will all be your fault as a man and as a man that advocates humanly compassion towards men. Or at least that is how things will be made to look in the feminist literature.
When there is no reasonable way to dismiss you, they will resort to equating you to violent nutjobs AND calling you one as well. I am sure you are already aware of this. So I say congratulations, you have them bobbing and weaving in attempts to justify their ideology. Please ignore what they say.
In defense of Angry Harry, he never called Sodini a men's rights activist, much less father's rights activist. The leap from Sodini (who has nothing in his background in regards to MRM or FRM) to men's rights activism is a great one, but apparently a necessary one for folks at Salon.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
And it's a war we cannot lose, for our sons and grandsons.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Glenn,
Thank you for trying, but a quick glance at the 2 articles in Slate and Salon reveal that you are not dealing with rational beings. Both of these articles reek of hatred of men in general and hatred of fathers in particular. They are obvious attempts to whip their flock of true believers into a frenzy and give them something to focus their negative energy on. I am feeling nauseous and in need of a shower just from reading their garbage, I can't imagine sitting down to talk with someone like this.
For example, it's kinda hard to take someone serious who makes the luidicrous claim that "divorcing parents are usually able to work out custody agreements on their own. Only 15 percent of cases go to court, and, of those, half involve domestic abuse." And this one really cracked me up: "Genia Shockome, a woman who spent 30 days in jail and whose husband was awarded full custody of their children, despite the fact that his abuse had left her with post-traumatic stress disorder." Obviously the author believes that any man who dares to disagree with his former spouse is simply being abusive and should be locked up.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Unfortunately, as you found out Glenn, talking to die hard feminist journalists about ANYTHING will always come back to haunt you. It's like that commercial where a person is telling the other about all these great (or horrific) things and somewhere in the middle they say they saved $$ on car insurance. After they stop talking, the person listening ignores all the REALLY important things they said except that they saved $$ on car insurance. Any little crumb these low-lifes find to twist things their way, they'll find.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I guess it's true what Lenin said
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth!"
That is the truth behind the modern Feminist movement, say something, no matter how false or misleading, repeat it loudly and often and eventually it will be taken as gospel.
I think you can take this as a lesson learned Glenn, should the opportunity arise to let them quote you again, maybe you should decline.
"fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
November 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
wow they are scared we are getting into realms of porrly written propoganda now ........... keep up the good work guys its showing that we are doing something right .... also i wanted to ask we have a thing in scotland and its worldwide called movemeber its for raising awareness for prostate cancer http://www.movember.com/
November 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The feminist writers are not aware of the number of men who share the same frustrations that are exposed by the men's groups just because they only see a fraction of men that are members of these groups they believe the movement is constrained in a small percentage of men for them to write theses articles shows an importance on their part that they cannot deny they even suggest a "Movement" before they would simply acknowledge one group or another
Having some negative exposure in the main stream media is not going to deter the momentum of the men's movement it will give it more fuel and most of all when men notice the publicity around the mens movement and when they see that there is organisations that are fighting for mens rights more will join because for years there as been a growing culture of misandry that as been perpetuated by the media where men are pictured like buffoons and books with men as the aggressors.
Feminist like the writers in this articles have contributed enormously to awake the sleeping giant take for instance the Shriver report the feminist were rejoicing due to the fact that women represented 50 % of the workforce and in fact its because men lost more jobs due to the man-cession they have no respect for the issues that are affecting men.
