Our Blog Turns 1-Year-Old--a Thanks to My Readers
January 8th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI began this blog in January of 2007, and it has been one of my primary projects over the past year. Before then I still wrote newspaper columns, did radio & TV, and did my weekly E-Newsletter, but I did not add content to the website daily as I do now. In judging the success of the project after the first year, I would have to say that we have been successful. A few points:
1) The traffic has been strong and continues to rise. Over the past three months we've received 1.2 million unique visits. From Thanksgiving until New Year's Day--normally a slow time for any media because of the numerous holidays--www.GlennSacks.com and its sister site www.HisSide.com received 543,270 unique visits.
2) On the subject of traffic, here's an interesting comparison. When I first started doing this work in May of 2001, I noticed that one of the major content websites on the web was www.FrontPageMag.com. It is run by the high-profile conservative David Horowitz and his Center for the Study of Popular Culture. In addition to Horowitz, who is a regular on major TV and radio shows, the site features many other well-known people, including Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Debbie Schlussel, Dennis Prager, Michael Reagan, Michael Tremoglie, and others. Their traffic is similar to that of Bill O'Reilly's website, www.BillOreilly.com.
The other day it thought it would be interesting to see how our traffic stood up to theirs. Horowitz prominently posts his impressive traffic on his website. I figured if my site got 5% of their traffic, I'd be doing well. According to www.FrontPageMag.com, in November and December they received 2,321,735 visits. In November and December, www.GlennSacks.com and www.HisSide.com received 781,633 unique visits--33.7% of theirs.
3) The blog gives you, the reader, a voice. Many of our blog posts get 10,000 views, and some get over 20,000. These include, of course, your comments. Also, because of our traffic and the website's history, our entries do very well in Google searches. When you write comments on www.glennsacks.com, odds are that a pretty fair number of people will see them. Below are a few examples of prominent people or issues I've blogged about, and our ranking in search engines:
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott frequently bashes fathers and launches high-profile campaigns against so-called "deadbeat dads." On the Google search "Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott," we are the second distinct entry out of almost 50,000, second only to the Texas Attorney General's own website.
Tyna Marie Robertson falsely accused celebrity dancer Michael Flatley of rape, and it was reported in newspapers and news outlets all over the world. On the Google search "Tyna Marie Robertson," my blog entry on the case is third out of 21,900.
Matthew Winkler was shot in the back as he slept and left to die by his wife, Mary Winkler, who served only 67 days for the crime. On the Google search "Matthew Winkler," we are the 8th distinct entry out of 24,800.
On the Google search "Single Mothers by Choice," we are the 7th distinct entry out of 22,900, right behind the New York Times.
Irene Mathyssen is a prominent member of the Canadian parliament and a feminist. She falsely accused a male MP of looking at lurid pictures on the internet during a parliamentary session. On the Google search "Irene Mathyssen," we rank 7th out of 24,400.
On the Google search for "Clara Harris," the Murder by Mercedes killer, we're the seventh distinct website out of 26,000--right between CNN and FOX.
Jessica Valenti is a prominent feminist writer and www.Feministing.com is a leading feminist blog. On the Google search for "Jessica Valenti" Feministing, we're third out of 11,900--right after Feministing.com and www.Salon.com, a major web publication.
In the Google search for "California National Organization for Women," we're third, behind only their own website and NOW's national site.
In the Google search for "Single Motherhood by Choice," we're second out of 4,200, behind only Amazon.com
"Manuel Jesus Cordova Soberanes" is an immigrant who saved a young boy found wandering in the desert. His case was reported by many major newspapers, but in a Google search for his name, we're first.
If unusual cases come up, we're often near the top of the Google searches. For example, for "Chris Calbi," the New Jersey father who must pay alimony to the woman who killed his son, we're 3rd.
Anyway, the blog has been very successful and, I hope, will continue to be. I thank all of you who read and comment.
"));
19 queries. 0.482 seconds.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Happy anniversary! Keep up the good work!
January 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am
FANTASTIC and this website needs to be part of any successful national movement for the cause of Equal Parenting rights.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Yay! Congrats Glenn and eveyone else.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Only one year? Wow I just started posting here a few months ago and I really thought blog site had been her at least a few years. Keep up the good work.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Congratulations Glenn, thanks for all your efforts.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Well done Glenn!
January 8th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I wanted to bring up my post below which I just placed on another thread here, as it relates to the scoping of the larger mission of this blog, which frankly, I hadn't realized was so young as merely one year. It's relative youth means, one presumes, that it may change in various ways as it grows. My other-thread post follows below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons I am so troubled by the false miscasting of the core problems facing our families in America as the consequence of some female vs. male class struggle, is that it works against a successful unification of Male+Female votes against the true villians which are the greed-driven participants in the divorce industry.
The reality is that every-day men and every-day women who are not members of any groups whatsoever, and who comprise the vast majority of voters in this country, are having their families, their futures, their marital prospects, their reproductive prospects, their economic prospects, and their parenting prospects put at severe risk and/or destroyed and looted, and ruined.