I think its funny when I saw the line that said "With that in mind, do we go to war, or do we try and hear MRAs out?" we all know feminist never attempted to negotiate or tried to listen to MRA group in the past they didn't even try to listen to any man unless he would agree entirely with their views and to say "do we go to war" implies that what was accomplish
by feminist in the past was trough negotiation and mutual consent is ludicrous that explains why it was called "battles of the sexes" and men lost a great deal now things are different men are voicing their concerns about the equality in health care, education men will accept no more only the crumbs left after all the needs from minority groups have taken their share
What we see appearing in the media is an indication of the progress of the face of the mens movement first they have ignored us then the tried to laugh hoping we would go away now they accept the fact that we are here to stay for by by their own admission
they have stated that they "either do we go to war, or do we try and hear MRAs out"
Women believe mens groups and men in general are separate entities that is what they believed at some point when the women liberation started the reality the honest issues that feminist were fighting for did represent a vast number of women and the men movement is not different we just need more publicity and it looks like feminist writers are coming out in droves to help us we should send them (Thank you) notes.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This exact same thing happened with Linux. I know it's not the same thing but the similarities are striking for a geek like me. The next step will be indeed a "fight". Hopefully a debate and not violence. After that it's mostly inertia.
Keep up the good work.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Most, if not all, feminist writers know exactly who we are and what we are about. That is what really scares them. If Joyce and Berman had a better way to attack us they would have. It should come as no surprise that underhanded smears are they only way they have of countering our arguements.
The MRM is effectivly triangulating the WRM. Feminists have been fighting with social conservatives for so long that it is the only thing they know how to do. In spite of all the bellyaching about fairness and equality, it is the last thing feminists want when it comes to the things we are advocating for.
There are many women who have no intention of ever accepting men as equals when it comes to parental rights and economic privlidges. Like Glenn, I still hold out hope that feminists will start supporting us but I don't think we should be waiting for them. If we lead, others will follow. As for women who feel that men only exist as economic mules and sperm donors their time if over.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Nice trick, lump Glenn Sacks with a psychotic like Sodini. Glenn, you should get your wife to file a libel suit against these people just as a matter of principle.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I was watching FoxNews and CNN last night, and they were tripping over one other to bring on psychologist after psychologies to explain away the alleged actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Each expert tried to find excuse after excuse for these actions. I find it interesting though then the perpetrator is plain-white-male that the left instead comes in to decry the acts. Sad really. Apparently they think that minorities are so weak-minded that perhaps they need special rules while the dreaded white-male must be so privileged that he doesn't know what hardship is.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
"Just remember Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Yea, I remember Ghandi alright; especially the part about him being shot and killed - a nice way to win, indeed...
November 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
GLENN!!! This is wonderful stuff!!! I need to congratulate YOU Glenn Sacks for being the voice of reason, of moderation, and a catalyst for articles like these two. They represent true progress my friend. They represent the place where change can and is happening. I know they have tried to demonize you a bit, but they failed, and the attempts themselves show that you are now on the radar for making and causing TRUE change. I am so proud of you. I'm proud of you for being the voice of respectability, balance, and thoughtful moderation in an arena where hate and blame are so often the strategies used to try to evoke what you have done effectively. Bravo.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
This is a very good sign. People are taking notice of the men's rights movement. I remember when I voices were not loud enough that people even bothered to speak against us.
The reason why our movement is gaining ground is that its a broad based movement that is working to solve problems that affect both men and women. Its not just father's who are affected by unequal custody - its children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.
Half of all families are affected by divorce. Those effects ripple though society and touch everyone. We will continue to grow - but we must keep working.
Go on those sites - register with them and comment.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Wulfie: Yea, I remember Ghandi alright; especially the part about him being shot and killed - a nice way to win, indeed...
First, his name is spelled Gandhi. His full name is Mohandas Karmchand Gandhi -- the word "Mahatma" is an honorific, meaning "Great Soul".
Second, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a religious extremist on January 30, 1948 --- after his long campaign of non-violence culminated in Indian independence on August 15, 1947.
Third, many people do not know that Gandhi was a lawyer. He knew when to use and follow the law, and he knew when to break unjust laws. His means were non-violent civil disobedience, and his ends were the pursuit of national independence of India from the British empire.
Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."
A good idea, indeed. Humbling words from a man who kicked the British out of India.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Any time someone attributes some of the hateful radical feminst quotes (e.g., "all men are rapists") to "feminists," hordes of feminists come out of the woodwork to complain that such views don't represent mainstream feminism.
But somehow it's different where men's rights are concerned, right? And how terribly dishonest -- not to mention libelous -- of these authors to try to disparage Glenn Sacks by linking him with a murderous psychopath.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
This is rich. Look at the cherry-pickers, making accusations of cherry-picking then doing it themselves:
highlighting "15%" here...
"But do any of their arguments hold up? Many of the men for whom Sacks advocates are involved in extreme cases, says Joanie Dawson, a writer and domestic-violence advocate who has covered the fathers’ rights movement. The great majority of custody cases, in which shared parenting is a legitimate option, are settled or resolved privately. But of the 15 percent that go to family court—the cases that fathers’ rights groups target—at least half include alleged domestic abuse."
but hiding the 8% here...
"All in all, advocates say that cherry-picked studies from researchers like Straus, touted by the MRAs, amount to what Edward Gondolf, director of research for the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute, calls“bad science.” Statistics suggesting gender parity in abuse are taken out of necessary context, they say, ignoring distinctions between the equally divided “common couple violence” and the sort of escalated, continuing violence known as battery—which is 85 percent male-perpetrated—as well as the disparate injuries inflicted by men and women."
... according to Dutton and the Stark/Dutton debate articles recently posted, actual "battery" is only 8% of domestic violence, with the rest being of a different (often female-perpetrated) variety.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Mike M. wrote:
“What we see appearing in the media is an indication of the progress of the face of the men’s movement first they have ignored us then the tried to laugh hoping we would go away now they accept the fact that we are here to stay for by their own admission they have stated that they "either do we go to war, or do we try and hear MRAs out"
Women believe men’s groups and men in general are separate entities that is what they believed at some point when the women liberation started the reality the honest issues that feminist were fighting for did represent a vast number of women and the men movement is not different we just need more publicity and it looks like feminist writers are coming out in droves to help us we should send them (Thank you) notes.”
Well said, Mike
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
Thanks for all that you do, Glenn!
Alliston Bat Girl
Fathers 4 Justice Canada
November 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Glenn, please write a rebuttal to Double X and Slate.com. They are usually pretty good about printing rebuttals. Word it carefully. The urgent tone of those articles indicates that the movement is effective enough to cause changes.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
# Pierce Harlan Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Nice trick, lump Glenn Sacks with a psychotic like Sodini. Glenn, you should get your wife to file a libel suit against these people just as a matter of principle.
Too true and funny! I'm sure it would be team work.
John Boy Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Most, if not all, feminist writers know exactly who we are and what we are about. That is what really scares them. If Joyce and Berman had a better way to attack us they would have. It should come as no surprise that underhanded smears are they only way they have of countering our arguements.
The MRM is effectivly triangulating the WRM. Feminists have been fighting with social conservatives for so long that it is the only thing they know how to do.
From the article-
MRAs are beginning to find a place under conservatism's big, reactionary tent.
You know what would hurt their effort even more is if some of the louder screamers against liberalism here would take from Glenn's example and welcome "liberal democrats" instead.
The hugely male issue of worker' rights, workplace standards, right to unionize, etc. isn't something you will get more than lip service about from a republican in power. For one thing.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I knew from the beginning that Joyce would try to somehow wrap Sodini around the men's and fathers' movement, and I was very hesitant to be interviewed. I consented, for two reasons:
1) I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together.
2) I hoped that maybe I could get her to understand the absurdity of her premise, and to understand that our movement is based on legitimate grievances.
You should have known better Robert...
November 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I am surprised that Salon and Double X didn't write that the mens movement is just seeking eternal victim status for men...
November 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
A Pict Song
Rome never looks where she treads,
Always her heavy hooves fall
On our stomachs, our hearts or our heads;
And Rome never heeds when we bawl.
Her sentries pass on – that is all,
And we gather behind them in hordes,
And plot to reconquer the Wall,
With only our tongues for our swords.
We are the Little Folk – we!
Too little to love or to hate.
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can drag down the Great!
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot in the root!
We are the germ in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!
Mistletoe killing an oak –
Rats gnawing cables in two –
Moths making holes in a cloak –
How they must love what they do!