(The ruination scenario for "protected" women is different than it is for men and plays out over a longer time horizon, but it is just as disasterous, believe it or not, for the female with custody and slave-money coming in, who because of all of this becomes an "untouchable" in the eyes of any desirable men. So she who "wins" actually loses over a longer horizon as she becomes isolated and the slave payments finally end. And all viable men avoid her due to the stench of burnt male economic flesh surrounding her -- flesh burnt not by her so much as by the family court. So her prospects for anything more than the deal from the court, are effectively wiped out by that same court. Think about it. It's true.)
But here is my point: to right all of these wrongs, we need to break the grip of the forces holding the wrongs in place. The forces holding them in place right now are greed-driven forces embodied in money-sucking professionals and money-seeking state governments. The American popular vote is for shared parenting, 50/50, and no parent making profit in divorce. That means that the majority of women see this as a right and proper path. (See results of a the oft-cited voter referendum in supposedly feminist-dominated Massachusetts of all places.)
By setting up a female vs. male conflict scenario, when in fact the vast majority of voting females don't disagree with the solutions which males seek, enables legislators to defend the pigs who are bankrolling them (lawyers) by running back and hiding behind the "we must protect women's rights" defense. Well if the women who vote in a referendum clearly don't want that kind of protection, why should bloggers and editors here help drive the divisive wedge deeper in such a way as to divide what is actually an already emerged and unified Male+Female voter block?
It is not rational. It is not responsible. And it is not helpful to our children, which is what angers me the most about this feminist vs. MRA side-show. It doesn't matter. Nobody in America listens to feminists, and nobody even knows what an MRA is. That is the reality about American awareness of this absurdistan-style of side-show conflict.
But, the majority of Americans, female and male, do know that lawyers are the least trusted profession in this country, the majority do each know at least one horror story about someone being eaten alive by "their" own lawyer. And the majority don't trust our courts.
Ergo, we have a ready majority whose awareness, insight, humanity and votes can be brought to bear at a legislative level to kill the family court serpent by crushing its money-sucking head through legislative action.
Allowing this absurd distraction of women vs. men to go on as if it is the central theme, or even an actual conflict, is a disgrace to all who have suffered too much at the hands of the American family court slave trade and family looting and destruction apparatus.
A final note to Glenn: If you read the classic technology marketing text called "Crossing the Chasm", you might find youself taking the view that many you have served with this blog and your efforts fall merely into the "pioneer" and "early adopter" segments per the new-product (or new-idea) adoption model set forth in that book.
But the big opportunity for you Glenn, is to recognize the nature and needs of the much more vast market segments which come after, but are in fact quite different from, the pioneers and early adopters. My thesis to you is that you will need to shed this feminist vs. MRA sideshow if you want to dramatically grow your website into what is really needed -- that is an editorial vehicle which unifies the genders against a family murdering and plundering court system which has taken hold in America.
This is your big web-business opportunity in my opinion. Not running esoteric dialogues among mutitudinous sub-species of feminists and MRAs, which is frankly, in the eyes of many, just an age-old, unsolveable, adolescent type of debate which most people stop wasting time on in their college days. Go after the larger market of already murdered and/or endangered families and singles who may now never have families Glenn. It needs a messenger and a responsible editorial unifier right now. You are well positioned to meet this need right now.
Best,
AP
January 8th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Thank you for starting the blog, it's a great source of information.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Glenn,
I really like the site. You have done some wonderful work and are come from a unique point of view, even if I don't agree with everything.
However...
Since you began your series on whether certain ads are offensive to women, I have stopped reading your site at work. It is too risky to have those kinds of graphics go through my company's servers. Even when they are relatively benign and NOT offensive to women, the fact that they are the subject of a debate would probably raise eyebrows and lead some at work to question my judgment. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that is the type of pressure I do not need.
So I can't check in during the day anymore, but happily read your site and post from home, and am happy you are getting more traffic in general.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Exellent work, Glenn. I read your blog often. Keep with the greatness. Your defense is greatly appreciated.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Congratulations on a very successful first year!
Thanks for all of your hard work, Glenn. You are obviously performing an important and much needed role in providing information and insight into the many gender-based inequities that currently exist in our society, especially the problems that divorced and unmarried fathers face. I believe that the critical first step in correcting any problem is the simple recognition that there is a problem. I also believe that your efforts have helped many of the general public to recognize just how prevalent these problems are. Thank you!
January 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Glenn,
Thanks for giving disenfranchised and alienated fathers a voice! For your blog gives loving fathers an opportunity to proclaim: "Children DO deserve to have both parents playing an equal role in their lives!"
True equality will only come when fathers and mothers are recognized as equal partners in parenting.
Thanks again!!!
http://www.letmeseemyson.blogspot.com
January 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Happy birthday Glenn!!
You've given alot of men hope, and there are alot of men/women behind what you are doing!!
January 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
This event seems to fall on the 1 year anniversary of Glenns blog.
Did Hillary again "plant" a few straw men in the audience for her to attack in front of the media??
She "planted" something else for the media a few weeks ago, and said she would never do it again!!