Yes – and we Little Folk too,
We are as busy as they –
Working our works out of view –
Watch, and you'll see it some day!
No indeed! We are not strong,
But we know Peoples that are.
Yes, and we'll guide them along,
To smash and destroy you in War!
We shall be slaves just the same?
Yes, we have always been slaves,
But you – you will die of the shame,
And then we shall dance on your graves!
We are the Little Folk – we!
Too little to love or to hate.
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can drag down the Great!
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot in the root!
We are the germ in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!
– Rudyard Kipling
November 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
The name Vanguard seems more appropriate to the discussion that takes place here than Extremists.
We have the moral high ground and the truth of the matter is coming out.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
November 6th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
@Glenn
I SPECIFICALLY told Kathryn Joyce that George Sodini would probably NOT have been so murderous had he been 'aware' of the men's movement - and become part of it - because he would NOT have felt so isolated and alone, and because he would have made online friends with whom he could have vented his anger.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Pankaj:"Understand that while there is ONE man that is taking extreme steps - whether out of desperation or mental illness, it will all be your fault as a man and as a man that advocates humanly compassion towards men. Or at least that is how things will be made to look in the feminist literature."
I think the more interesting and encouraging thing is that more and more of us appear to not really care how feminists present their arguments. There's so much literature bursting onto the scene that one can completely circumvent the old feminist stranglehold over traditional media, and no longer even notice them. The only time I see feminist "argument' now is when a man brings it up. They could be shouting their heads off in their corner of the web, but who's really listening?
November 6th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@Glenn
However, with regard to Darren Mack, I stated that, Yes, men's increasing awareness of the situation in the divorce courts (as a result of the men's movement's activities) and, hence, their increasing anger towards what was going on in the family courts, were BOTH bound to make men more likely to become much more aggressive and violent in the future.
And I still maintain this position, because we cannot escape the fact that our activities are making many men angry.
(If you tell black people that whites are discriminating against them, then many black people will become more angry towards whites - and there is no escaping this.)
Sodini, however, was isolated and depressed. He was in despair and lonely. He clearly had never heard of the men's movement.
Mack's situation was completely different from Sodini's.
In essence, Sodini was depressed. Mack was furious.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
[...] Sacks has written an explanation of what happened when Kathryn Joyce, the professional anti-Christian feminist who is working on [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Anger is the positive response to corruption/evil. Jesus angerily drove the money changers from the Temple. Without anger, there is only, please, pretty please, don't step on me response. Only an idiot expects Evil to respond to the wimpy, "pretty please, don't harm me." Anger is the response needed to defeat Evil.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
A thing of beauty. A perfect demonstration of the shallowness and duplicity of modern feminism.
What silly individuals. Surely any writer worth their salt understands that you never misquote others who have the capacity to respond publicly and immediately.
It's almost as though they've been lying for so long that they have forgotten how to tell the truth.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@Gwallan
"It's almost as though they've been lying for so long that they have forgotten how to tell the truth."
Absolutely. This is exactly what has happened.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
No doubt about it, those articles are biased and twisted. On the other hand, at least we've found ONE THING we can all agree on: Angry Harry is an idiot.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@C.C
"Angry Harry is an idiot."
Tell me why.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Mack's situation was completely different from Sodini's.
In essence, Sodini was depressed. Mack was furious.
and don't forget Sodini "masturbated a lot" so he claimed in his diatribe. He had a lot of "masturbation" going on... Very sad...
November 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
A quote from Angry Harry's emails page.
"Yes. I do like Glenn Sacks very much. Indeed, I think that Glenn Sacks is a truly top-notch activist - and, quite probably, the best all-round activist in the MM. "
November 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Joyce invokes Australian sociologist(sic)** Michael Fl**d!
Fl**d advocates that male victims of abuse should not be believed. He is significant part of an agenda that forces male victims into oblivion in this country. I get nauseous at the mere sight of his name.
I can't imagine any fair minded individual should want to know any more about him.