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/hillary-hecklers-yell-iron-my-shirt-at-new-hampshire-campaign-stop/
January 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Excellent Work Glenn. I was able to succesfully fight and win my own family court battles because of the information I found here. In the process made the Texas OAG very uncomfortable when dealing with an educated NCP. They squirmed like fish on a hook when I used thier own tactics against them.
Heres hoping you have many more good years!!!!!
TOMD
January 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Anonymous Pamphleteer,
Your point is so very important. The system does not serve people, families, anything but its own interests. And the more time that people who want justice spend fighting amongst themselves over labels and language, the less actually gets accomplished.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
lonespark,
You are not alone.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Congratulations Glenn, you really got me into this stuff. Keep up the good work and I promise I will do the same!
January 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Keep going, Glenn! One year, and you're already an institution.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Huzzah! Happy Birthday!
January 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
And of course...
Happy blog birthday! *Confetti*
January 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Congratulations Glenn, and thank you for this blog.It has helped me to defuse some of my anger because I see that something positive is being done to deal with the injustices men face. I predict that you traffic will double within the next year. Keep up the good work.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Happy anniversary. May it be the first of many.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer, I agree with many points you make. Male and Female MRAs really do need to unite. I'm going to make a point of appreciating the women who fight with us. I've only been on this site for about a month and I've changed drastically in this short time. Though I still have anger issues with feminism they have subsided and I'm now taking a more strategic approach to this battle. Though the men and women MRAs are slowly uniting for the cause, I don't see this whole battle running smoothly. As a matter of fact I believe the situation is going to get uglier before it gets prettier if only because those in power are loathe to relinquish even a little bit of it.
I believe at least half of the MRAs fail to see the monster we're up against. And that until they do we're going to be spinning our wheels in some important areas. For instance, feminists are always one step ahead of us. They have various war tactics. One of their more effective tactics is what I call the hit and run. They hit by filling women's heads up with anti-male propaganda and then they run. While the women are being deprogrammed the feminists are busy poisoning more and newer minds. i believe that the MRM should make a point of attacking women's studies classes because like it or not, those classes are fembot assembly lines. I believe we should pass out anti-feminist pamphlets and protest on campus. Those are just a couple of suggestions.
It's going to be an uphill battle as long as brainwashed women and men are found without and within our ranks. Let me tell you an incident of how feminism negatively affected my family. Though I'm not perfect I have worked to play fair with people all my life and my family knows this in their sleep. Last year I got sick and wound up in the hospital. While there, this Johnny come lately sister-in-law decided to victimize me while I was in the hospital and shortly after I got out. One day when I was being discharged she showed up without my knowledge and talked to the nurses outside of my hospital room. She told them that she was a family member and that she was there to pick up my belongings. She used the whole story as a ruse to steal my wallet and all the money I had. My pastor went across town to retrieve my belongings. This sister in law had done house keeping for me before and after I got out of the hospital, and I always paid her well and often in advance.
She paid the money back that she had stolen and I decided to keep her as my house keeper. Well she started ripping me off right and left so I let her go and refuse to do business with her. But my sisters saw me as the villain in all this. They would constantly call me to ask if I was paying my sister-in-law properly. And they barely flinched after I told them the horror stories about dealing with her. Now remember that this woman had a past of using drugs, stealing, lying and abandoning her kids to shop for drugs. She had stopped doing those things and was being drug tested weekly during the time that she was ripping me off.
My point is that too many people refuse to release their sacred cows and that just makes the battle unnecessarily more difficult. My sisters bent over backwards to prevent themselves from believing that my sister in law or any other woman could do evil things. Now get this, none of these women are feminists at all. So where did they get their indoctrination and brainwashing? From the media of course. I believe that MRAs must remove the rose colored glasses and face our enemy toe to toe. And I believe we should redouble our efforts to fight women's studies classes if only by marching for men's studies classes to bring a sense of balance. I don't have kids but I think parents should not only allow but encourage boys and girls to be boys and girls. And take the time to tell their kids that the media, government, schools and society are full of irresponsible and greedy feminist liars. I believe the truth always wins out and that's why I know that our side is going to win.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Stephen,
I think your approach is slightly wrong. Don't pass out anti-feminist pamphlets. Pass out pro-MRA pamphlets. And yes, those will contain facts and cases some will construe as anti-feminist, maybe even anti-woman. But the movement doesn't itself no favors by attacking first.
I am not under the impression that most schools have Women's Studies that anyone is required to take. Maybe the reason I never heard of one is that I went to a tech school, but it's not like there's some brainwashing operation that extends to all students everywhere.
And as much as some folks here don't like to hear it, plenty of women (and men) identify as feminists because they support equality and justice for ALL people, and freedom from rigid gender expectations for men as well as women. I'm not going to apologize to anyone for being raised to believe in that. Extreme "feminist theory" isn't something most of us support, or even give much thought to. It really is a fringe aspect.
Maybe we should call ourselves something different, like equity feminists, to differentiate. I'll stick with "progressive" because that incorporates a lot of human issues. I'm just trying to say that if people, especially young people, don't agree with you, it's not because they're the enemy. They may just not have enough information or have thought things through or followed up. Actual dialogue is going to get you farther than angry denunciations all feminism.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Stephen,
also, in your story, I don't see that anyone's behavior has to be based on feminism. Women sticking up for each other, being prejudiced against men, being prejudiced against a specific man due to grudges or shallow reason, and being defended by paternalistic men, are all things that happen in many places and times. Sometimes people are dishonorable assholes, regardless of ideology.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Congratulations!
And thanks for creating a place where mens' rights gets the focus. It was sorely needed before, and still is.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Glenn, I have to say that your site has been something that I have wanted to see for a long time now. I was in college back in the late 90's, and let me tell you that that environment was VERY toxic for men. Many of the classes I took were filled with vitriol and hate-filled comments about men. In my classes (even classes like trig and pre-cal) there were always some snide comments to be made about men to one degree or another. And when I would tell people that I took offence to some idiotic comment that was said in class about men, many people thought that I was strange because of it. At the time, I did ask a few of the guys that were taking some of these classes that I was enrolled in what they thought of the comments, but many just said "yea, that was pretty crappy". But they just shrugged it off and didn't say anything about it. At one point I did manage to talk to a guy that thought the comments were crappy and wrong. Unfortunately, he was a guy that thought that women should still be in the home taking care of the kids and that they had no business in the working world. Again, this was a viewpoint that I didn't agree with and was an extreme in the opposite end. I seriously started to think that I was alone in what I believed.
I think sites like this give men a voice to call out some of the unfair and unjust crap that we have to endure because of the femisupremasist environment that has been created around us. And Glenn, your site is probably the best in my opinion. Your opinions are extremely fair-minded, intellectually sound and honest, and are doing more good for the men than you probably realize. So I have to say thank you very much for the hard work and dedication you have put into this site. Trust me, it means a lot to us guys.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Now if we could just turn this into an effective National Movement.....
January 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Al, I think you have summed up a big problem. To a great extent right-wing conservatives have co-opted, or MRA have not yet effectively claimed, language about men's rights and responsibilities, value of families, etc., and this makes many moderate people hesitant until they learn more.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
AP-
By setting up a female vs. male conflict scenario, when in fact the vast majority of voting females don't disagree with the solutions which males seek, enables legislators to defend the pigs who are bankrolling them (lawyers) by running back and hiding behind the "we must protect women's rights" defense. Well if the women who vote in a referendum clearly don't want that kind of protection, why should bloggers and editors here help drive the divisive wedge deeper in such a way as to divide what is actually an already emerged and unified Male+Female voter block?
I, unfortunately, disagree with your dissertation. I say unfortunately, because if your point was true, the problem would be simpler than it really is.
There is something that I've known to be true for a long time: women made goverment big goverment to be the substitute husband for when they couldn't find one or when theirs left them. They made government big to protect their interests to the detriment of men who were working and therefore paid the taxes necessary to create national subsidization for women's lives. I knew it to be true, but I did not have proof.
This morning, I ran across the proof (this is a print link, just click cancel).
For all of human history, the vast majority of women (99% and above) sought protectors to provide for them. Historically this has been a husband. However, allowing the husband to provide for them is not without risk. Since women have obtained the vote, they have turned to the government as the replacement husband, as there is more security in the government than there is in any one individual man.
The problem is not the lawyers or even the corrupt judges. They are just opportunists taking advantage of a bad system and influencing it to their gain. The problem is that our society values women and views men as disposable. Millions of men have given up their lives to protect women directly. Millions more have shortened their lives working hazardous jobs to protect women indirectly. That, thankfully, was by choice. Now, we are in a society where there is no choice other than to be ready to sacrifice to provide for women. By taxes if we work, and by conscription or court order if it comes to that.
Like I said in another post: treating symptoms may make one feel better, but it won't cure the disease. The disease in this case is deeper than feminism... it is the fact that our society does not value the lives of men to the same degree that it values the lives of women. Feminism is another opportunist, altho one that makes the problem directly worse when it rails against men.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I screwed up the link.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:-BHG9c0wGDkJ:www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20071127/EDITORIAL/111270007/1013%26template
January 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
In support of Demonspawn post, at 3.36 pm, I offer you a little known but very large feminist organisation. Dark times are ahead.
http://www.emilyslist.org/about/mission/
Our Mission
EMILY's List members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. We believe in the power of women as candidates, as contributors, as campaign professionals, and as voters to bring about great change in our country.
When women are involved in the political process, our democracy is truly representative. When women make policy, the needs of women and families are not ignored. When women vote, Democrats — who share our values and priorities — win.
EMILY's List is committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.
EMILY's List will win today and build for tomorrow. Our immediate focus is to win elections to turn back the Bush Republicans and their right-wing agenda. At the same time, we are making a long-term investment in women to develop their political skills and cultivate resources so that we can bring more women into politics and elected office. Only then can we build a progressive majority and construct a society built around equal opportunity for all, civil rights, diversity, and compassion.
By working together, we can make a difference — and change the face of American politics.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Congratulations to everyone who posts comments and to Glenn who had the wherewithal and foresight to make it happen.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Early Money Is Like Yeast...