** He's a womens studys lecturer most correctly.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
The Fathers Rights Movement needs to set a good example because we represent not only men but the family as well.
Reach out to your community with love, wielding the truth as your weapon .
November 7th, 2009 at 12:39 am
No matter what type of smear the gender feminists throw at us they still cannot give a good reason why shared equal parenting should not be the norm everywhere. They just can't.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:09 am
@ C.C.
"On the other hand, at least we've found ONE THING we can all agree on: Angry Harry is an idiot."
When you say we are you referring to yourself and these feminist's from the article????
November 7th, 2009 at 1:12 am
@C.C
"No doubt about it, those articles are biased and twisted. On the other hand, at least we've found ONE THING we can all agree on: Angry Harry is an idiot."
Can't see it myself (so I suppose that means we haven't found it the one thing we can all agree on).
I await your response to Harry's simple question with interest.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:44 am
@CC
Angry Harry is not an idiot in my understanding .. although every bit emotional and direct. He does not "work with the system" as Glenn is trying to. So no, we have not found that ONE thing we can agree on. And to be honest, anyone who thinks Angry Harry is an idiot without providing any reasons for it.. I am not sure I want to find common ground with.
mc
Indeed one of the things I have seen is that instead of arguing with feminists and their kinfolk to join the MRM, I find great peace in telling them to keep doing what they are. For no matter what they do, they will benefit the MRM. If they push against men and MRM, its good for it will rile up more support among men (who are the primary recalcitrant group that MRM cannot break into on their own). If they give up - its still good. And that I would hate to be as powerless as they are at getting to their agenda of stopping MRM.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:27 am
This is only my opinion but I have a comment that will probably upset a few of the men here for I will criticize the men who gave interviews to the feminist who in return wrote a very damaging portrait of the mens groups In a sense the mens group representative were outsmarted. How many times will it take us to realize that feminist are very cunning they do not fight under the same rules like the average guy they have no honor and these articles prove once again they also lack integrity.
At first my impression was positive about the free publicity but we do not know if the outcome will be in our favor or turn off people who could sympathize our causes one thing I strongly suspect is the feminist DO KNOW what will work against us and I by giving them interviews on mens groups will only give them legitimate material they can adjust for the purpose of denigrating the mens movement. It is very admirable to want to show a willingness to work together and to negotiate but to have some impact one must have a mutual respect on both sides with the feminist as far as I can understand they have no respect for men the "Shriver report" is an example of this while men are struggling to save their livelihood women are rejoicing for their new found empowerment.
There will be a time where men will have a good hand at the table to deal but if they are to win the game they need to have an advantage allowing feminist journalist to interview the
leaders without prior knowledge of the intentions is to lose that advantage as in this case
the advantage was given to them because they were free to write anything to damage
reputations but this was only possible because we gave them the opportunity to do this
with the interviews
November 7th, 2009 at 6:39 am
I believe this little unattributed aphorism pretty much sums up how the MRM community should relate to the Feminist community:
"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
Pretty much sums it up.
Love your blog Glenn, keep up the good work. -A.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:37 am
we have to show the world women are not victims.....i've had some conversations over the years with liberal women that get upset when i point out the good things women have in society now(even better than men)...they don't want to hear it i suppose because it would mean the end of the pandering
November 7th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Everyone here is just looking for eternal victim status for men...
November 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
john: i've had some conversations over the years with liberal women that get upset when i point out the good things women have in society now(even better than men).
john, would you care to provide any more detail some of these conversations? What specifically upset these "liberal women"?
Were they upset because they denied that women have some existing privileges?
Were they upset because such female privileges don't begin to compensate (in their view) for the hindrances that women face?
Or were they upset for some other reason?
Lastly, could you describe the context a bit more? E.g., how many women did you talk to - just a handful in one-on-one or small group settings, or were you giving a talk to a roomful of college students, or ... ? Were these educated, white women, or minorities, or ... ?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious about the possible range of causes for the reaction you received. Thanks!