So don't just rant. Get your own list. Support candidates who fight for your issues, and if you can't find any, become one.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Based on the mission statement, it doesn't sound like Emily's List is misanthropic, just pro-female. To the extent that women are not yet equally represented in government, they have a point. Given that at least women are generally as well educated as men, this does not classically represent a problem. I think a bigger problem is that with the huge immigration, way to few voters know diddly about constitutional protections and don't care about them. My children are not learning about contstitutional protections either. I feel that this lack of specific education directly allows the erosion of our protections, and clearly family law is one area that has been heavily hit.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Oh, and good work Glenn. I didn't really understand how many people were seeing these posts. It feels like a windfall that venting our understanding of the injustice also spreads the word effectively.
Bravo,
January 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Congratulations to Glenn and all his readers!
I do have one underlying fear about the number of hits and there is no real solution it is just an observation.
These blogs are a good way for the other side to see what we are up to and come up with retort plans more easily and quickly.
b
January 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
To the extent that women are not yet equally represented in government, they have a point.
Women sitting on 50+% of government seats would be the worst thing to happen to feminism. No longer could they claim "it isn't sexism because men are voting to restrict men's rights". Well, ok, they still could claim it isn't sexism because it's "progressive" or "making up for past wrongs" but they'd lose at least that one defense.
And they don't have a point. 54% of the voters are female.
When women are involved in the political process, our democracy is truly representative. When women make policy, the needs of women and families are not ignored.
Women already make policy. Again, 54% of the vote is female. Women also vote in a block. Yes, a "man" is in the drivers seat in congress, but he has about as much power as a chauffeur. He can drive the car anywhere he wants..... until he gets fired.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Stephen M Weiss Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Based on the mission statement, it doesn't sound like Emily's List is misanthropic, just pro-female. To the extent that women are not yet equally represented in government, they have a point.
So who, in Government, represent men?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Personally, I think every single person should sign up for women's studies courses, and if...IF ...they disagree they should do so publically, and directly.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
And Glenn, happy blogday, good work!
January 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
My problem with Emily's list is that it adds to the problem and should be stopped. We don't need more women in government for a number of reasons. For one, misandry has poisoned our cultural water supply and the way to insure that we have more of it is to elect more women into office. I prefer to vote for a new generation of women who haven't been poisoned by feminism but they haven't been born yet. In our society being pro-woman automatically makes you anti-men. Emily's list is bogus because of the sin of omission. Just the fact that she fails to mention men is proof that it's more of the same. She acts like voting for women is the solution, not voting for qualified people. In other words it's saying "We have problems. To fix these problems we'll vote for women." I wish Emily the worst of luck.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
In furtherance of the publicity, I want everyone to know that I am willing to contribute both artistic skills as well as some (I'm broke) cash towards a marketing campaign. I suggest picking a mid sized market, and starting a billboard campaign using only male-positive messages like :
"men are good people"
"men deserve respect"
"men do good things"
That sort of thing. Maybe even literally only those words on the billboard. No website, no political agenda, just male-positive messages. It's the public reaction we need to gauge...this is an excellent starting point in my view, and one that would cost a few thousand dollars at the absolute most. Hell, there may even be someone on the board here that owns a billboard company that could "donate" space - although I highly suggest a paper trail of payment, political ramifications could be nasty.
I can supply the artwork if it's judged ok by whoever wants to administer this type of thing, including photography and some design work. I can help focus the message too (I think), and contribute to development of a marketing plan. The biggest obstacle here is people's reluctance to trust strangers on the internet with their money, which I understand. Is there any way to set up a central source of funding for marketing? An escrow service of some type?
Marc? Glenn? Know anyone you would entrust with this? Because I believe it wouldn't take much. I live in a city of 300,000 in the middle of nowhere, Canada...I bet if this campaign hit the streets there'd be national coverage inside of days.....I doubt the same could be said if the campaign was in Toronto. The key to driving the message home is not to win over the cynical big-city dwellers...it's the "heartland" types we need to target, small communities where this type of controversy never happens. Sort of like picking up women....if you blend in, you don't get attention...if the variety is too much, everyone blends in.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
For what it's worth by the way, I live in the provincial birthplace of universal medicare in Canada, so I know things can spread from here pretty good.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
In our society being pro-woman automatically makes you anti-men.
Honestly, I want to challenge you on this. I don't want to believe that it is true, as that would make the converse likely true.
The problem is that even pro-woman attitudes that were not directly anti-men (women in the workplace, for example) ended up being indirectly anti-men (double the workforce lowered wages as competition for jobs went up. Coupled with not removing the social expectation that men were still to be the providers for families, and reducing their ability to do so... women in the workplace becomes indirectly anti-men).
January 8th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It's all about education, as "knowlegde is power"
This site is a clearinghouse for facts and statistics that challenge current anti-male hysteria!!
Education will cast light into the dark..
January 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Congratulations, Glenn, and keep up the good work! As they say, sunlight is a great sanitizer. This blog sheds much needed light into some dark, dark recesses indeed.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Demonspawn, that remark was just a generalization. I need to be more careful how I speak. My point is that I believe Emily is extremely narrow-minded. Sort of like in the classroom. Say you have a woman teacher who hates men. She may very well create a classroom environment that is hostile to men and at best only ignores that men exist. After all the damage feminism did, the last thing we need is more feminism, more pro-women women and more women in office. It's simply more fuel on the fire.
I take truth where ever I can get it. The same with solutions to problems. I'd just as soon take good advice from an enemy as fast as I would from a friend. But Emily's view is that only women can solve our nation's problems. People of her ilk are so prejudiced that they would ignore a solution simply because it came from a man. So for me that translates into, "I don't really care about the problem, I just want to empower women." We can do much better than Emily and her list.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Stephen, that post I believe in, but I believe that AP's vision beats Emily's list for broad appeal.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
lonespark Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Stephen,
I think your approach is slightly wrong. Don't pass out anti-feminist pamphlets. Pass out pro-MRA pamphlets. And yes, those will contain facts and cases some will construe as anti-feminist, maybe even anti-woman. But the movement doesn't itself no favors by attacking first.
I am not under the impression that most schools have Women's Studies that anyone is required to take. Maybe the reason I never heard of one is that I went to a tech school, but it's not like there's some brainwashing operation that extends to all students everywhere.
__________________________________________________________________________________
I suggest you take in the film "Indoctrination U" when it comes out. A link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPqXUM1Ayhs
January 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Dan M, Thank you for the "Indoctrinate U" trailer. I look forward to the movie. I agree that the statement, pro-MRA is better than anti-feminist even though anti-feminist is an idea after my own heart. My problem with women's studies classes is that's basically that's all there is. I'm sure that numerous civilized women go through one of those classes and their views are changed forever. I believe if they got rid of the typical women's studies classes then the world would be much better off. Just like some people thought that feminism was a good idea but it turned into a human rights eating monster. I believe women's studies are anti-male propaganda assembly lines.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I am thrilled that Glenn is doing so well in the masculist movement. Feminists can rest assured that masculism is not a fringe movement. There really is a plethora of masculist literature. One only has to dig a little to find some, since PC women's studies course are not likely to include them in their curriculums. Some of my favorites include:
*The Myth of Male Power-Warren Farrell (a mainstay classic)
*Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap-Warren Farrell
*The Other Side of the Coin: Causes and Consequences of Men's Oppression-Roy Schenk
*If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules?-Jack Kammer
*Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence-Phil Cook
*Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men-David Thomas
*The New Men's Studies-Eugene August
*Spreading Misandry-Nathanson
*The Rantings of a Single Male-Thomas Ellis
*When She Was Bad: The Myth of Female Innocence-Patricia Pearson
*Who Stole Feminism?-Christina Hoff Summers
*Why Males Exist-Fred Hapgood
*The Evolution of Desire-David Buss
*Real Boys-William Pollack
*Media and Male Identity-J.R. Macnamara
*The Fraud of Feminism-Belfor Bax (perhaps the oldest, with a 1913 copyright)
*Etc!!!!
January 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
It never fails to amaze me how little people think about their children's education, and the values instilled in THEIR children - by the state. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, I'm not completely libertarian, but still...how can a person be so blind? There are a few standing up to indoctrination and propaganda assembly lines...those who oppose nationalized daycare for example, private-school voucher supporters for another, but people place WAAYYY too much faith in the government acting in their best interests.
My mother is a retired teacher, and I have memories going way back of her coming home from "school" and unloading about the bullsh_t PC attitudes of the administration, the ever-increasing constriction on freedom of thought, speech and action. I remember the first time my mother admitted she had to hide the fact that she smokes from the staff at her school...even though she knew full well there were likely others that smoked...for fear of ostracism.
These are all reflections of the tactics of a totalitarian regime, and the attendant mindset of "If you won't listen to us and realize you're wrong, we'll punish you until you can see that you're wrong". Feminism must die. PC-think must die. Outsized concern for the feelings of others must die. Oddly enough, this can only be accomplished by embracing commonalities. Because the truth is, like all totalitarian regimes, the majority is held to the minority view through intimidation and fear. Enough of the masses openly defect from those views....well, the weight of intimidation vaporizes, and the oppressor has no leverage to demand compliance, and thus dies. This is why attacking bad things directly doesn't work very well. Most people will agree with you, but feel it's futile to resist because "everyone else thinks that way"...show the public support for your cause, it'll gain ground MUCH faster.
How is this news to any modern North American?