November 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
What I found so irritating about both pieces is the absence of any links to studies or research backing up the claims made in both articles. Joyce went out of her way to link to Angry Harry's blog, but she made no effort to link to anything demonstrating that males make up only 3 to 4 percent of domestic violence victims. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are victims of domestic violence. That means males make up approximately 39 percent of the victims according to one of the studies feminists most often cite and reference.
It is the wholesale denial of male victimization that is so troubling because there is no rational reason to do that. Acknowledging that there are male victims in no way detracts from female victimization, but feminists paint the situation as a zero sum game, one in which they seem content to condone, support or ignore physical, emotional and sexual violence against boys and men solely because the latter does not fit into the feminist worldview.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The feminist movement is dying. Older women are tired of hearing the same lines they've been hearing for 40 years. Younger women are wondering what all these old cranks are still b!tching about. So now they need an enemy to spice things up and MRA's seem to be their latest target.
But to me this seems like a desperate tactic that won't work for them. Like other posters said "to ignore the facts does not change the facts". It may be a slow process, but people are starting to realize that men's groups are out there and getting stronger because there is a real need for them.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Posted:
Whoever wrote in the subhead of this article that "men's rights" = "anti-women" is guilty of libel. I consider myself a men's rights activist. I'm also a women's rights activist and am not anti-woman or anti-feminism.
Berman and the sister-story she quotes are equally guilty of cherry-picking the data on domestic abuse.
More than 250 studies, reviews, and analyses demonstrate that women INITIATE (the key word) abuse against their male partners approximately as often as the reverse occurs: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. Furthermore, this study indicates that, within heterosexual relationships in which only one partner is engaging in violence, the woman is the violent party 70.7% of the time:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
I mention the word "heterosexual" to point out that a disturbing level of violence also occurs within the gay-and-lesbian community, another facet that is overlooked when we only consider the "man beats woman" scenario. We do female victims of abuse no favors by ignoring male victims. And you don't need to be some awful misogynist to want to bring about an end to the gender-based double standard in how we treat victims of domestic abuse.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
TV off, radio off, no newspapers, this is how to destroy feminism.
Plus a marriage/sperm strike by western men, the less men do
to support the current way the better, women and government need
us MORE then we need them...
November 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Also women do not understand how big the internet is....
November 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Sad Dad said:
"And it's a war we cannot lose, for our sons and grandsons."
You've got that right Sad Dad! I am fighting more for my children, grandchildren and other not so fortunate fathers than myself than I am for me as many have claimed I am being vitriolic and vindictive. Not at all. I care about others, probably more than for me.
Take a look at what the family court system did to this single mother. Children's Aid agencies and workers should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. Stephen Harper should pay close attention to the well being of our nation, his source of power and money without which he has nothing to govern!
http://www.vimeo.com/7489147
That a woman would flee CANADA after 6 or 7 years of abuse by CAS/CPS driven hell is a disgrace upon our leaders and lawmakers! Incidentally her uncle was a Judge who must be spinning wildly in his grave. I don't think he was accurate in suggesting that Americans have less value for family than Canadians as his niece professed in this video interview. I apologize to my neighbours for that remark.
Attila
P.S. Pankaj, you are still welcome to help produce a more refined video . alvhun@aol.com
November 7th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
"TV off, radio off, no newspapers, this is how to destroy feminism.
Plus a marriage/sperm strike by western men, the less men do
to support the current way the better, women and government need
us MORE then we need them..."
Cheers MGTOW. I'm with you.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I am on it
November 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Attila,
I saw the video and it is painful to watch (for me at least). Realize that this is the exact position that most victims of "so-called" justice systems all around the world are today. I understand this woman's condition all too well - I have been there too. And this is why I keep saying the things I do on here. Discard the erroneous and fallacious things you were taught as a child and that many people continue to hold and defend even into adulthood, BECAUSE that is what they learned as children. Without the critical abilities to understand the facts and distinguish between lies and truth - a child is very susceptible to indoctrination. To the extent that you can help prevent (or refuse support for) indoctrination of children, please help.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Large media outlets must die due to lack of interest.