January 8th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Darr, I think that feminists are terrified of the MRM. They fear the day when they have to answer for all their lies and other crimes. I believe feminism is one of the top 3 biggest hoaxes in history. Be encouraged that MRM has put feminism under the microscope and is exposing it for what it really is. The best way to destroy feminism is to unmask it.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Lonespark,
I can't be a candidate because I live overseas although I did run for office eight years ago winning in the Primary and losing in the General. But electing father friendly candidates is not the key while booting bad judges when they come up for retention, or whatever mechanism is available in individual states, is the way we can make a difference.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Demonspawn and others,
I'll offer part of my reply on another thread to Dan M. which I think is reasonably responsive to your point above. Also, thanks for that link, the article is an excellent review of that bit of history and draws some thoughtful inferences. My primary point in the following is that progress will be made on an issue by issue basis, not through an attack on the attitudes of others. The stakes are very real here. The stakes are peoples' children and families. I don't disagree that many of the attitudes described are held by many women and others. But attitudes are not terribly actionable. Specific inequities are actionable, and thus constitute a legitimate front for action. The relevant post (portion) follows:
"Dan M.,
I agree completely on the importance of public opinion, which is exactly why I seek to harness the strong, mutual and majorative Male+Female public opinion that shared parenting, 50/50 should be the rule, and with no profit to either party in divorce. This would negate and kill off the cash supply to those who feed on the economic blood of families at American family court.
Some might call this a "pure play" in recognizing, coalescing and harnessing public opionion to a directed and useful objective.
Less well-defined, and not very well bounded concepts and constructs such as "men's rights", "women's rights" are not actionable unless they are translated into specific actionable policies on a topic by topic basis. We have strong, fair and successful laws against gender discrimination at the workplace. These are crystal clear, they make sense to the vast majority of Americans, and have resulted in on-the-ground practices which are now deeply rooted in the workplaces of America. This is an example of a well defined problem, a well defined solution, and clear and reasonable results mainfest in the lives of all Americans.
Family life lends itself to a similar, well-focused, well-defined and understandable solution. It is very hard for me to follow what it is exactly that those who call themselves MRAs or feminists actually want. I have been reading this blog for most of the past year, and I frankly would be at a loss to summarize it other than to say that they both seem to want "respect". Great. So how would you like to legislate that state of mind among people? Pass a law against gender-based disrespectful thoughts?
In my view, the key is to address specific behaviors by individuals or, in the despicable example of American family court, institutions.
I'm seeking a crystal clear solution to a disturbing inequity and pattern of crime against American families being greedily committed by America's family courts and their private practitioners. A crystal clear problem with known scope, and a crystal clear solution to that problem"
I'll use an analogy to contrast what seem to me to be the two types of problems set forth above: the clear and actionable vs. the murky and inactionable.
Let's say that male auto drivers in the U.S. have the attitude that female drivers are incompetent. This is what I would call a murky and inactionable problem.
But if we study that negative attitude by interviewing both men and women, and find out that it is manifest most strongly by two types of well-defined behaviors, which are (1) men cutting women off while driving, and (2) men using their own cars to ram the rear bumpers of women's cars if they are going too slowly, in the man's view.
I would call those two behaviors well defined and highly actionable. They can be observed. They can be proven. They can be addressed, and they can be punished.
Another example would be women who falsely accuse men of rape. This might be a manifestation of a negative attitude by women and society towards men. But it can be directly addressed. And it should be directly addressed, by being punished.
You probably know about the experiments in psychology in which people can make themselves feel more happy just by forcing themselves to smile.
Well, I think society will find itself magically showing more "respect" towards men, if it becomes illegal to engage in specific behaviors towards men which harm men, harm children and harm families.
Hope this makes sense. I share the anger of many here over how men are treated in America.
But I also would like to correct the problem. And it can be corrected in aggregate, including the attitudes, by correcting the anti-male behaviors of individuals and society's institutions. On of the most horribly such examples of anti-male behaviors and attitudes is played out in America's family courts.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:32 am
AP: I do not disagree with you, I am merely pointing out that unless it is a series of victory/PR/victory/PR type happenings, it'll look either like men are running roughshod over the rights of women, or exploiting holes in the legal system for personal gain. Unless the public agrees with the verdicts, the freedoms gained are doomed. Public support is vital, lawsuits are merely one of several ways to gain said support...among many. I don't dispute your implied contention that most people agree with our position, they just don't know it because they don't know we exist. We are very much going to have to employ a marketing campaign for men, to gain the Public sympathy...meaning openly expressed in public, not privately held feelings... necessary to defeat some of the more ingrained biases. The campaign is needed only until we have attention, kind of like saying to someone in real life "Can I ask you a question?" Without jarring people out of their current mindset, progress is going to be severely stunted.
Then the lawsuits can focus more on issues like "Do men have reproductive choice?" rather than defending the concept in spite of "disagreeing with the plaintiff". Bad PR, meaning LACK thereof, is the biggest problem facing men right now...lawsuits are necessary to secure the gains made in the public eye - to become a basis we can all agree on, not the other way around.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:05 am
AP-
I don't disagree about finding actionable items and driving them home. But, there's problems even there simply due to the fact that woman = valuable and man = disposable.
Murder has been one of the long-standing examples that shows the discrepancy. Murder is universally wrong, correct? We should punish all who murder and punish them equally, correct?
But we don't. There are several female-only defenses that allow women to murder with a certain degree of impunity, YET do not limit their rights outside of the courtroom. For example, the hormones defense. There are women who have been acquitted on the basis of PMS. Well, then why do we allow women to drive if one week out of every four they are not accountable for their actions? We give women lighter sentences when they kill their own children, yet that does not keep them from being considered the person to give primary custody in the event of a divorce. When a man and woman together commit murder, we give her the lighter sentence as she was the weak-willed one and he was the mastermind. Yet we allow this easily-manipulated female gender to run for public office. (another question I'd love to see asked to Hillary ;)
Our society allows these one-sided deals to grant women rights or protection without the responsibilities or downsides. It's not just the courts, it's also the juries. It's also the public. It's also the governors who grant pardons for women when they wouldn't for a man.
So how do we solve the "woman bias"? Do we pass laws that affect both genders equally? Won't work. The legal concept of self-defense is enshrined in law, yet has been stretched for women and women only. The same thing will happen with shared parenting.. more excuses will be found to move the children to mom that won't work for dad. To we attempt to get laws that restrict the rights of women only? Won't pass.
The solution is to find some way to force women to be responsible for their rights. How do we do that? I have few ideas short of revolution. One of those few is to drive for a Constitutional Amendment that Suffrage is reserved for those subject to conscription. Or, put another way: No representation without taxation.
Don't forget that we are the oppressed. We will not gain equality by asking for it, we need to demand it and leverage the fact that this country runs on the backs of men.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I completly agree in particular with your last para AP. The men and women who are profiting from this Family Law debacle are a tiny fraction of the overal political power base. They are very well heeled, and quite immoral and unethical, so combatting bribery must be one of our tactics.
If there is issue of whether the public supports or hates Family Law courts can be forced into the political debate, it will be political suicide for either party to support the courts. They can still pass off going after 'Dead Beat' dads because black gangster men were characterised as these, but as soon as that lie is dispelled like the cannabis madness government disinformation of the 50's, the 'Dead Beat Dad' party line will be dropped.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Congratulations Glenn. This is important work. ... AnnonimousPanphleteer and Demonspawn, I agree with you. These are ideas that need airing. Too often on this blog I sense the idea that many feel we are in some sort of blog debate with "our opponent" 'the feminists'. They certainly aren't my opponent. Keeping the eye on the prize to break free of this tyrany of government that has taken over our families is all that matters. I must admit I have jumped into the feminist v. MRA frey when I see really stupid comments and I am certainly aware as to how the government got the way it is, but I hope this blog can mainly continue to give information, spark ideas and provide stimulating debate. I just think debating with feminists is a waste of time and to be pulled into it shows what fools men can be in this time of crisis. I'm so sorry I ever talked to a feminist.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Congrats Glenn and thank you for making this blog available.
AP is right, it's time for the next step.
Edmund Burke - "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
January 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I said it before, but please keep up the excellent work Glenn.
You are really getting through, and most surely the messages are getting out there.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I'm a female and I hate to say this to you guys but about 3 years ago I helped a illegal immigrant mother of a 3 year old born in the United States the father is also an illegal immigrant the problem here is that the mother took the father to court to pay child support and the father claim the child and provide a social security number the judge final favor in the mother... so here where the problem is illegal immigrants don't have real social security his may or may not belong to someone else... or it may by bogus, it was never checked by the court... sorry I went with her to interpret for her... sorry
January 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
GS,
Plugging glennsacks.com into Alexa using a 3 year history range shows the positive results in your traffic growth.
See www.alexa.com and enter glensacks.com into the first field, clearing any other sites, etc. (Don't mean to be didactic with this and the following.)
You may already be receiving lots of good web suggestions, and of course, there is never enough time to act on all of them, and some are more resource intensive to act upon than others. But having said that, my sense is that you might get some good viral spread by having an "Email this story" or "Send this story" link next to each story in your blog.
The nature of the topics you cover is such that some are shocking, others maddening, others still are just plain surprising or otherwise incredible. While some are compelled to immediately post a reply, there may be others who might feel compelled to immediately pass that page of your website along to others.
Just a guess, but an easy and obvious way for readers to send that page along might be quite popular. And of course, the page sent along should contain a similar link to permit further passing along, as well as an easy way to join your email list.
Best,
AP
January 31st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Auto Financing Loan...
Cadhla newly put in to get an car loan and got accepted immediatly , without considering there wretched money problems !...
February 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
[...] As I mentioned last month, this blog gives you, the reader, a voice. Many of our blog posts get over 10,000 views, and some get over 20,000. These include, of course, your comments. Also, because of our traffic and the website's history, our entries do very well in Google searches. When you write comments on www.glennsacks.com, odds are that a pretty fair number of people will see them. To learn more, click Our Blog Turns 1-Year-Old--a Thanks to My Readers. [...]
February 5th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Happy 1-year-day Glenn. I wish I had the kind of reach and influence that you do (if I did, my own little crusade here in Michigan would be doing much better). Despite what some of the radicals say, you are truly fighting the good fight. Keep up the great work.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Congrats Glenn. It's work to be proud of. Thankyou.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
[...] To learn more, click on Our Blog Turns 1-Year-Old--a Thanks to My Readers. [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Чего и следовало ожидать, хозяин сайта четко опубликовал!