Large media - due to males all around the world throwing them out of the home.
I got rid of my digital set top box and used the money from it to buy some weights, now I am getting fit!
Mainstream media, PBS, SBS/ABC in Austraila, BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada etc all must DIE.
Until we get radical this feminist rubbish will never stop.
Now I have rid myself of the main stream media I feel alot better about life and myself.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Now everyone repeat this 20 times to yourself.
Women, government and their corporate masters need us alot more then we need them.If men would take this simple effective lessen to heart men would have a great deal of power over their lives and direction.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:05 am
MGTOW Says:
November 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I for example type this from Melbourne Australia. Most of the Women in AU are Ball busters also.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The most lethal influence of Feminists has been on kids. Schools, children's media, they have been brutal. As a kid I remember seriously thinking that we men have been so awful to women and would secretly hope that women wouldn't punish me.I thought basically 2 thing:
1)We are all equal
2)We men have enslaved women for 1000's of years.
It's what I read in school books. It's what I saw on TV in (government-sponsored) advertisements.and newspapers. and I live in India! I cannot seriously imagine what school life must be for boys in the U.K.,U.S.A, etc.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Once i was in a relationship where i allowed myself to be manipulated in order to get a break with a roof over my head-something women accept from men all the time. But anyway, I did choose that path. The inherent exchange was this woman had a man to 'normalize' herself with at the local church and mall. On yeah i can't forget to the righteous church and all that stuff about religion-and not necessarily god. Anyway, to make a long story short we didn't last long. I was sorry for the wasted time but learned some valuable lessons about abuse being a two way street. Its all about codependence. Anyway, i read somewhere recently where this ex linked up with another guy and he died under suspicious circumstances and she's hanging out all this stuff on the internet and can't see how ludicrous she sounds and just can't see how she had anything to do with helping drive this guy to his end. Maybe its her secret inner guilt making her divulge all of it because its so close to the surface now that she's all alone with herself now except of course for her 'personal saviour' -and all of her demons. Its so funny that with equality that a lot of women want all the little things that men have had for so long like better pay and independence and all but they don't want the responsibility when it suits them. People are people men and women and things are seldom one sided in relationships. Steve Jaubert
November 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Attila,
I believe that is was SingleDad for making that comment, though I wish I did say it. LOL
November 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The biggest no-no- that the gender feminist community did, was to get the law enforcement community to start "redefining what the meaning of is, is", in order to manufacture statistics to later "cash in" these manufactured statistics on the VAWA act.
It does not matter how many are doing it, it is still unconstitutional, and pride always comes before the fall.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:32 am
No matter how you slice it, money is the driving force behind all these issues. The state agencies and their feminists supporters blame fathers for the plight of single mothers. Therefore, all non-custodial fathers are continiously placed in the same category as "deadbeat dads".
The intent as I understand it was to force all fathers to pay child support and relieve some of the financial expense of those seeking welfare. What really happened was the taxpayers are burdened with the extra cost of funding these agencies; which equates to billions more each year. And, the same type of women still qualify and receive welfare!
In reality, these agencies only created a smokescreen to channel more money into their state coffers at the expense of the taxpayers. Of course, the media never reports the other side of the story like they do when it comes to deadbeats. So, lets continue to paint these single mothers as poor lost souls while keeping fathers at bay and virtually on probabtion.
As far as those guys who take desparate measures to gain attention; can't say I blame them. Seems as though it's the only time anyone will listen; abeit minimal exposure to their cause. Take everything a man has and and he may choose an extremist option. Therefore, I believe Sodini had it right when he suggested there will be more like him. Any person who continues to kick a dog will eventually get bit. Even dogs know when it time to defend themselves against evil doers.
Do these people not think fathers are suffering abuse as a result of legal decisions? After proving how the Texas Attorney General-Child Support Division lied to me about my case, everyone tunred a blind eye because no one has the balls to fight such an agency. Why would they? The feed from the same trough! In a sense, the system has abused me and many other fathers as well. But, no one seems to care.